Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

July 18

Charles Xavier

In Marvel comics 616 continuity, how many times has Professor X regained the use of his legs and then been crippled again? --superioridad ^(discusión) 01:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Six. Looie496 (talk) 02:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Existence of Jesus

A few days ago, I asked a question about Jesus' crucifixion, and was surprised that half the people who responded doubted Jesus' existence. Despite being an atheist, this is the first time I've heard/read someone claim that Jesus is wholly mystical. I always thought his existence was undisputed, even though details of his life, like his resurrection, are obviously not.

So my question is: how sure are historians that Jesus was a real person? Is the correct to say that the Pauline epistles is the only contemporary historical source that devotes more than 1 or 2 sentences to Jesus? Is there any evidence that the other apostles wrote of their experiences with Jesus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.16.144 (talk) 05:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

You may be interested to read Historical Jesus and Historicity of Jesus. In short, the problem with "prooving" Jesus's existance is that there was literally nothing written about him during his lifetime. There is no record of his existance that comes from the time when he lived. The earliest account of his life is probably the Gospel of Mark, written probably 30 years after Jesus died by someone who did not personally know Jesus, but rather was likely a chronicler of Simon Peter (i.e. he wrote down stuff Simon Peter told him). However, none of this actually denies whether he existed.--Jayron32 05:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you mean "mythical" rather than "mystical". Pais (talk) 09:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the question is at least partially a matter of definition. It's almost certain that there was a Jesus (=Jeshua or Joshua, a very common name) in Palestine in the early first century. It's quite doubtful that he was born in Bethlehem, because it quite possibly didn't even exist at that time. The Christian version is probably an amalgaman on top of a real core (i.e. a Jewish itinerant preacher with a bunch of oriental and Greek mythology stuck on). When do you accept someone like that as "the Jesus"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

About Bethlehem, I know of a theory that he could have been born in Bethlehem of Galilee. I also know of another theory that argues that the early Christians made the Bethlehem-birthplace-statement in an effort to use the prophecies of the Old Testament. Flamarande (talk) 12:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Another thing to consider is that historians are not necessarily interested in the question "did this person exist or not?". Historians aren't biographers. Their research questions would be more like "What were the belief systems of Jews in 1st century Palestine?" "What was the power relationship between the Roman administration and the Jewish religious authorities in Jerusalem?". Itsmejudith (talk) 11:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

IMHO most historians agree that a minor religious Jewish leader called Jesus existed around the 1st century AD. The Gospel of Mark (and other written records) is probably based upon some person. However his teachings, the claim that he was the son of the Abrahamic God, the manner of his death, all the miracles... who knows what really happened? These things are issues of individual faith. Flamarande (talk) 12:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I would offer the small quibble that most historians would agree that there was probably a Jewish religious teacher named Yeshua or some such during the early first century whose followers were among the founders of Christianity. Since there is no undisputed and conclusive evidence that he existed (i.e., no evidence from impartial contemporary sources), I think that most historians would concede that we don't know for certain that such a man actually existed. However, I think most historians think the existence of such a man squares better with the historical record than the non-existence of such a man. On the other hand, I think that most secular historians are skeptical about the historical accuracy of some of the claims made by Christians about Jesus, such as his birth in Bethlehem, his death followed by resurrection, and so on. Marco polo (talk) 14:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I've heard that proving that there was a historical Jesus is like proving that there is a man called John in America ... there were a lot of them! -- Q Chris (talk) 15:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I've heard that some historians believe that Homer didn't write the Iliad and Odyssey after all; it was someone else by the same name. Pais (talk) 15:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I had always thought Homer didn't write it down at all, it was an oral rendition that was recorded on paper by someone later. Googlemeister (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Compose, then. It was a joke anyway, since "Homer" doesn't actually refer to an identifiable individual, but is rather a mathematical variable standing for "whoever composed the Iliad and Odyssey". Pais (talk) 15:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is certainly debatable. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 16:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Just like last time, the one of relevant articles is the Jesus myth theory. It is certainly a minority viewpoint, but not a crazy-lunatic-fringe viewpoint. Buddy432 (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Christianity had to come from somewhere, and considering that the earliest books of the NT are dated to the middle of the first century, it's hard to fathom the writers would have just made him up. On the other hand, skeptics would say that the age of Tiberius is well-attested, and you'd think that if someone was doing miracles someone else (other than the Gospel writers) would have noticed and written more than the few words Josephus is alleged to have written on the topic. So the most-likely scenario from a non-Christian perspective is that Jesus existed but the account of his life was embellished with stories already circulating in Judea, like Gabriel's Revelation. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

See also Jesus Project for a recent collaborative effort to assess how likely Jesus of Nazareth was to have uttered each of the different sayings attributed to Him (the words that are highlighted in Red letter editions of the Bible). On a quick glance Religious perspectives on Jesus and some of the articles referred to in Historicity of Jesus offer more detail, e.g. Josephus on Jesus and Tacitus on Christ. —— Shakescene (talk) 02:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Company name

which company name when translated in English reads “Tiger-Leopard Limited”. Looks like it was named after its founders.Google and wiki searches did not yield any clues. Would appreciate any help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.197.43.154 (talk) 06:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

from here -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 11:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

"Tiger-Leopard" is a common company name in China, but I don't think any of them have Indian operations. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Phone hacking

Why so much fuss is created when a non-government agency hacks phone which is of no danger to the persons who's phone is hacked? When the government regularly hacks phone of civilian population, which is really a danger and threat to the civilians, no fuss is seen. In countries like China, the government can at any time hack phone and arbitrarily arrest any person. In democratic countries like US, ESA pervasively monitor civilians. No outrage is seen in those cases. But a non-harmful hacking by a non-government agency creates so much fuss, why? --U8yol (talk) 13:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the state's monopoly on violence also extends to a monopoly on snooping. I think people would be pretty pissed off if a newspaper could apply to a judge and receive a search warrant for a private person's residence, too. Pais (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Which ESA do you think pervasively monitors civilians? Surely not the European Sociological Association? Itsmejudith (talk) 13:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

My mistake, I am talking about NSA. --U8yol (talk) 13:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah! That makes more sense. Though I'd suggest that the Entertainment Software Association is probably also a prime candidate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

For the benefit of us non-US people, NSA = National Security Agency. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd disagree with the premise that there isn't a dustup when there are major human rights violations in other countries. Human rights in the People's Republic of China frequently are a source of major international criticism, especially basic democratic freedoms and liberties, such as rights of due process of law and rights to privacy. In the U.S. there was a lot of criticism over the USA PATRIOT Act which authorized expanded surveillance; large parts of it have been struck down by courts over the past several years, and when it does come up for reauthorization, it is a major political struggle. It's not as though people in the U.S. are gleefully supportive of being suveilled by their government unjustly. --Jayron32 16:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

And I might also note that when the NSA monitors people, it ostensibly does so in the name of something most people are happy with: national security. Now, whether they actually achieve that, whether they break more than they fix, whether they abuse it — these are questions people debate. But the general idea of stopping terrorist attacks is seen by most as a good thing. In the case of the News of the World, the goal is to get a killer tabloid story. That is considered an insufficient public good to justify the activities. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

At least in one case, it seems debatable that the hacking posed "no danger to the persons who's phone [was] hacked". It's been alleged that the hacking of Milly Dowler's voicemail wasn't just restricted to passive listening and that some messages were deleted, interfering with the police's search. 129.234.53.36 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC).

I'm curious if so much fuss would have been created if the scandal involved a left-wing newspaper. --U8yol (talk) 05:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The point is not really the paper, but the people behind it. And yes, I think if some other set of journalists had been hacking the phones of bereved families, soldiers, politicians, missing children (and deleting their messages, so people think they're still alive!) etc, then the Sun and the News of the World would have been calling for lynch mobs. They were not only despicable, they hacked the phones of the very groups they had whipped people up to view as untouchable (plus politicians). Although I also like the suggestion I've seen that, once you have foreign nationals in charge of a groups of peope who illegally access and print information about the goverment and head of state, you're actually justified in pursuing treason charges. If you think this is because they were right wing, I suggest you talk to some of their core readership: one of the first things that happened when this stuff started to seriously come out was that the armed forces groups cut off all relationships and boycotted them. 86.164.165.0 (talk) 07:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, also, because people keep drawing parallels, maybe read up on Robert Maxwell (The Mirror was left-wing). I don't think there's much similarity myself, but it does show people chased him as much as Murdoch. Well, our article doesn't show it that much, so maybe you need to read about it elsewhere. Or consider the fake photos in the Mirror (and The Sun's reaction), although it's not a completely fair comparison: they didn't do it so many, many times, and it could conceivably have been a mistake on their part. 86.164.165.0 (talk) 07:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Also also, I should add that the story is about much more than phone hacking: it has changed direction since the first few days. It is about the police not properly investigating it, and lying about that. It is about parliament lying and being lied to. It is about police officers being bribed. It is about News International representatives being placed with the police and in the government. It is about the police and politicians being so scared of Rupert Murdoch that they alter policy and government to appease him, putting him de facto in charge of the government of a country. And were they right to be scared of him? Gordon Brown tried very hard to stay in his good books, but when Murdoch went for him Murdoch went for his children. A phone call to ask about your child's very recent diagnosis, which you haven't told anyone about? Politicians and police knew exactly why they were scared. 86.164.165.0 (talk) 09:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It's worth noting that newspapers (Guardian, Scotsman) which made similar claims to "[The Sun] went for [Brown's] children" have issued retractions and apologies. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Not really, although that's how The Sun span it. The 'corrections' were about specific techniques used to gather the information on Brown's ill infant son, not that the information was acquired, Brown was phoned and confronted with them having the information, and they ran a big story on it using the acquired information. The techniques they actually used are still 'big trouble' stuff, but not the particular method they say they didn't use. 86.164.72.255 (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Something that has crossed my mind related to this whole matter is the fact that many (most?) Murdoch newspapers would normally be regarded here as reliable sources. Worth rethinking at all? HiLo48 (talk) 09:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but it's the whole idea that news media outlets are inherently reliable that needs rethinking, and has done for a while. It doesn't take long to establish that there is little reliable about the news industry...

ALR (talk) 09:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I am wondering how many communists are there in Wikipedia? --U8yol (talk) 10:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

You don't have to be a "communist" (whatever that means to you) to be suspicious of big media conglomerations. There is a lot of suspicion to go around for all mega-outlets. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

A major part of the recent scandal has been the News of the World's search for a story under the pretext of it being in the public interest. When that search seemed to be restricted to celebrities and a few politicians embroiled in sleaze, many people didn't seem too surprised and just got on with their lives. However, when it was revealed that the same had been done to the phones of murder victims, victims of terrorism, soldiers killed in action and sick children that really went beyond the pale. People wondered about the morals of those who would let such things happen and exactly what was the public interest in that kind of story. Later revelations, that former NotW execs were appointed to high-level positions within government and police, and that police officers had accepted bribes from NotW journalists (or their private investigators) to get more phone numbers to hack, have led to the current scandal. Astronaut (talk) 14:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the British have an obsession with abducted children that is considerably more intense than such things get in the USA. Which is not to say that such things are not discussed in the USA — we have our Cayley Anthonys — but I think these stories are regarded as even bigger deals in the UK. So the fact that in pursuit of this big scoop story they actually inhibited the investigation, that doesn't go down well. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Current US interest in the Panama Canal

Obviously the US was extremely involved in both creating the Panama Canal and in creating Panama, so as to accomplish the former. My understanding is, apart from any imperial ambitions, this was done because creating a quicker, cheaper, and safer shipping route between the west and east coasts was viewed as a key national interest -- similar to the UK's relation with the Suez Canal. Is that still a concern? My intuition would be that most freight would now go by rail since that would be more direct (and obviously passenger travel by ship is no longer significant). Do you know of any reliable sources on methods of trans-continental shipping in the US? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.68.89 (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The Suez Canal Company which constructed and operated the Suez Canal was initially financed almost entirely by the Egyptian government and by French private investors. The British government opposed the canal throughout its construction, and did not acquire shares in the canal company until 1875, six years after the canal was opened. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Since corporations are not in the usual habit of throwing away money for no good reason, we'll take it to mean that there is still an econimic benefit for using the Panama Canal over freight rail for certain types of cargo. Petroleum, for example, is probably more efficiently moved by ship than by rail. The evidence that it is useful is that it is used. --Jayron32 15:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Jayron32, the same argument could have been used to support bloodletting back in the day. Please use references on the Reference Desk. Comet Tuttle (talk) 14:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Petroleum is even more efficiently moved by pipeline, but I get your point. Mingmingla (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

But that traffic might be from the Pacific coast of North and South America to and from Europe, not from the east coast to the west coast. Unless you find something indicating the route of canal traffic, the fact that it's being used does not answer my question. 96.246.68.89 (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Freighters are much, much cheaper, pound for pound, than rail. They are not quicker. They are used for things that you need to go long distances verrrry slowly. Coal is one such example — it's extremely heavy, but not worth a huge amount per pound, and time is not usually an issue. So you want to ship it the absolutely cheapest way possible. In some cases that's by freighter. If you're going from the Pacific to the Atlantic, for whatever reason, by freighter, then the canal is the simplest way to do it. It's not that other forms of transportation are bad, but they are more expensive. You can move a lot of material per amount of fuel consumed via freight. It just doesn't go very fast. If the canal was gone tomorrow, shipping wouldn't stop, but the costs would definitely go up on many products. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It is also useful to be able to move your navy around quicker to reshuffle ships from the Pacific to the Atlantic or vv, but modern US aircraft carriers don't fit through the canal. Googlemeister (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The canal is currently being enlarged though. Also I found this: [1] which claims that 29 million long tons of Alaska oil (about one-third of the total) went through Panama in 1986 - but only 355,000 long tons was actually shipped through. The vast majority was offloaded into the Panama Pipeline and but into a different ship on the other side. Rmhermen (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Panamax#Post-Panamax_ships has a tiny little bit on what you are hinting at there. --Jayron32 02:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Even after the expansion, US aircraft carriers might still be too wide to pass through the canal. Hard to say for sure since at the water, the USS Ronald Reagan is 134 wide but ont he flight deck it is 252 feet wide (compared to 180 feet of the lock width) so it might work if the lock is short enough and the flight deck is high enough, but probably not. Googlemeister (talk) 14:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

There are a few webcams of the Panama Canal locks to watch. http://www.pancanal.com/eng/multimedia/index.html They are more interesting than the usual webcam as there is usually some activity. I find them rather relaxing. Under the "Animations" section they give some detailed information about the lock dimensions. 92.23.36.253 (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

"I'm going downtown" (Chicago)

I asked here previously why New Yorkers referred to Manhattan as “the city” it is part of New York City, but I recently found out that kind of the opposite case is true in the Chicago area. The residents of the cities and towns near Chicago like to refer to Chicago as “downtown” as in "I'm going to downtown." By the way, I’m planning to go to Chicago sometime in August with a friend who’s looking for a home there or in Detroit as I mentioned on a previous question here that he was doing so. I'm going to help him out in his search as a friend. So now, I’m starting to learn all these Chicago code words now that I'm starting to investigate about Chicago before I go there. Anyway, I read that if someone who lives in the suburbs would ask, “Where do you live?” And you say I live in Chicago, the person will say, “Oh, you live downtown, cool!!!!” Why do the residents of Chicagoland refer to Chicago as “downtown” when Chicago is an independent city that has a downtown? Where does that term for Chicago come from? Willminator (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• In Chicago, "Downtown" probably refers two closely connected districts and the areas around them, being the Chicago Loop and the Magnificent Mile. Officially, the Mag Mile is slightly north of Downtown, but if someone said "I'm going downtown to shop on Michigan Avenue" no one would find that an odd phrase. Having lived there for two years, I wouldn't have described other parts of the city as "Downtown". I lived in Little Italy between Greektown and the Illinois Medical District, and I'm not sure anyone would have thought of those areas as "downtown". Likewise, nothing in the Southside would be considered "downtown" by anyone, and most people wouldn't consider other parts of the city as "downtown" either. It should be noted that most of the affluent parts of Chicago are around "downtown", and many people from the suburbs may consider other parts of the city to be unlivable (not true at all, just a perception), so if you said "No, I live in Hyde Park," people wouldn't think you were being contradictory. In terms of area, Chicago is a pretty spread-out city with many diverse areas. I lived there for 2 years, and there were large parts of the city I never had cause to go to. You can easily drive for more than an hour on one street in Chicago and stay within the City Proper (like Western Avenue, it would be absurd if anyone thought that entire expanse of territory was a "downtown".
• As an aside, if you are seriously thinking about moving to Chicago, just a couple of tips about navigating the city:
  • Get to know the Chicago Street Grid. Chicago is one of the easiest-to-navigate cities I have ever lived in or visited; it has a strict street grid and house numbering scheme. You can literally pinpoint any address in the city to within a few feet if you just know the system. Roads_and_freeways_in_Chicago#Grid explains it well; but within a few months of living there you should develop a functioning knowledge of the system. You can easily look up any address in the city and find your way there without a GPS. Its great. The suburbanites use the freeway system and clog it up horribly; traffic on the freeways is pretty bad. You can often get where you need to go faster using the surface streets, the diagonal avenues make a nice bypass of the freeways, and so few people use them compared to the freeways you'll feel like you're cheating...
  • Secondly, the public transportation system is great too. The 'L' will get you just about anywhere you'd want to go. If you're looking for places to live, I would highly recommend finding a place near the L.
  • The really trendy places to live (at least 10 years ago) were anything on the North Side (like Wrigleyville or Lincoln Park) and Hyde Park on the South Side, especially around the University of Chicago. These tended to be the areas with the most vibrant neighborhoods, lots to do, etc. However, you will pay a premium for living there. The area where I lived around the University of Illinois at Chicago was more reasonably priced. It didn't have the nightlife or activities you'd find in some of the trendier areas, but the Blue Line L was very close, and you can get anywhere you want using that. One hidden gem of the city is Roscoe Village which had its own little "main street" area, and it gave me the feeling of being in a small city rather than a huge metropolis. The downside is that it isn't right on the 'L' (there are some sorta-close-by stops on the Blue Line and the Brown line, but nothing goes through the neighborhood).
• I hope that gives you some tips! If you have any more questions about my time in Chicago, and don't want to ask here, just drop me a note on my talk page. --Jayron32 17:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Having grown up in the far south suburbs, we would say "I am going downtown" (not "to downtown") to mean going to the central and north side, to the museums, etc. Rarely would you say going "to Chicago" unless you were going to another part that required more explanation and then you might you its name unless it was a poorly known area. Rmhermen (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess I made the phrase of "going downtown" clear in the heading, but not in my question. My bad. So did I misinterpret what I read on how the suburbanites in the Chicago area define "downtown?" Willminator (talk) 22:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

If you are far outside Chicago, suburbanites will say they live in Chicago, not that they live in Chicagoland. If you were near Chicago, and you say you live downtown, it would likely mean the same as saying you lived in the city, not that you live inside the Loop or whatever definition you make for Chicago's downtown. I also don't think there is any single consistent definition of downtown Chicago. Rmhermen (talk) 22:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

As a recent Milwaukee transplantee that spent a fair amount of time in Chicago, to me Downtown would have been anything in the loop or the magnificent mile, maybe a small radius around. I conceptually called "chicago" what any true resident of the city would probably call "Chicagoland" just for simplicity and because when you're an hour and a half away it's all "south" to you. HominidMachinae (talk) 03:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with what's been said. I grew up in the suburbs of Chicago and now live in Vermont. When I was a kid, if we were going "downtown" then we were going to the Loop, Magnificent Mile, or to one of the two baseball stadiums. If someone asks me today where I'm originally from, I still say "Chicago" even though I grew up in the 'burbs. The reason I do this is because everyone knows where Chicago is and it gives them a not so rough idea of where I'm from. If I were to name the suburb right off, I'd have to follow it up with an explanation that it is a suburb since they are likely to have never heard of it and ask where it was anyway. If they bother to ask "What part?" when I just say "Chicago" then I will get more specific. Dismas|^(talk) 03:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

confusion about fatalities

One source said the number of fatalities following the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami was about 23,000. But following Japan's victory at the 2011 FIFA Women's World Cup, the number was about 25,000. Now I'm all mixed up. What's the exact number of fatalities?24.90.204.234 (talk) 21:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no exact number. The current official totals are 15,585 dead and 5,070 missing.[2] However there are individual towns are claiming that the official figures may be undercounts with many more thousands missing. Rmhermen (talk) 22:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I don't think that with an event of that magnitude they'll ever know for certain. This page discusses the authorities' counts to this point. The fact that it's gone down shows how uncertain those numbers are. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Note that the difference between 23k and 25k is pretty small from a "handing waving estimation" point of view. Having 8% uncertainty in the final death count of something like this is not huge, especially when both of those numbers are clearly estimations with rounding. I wouldn't be surprised if indeed the number is more like 15-20k; death estimates after disasters are often much higher than they turn out to be, for reasons I am not too clear on. (I remember the initial estimates of 9/11 being in the tens of thousands, when it was really more like 3k.) --Mr.98 (talk) 00:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It also depends on where you get your figures and how those figures were arrived at. If someone has lingering medical issues and dies a month after the event, do you still count them against that event? A lot of people would say yes but would that person's death be picked up by the statisticians and added to the total? Maybe not. Dismas|^(talk) 04:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, the article about the earthquake and tsunami counts 15,561 fatalities. Another source counts 15,585. Another source counts 20,721. Everything is confusing.24.90.204.234 (talk) 17:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps some of this comes from the occasional confusion between the words casualties and fatalities. If there are 15,000 killed and 5,000 missing, then there are 20,000 casualties, with 15,000 confirmed fatalities. The distinction gets mixed up sometimes, including on Wikipedia. —Kevin Myers 05:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Nero's involvment in Claudius's death

In our article on Nero it says It is not known how much Nero knew or was involved in the death of Claudius. However the Suetonius reference in paragraph 33 it says He began his career of parricide and murder with Claudius, for even if he was not the instigator of the emperor's death, he was at least privy to it, as he openly admitted... So wasn't it either Nero or Agrippina that gave Claudius poison mushrooms (likely Agrippina)? Is there STILL a citation needed IF Suetonius is the reference?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Suetonius wasn't even born when Claudius died. As The Twelve Caesars#Critical approaches: Reliability notes, historians have at best rather mixed feelings about his reliability. Given the questionable attitude of all Roman historians to what we'd now call a rigorous, sourced, and unbiased account, it's probably best to frame everything as "according to Suetonius". -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 23:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Suetonius was highly placed in the Empire, and had access to official records now lost, so we can't check his references for accuracy. Was he cited by scholars? Are there other historians from the period? It does not matter that he is reporting things that happened before he was born. He was a researcher and historian, not a reporter. He was born circa 70CE, and was Trajan's archives director and Hadrian's secretary. What document or archive was hidden to him? Who in the Roman world had better access to the best historical documents from the era of his histories? It is appropriate to state that he is the source, and then state what he said. Edison (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

July 19

Liliuokalani's desire to behead people

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Did Liliuokalani really stated she wanted to "behead" the people who overthrew her? I find this piece to be highly offensive and unlikely. Was it just a ploy to blacken her name and portray her as a bloodthirsty tyrant Queen? I'm guessing since this was the age of yellow journalism. She denied the accusation in her autobio, but what does other say? And the reason I find it highly unlikely is the fact that the Kingdom of Hawaii never practice decaptation, at least not during the age of constitutional monarchy, and only practiced hanging, confiscatining property, and exiling people who commited treason.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Liliuokalani's autobiography is "yellow journalism"?!? The source for the statement in the Wikipedia article is here (search for the word "beheaded") and the Wikipedia article fairly faithfully reports what it says, which is from the work Hawaii's Story by Hawaii's Queen written by Liliuokalani herself. Wow. You could, you know, check the sources before raising an objection. --Jayron32 01:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

What?!? Did you read my question? I never said Liliuokalani's autobio was "yellow journalism". I was asking if what people said about her wanting to behead the revolutionaries was "yellow journalism". The people as the newspapers that came from the mainland that Liliuokalani mentioned in her biography. How can an autobio be yellow journalism to began with?! I talking about the newspapers and what the Americans said about her beheading the revolutionaries. I am perfectly aware of what her autobio said, she said that she never stated that, it wasn't up to her as a constitutional monarch, she was shocked that Minister Willis would use that word after their informal meeting and that a lie can spread far but the true is always misunderstood. Using an autobiographical source is okay but I was wondering if there is any historical analysis on this controversial aspect of her ever saying such a word. I'm on the Queen side on this but I'm always want to be sure.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and the wikipedia article says that she says that she never said it. So I am confused as to why you are so offended by the Wikipedia article? --Jayron32 02:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the article. I trying to start a discussion on the topic itself not what wikipedia says.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, my bad. I thought you were offended that the Wikipedia article was spreading "yellow journalism", not that the contemporary journalists of Lilioukalani's time were guilty of it. I only note that modern "news organizations" (and I use the term very loosely) are guilty of the same level of stupidity as those spreading silliness about the former Queen. Unfortunately, I do not know what the source of the Lilioukalani rumor was. Sorry for the mixup. --Jayron32 02:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I disagree with the decision to archive this question. It is a bona fide question contrary to the archiver's assertion. It is certainly proper to ask for a discussion about the answer to the question apart from the content of any article. 99.2.148.119 (talk) 23:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Will India become a communist country?

The Maoist Rebels have taken control of 30% to 50% of India. It seems that the Naxalite-Maoist insurgency is winning against the Indian government. Will India become a next communist country? And why the U.S. is not supporting the Indian government to fight the maoist rebels? 174.114.236.41 (talk) 04:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source that states that "The Maoist Rebels have taken control of 30% to 50% of India"? Nobody seems to have noticed... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there are two "legitimate" communist parties which participate peacefully in democratic elections, being Communist Party of India (Marxist) and Communist Party of India, and they each have a few elected officials here and there. The Communist Party of India (Maoist) appears to be the most radical group, having claimed some terrorist attacks. There is also the Naxalite movement, which appears closely allied with the Maoists. I don't know how active they are, but I don't think any of these groups, either the participating parties or the radical militant groups, represents a threat to take over India, either by democratic or violent means. --Jayron32 05:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The rebels control large areas of rural India; the BBC claims "Maoists and affiliated groups are active in more than a third of India's 600-odd districts". The map on Naxalite shows affected areas; the "seriously affected" are far less than 30%; and because they focus on rural areas it will be an even smaller percentage of India's population. They are based in remote forests and mountainous areas where the police and armed forces can't go (and the police action seems to have been notably inefficient). Although they launch regular terrorist attacks they don't seem to be centrally organised and they're not likely to be able to defeat the world's third-largest military, the Indian Armed Forces.[3][4] --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It's also worth pointing out that the Communist parties (which have a coalition under the name of the Left Democratic Front) that are quite powerful in the southern states of Tamilnadu and Kerala aren't very Communist; they wave hammers and sickles about but they actually run the best-governed states in the country, with high literacy rates, high employment, low mortality etc. They're probably more what we'd call socialist in actual fact. (Most of the Keralan 'Communist' candidates that I met earlier this year were far too fat to qualify as real Communists anyway!!) ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 09:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

You may be surprised, but the defining ideological goals of a communist party are not low literacy and employment and high mortality. It's absurd that achieving good results should automatically disqualify a party from being called "communist" (see also No true Scotsman fallacy). Not to mention the fact that most of the "real", Stalinist communist parties, unsympathetic as they were, also achieved high literacy rates (and high employment, for what it's worth, and affordable basic health care ensuring relatively low mortality) - despite dictatorship, initial periods of political terror and economic catastrophes, inefficient economies etc..--91.148.159.4 (talk) 12:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

There are a huge number of communist parties in India (see Category:Communist parties in India), most of which are insignificant in national politics. Some of them compete in elections and, of those, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) is by far the most important. However, the fronts it leads lost control of both Kerala and West Bengal at the last elections, and politically it is not supportive of the Naxalite uprising. I expect that the original question regards the Naxalites, but, as the article states, "As of 2009, Naxalites were active across approximately 180 districts in ten states of India accounting for about 40% of India's geographical area" - 'active in' is very diferent from 'taken control' of. Even if the Naxalites were to somehow manage to take control of much of this area, they have very limited support in much of the country, and are not a single, unified force, so I can't imagine any circumstances under which they might make the whole country communist. I expect that the U.S. government has not shown any particular support for the Indian government in this because it is an internal matter with no serious international implications, and the Indian government has not (to the best of my knowledge) asked for outside assistance. Warofdreams talk 11:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried asking a magic 8 ball? We don't have the ability to see the future or we would not be here, but rather relaxing at our mansion in St Barts from all the billions we made in stocks. Googlemeister (talk) 13:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Are any of the vaguely popular parties actually communist, advocating a 100% property tax, or are they merely socialists calling themselves communists? How are the relations between the bona fide communists and socialists? Would you say the Indian Maoists are more totalitarian, fascist, communist, or socialist in terms of their policy planks? 99.2.148.119 (talk) 03:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Whoever told you that communism is about "a 100% property tax" was wrong.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 12:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed. 99.2.148.119 (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that in order to understand the Naxalite rebellion, and why it is spreading and increasing in strength, we need a socio-economic backdrop. In the interior of India, stretching from Nepalese border to northern Tamil Nadu, the is a belt of relative economic underdevelopment. To a large extent, this region consists of dense forests and hills, difficult terrain to access. Since many centuries, this unaccesible terrains are home to adivasi peoples, culturally diverse and markedly of different cultures than the peoples living in plain areas. The adivasi peoples have been largely unicorporated into British colonial system and the modern state. However, as India has reached a higher degree of economic development in recent years and prices of natural resources has gone up there is a wide process to exploit the forest, mining and land resources in the adivasi lands. A frontal attack against the adivasi communities. The Naxalite movement, which existed prior to this development but was largely dormant in many areas, was able to reignite through mobilization of adivasi demands. Thus when looking at a map the zone of Maoist influence might appear very wide, but in reality the zone of influence has clear limitations. Unlike the mainstream communist parties the Maoists lack support or ability to mobilize support amongst the wider sections of peasantry (and yet less in the working class and urban poor). So even if they come to dominate the entire tribal belt from north to south, it is highly unlikely that they would capture power natuinally any time soon. --Soman (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

"Austria" in Austria

(Whilst the question is overtly a language one, I'm guessing the answer is historical or political, hence raising it here.) I recently visited Austria, and was a little surprised to find the word "Austria" used frequently in the name of Telekom Austria, a bank, and a couple of sports teams. In fact, in many ways it was more prominent than Österreich except in an adjective sense. Why the adoption of the English term? I'd be surprised to find any such institution in the UK called Vereinigte Königreich (even considering the greater spread of English compared to German). I considered that Österreich with its imperial feel might be unfashionable, but surely avoiding the name of your country would be a big step? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Link to discussion the last time this came up. By the way I'm an English expat living in Austria and I can attest to da troof of what you are saying. --Viennese Waltz 11:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Austria is a Latin name. See our article Name of Austria which says, amongst other things, "The name "Austria" is a latinization of German Österreich. This has led to much confusion as German öst is "east", but Latin auster is "south". It is first recorded as Austrie marchionibus (Margrave of Austria) on a deed issued by Conrad III to the Klosterneuburg Monastery in 1147. On the Privilegium Minus of 1156, the name of the country is given as marchiam Austriae (March of Austria) and as Austriae ducatum (Duchy of Austria). In English usage, "Austria" is attested since the early 17th century." Hope this helps. DuncanHill (talk) 11:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

You give a poor example, cf England or Angleterre, Schottland or Écosse, Nordirland or Irlande du Nord, Wales or Pays de Galles. Austria must look novel or quaint to the German eye.

I thought ost was east.
Sleigh (talk) 11:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

"East" is Osten as a noun, but the adjective "eastern" is östlich, so öst- is also associated with the meaning "east". I think a lot of the use of "Austria" you're seeing has to do with wanting to be international. Austria isn't just English and Latin: go to wikt:Austria#Translations and click "show" and you'll see how many languages call it "Austria" or something very close to it. People all over the world will recognize the name "Austria" even if they have no idea what "Österreich" is. (Of course, many of those who recognize will confuse it with "Australia", but that's a different problem.) "Austria" is also easier for foreigners to pronounce than "Österreich". "Austria" just makes for a better internationally recognizable and marketable brand name. Angr (talk) 12:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

If "east is Osten as a noun", what's the difference between der Osten and der Ost? --Viennese Waltz 12:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, good question. There's certainly no significant difference in semantics; to judge from wikt:de:Ost, it's a matter of how they're used. Ost is used in navigation and meteorology, and as a prefix in place names like Ostdeutschland and Ost-Berlin. All the main directions have a form with and a form without -en: Nord/Norden, Ost/Osten, Süd/Süden, West/Westen. I'm not a native speaker, so I don't have a very good feel for when to use each; personally I'd probably never use the short forms except in compounds (not just place names like those mentioned above but also words like Ostwind). Angr (talk) 12:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, my German is a bit rusty but I would avoid using 'Ost' on its own, which is a prefix (as Angr explained above) or an abbreviation. Ostwind = East wind/Eastern wind. Osten is the proper word. Der Osten = the East. Er kommt aus dem Osten = He comes from the East. AFAIK no German-speaker is going to say: Der Ost. Er kommt aus dem Ost. Flamarande (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, except that, as Angr's link to the German Wiktionary makes clear, der Ost can be more than either a prefix or an abbreviation. --Viennese Waltz 13:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's wise to use "Ost" rarely for a noun meaning "the east", and I can't think of a good example where you'd use the definite (or any) article as in "der Ost", unless you're writing about the wind in a maritime poem. Ost without article can be seen in juxtapositions such as "Ost und West" or "West begegnet Ost", and it's used when discussing a compass for example "eine Drehung von Nord nach Ost". While you will find examples for "Richtung Ost", you'll find at least tenfold the number for "Richtung Osten"; the former sounds a bit military or technical or something (?). English Wiktionary's entry, simply defining it as "the East", is a bit too concise. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

A.E.I.O.U.--Rallette (talk) 12:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Map of Italy

I quite like and have made some use out of this map of Germnany c1000 AD, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Heiliges_R%C3%B6misches_Reich_1000.PNG but I was wondering if there was any chance of finding a similar map showing Italy around the same time and in the same level of detail, with the towns and cities and rivers marked and divided up into its various regions?

79.66.101.168 (talk) 14:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe there's something at the Perry-Castañeda Map Collection that will strike your fancy. Pais (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Google Images gave me this map which looks to be roughly of the same scale, level of detail, age, and time period as the one of Germany above. --Jayron32 15:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Inheriting royal houses in Europe

Why were the decedents of Queen Victoria of the UK members of her husband's House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and not her House of Hanover? Is it because the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha outranks the House of Hanover or because houseships can only go down the male line? If it's because the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha outranks the House of Hanover, how are the ranks of houses determined and why didn't Victoria's titles of Queen and Empress make her house higher-ranking? If it's because houseships can only go down the male line, then if a female queen-regent married a commoner, would her child become a king or queen with no house? --174.91.8.226 (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

In all but a few rare cases, the house name always follows male lines. (One major exception I can think of is the House of Romanov which didn't change names in common usage even after Paul I of Russia inherited the throne, his own father wasn't a Romanov but a member of the House of Holstein-Gottorp). Thus, Victoria's children become members of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha because that is the House of Prince Albert. Pre-supposing the next question, the reason that Charles, Prince of Wales is considered part of the House of Windsor rather than the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg (which is is Father's House) is simply that the Queen declared it to be so. Otherwise, however, noble houses follow male lines. As far as what would happen if the queen married a commoner, it may just be that the Husband's surname would become the House name; though since I literally can't think of a single time of it happening, so the best we can say is that it is an unresolved problem; that is since it has never come up, there is no official solution. --Jayron32 16:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

So Elizabeth II just unilaterally declared that her children would be in her hourse instead of her husband's house, and that's enough to break the male preference of houseship inheritance? Do we know why Victoria didn't do the same thing for her children? Was it just the culture of her time? --174.91.8.226 (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The answer to #1 is yes. The answer to #2 is we don't know why, we can only note that she did not. Its kinda like asking why you didn't eat ham and eggs for breakfast this morning. People don't often make copious note of why they didn't choose to do some random act. Positive action is usually much easier to assign the "becauses" to; since people usuaully have justification for actions they take. People "don't do" an infinite number of things in any given second of their lives, and thus there isn't often justification for why we are not doing something. --Jayron32 17:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

If anything, Victoria's behavior in this regard is less surprising than Elizabeth's. Noble children inherit their father's house the way commoners' children inherit their father's last name. If a commoner named Victoria Hanover married a commoner named Albert Saxe, no one would be surprised that their children bore the surname Saxe. But if a commoner named Elizabeth Windsor married a commoner named Philip Mountbatten, people would be surprised (perhaps less so today than 60 years ago) if the parents decided the children would bear the surname Windsor. It probably never occurred to Victoria that her children would belong to any house other than their father's. Angr (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I would have thought that Victoria wasn't subject to the same anti-German sentiment that caused George V of the United Kingdom to create the House of Windsor in July 1917 and she felt no need to do anything but follow custom. And when his granddaughter made her proclamation in 1952, she had only been queen for two months, it may have also been due to anti-German feelings. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Does this mean that Charles and Anne, who were both born before this edict, spent the early parts of their lives as members of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

No because prior to the official engagement announcement, he renounced his Greek and Danish royal titles, converted from Greek Orthodoxy to Anglicanism, and became a naturalised British subject, adopting the surname Mountbatten from his British maternal grandparents. Alansplodge (talk) 17:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I knew all that, but didn't he nevertheless remain a member of the House of S-H-S-G? Couldn't he claim to be a member to this day? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Genealogically, yes (because the emphasis of genealogy is identifying an individual in terms of descent from ancestors -- Charles is patrilineally an Oldenburg-Glucksburg); dynastically, maybe (because, on the one hand, application of a formula of inheritance to descendants {dynasty} of one particular ancestor is how monarchies select a monarch -- and Charles is the heir-eventual to the UK's Electress Sophia. But on the other hand a nation (UK) which uses a dynasty (Glucksburg) as the source of its monarchs usually ignores whether other nations (Greece, Denmark, Grand Duchy of Oldenburg) also use that source unless convergence of crowns becomes likely. Each nation defines membership in its own dynasty, and nothing prevents those definitions from overlapping -- Paul, Emperor of Russia was both a Romanov and a Holstein-Gottorp. Albert II, Prince of Monaco is required by Monegasque law to bear the name of Grimaldi but he is also a member of the House of Polignac as a remote male-line heir to the dukedom thereof, his grandfather's change of surname being irrelevant to current French law on titles); and legally, no (because the name (e.g. Mountbatten-Windsor) and family (e.g. Windsor) to which one belongs is determined by the laws which govern one's transactions in any particular nation (UK for Charles), e.g. marriage, voting, taxation, property ownership. But one could be legally married to several women in Riyadh yet simultaneously only to one in London, divorced and single in Las Vegas but still married in Rome: one nation's laws don't automatically override another's. Incidentally, dynasties have often been named for non-royals who acquire a throne by inheritance, conquest or election (e.g. Bernadotte, Bonaparte, Karadjordjevic, Stuart, Tudor, Vasa. FactStraight (talk) 04:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that excellent reply, Fact Straight. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 12:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

What kind of culture is America?

What kind of culture is America? — Preceding unsigned comment added by StoamchtoothMMX (talk • contribs) 17:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

America is not a culture, it is a country. Why do you ask? Looie496 (talk) 17:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

America does have a culture, however, and if the OP is interested in reading about it, the article Culture of the United States has a good overview, and they can follow links from there as they wish. --Jayron32 17:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

America is not a country either, it is a whole quite large landmass, over there somewhere. 79.66.101.168 (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

In English, the word "America" as a singular without an article usually refers to the United States of America, unless contexts suggests otherwise. If you want to refer to the landmass comprised of the two continents of North America and South America, the more common term is "the Americas". --174.91.8.226 (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

In fact, it has more than one culture. Marco polo (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The question is too open-ended. Can the person posing the question give some examples of the kinds of cultures that are to be considered? Bus stop (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Western. 99.2.148.119 (talk) 05:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Soldiers firing bullets in the air to celebrate

News footage from Libya often shows the rebels firing automatic weapons in the air to celebrate reports of a troop advance, or reports of Nato bombing some Qadaffi asset. March 28, 2011: "There were several rounds of firing in the air by jubilant rebels who vowed to bring an early end to the 41-year-old Gaddafi regime." May 11, 2011: "..convoys of machine-gun trucks paraded past with their occupants cheering and firing in the air. "God is great!" they chanted. " Even the Libyan government troops fired in the air to celebrate: April 29, 2011: "The Libyan government sent text messages to mobile phones of its armed supporters, urging them to stop firing in the air in order to save ammunition for "our crusader enemies,""This would seem to be a bad idea, since the ammo might be needed if they actually fought a battle, and since money is reported to be short and a AK47 ammo costs $230 per thousand rounds retail. A bullet that goes up must come down and might hit someone or something. Was it a habit of soldiers in major wars of the 19th or 20th century to celebrate thus? Or would they quickly be disciplined for wasting ammunition? Is it a Middle Eastern thing, or a "improvised untrained rebel army thing?" Is it a characteristic of "soldiers" who have not actually been in combat? Or did German US, British, and Japanese soldiers do it in WW2, or UN and Korean forces in the Korean Conflict, or the US and allies and the Vietnamese/Viet Cong do it in the Vietnam War, or the opposing forces in Libya and Afghanistan? A Google News Archive search for "celebratory gunfire" from 1939-1945 produced no results. A similar search limited to Libya for 2011 produced 45 results. Edison (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a Middle Eastern thing -- in the parts where everybody is armed, any sort of celebration will provoke lots of shooting into the air -- even weddings and things like that. Looie496 (talk) 18:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

They do it in some parts of North America, too, but it's a terrible idea. 99.2.148.119 (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Did you look at Celebratory gunfire? --LarryMac | Talk 18:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I love how Wikipedia has an article on almost everything. Is there an article on Wasting ammunition? I guess notm, because it comes up a red link. Edison (talk) 23:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Shooting your guns into the air in celebration was also something gangs of "Cowboys" did in "Wild West" (at least according to Hollywood... reality may have been different). Blueboar (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be a particularly male thing, and perhaps a testosterone-fuelled male thing, and may be symbolic of shooting ... other kinds of "bullets" ... behind closed doors ... if you get my drift. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you mean ejaculation, but I am just taking a wild guess here. --Jayron32 21:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

You got my drift. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think it has more to do with the noise than the bullets. It is a "gun-culture" equivalent of ancient warriors banging their swords or spears on their shields (or priests ringing bells for that matter). Blueboar (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, is it an activity of rear echelon military fakers, pretend soldiers, as opposed to something soldiers who are on, or have been on the battlefront do? (In 1964 the Laotian army fired most of their ammo at the Moon because there was an eclipse, but at least they imagined they were frightening away an evil spirit). Edison (talk) 04:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Think fireworks, if you have guns and bullets to hand, way more convenient. Richard Avery (talk) 07:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Rather more hazardous though: see bridegroom in Turkey accidentally kills three relatives while firing an AK-47 in celebration at his own wedding and Gunfire kills at least 11 people across Yemen after president's first appearance since injury. I'm sure that there are many similar stories out there. Alansplodge (talk) 14:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I was going to say to me it seems like a similar thing to setting of fire crackers. Vespine (talk) 08:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

My father, who was a British soldier in Calcutta from 1944 to 1946, was trained there in riot control. There was no special riot equipment and they were instructed that if they ever had to fire their rifles to disperse an angry mob, it was much safer to fire at their legs than to shoot into the air. What goes up, generally comes down somewhere else. In the event, the sight of a few Ghurkas drawing their Khukris was always enough to persuade the citizens of Calcutta that they had urgent business elsewhere. Alansplodge (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The bit of the OP's statement that interested me was A bullet that goes up must come down and might hit someone or something. A bullet fired straight up in the air can and has killed people. It depends on the calibre of the bullet which in turn affects the terminal velocity. It is unlikely that a .22 bullet would kill but a .45 would almost certainly kill if it fell directly on the head. Bullets fired at an angle are even more dangerous as they still carry some of the muzzle velocity when landing whereas the vertically fired shot reaches the point at which velocity is zero and so on falling back to earth accelerates due to gravity only. Its been calaculated that the Kinetic Impact Energy of a .45 round is over 20 times greater than that of a .22 round. --Bill Reid | (talk) 18:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I was taught in gun safety training that a 22 long bullet can travel over a mile and still kill someone. Rarely will it go exactly straight up. If fired from a handheld weapon, (as opposed to some Mythbusters vise adjusted by plumb bob and corrected for wind)it will likely travel in a parabola, continuing its stabilizing spin, with a higher terminal velocity than a bullet dropped from an extreme height and tumbling to the ground. Certainly a military round is likely to be more massive and to have a higher muzzle velocity, with greater lethality even if fired at a high angle. Edison (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

July 20

Did Britain ever try to take over Europe?

Seems like other major European countries have tried at some point to take over Europe like France or Germany, but did Britain ever attempt this? If not, why not? ScienceApe (talk) 03:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

They certainly tried to take over France (see Hundred Years' War), and they also conquered Ireland (see Tudor conquest of Ireland). Attempting to take over other countries would have been problematic due to the distances and transportation requirements. You'll notice that almost all of the Europe conquering was done in more-or-less a geographically contiguous way. England wouldn't have skipped over France and started to invade Austria, for example. Even trying to conquer Norway would have been problematic due to the long sea voyage. -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 03:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (first part reply to the OP) Depends on what you mean by "Britain". At one point, the ruling dynasty in England (the Plantagenets) controlled vast parts of France directly, and even laid claim to the throne of France itself. Maybe you've heard of the Hundred Years War? The term Angevin Empire (Angevin after Anjou, the region of France where the family originated.) is sometimes used for the continental possessions of the English Royal Family at this time; however this was long before the concept of the nation state ever existed, so speaking of "countries" as we mean them in the modern sense doesn't work here. (post EC reply to 140.142) Excepting that the Norse invaded and took over England, see Cnut the Great. There's nothing problematic about that, it actually happened, just in the other direction. --Jayron32 03:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It would seem that England, and later the UK, actively followed the colonial policy that many ascribe to them: let the foreigners bicker around on the continent, and focus on the colonial empire. Such a policy meant a natural double role for the navy: support the colonies, and prevent an invasion. This would have been supported by the fact that several French attempts at invading England and one very famous Spanish one had been unsuccessful. Similarly, Britain was often defeated on the European stage: the Seven Years' War, for example, saw several losses in Europe (and in general, the leaving-the-war-there-to-someone-else policy). Britain's personal union with the Kingdom of Hannover would have allowed European meddling, but the British clearly had no appetite for such complicated politics. So I think the story is of a line of thinking that became gradually reinforced; from the times the the Tudors lost Britain's remaining lands in France, and before that had spent vast sums attempting to maintain them, through to a colonial period characterised by the Seven Years' War where British colonialism was seen as a great success, and so a priority. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Building on some of the earlier comments, a long string English monarchs (some of whom were also British monarchs) would have perceived their claims over France as reconquest of what was rightfully theirs, rather than the POV-laden "take over" of the question. But I don't think any of them can genuinely be regarded as having made a genuine stab at taking much more than a bit of the continent at a time. The closest is probably Edward I. He owned England and a chunk of France, conquered Wales, came close to taking Scotland and at the time of his death, was trying to arrange for his son to not only get all of that, but also the norse inheritance of Margaret, Maid of Norway. But he failed. And that's still a long way short of "Europe". The OP should also consider that Britain, even in Empire days, has for centuries seen itself predominantly as a maritime power - see Britannia rules the waves. As an aside, User:Clio the Muse would have loved this question, if not my answer. --Dweller (talk) 10:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Article 5 of ICJ Statute

Article 5 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice prescribes:

"At least three months before the date of the election, the Secretary-General of the United Nations shall address a written request to the members of the Permanent Court of Arbitration belonging to the states which are parties to the present Statute, and to the members of the national groups appointed under Article 4, paragraph 2, inviting them to undertake, within a given time, by national groups, the nomination of persons in a position to accept the duties of a member of the Court."

Can anyone please explain this provision in normal language to me? I've read it repeatedly but I still don't clearly understand it. Especially, I don't understand why the phrase "by national groups" is there; not knowing what is the function of that phrase (to deal with the phrase "within a given time" in order to express the meaning that such time is given by the national groups?).

Thank you so much. --Aristitleism (talk) 19:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't really understand it either, but I'll have a go. My reading is that "by national groups" is independent of "within a given time", and it means the nomination is to be carried out by national groups. As best quick googling can tell, the national groups are the up-to-four people each state has on the Permanent Court of Arbitration or has appointed by Art 4 para 2 which basically says "exactly the same conditions apply". [5] is an Irish Foreign Ministry page sort of indicating that. [6] seems to be about the (proposed?) similar organisation for the Arab League, and section 3.2.1 is a discussion of the system of nomination to the ICJ. Does that make any more sense? 95.150.23.60 (talk) 00:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

But I understand that the Secretary-General requests both (1) the members of the Permanent Court of Arbitration and (2) the members of the national groups to make the nomination, isn't that correct? I also think that "by national groups" is independent of "within a given time" because there is comma between them. However, I still don't know the truly purpose/function of the phrase "by national groups". That's why I don't really understand this provision. --Aristitleism (talk) 07:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

No I think the national groups are the only ones who make the nominations. This includes the national groups who are part of the Permanent Court of Arbitration and some other national groups. Perhaps some of the confusion arises because of the part about 'members of the national groups appointed under Article 4, paragraph 2' which reflects the fact the article shouldn't be read in isolation. If you read article 4 paragraph 2 [7] it's clearly referring to national groups appointed by UN members who are not a part of the Permanent Court of Arbitration.

The 'within a given time' is I presume either instructing the SG to give a time frame or indicating that the national groups have a limited time to make the nominations and aren't supposed to try to hold up the process by refusing to nominate anyone.

Note that International Court of Justice also says it is the national groups who make the nominations. See also [8] which discusses the national groups in the PCA and how they can nominate members for the ICJ. BTW from the above linked article on the PCA, only 112 out of the current 193 (well I've included the newest member South Sudan for the 193 but not the 112 but it's possible they've already joined the PCA, Sudan was part) indicating somewhat why the Article 4 Paragraph 2 thing is needed.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

So, the function of the phrase "by national groups" (after "within a given time") is to merely emphasise that the "nomination of persons in a position to..." is to be made "by national groups" (those requested by the UN secretary-general according to such provision)? --Aristitleism (talk) 08:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Probably yes. This would be opposed to the nomination by the various members ambassadors to the UN or some other such person/s and would also be opposed to each member of the PCA giving their own individual nominations (perhaps the more important point). Note that since there are up to four members who are part of a national group, there is obviously a big difference between each member and each national group making nominations. And there are limits on the nominations (no more then four nor double the members that need to be elected and no two from one country). BTW I've made some minor changes to my above comment which I only saved after you replied. Nil Einne (talk) 08:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it's talking about the United Nations Regional Groups? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it has nothing at all to do with the UN Regional Groups. A "national group" is a group of individuals from one nation, as Nil Einne has explained. Mathew5000 (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

To understand Article 5, you first have to read Article 4 thoroughly. For each state, its "national group" is either (a) in the case of states who are parties to both the ICJ and the PCA, the group of up to four arbitrators on the PCA from that state, or (b) in the case of states who are parties to the ICJ but not the PCA, a group of up to 4 individuals appointed by the government of the state for this special purpose.

Now looking closely at Article 5 paragraph 1, it speaks of a written request. The written request is not addressed to the state governments, but rather to the individuals who are members of the PCA, i.e. to the arbitrators themselves. (Additionally, the request is sent to the individuals belonging to national groups, if any, appointed under Article 4 paragraph 2.) So all of these individuals have received this written request from the UN Secretary-General, requesting nominations of judges to the ICJ. But the nominations are to be undertaken "by national groups". So for example, suppose I am one of the four arbitrators from Canada who is a member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration. I would receive this written request from the UN Secretary-General, and I would then sit down with the other three Canadian arbitrators who are members of the PCA. Then the four of us (constituting the Canadian "national group") would collectively send back to the Secretary-General our nomination(s). That's the meaning of "by national groups" in Article 5 paragraph 1. Without those three words, I as an individual member of the PCA could just write back to the Secretary-General with my nomination for an ICJ judge, and some other Canadian member could write to the Secretary-General with different nominations. But since Article 5 paragraph 1 specifies that the nominations are to be undertaken "by national groups", the four Australians on the PCA must agree among themselves, the three Bahrainians on the PCA must agree among themselves, the four Cameroonians on the PCA must agree among themselves, and so on and so forth. Mathew5000 (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Forming one's own country

How to establish one's own country? --Mango0099 (talk) 08:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps Declaration of independence and Micronation will be of interest. 130.88.73.71 (talk) 10:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course, none of the Micronations are actually "recognized" as countries, they're basically composed of members of fringe political groups who decided that they didn't want to follow the laws of the countries they were residents of. --Jayron32 12:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The argument that I have heard some micronations make is that Article 3 of Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (an "accepted as part of customary international law," according to our article) states that "The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. " Ergo, "recognition" should not be required. However, in practice, I believe this tends to be overlooked by most countries. ^Avic_ennasis @ 06:44, 19 Tamuz 5771 / 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Queen proposing

Who made up the rule that Queen regnants had to propose to their husbands? And has all European queen regnant in modern age proposed to their husbands like Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II, ie. Portugal, Spain, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg (although only Grand Duchesses)? Did Queen Mary I propose to Philip of Spain or was it the other way around? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 11:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Do queen regnants have to propose to their husbands? A number of sources say Philip proposed to Elizabeth.[9][10][11] --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Although Elizabeth wasn't queen at the time, if that makes a difference. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Victoria's decision to propose marriage to her cousin Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha was anything other than her own personal sense of majestic responsibility. If she was observing any "rule" it was, rather, the pre-20th century custom that restrained persons of inferior but dignified rank from approach their betters to beg boons. The situation was awkward because by the time of their courtship, affection was expected to play a part in the betrothal, so it was no longer left to court ministers to simply negotiate an international marriage treaty. Yet it would have seemed importunate for a petty princeling to make a request of a powerful monarch that was at once so important, intimate and aggrandizing. Plus their mutual Uncle Leopold probably nudged her along. I've never heard of any other female sovereign, before or afterwards, doing likewise. But I admire her for it. FactStraight (talk) 05:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Aside: "Queens regnant" is better usage than "Queen regnants", since regnant is an adjective rather than the noun. Compare secretaries general. Brammers (talk/c) 08:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Philip of Spain had already become King of Naples when the marriage negotiations started and was thus equal to the Queen of England. Surtsicna (talk) 08:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

American liberals vs socialists

What is the difference between American liberals and socialists? --79df (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Liberals are generally linked with Democratic Party (United States); see Liberalism in the United States. The Socialist Party USA is socialist(!) and the article has a little info on its policies: widespread public ownership and workers' control of corporations are key, as well as publicly owned free healthcare; its official website has more details[12]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) "Socialist" is a very vague term nowadays, because many parties in Europe retain their names from a more leftist period. The OP should explain whether s/he means "socialists" as in the French socialist party, for instance (just left of centre, not too different from American liberals), or "socialists" in the sense of "proponents of socialism", i.e. proponents of an economic system different from capitalism, where factories, companies and land aren't private property (like Socialist Party USA). People who call themselves "socialists" in the USA are likely to be of the second type, I think.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

By socialist, I mean anti-capitalist people who advocate public ownership of key industries, public ownership of healthcare and education sector, free healthcare, free and compulsory education (these are controversial issues and I'm not interested in the debate whether these so-called "free" something are good or bad) for poor, and maximum "redistribution of wealth" by imposing maximum taxes on riches. Private business, if exist, according to them should be taxed heavily. They also advocate maximum "minimum wage", rigid labor laws, oppose hire and fire policy, opposed to property rights. Socialists also believe that owners of capital exploit the workers, this is why public ownership is the solution to stop "exploitation", as they call it, of workers. Do American liberals have these beliefs? --79df (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Your definition of "socialist" is a rather weird hybrid, an attempt to combine the two distinct types of "socialism" that I mentioned and seems to be influenced by right-wing propaganda. It doesn't exactly match any existent type of "socialist". Lumping together moderate positions such as high taxes and free education with radical positions such as the confiscation of all private property is completely artificial. A "socialist socialist" does not focus on taxes on the rich, because, in view of the public ownership of the economy, the rich wouldn't exist. Saying that taxing the rich to provide education is the same as abolishing private property is absurd.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 12:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The positions I described above are democratic socialist positions, as opposed to classical socialism (dictatorship of the proletariat). Classical socialists advocate forceful confiscation of private property, democratic socialists do not. Their means of achieving socialism and eradication of capitalism are different, but their fundamental view is same. --79df (talk) 12:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

A modern day "democratic socialist" is afraid of the very word "nationalization". I don't know what you mean by "forceful" confiscation - classical socialists were not united in wanting a revolution, confiscation or even buying by the democratically elected state could have worked, too (though I suppose that specifically Marx wouldn't believe in that possibility). The fundamental view is not the same - European "reformed" socialists and American liberals want to keep capitalism and inequality and just mitigate their negative effects a bit by occasional interventions of state policy. Classical socialists don't want any capitalism and any inequality. The difference is enormous, although if one is located in the opposite end of the political spectrum, both will seem like anathema to one. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 13:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Free health care and compulsory education are not socialist positions, except in the rhetoric of US right-wingers. They are entirely mainstream in most developed market democracies. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To OP's questions immediately above Stephen Schulz's response: In that case, no. On the political continuum, the Democratic Party (America's "Left-Center" party) comes closer to that than the Republican Party (America's "Right-Center" party) does, but that's not saying much. Generally, some of those issues are well supported by both parties, some by neither, but in general the Democratic Party comes closer. For example, both parties in general fully support free and compulsory education (A very small number of Republicans and some members of the Libertarian Party, a small "third party", oppose it) and both parties support major health and welfare programs like Social Security and Medicare. That is, even the conservative Republican Party has no desire to dismantle these programs, and supports them fully. Neither party supports completely free or government provided healthcare (though the Democrats support implementing Medicare-like programs for a greater number of people). Neither party AT ALL supports government ownership of major industrial sectors, or oppose property rights, and neither party supports "redistributing wealth", though the Democrats generally favor meeting budget shortfalls by increasing the government's income, usually through increased taxes, while the Republicans generally favor doing the same by reducing expenditures instead. --Jayron32 12:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The GOP has put forward certain proposals, which have been cited by its opponents in accusations that it wants to privatize both Social Security and Medicare, even though it avoids these exact terms.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 12:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)Part of the problem is that your assumptions about Socialism aren't actually Socialist views. They sound more like classical Communism, which no nation has ever actually achieved.

Some socialists endeavor to implement communism, but not the majority. The American brand of liberalism generally accepts our mixed-market economy, with more emphasis on social programs than conservative Laissez-faire economics. The majority of American liberals are still conservative by European standards. There are a few on the fringe who could be called actual Socialists, but the majority of American liberals are still pretty centrist with their policies. American politicians are very unlikely to be truly "anti-capitalist," nor are they for true "redistribution of wealth." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you have misconception on the meaning of communism. Do you know what does communism mean? Communism is a social system which is be both classless and stateless. The term "communist state" (which is widely used in popular culture) is an oxymoron because communist social order and the state can't co-exist.. Soviet Union was a socialist state. As Marx said, socialism will be the transition phase from capitalist social order (society divided among capitalists and workers) to communist social order (classless and stateless society). Classical socialism (USSR) is dictatorship of the proletariat (single-party rule by a workers' vanguard party), democratic socialism is socialist economic policies within a democratic political framework (multiparty electoral system). The positions I described above are democratic socialist positions, as opposed to classical socialism (USSR). --79df (talk) 12:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

79df, HandThatFeeds uses "socialism" and "communism" in the sense of political ideologies/groupings (of "socialists" and "communists"), not the narrowly Marxian use of the terms in the sense of different stages in the development of a society. The same applies to my response to him. Both uses of the terms are "correct", just in different contexts.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

HandThatFeeds, classical socialism was the same as communism. The current "pro-capitalism socialists" are a recent phenomenon. When the term "communist" came to be used to denote something distinct from "socialist", it was only to designate members of Lenin's Third International as opposed to other socialists. Both groups had public ownership of the economy as the ultimate aim, and that aim had been characteristic of all socialists long before Lenin.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Right, both classical socialists (violent overthrow of capitalism) and democratic socialists (gradual overthrow of capitalism) believe owners of capital exploit the workers. This is the main diagnostic feature of a socialist. Thus both classical and democratic socialists are two sub-species of the same species. Some democratic socialists advocate public ownership of all means of production, other democratic socialists advocate imposing high taxes on owners of capital, implementing rigid labor laws, and then redistribute the wealth among the workers as an alternative to government ownership. These two kinds of democratic socialists (advocate of absolute public ownership and advocate of moderate public ownership with strong redistribution mechanism) are phenotypically different, but genotypically similar. --79df (talk) 13:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @IP91, classical socialism was a step towards communism, but not one-and-the same. Yes, you're correct that public ownership of the economy was the ultimate aim, but socialism veered away from that very quickly. Hence, my distinction between socialism and true communism (which would be the end-product of those goals).

@79df you miss the distinction. Or, you're applying a very strict definition of socialism. If that's the case, American liberals have nothing to do with socialists as you understand them. They lean towards social programs & tighter regulation, but have no desire to sublimate all commerce & property into government hands. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

"Very quickly" is a relative term. The non-communist socialists didn't have to renounce the ultimate goal officially, since they could just postpone it constantly in view of their "reformist", gradualist strategy. I recall reading that as late as the beginning Mitterrand's presidency, the French socialists were seriously thinking of nationalizing industries. About that time, the great rightward change began, and now the European "socialists" are often even seen privatizing instead of nationalizing.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Do not American liberals have similarity with the second type of democratic socialists (implementing a "redistribution" mechanism by imposing high taxes on riches and then using that tax money for "social welfare" polices as an alternative to common ownership of property)? --79df (talk) 13:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Not really. Calling taxation "redistribution" is a bit of a stretch, as the taxes are used for far more than just social programs. And, under the current circumstances, it's revoking the tax cuts for the rich that are being discussed, not new taxation. The thing to keep in mind is that American liberals (and some conservatives) support social programs like federal parks, basic education and health inspection. But, there's no attempt to make "common ownership of property" at all. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

"Redistribution of wealth is the transfer of income, wealth or property from some individuals to others caused by a social mechanism such as taxation, monetary policies, welfare." BTW, progressive taxation is violation of equality before law because it discriminates against the riches. --79df (talk) 14:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Mainstream American liberals are not really interested in redistribution of income per se. They are interested in making sure that, in a rich society, nobody goes hungry or is denied needed medical care. They think that the cost of achieving those goals should be shared according to people's ability to pay. They are not opposed to inequality of wealth or to capitalism, per se. They do see a role for government regulation where the market has failed to meet society's needs, in areas such as financial intermediation or healthcare provision, but this hardly amounts to opposition to capitalism as an underlying economic system.

As for the notion that progressive taxation violates equality before the law, that is debatable. Everyone at a given income level is treated equally, according to law. Laws by their nature have to discriminate. Should children under the age of 5 be allowed to drive? Aren't laws preventing them from doing so a violation of equal treatment? The fact is that people over the age of 16 or so are better able to drive. Similarly, people over a given income level are better able to pay. Another example would be a law regulating a military draft during a time of national emergency. Such a law would target people within an age range best able to provide the service needed. Would the draft law's exemption of people under the age of 16 and over the age of 65 count as a violation of equality under law for those aged 16–65? Few people would make such an argument. Marco polo (talk) 14:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

False analogy. Barring children from driving is based on the harm principle with which taxation has nothing to do. Just as you can't fly an aircraft without proper training (because there is possibility of crash killing the untrained pilot and other innocent people), children can't drive and they can't be trained unless they reach maturity. And conscription is involuntary servitude, which is a more formal term for slavery. Proponents of conscription justify draft using social contract theory. "American liberals are interested in making sure that, in a rich society, nobody goes hungry or is denied needed medical care. They think that the cost of achieving those goals should be shared according to people's ability to pay." - it is also based on social contract theory. Whenever a government forces someone do something against their will (violates free will of an agent), whether it is draft, taxation, abridgement of personal freedom, anti-terror laws, or violation of privacy, they justify it using social contract theory. It is a matter of broader debate whether social contract a valid theory or not, but it is not the right place for that. --79df (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You're right that this is not the right place for debate. But, you seem to have made up your mind on certain things (ie. "conscription = slavery"), so I wonder what you're actually wanting us to answer. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Marco polo sums it up very well. There's no legal basis for the claim that a tiered or progressive tax is discriminatory, and the phrase "redistribution of wealth" has been turned into a pejorative phrase used by American anti-tax proponents. American liberals aren't anti-capitalist, but they are for regulations that protect consumers & workers. To pure Capitalists, I'm sure this appears to be an abridgment of freedom. Most Americans don't see it that way, though. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's sum it up: The traditional definition of socialism is belief in the public ownership of the means of production, like when the UK nationalized its steel industry. Nowadays, a lot of "socialist" parties, so named because they or their predecessors once advocated that position, no longer believe in it. Today's socialists sometimes say they believe in "a market economy but not a market society." In other words, they're just people on the left wing. It gets more confusing when you bring in the word "liberal." Originally, and to this day in most of the world, a "liberal" is one who supports a free market and human rights. In the U.S., a "liberal" is someone on the left (although probably not as left-wing as socialists in Europe, American politics generally being far to the right of other developed countries). For the U.S., we can say a liberal is a moderate left-winger and a socialist a more hardcore left-winger, but those definitions are not necessarily the only ones. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

So the conclusion is socialists are in the fringes of American political spectrum, right? --79df (talk) 01:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Generally speaking, yes, true "socialists", under any normal definition of the word, lie pretty far outside of the mainstream of American political thought, and the main platforms of the two major parties don't include a whole lot of socialist doctrine. Though both parties have a few tenuous connections to actual socialism, neither party would properly be described as "socialist". It may be better to think about both parties as essentially captalist, free marketers, with the Democrats favoring economic supports for labor, and the Republicans favoring economic supports for management: neither one supports socialism, per se, but both find their base in different parts of the free market. --Jayron32 02:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

However, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont is a Social Democrat (probably more social democrat) who runs as an independent, though he does caucus with the Democrats. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

However Sen. Sanders (Independent) thinks, acts and votes in practice, he's always called himself a socialist or democratic socialist. That doesn't, of course, exclude his being a social democrat, too. (I've always thought of myself as both a democratic socialist and a social democrat.) —— Shakescene (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Ramayana: Disambiguation

Recently I came to know about the largest Indonesian departmental stores chain called Ramayana. Since Ramayana is a Hindu epic and Indonesia is the world's largest Muslim country, I think it is of interest and a disambiguation could be relevant. I want to know about your decision in this matter.

Also, though I have done some editing, I don't know how to handle a disambiguation. Can some editors handle it if I send you the text (if the suggestion is Okayed)?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shillog (talk • contribs) 12:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

this question is really for the Wikipedia:Help desk instead of the reference desk. That said, it's really not necessary to do a new disambiguation page for it. If the store chain has enough references, you can create Ramayana (store) and use Template:Redirect at the top of the main Ramayana page to let people know about the other option, or just add it to Ramayana (disambiguation). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Where do scriptures say that ancestors' sins are inherited?

Some argue that aborted babies go to Hell because of the original sin. I haven't seen any verse saying that ancestors' sins are inherited? --70.179.165.67 (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Exodus 20:5,6 − "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD, your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments." (part of the Ten Commandments)

Ezekiel 18:1-3 − Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying, "What do you mean by using this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, 'The fathers eat the sour grapes, But the children’s teeth are set on edge'? As I live," declares the Lord GOD, "you are surely not going to use this proverb in Israel anymore. Behold, all souls are Mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is Mine. The soul who sins will die." —Akrabbim^talk 15:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you'll find any serious theologians espousing the view that aborted babies go to hell. The modern conception of original sin is more akin to "imperfection". Humans are created with free will and so have the ability to choose to be less than they were intended -- hence, we can choose to deviate from our divine origins and so to introduce imperfection (i.e., sin). As for "inheriting sin", the modern interpretation is not that sin is a genetic abberation, but that it is a socially commnicable disease. When one sins, one damages community and (by example) encourages others to do likewise. Wikiant (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Aborted babies may not go to Hell, but live-birth babies who die before being able to be baptised go to Limbo, not to Heaven. So says the Catholic Church's teaching on original sin. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no it doesn't. Some Catholics have taught that unbaptised babies and children go to Limbo, but Limbo for the unbaptised is not official Church teaching: it is not in the Catechism. There are been official statements stating that it is not official dogma. The Church actually says that we can't know what happens to unbaptised babies and children, although if their parent wanted them to be baptised they may have the so-called 'baptism of desire' at death. Since we know the ordinary situation requires someone to be baptised to enter Heaven ("No one can enter Heaven unless he is born again of water and the Holy Spirit"), but we also know God is not bound by his sacraments, we can simply hope, and baptise babies whenever possible to be safe. We do know (according to Catholic teaching) that God will make a just and merciful decision, whatever that is, so we can hope that the unbaptised children are in Heaven. 86.164.72.255 (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that correction to my long-standing misconception, which came from what I was taught by my Christian Brothers school and my priests, and reinforced by my parents. My sister was born very premature and was not expected to live, so she was immediately baptised in the hospital to ensure her passage through the pearly gates, as otherwise she'd have remained in Limbo for eternity, or so the family story has always gone. In the event, she pulled through and is very much alive. I must inform my mother that she and my late father are guilty of having unwittingly spread theological inexactitudes, and may technically be heretics. I doubt she'll lose any sleep over it, though. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The "unbaptised infants to Limbo" idea was commonly espoused and taught until recent decades. There was a TV documentary shown in the UK about people in Ireland who are trying to get the Church to help them find the unmarked and unconsecrated spots where their children and relatives are buried. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Itsyoujudith. I knew I wasn't mis-remembering what I thought I was taught. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The argument laid out by the IP is the Church's current teaching, much more humane. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't meaning to say Jack wasn't taught it (I thought that was clear in 'some Catholics have taught that...'). It was certainly taught as if it were dogma by certain 'enthusiastic' Catholics, but it wasn't actually dogma. It wasn't defined until recently, when the magisterium clarified that it wasn't official dogma at all (which isn't to say some don't believe it). A Catholic parent in Jack's parents' position would still be encouraged to perform the emergency baptism, because we can hope that unbaptised babies go to Heaven (although we cannot know for sure), but we know that a baptised baby definitely will. So the real change has been in emphasising our trust in God's mercy and justice, and clarifying that the extra 'location' wasn't dogma. When people bemoan the lack of factual (Catechism) learning in modern Catholic education, and the emphasis on loving God and one another, I think they forget how many wrong things were taught by over-enthusiastic teachers, and passed on down the generations, without the grounding of love. 86.164.73.177 (talk) 08:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-- Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." (Ezekiel 18:20) 99.2.148.119 (talk) 18:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It looks like you didn't get the update. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but interpretations of the NT vary, especially books outside the Gospels. Also, there's Jews, Muslims and other assorted religions based off the OT to consider. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a not-so-uncommon belief, especially in the Southern United States. People who hear this opinion espoused can be turned away from God, disgusted by this injustice. The matter of fact, though, is that God is "perfect... all his ways are justice" (Duet. 32:4). The Bible also promises everlasting life to righteous ones; even more so "a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous" (Acts 24:15). In a relatively short time period (Judgement Day (hint: it's not one day)) these righteous and unrighteous will have 'proved his or her worth,' so to speak, whence the unrighteous will be cut off, i.e. destroyed forever.
The point being here is that the belief in a torment in Hellfire teaches a perverted form of everlasting life, wheres The Bible teaches the exact opposite. Schyler (one language) 00:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

As has been pointed out to you numerous times, it is disingenuous to stealthily present JW doctrine as if it were consensus Christian doctrine. Per our Christian views on Hell article, hell rather than obliteration remains the theological majority view (if not literal "hellfire"; I've no real idea there), and the Watchtower bible has significant deviations from mainline translations. — Lomn 02:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Since the questioner didn't specify which scriptures they are asking about, we might as well have a variety of perspectives. 99.2.148.119 (talk) 07:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

@92.2.148.119: The problem here is not that Schyler is presenting the Jehovah's Witness perspective on the issue. That perspective is more than welcome. The issue is that he presents that perspective as though it were the only perspective, or presents it in such a way as to mask that he is speaking for a single faith, and instead represent that he is somehow speaking for all faiths. Its fine to present the perspective of different faiths, it is not fine to present those perspectives as if it were self-evident that all people should believe them. --Jayron32 17:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it traditional for religious people to speak as if their faiths are the only true faiths? I'm not saying it's not a problem, just that it's not unexpected or unusual in any way for persons of all strong faiths to do so. 76.202.153.93 (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe that my faith is the only true faith. However, I do not assume that others believe as I do. There is a distinction between knowing what I believe, and assuming that because I believe it, everyone else in the world does as well. I may think that they should believe what I believe, but that's a different issue. If they do not, I cannot speak as though they do. --Jayron32 20:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Traditional Jewish interepretation of the Exodus verse is that if you hate God, you get punished for your forefathers' sins as well as your own. If you love God, however, you're off the hook of ancestral sin. I have no idea if progressive Judaism has a different view or not, but it's an interesting counter-point to the Christian concept of Original sin. Does anyone know if there is a single Muslim view on the subject or if it is the subject of debate? --Dweller (talk) 10:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

July 21

Mark Anthony Stroman

Mark Anthony Stroman is set to die at 6 p.m. (7 p.m. ET) today. When and where will the execution (or a last-minute reprieve) be announced? 88.8.79.148 (talk) 00:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The criminal in question is being held at Allan B. Polunsky Unit (3872 FM 350 South, Livingston, TX 77351). Schyler (one language) 00:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I mean, would they announce the execution on one of these web-pages? 88.8.79.148 (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the TDCJ is very good at updating this web page, putting the name of the executed on the list the very next day. Schyler (one language) 00:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• You are right on that. The list was updated with the execution nr. 472. 88.8.79.148 (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't Texas twit about the executions? Come on, everyone is on Twitter nowadays. Otherwise, try CNN.Quest09 (talk) 00:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing the department has a spokesman or spokeswoman whom the media can reach in the evening. The AP would call, make sure the guy actually died and put it on the wires, at which point other media would see it. Or maybe the department sends out press releases on these occasions? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's an article from BBC about his execution. BurtAlert (talk) 05:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

He was executed at 9:53 p.m. Eastern. 99.2.148.119 (talk) 07:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Some might call it linguistic pedantry but I would like to insist that he wasn't executed. The sentence of death was executed. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is linguistic pedantry. "To put to death especially in compliance with a legal sentence" is the third of eight definitions Merriam-Webster gives for "execute." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Since the late 15th Century it has been used to mean 'inflict capital punishment on [someone]'. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Dictionaries record actual usage; they do not prescribe correct usage. To execute just means 'to actually do something you were preparing to do'. It is still the sentence of death which is being executed. I doubt you will find a usage before the late 19th century which uses the word 'execute' in connection with a sentence of death and doesn't state it was the the sentence which was executed. This may be a case where widespread incorrect usage has continued unchallenged so that few now recognise it as such, but I for one think it is still worth resisting and pointing out. Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

So, you acknowledge this usage has been widespread since the late 19th century, that is, for the past approximately 125 years, but still decry it as "incorrect". Can words never change their meanings or take on additional meanings? Language change is one of those strange phenomena that must be resisted with all possible force while they're happening, but clasped to one's bosom with all insensate speed when they've finished happening. This one finished happening a very long time ago. Time to do some bosom-clasping, methinks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Do not go gentle into that good night. Rage, rage against the dying of the light. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Gough Whitlam would be proud of you, Sam. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Franz Joseph I of Austria

Is there any photo or portrait of Franz Joseph I of Austria as a child or young man? It seems like all you ever see is the old Emperor with his handlebar beard.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 08:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The corresponding category on Commons has a couple of him as a young man, including this one. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 08:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Rationale of not letting people leave a socialist country

What explanation did (or do) socialist or communist countries gave to explain why they didnt let people emigrate? If it was paradise, it would be possibly a quite difficult idea to defend... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.8.79.148 (talk) 12:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

In the case of East Germany, you can read their explanation in the article Republikflucht. But note that forbidding people from leaving is a mark of authoritarian countries in general, not just communist ones (Nazi Germany was pretty strongly anticommunist, but it was as difficult to get out of as East Germany was a few years later), and some communist countries (like the PRC) have no problem allowing their citizens to emigrate. Angr (talk) 12:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that even freedom-loving democracies have denied passports for dissidents. During the McCarthy years it was not uncommon for prominent leftist scientists and activists to have their passports revoked so that they could not spread "anti-American propaganda" or "help the Communist cause" abroad. Examples of this that come to mind include Linus Pauling and Frank Oppenheimer (in the latter case, it essentially forced him to stop doing research science, as his admission to having once been a Communist kept him from being employable in a US university, whereas India and Brazil would have happily taken him; he had to become a cattle rancher, in the end, and wait out McCarthyism). Freedom of travel from the USA is not guaranteed — passports and exiting country are done at the discretion of the Department of State, and can be (and have been) influenced politically. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

In theory, I think, you don't need a passport to leave a country, only to be admitted somewhere else. The text starts out with the Secretary of State praying all those to whom these presents shall come to give all lawful protection yada yada yada. So if India had sent a ship for Oppenheimer and he had kayaked out to the three mile limit to meet it, I don't think any US law would have been broken. Can't say I'm sure though. --Trovatore (talk) 20:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

True... it is really a matter of scale. In non-authoritarian states, a specific individual may have the right to emigrate restricted or denied, but the norm is to allow emigration without restriction. In authoritarian states this is reversed... a specific individual may be granted permission to emigrate, but the norm is to deny. Blueboar (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course, "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country" (emphasis mine), according to the sometimes inconvenient Universal Declaration of Human Rights. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Paul Robeson was another that had his passport revoked. Has the legality of doing this under the US Constitution ever been challenged? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

This is not to say that it is applicable for the Paul Robeson case; but in general "universal rights" are revoked all the time in free societies as part of the due process of law, for example persons accused of serious crimes may be denied freedom of movement, everything from being placed under travel restrictions and/or placed in jail without bond until the trial. Such revokations of a person's individual liberties are not supposed to be taken lightly in a free society, but it is also expected that a person's freedom is not limited by his fellow persons either, and if a society does not restrict the movements of, say, serial killers and armed thugs and other elements of society, then who is left to be free? Again, nothing in specifics here, just that "universal" rights are never really "universal" in the sense of "every single person can do these things for their entire life from birth to death and no one can ever stop them for any reason." --Jayron32 17:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Comparing it with the restrictions on criminals and accused criminals is a straw man. The UNDHR does not stop people from incarcerating non-political criminals ("This right [of asylum from persecution] may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."). Anyway, in the case of US passports, it's not clear there is any due process involved in these cases. There are no organs for appeal, there is no overview, there is no transparency, there are not even any standardized guidelines about what disqualified one for a passport in these cases. It was an arbitrary political decision without any process whatsoever other than "He wants a passport? Fat chance!" As to the Constitutionality of it, courts have affirmed some recent versions of this (with more due process than the McCarthyism, and related to child support payments, not politics) as legal, claiming that international travel is not (!) a basic right guaranteed by the Constitution. But it is controversial. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Then there's the perspective that you may be able to leave, but not to go to certain places. Not aware of any such restrictions in my country, but I believe it's difficult for Americans to leave home if their plan is to visit Cuba. HiLo48 (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I once asked a Czech man who had spent the first 30 or 35 years of his life under communism how the authorities defended not letting people leave the country. He said, "You don't understand. They didn't need to explain. There was no debating under communism." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

That's certainly the experience of a citizen in the Soviet case as well. It wasn't just that people's movement outside of the country was controlled — during most of it, their movement within the country was also heavily regulated, proscribed, etc. It was just how things were. But there probably were elaborate theoretical justifications created by Party hacks — probably along the lines of the GDR article linked to above. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Cuba is the only country I know of that Americans are expressly prohibited by law from traveling to (by the Helms–Burton Act, though there are now a number of circumstances in which people can travel there legally, and it is not unknown to vacation there illegally by traveling first to Mexico). --Mr.98 (talk) 01:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly Mr.98. US citizens can travel to Cuba, but US companies are not allowed to make business with it (hence, no direct flights). Technically, the problem isn't that you can't visit Cuba, it's what you do with your money. There are no travel restrictions imposed by the State Department, or by Homeland Security. The restrictions are trade sanctions. 88.8.79.148 (talk) 12:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

No earnt income, but living off....?

According to this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14235330 he earns no income. So who is he living off? 2.97.212.150 (talk) 16:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

"Earned income" or "income from earnings" is a defined term in most tax systems. It refers (usually) to pay from employment. If Prince Andrew is not employed, if he doesn't have a job with a pay cheque, then he does not have earned income. He may, however, have income and/or dividends from investments, including real property, income from a family trust, an allowance from his parents, or off his wife's income. Please note: these are just possibilities. I don't follow the royals closely enough to know wherefrom he derives his funds. Bielle (talk) 16:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

He receives payments from the Civil list (which are then reimbursed by the Queen, so in reality he is supported by the Queen). --Tango (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

By the Queen? Your certainly mean by the UK tax payers... 88.8.79.148 (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

No, he means by the Queen. Please start your own thread for your trolling. DuncanHill (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The civil list article and [13] suggests you may be mistaken. Only the Queen (and possibly Duke of Edinburgh) receives payments from the civil list (there's some confusion over this, see my comment on the article talk page). Parliamentary annuities are used to meet office costs of the Duke of York although these are repaid by the queen from her private funds. In other words, the Duke of York doesn't receive anything from the civil list, some funding comes from parliamentary annuities (which are repaid by the queen) but these are only used for office costs, his other funds e.g. for personal expenditure either come from elsewhere I presume either his savings & investments (e.g. [14]) or the queens. (Well I presume some funding is met directly by government departments particularly in his former role as special representative (and actually I suspect most of the costs for that role including travel came from the government in some form). Nil Einne (talk) 22:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC) Note that this message was submitted at the time shown, however because of an error I accidentally removed the rest of the RD, sorry, so it was reverted and only readded at 08:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The confusion is probably just a matter of terminology. The annuities are provided for by the Civil List Act, but I may be incorrect to call them part of the civil list. --Tango (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

While Prince Charles has a large private income from his landholdings (Duchy of Cornwall, etc), Prince Andrew relies on money from his mother, reportedly around 250,000 GBP per year.[15] The Queen has a personal fortune of something like $500m, and does quite well from property and other investments.[16][17] --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Where did the Queen get her half billion fortune from? Update: the first link says shes worth $650M, the other $450M. If she's worth so much, why does she ask us for money to fix her roof? 92.28.254.185 (talk) 12:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Which roof? Remember that she does not actually own all the houses she stays in. She pays for the upkeep of the houses that are her private property (Balmoral Castle, Sandringham House, etc.) out of her own pocket. The "Crown" (ie the government) owns the others. Shouldn't the actual owner pay for fixing the roof? Blueboar (talk) 12:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Does she pay any rent? Does she pay any rent at the market value? 92.28.254.185 (talk) 13:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, in a way she does. Not in cash, but in services. Think of the Royals as being like advertising spokesmen (company mascots if you will)... All that riding around in carriages, waving, perform ceremonial ribbon cuttings, opening parliament, trooping colors, etc, is advertising for Great Brittan... it brings in lots and lots of tourist dollars and trade to Great Brittan. Their pay for doing all of that work is the right to live in a nice company house. The company pays for the upkeep. Only in this case, the company is the nation. Blueboar (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

"In a way she does..."?? So the short straight answer is "No, she dosnt". 92.28.254.185 (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The link by Nill Eine has some interesting points: we paid her £211M in 07/08 (no other years given) rather than the mere £7.9M people keep bleating on about. It says that no inheritance tax will be paid as a sovreign is unable to generate an income from business - but as Prince Charles is already worth hundreds of millions, and does indeed generate income from selling his branded goods, and similarly the Queen is a 1/2 billionaire and must generate a lot of income from her share portfolio etc, then does this mean that when Charles inherits, then inheritence tax will be paid? In fact looking at the Duchy Of Cornwall article, Prince Charles may already be a dollar billionaire. 92.28.254.185 (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, we must distinguish between personal wealth and "crown" wealth... between "The Queen" and "Betty Windsor". I would assume that Charles Windor will pay inheritance tax on that portion of the Betty Windor's personal wealth that he inherits (and other members of her family will pay tax on the portions they inherit)... but King Charles will not pay tax on the crown wealth when he becomes King. That is because that wealth has not legally changed hands. It will still be owned by the "crown"... its just that "the crown" has a new face (think of it as "corporate" property vs. personal property... a corporation doesn't pay inheritance tax on its factory buildings, just because the CEO dies in office and her son take over as the new CEO). Blueboar (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

You "assume" that they will pay tax, but the black and white print on the Royal website says they won't pay any tax at all. 92.28.254.185 (talk) 15:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Not quite... the black and white print (well... blank and purple print) says: Although The Queen's estate will be subject to Inheritance Tax, bequests from Sovereign to Sovereign are exempt. So... those funds that are included under a "Sovereign to Sovereign" bequest, those will be exempt... but not her entire estate. The unanswered question is: which part of her estate will be bequested "Sovereign to Sovereign"? Blueboar (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Er, that's bequeathed. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

So the part that goes to Prince Charles will be tax free. And then Prince Charles can keep on giving "gifts" to the rest of them. Hmmmn, does the Queen give regular tax-free gifts to her family and friends which they don't pay any income tax on? 92.28.245.233 (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The Times newspaper emblem/crest

Can anyone direct me to a website or source discussing the emblem or crest used by The Times newspaper in the UK? I've not managed to find anything on this topic... ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 17:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for stating what you might already know - the motto Honi soit qui mal y pense and the lion&unicorn heraldry is in common with the Order of the Garter. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 17:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

A Times article about its use, including the lack of official status for the arms, is on their own website here -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 19:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Aha, that's exactly the sort of thing I'm looking for. Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 11:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Advertising of Habitat (retailer) UK

Did Habitat advertise itself in recent years? I cannot remember the last time I saw an advert for Habitat, and had forgotten about it even though I had shopped there in the past. Does anyone know if the amount of advertising for Habitat was less than what it was when it was well known? 92.24.138.86 (talk) 19:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

This story talks about a new campaign they were going to run in 2009; so they apparently were advertising. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 19:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

List of 16 major world currencies

On the radio today I heard a news report referring to "the 16 major world currencies". I couldn't find any such list in Wikipedia. Searching Google News I found recent articles talking saying, for example, "The dollar depreciated against 14 of its 16 most-actively traded currencies" (source: San Francisco Chronicle) and "The UK currency dipped against 13 out of the 16 most actively traded currencies" (source: moneyex) so does that mean there is some standard list of 17 currencies? Or are there only 16? And what are they? Mathew5000 (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

this page groups the most traded currencies into three classes: Major, Minor, and Exotic as follows, based on volumes traded in the FOREX markets:

• Major:

• Euro
• US Dollar
• UK Pound Sterling
• Japanese Yen
• Swiss Franc

• Minor:

• Australian Dollar
• New Zealand Dollar
• Canadian Dollar

• Exotic (top exotic currencies listed there, actual list would include anything not listed above)

• Russian Ruble
• Chinese Yuan
• Brazilian Real
• Mexican Peso
• Chilean Peso
• Indian Rupee
• Iranian Rial

That's 15 currencies. The sixteenth probably comes from the nation with the highest GDP not covered by the above, which according to List of countries by GDP (PPP) is probably South Korea, which would make it the South Korean Won. Other possible candidates would be Turkey (the Turkish Lira), Taiwan (the Taiwan Dollar), Indonesia (the Indonesian Rupiah), or maybe the Hong Kong Dollar. If I were pressed to make a guess, I would put South Korea and Hong Kong as the most likely, given the amount of manufacturing and international business that goes on in those places. --Jayron32 20:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Our Currency pair article lists the 15 most actively traded currencies, as of 2010. The data apparently come from this report, which gives a more extensive list on page 12. Looie496 (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The article you mention is a Bloomberg News article. Bloomberg has a list of 17 "major currencies." They are those of: South Africa, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Brazil, Mexico, Australia, New Zealand, UK, Canada, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Japan, Switzerland and the U.S. as well as the euro. Bloomberg News articles are intended foremost for users of Bloomberg terminals, who might be able to get that list and find out how the currencies are all performing by clicking a link on the article on their terminals. -- 174.116.177.235 (talk) 23:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Mathew5000 (talk) 07:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The Hong Kong dollar is not on this list because it has a fixed exchange rate to the US dollar and is therefore not a freely traded currency with a floating exchange rate. The same is true for the other top "exotic" currencies listed in the first list, including China's yuan or renminbi. Marco polo (talk) 13:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the Chilean Peso floating and without any real exchange controls? (The Russian Ruble, Indian Rupee and Iranian Rial have a managed float and/or currency controls I believe). Nil Einne (talk) 19:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Horn of Africa famine

Reading about this Horn of Africa famine, I have to wonder: What are the underlying causes that perpetuate this? The awful climate? The lack of industrialization? Corruption up the wazoo? Terrorism?

A related question: When one thinks of Africa they can't help but think of tribes immediately. What has caused these people to continue living like this? What has caused Somalia to have so much trouble with piracy? How many other countries have this problem? -- 150.135.91.203 (talk) 20:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Poverty plus drought plus overpopulation plus lack of effective government. Looie496 (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say Somalia has so much trouble with piracy, it's more that it makes trouble with piracy. It all started when Somalis were trying to defend their fishing industry, and continued when they discovered how much well paid piracy is. 88.8.79.148 (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a lot of useful information at Economy of Africa. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The proximate cause is drought and that crosses national boundaries. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The main cause isn't the drought: States with effective and responsive governments are able to deal with stresses more effectively. The high level of corruption means there is little safety net, and problems in getting relief from non-drought areas. Countries with stable, trustworthy, democratic, and effective governments experience droughts, but don't necessarily experience famine on the levels that occur with some regularity in this part of the world. --Jayron32 23:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

As in many other African countries, the end of colonial rule left Somalia with very weak civic institutions and no tradition of stable indigenous government. Like other African countries, this left Somalia vulnerable to autocratic rule. Furthermore, the decision of European powers to give the overwhelmingly Somali Ogaden region to Ethiopia led to a series of bitter wars, such as the Ogaden War, between the two neighbors, further fueled by the Soviet Union and the United States, which treated the two countries as Cold War proxies. This led to the militarization of Somali society. Meanwhile, as a result of women's lack of education and strongly patriarchal traditions together with modern medicine and hygiene lowering the infant mortality rate, the population frankly outgrew the ability of Somalia's semiarid, drought-prone land to reliably support that population, while a lack of political stability and security hindered the development of a commercial urban economy that might have been able to earn the income needed for food imports. These economic stresses led to a loss of legitimacy for Somalia's autocratic government during the 1980s, which led to the Somali Civil War, which in a sense has not yet ended, and which has condemned the country to a downward spiral of economic decline, desperation, and vulnerability to famine.

Note that the drought also affects neighboring Kenya, but without the same dire consequences. Marco polo (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

All of those are excellent points, which add some historical context to my statements. I had a professor once who said "Famine is a man-made disaster", in that nearly all modern famines have been caused not by natural events, but by the inadequacy of the government and food-supply system to respond to natural events. In some cases (as in the Stalin famines in the Soviet Union) they are entirely created by the government in charge, and have no natural cause. Your explanation of the situation in Somalia (and the counterexample of Kenya) provides additional support for this. --Jayron32 16:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

What I said about "proximate cause" is perhaps not accurate. It's one factor, but I'm grateful for the informative posts about the Somalian political situation. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I agree that famine is a man-made disaster. At least not all the time. True political factors can greatly exacerbate a famine or transform a minor drought into a major famine, but surely there are cases where famines occurred which were reduced by human action rather then the opposite. Googlemeister (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding. The point is not that famines occur because of poor management. It is not people cannot stop or prevent famines — it's entirely the opposite of that. Famines in modern times essentially only occur because somebody is not running things well enough. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

A famine is a widespread scarcity of food, and has always occurred naturally in many areas, worldwide, for various reasons, many of them not the fault of local people or governments. Whether it leads to regional malnutrition, starvation, epidemic, and increased mortality depend on the ability and will of the people and governments of the affected area and of surrounding areas. Dbfirs 07:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Suetonius: The Lives of the Twelve Caesars

I notice here that Suetonius: The Lives of the Twelve Caesars seems to be in 8 books. Was there a Preface to this at one time?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 23:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The version at Project Gutenberg has a preface, but it appears that was written by the translator and not the author. It appears that the extant work just "dives right in" at Julius Caesar. Also, the Project Gutenberg version doesn't have the "8 book" divisions noted in yours; I don't know what Suetonius' original had. --Jayron32 23:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

July 22

Duty to try to make a profit

I thought that in the UK, directors etc of plcs had a legal duty of having making a profit as their overriding goal. So how come News International keeps The Times running at a loss? Wouldnt this be unlawful?

I heard somewhere that Rupert Murdoch only owns 7% of News International. So how come he is in control of it, and can run it as a family business with his children being given top jobs? 92.24.138.86 (talk) 00:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The owners of a corporation are its shareholders. The directors of a corporation are employees of those owners. The shareholders in general are going to be interested in profitmaking, but AFAIK there is no legal requirement that the shareholders cannot decide on other goals. In particular, it can be beneficial for a company to have some divisions which, on paper, lose money if the entire company makes more money as a result. If The Times individually runs at a loss (and I don't confirm that it is true what you say, I only take it as a "what if"), it may still provide value to the company by raising the overall prestige of the company, or in other ways. Lets simplify it by an analogy: If I run a company, and look at the books, and see that the Purchasing department is always in the red, it doesn't make sense for me to just divest my company of all Purchasing! The purpose of purchasing is to spend money, not make it. The money it spends hopefull provides me with value in other ways. So think of the Times as a division which may lose cash, but still provide value in other ways. As far as the second part of the question: The CEO of a company needn't be the majority shareholder. He just needs to be someone who is able to command the confidence of enough of the shareholders to keep the job. --Jayron32 00:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

News_Corporation#Shareholders indicated the Murdoch family owns more than 40% of shares; and I recall that figure from recent press coverage. They may also have a larger percentage of voting share. Per Jayron, companies may elect to run loss making venture if their board and shareholders and content to do so. Currently t appears that they are. Companies certainly are not constrained to maximise profits - that's a popular myth which doesn't bear a moment's scrutiny: who exactly - apart from the board and shareholders - is in a position to balance current versus future profits: taking a snapshot or viewing a particular period in the life of an asset (or liability) such as the Times is merely to posit an arbitrary timeframe for analysis. The board or shareholders may be working to an entirely timeframe. Shareholders have mechanisms open to them to eject a board with which they are not satisfied. That, rather than mythical legal duty, is the means by which shareholders keep their company doing what they want it to do. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The duty referred to is called Fiduciary duty and is indeed a legal duty but as correctly noted above, is not to be interpreted crudely. Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed - the best long term interests of the company may well be different to the short term effect on liquidity. Chief Executives are paid their money to perform that kind of balancing act. The original poster may however have been somewhat thinking of the legal proscription on trading while insolvent, which is considered a form of fraud and rather frowned on by law enforcement agencies. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Directors have a legal duty to avoid bankruptcy (and leaving piles of debt behind) normally, that's connected to making a profit someday, but not always. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.8.79.148 (talk) 12:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

What is your source for the statement that directors have a legal duty to avoid bankruptcy? One can easily imagine a business plan where bankruptcy within three years was likely — let's say, roughly a 60% probability — but the other 40% of the time the company's capital would increase tenfold. As long as this business plan was disclosed to the shareholders, surely it would be legal in most jurisdictions for the directors to adopt it. Mathew5000 (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

That makes no sense. Bankruptcy is a legal process, not necessarily a financial one. The first step is often bankruptcy protection - which can often lead to higher profits when complete than the company made before going into the bankruptcy process. If it was a "legal duty", the courts would be full of stockholders suing every director of every company that has ever filed for bankruptcy protection. -- kainaw™ 18:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, there is a thing called bankruptcy fraud, which mainly consist in faking documents, hiding assets, inventing bills to bleed the company and many more things to cheat creditors and investors. Directors have a fiduciary duty towards these groups of people, which do not make them criminal if they do not generate profits or if the company goes bankrupt. It's about how it happens nor if it happens. Quest09 (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

What is a "civil magistrate" in Virginia?

In Virginia, what is a "civil magistrate"? How does someone become a civil magistrate? --173.49.11.21 (talk) 08:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Is Magistrate#United_States any use? 130.88.134.214 (talk) 10:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Virginia does not have "civil magistrates" and "criminal magistrates" but just "magistrates" (who have both civil and criminal jurisdiction). In what context did you see the phrase "civil magistrate"? In 1974, Virginia replaced the office of justice of the peace with the office of magistrate. Since July 2008, magistrates are appointed by the Executive Secretary of the Supreme Court of Virginia in consultation with the chief judges of the circuit courts having jurisdiction within the region that the magistrate is appointed to serve. Eligibility requirements include a bachelor's degree, US citizenship, Virginia residency, and lack of felony conviction. Source: Magistrate Manual. See also map showing regions linking to lists of the magistrates in each magisterial district and generally Magistrate System. Mathew5000 (talk) 15:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

(I am the OP.) Friends of mine got married in a civil wedding when they were living in Virginia. The officiant's title was "civil magistrate". That was some years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.13.190 (talk) 05:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Was it before 1974? Mathew5000 (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

In any event, the term "civil magistrate" for someone empowered to perform a civil marriage ceremony would not seem to be official. According to Virginia's Office of Vital Records, "the court in each city and county has appointed persons who are eligible to perform civil marriage ceremonies." So if you want to become such an individual, I suppose you should contact your local court. If you want to search on Google there are a variety of terms you could use: "marriage commissioner", "wedding officiate", "civil officiant", "civil marriage celebrant", and so forth. Try Googling some of those, or variations, along with the keyword Virginia or the name of your county, for example marriage celebrant fairfax county or marriage officiate virginia. Mathew5000 (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Simple. You take lessons from Miss Manners. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

End of don't ask, don't tell

Does it mean the army can ask recruits again whether they are homosexual? Quest09 (talk) 23:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

irrelevant to answering the OP's question
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Which army? HiLo48 (talk) 23:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Don't be tiresome. The reference to don't ask, don't tell nails it down perfectly well, and if you've been living under a rock and haven't heard of it, a simple search would clear it up. --Trovatore (talk) 23:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC) I believe that getting more people to accept that this is a GLOBAL encyclopaedia is worth making you tired. Thank you for the link. HiLo48 (talk) 02:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC) I believe that you have a bug up your butt about Americans. You really need to just drop it. Sometimes you get downright uncivil about it. This was a minor case in itself, but the pattern of behavior is unacceptable. --Trovatore (talk) 03:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC) I believe that your paranoia and appalling manners are showing. Maybe it's behaviour and attitudes like yours that keeps me on my toes. Why do some people from the most powerful nation on earth have to act like they're under some sort of threat all the time? HiLo48 (talk) 03:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC) You're one to talk about manners!! --Trovatore (talk) 03:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC) I'm sorry, but I'm not going to stop trying to get all editors thinking more globally. Peace for now. HiLo48 (talk) 03:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC) I don't buy that that's your real motivation. You don't seem to notice, for example, when UK editors do it, and they're almost equally if not equally guilty. Aussies, I'll concede, somewhat less. Your entirely unprovoked and unacceptable musing that you "suspected" the question about half-black celebrities was "very American" doesn't fit into your claimed paradigm at all. --Trovatore (talk) 03:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC) It's a valid point. The world does extend beyond the US coast, and the question shouldn't need someone to go and do some work themselves to work out what it's on about. The US military might like to think it's the only game in town, and from experience it generally does, but there are others out there... ALR (talk) 23:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC) But seriously, is there any other country whose military has/had a policy generally known as "don't ask, don't tell"? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 00:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC) I've worked with a couple who still have homosexuality regulations, but tend not to actually apply them. Colloquially DADT. ALR (talk) 08:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC) As Trovatore originally put it: "don't be tiresome." --Mr.98 (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Merely pointing out that the assumption that the US is the only country to have the policy is inaccurate. But since nobody else actually matters clearly it's not an issue. ALR (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It means that they can ask, but aren't allowed to take any action on the response.

The more practical issue is that perfectly competent servicemen and women aren't now going to be discharged on the basis of their sexuality being inadvertently exposed.

ALR (talk) 23:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

So why would they ask in the first place? The end of the policy acknowledges that the sexual orientation of individuals is and always has been irrelevant to their capacity to be members of the military. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has really come to grips with the question. Unless ALR actually knows something; his/her response struck me as a guess.

A lot of people seem to have forgotten that DADT was a fairly major step in the direction of tolerance. Clinton had promised to end the ban on homosexuals in the military altogether, but ran into too much opposition on that point and backed down, accepting DADT as a compromise. Had it literally been repealed altogether, presumably that would mean that the military could go back to sending gay servicemen to Leavenworth. Not sure how much of that they actually did, but I am fairly sure it was a criminal offense before DADT.

So what is the new law, actually? I don't really know. It may or may not forbid recruiters to ask that question. --Trovatore (talk) 00:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I've read the prior legislation, and the DADT guidance as it applied to an individual under my command at the time.

While I haven't read any of the supporting material for the removal of the caveat I have been involved in discussion about it.

ALR (talk) 08:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, that helps. You didn't mention any of that in your response (and your user page doesn't mention you being in the military) so it sounded like a guess to me. --Trovatore (talk) 08:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, there is now no need to ask the question. Prior to DADT there was an explicit prohibition with an explicit question, when DADT cam in the prohibition remained in place but there was no explicit statement from the individual. The result was that if information came to light that an individual was breaching the prohibition they were discharged.

My understanding is that the prohibition is now to be removed, so there is no mechanism for discharge therefore no purpose in asking the question.

From a UK perspective, since we altered our legislation 11/ 12 years ago, it means that asking the question itself is now prohibited as it has no value in any recruitment or HR context.

ALR (talk) 08:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

One consequence of this new policy is that if the draft is revived, gays will no longer be able to use the fact of their being gay to avoid the draft, as they could during the Vietnam era - in which it was at least jokingly (as in the song Draft Dodger Rag) claimed that straight men might pretend to be gay for that reason. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

July 23

Iran's HDI

Why does Iran have a "high" HDI (according to the most recent data in the article)? --134.10.114.238 (talk) 00:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you read "Human Development Index"? It defines the factors that go into determining a country's index. Gabbe (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but doesn't the Iranian regime keep almost all of the country's money to themselves, forcing the people into continual poverty and starvation? --134.10.114.238 (talk) 00:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

No. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 April 12#Iran's HDI for this exact conversation. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Why do so many people assume that Iran is poor, uncivilised and uncultured? The people there belonged to a highly developed and civilised country long before the home countries of most readers of Wikipedia knew much about civilisation. Dbfirs 17:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Because American knowledge of Iran is limited to "desert country near Afghanistan and Iraq that has militant fundamentalists in charge who are making a nuclear bomb." Actual knowledge of Iranian culture, history, governmental operation, or people is pretty limited. But I must say that appealing to historical civilizations is quite misleading — a lot of empires have risen and fallen over time. Just because a place was historically important doesn't mean it is today. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how a country with a population of 75 million people could be 'unimportant'. But yes, the general point is that Iran is a large, complex 'developing' country with a diverse economic structure, a reasonable-ish standard of living (compared to the world average) and a political system that is a lot more complex than the simplistic propaganda put out by sections of the western media. Its claims to be a democracy are somewhat questionable, to say the least, but it is no worse than a lot of other countries in the area, and considerably better than some (though these tend to be allies of the west, so nobody says much about this...). Regarding the OP's question about 'starvation', our Health care in Iran article tells us that if anything obesity is a greater problem. Evidently they are 'developing' western-style health problems too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't implying Iran was unimportant. Just that the historical importance/prestige/relative development of a nation does not necessarily mean it retains importance/prestige/relative development today. Invoking ancient Persia to discuss modern Iran is as misleading as invoking ancient Greece to discuss modern Greece. A lot has changed between then and now. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The article on economy of Iran (which is rated a "good article") goes into some detail about this. Iran has very significant oil and gas wealth, but the economy is also somewhat diversified, accounting for a relatively high HDI. Neutrality^talk 22:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Traffic ticket for a non-local

There's a type of situation that's been a bit of a curiosity to me for quite a while. Say a person (in the United States) is taking a road trip for whatever purpose (for example let's say via this route). The person leaves point A and while on the way to point C receives a speeding ticket from the Greensburg, KS police (point B). Assuming that the person will not be back in Greensburg anytime in the near future, how does the person take care of the ticket they received passing through Greensburg, given that it would (I assume, perhaps wrongly?) need be taken care of in the Greensburg Municipal Court? Would it require a trip back to Greensburg for the express purpose of (depending on which the person chose to do) fighting the ticket in court or pleading guilty and paying the fine? Basically, if a non-local is ticketed, do they have to make a trip back to take care of the ticket in the jurisdiction's municipal court, or is there some other way that tickets of non-locals can be taken care of in US municipal courts? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 06:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the particular situation in Greensburg, KS, but as a general rule, you can take care of routine traffic violations by mail — provided you're pleading guilty (or "no contest" or "forfeiting bail" or what have you). If you want to contest it, you probably have to go back to Greensburg. I cynically surmise that this is the reason traffic cops in small towns proverbially look for out-of-towners to ticket. Of course I don't really know whether they actually do that, but it wouldn't surprise me. --Trovatore (talk) 07:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I live in the Bridgeport area of Connecticut (not in Bridgeport itself), and we've been getting calls from the Vermont police about a traffic ticked my mother supposedly got in 1994 (e weren't even in Vermont in 1994, but somehow they think my mother has an unpaid ticket). In these calls, they've said that she can either mail it to them or contest it, in which case she would have to go up to the traffic court in Vermont. Some places are more tenacious about it than others; Vermont is notorious for not letting these things drop. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

American debt compared with Greek debt

See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14258888 Is American debt something to worry about like Greek debt? How did the richest country in the world get itself into debt? 92.28.254.185 (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

America doesn't have the same problems with respect to debt as Greece does. Plenty of people, institutions and governments want to lend money to the US. Everyone is very wary of lending money to Greece, because there are doubts over whether it will actually be able to afford to pay its debts. The US economy is doing reasonably well, compared to the Greek one, and the US debt as a percentage of GDP is much lower, so there aren't similar doubts regarding the US. (There are, however, fears that the US may default for political, rather than economic, reasons because of the whole debt ceiling thing.) As for how the US got into debt - it happened in exactly the same way that anyone gets into debt. It spent more than its revenue. --Tango (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

While the immediate threat of US default is political, I believe the long-term threat of US default is likely, regardless of politics. That is, raising taxes and cutting benefits to levels which would seem to prevent the debt from rising further would so hobble the US and world economy that tax revenues would still not keep pace with the debt. In other words, the US debt has passed the point of no return, even though the actual default may yet be decades away, as long as others remain willing to loan the US government money. After all, how long did Bernie Madoff manage to keep his Ponzi scheme afloat ? StuRat (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this a long-term result of low inflation? Higher inflation would I presume melt the debt away. 92.28.245.233 (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

No, because those lending money to the US gov would then just insist on higher interest rates. StuRat (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

They cannot insist on a higher rate, they are stuck with their contract. 92.24.180.158 (talk) 23:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I doubt the US could default for more than a week or two. The government is too big to fail in a way that any given corporation is not. In the 1950s the US paid down the much larger debt from World War II (as a proportion of GDP) without ever running a surplus because the economy was growing so fast. It wasn't because of inflation, it was because trickle down supply side economics was rightly consigned to the dustbin of that era and the top bracket tax rate reached 88%. Greek corporations do not have this privilege because Greek corporations can threaten to leave (capital flight) more credibly than US corporations on balance. If there was a multilateral tax haven treaty in effect, then capital flight would not be a problem. 99.2.148.119 (talk) 23:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

From what I understand, I don't think the Constitution allows the US to default on its debts (I guess we would have to if revenues were less than the debt payments, but that has not happened yet). The problem is that the Constitutional provisions mean that debt payments must be given priority over other expenditures (paying for the military, entitlements, roads, salary checks to Congressmen, etc). The US actually has more than enough revenue to meet its current debt payments (so no default... the creditors will get paid), but making those payments will not leave enough to cover all of the other things the government wants to do. (the remaining revenue can cover some of it... but not all of it). The hard question is... what will be cut from the budget? (I doubt it will be Congress's salaries) Blueboar (talk) 23:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Unless it can be turned over into paying deposit account receipts instead of debt. Why shouldn't anyone keeping their money on deposit with a government instead of in the economy have to pay for the privilege? The market seems to agree. Once again, the US proves that even if you screw up, if you're clearly capable of doing the right thing, even the investors looking for the lowest risks will let it slide. 99.2.148.119 (talk) 00:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

John Hancock's ships

Do lists, engravings, paintings, letters, or any other documents survive which identify the ships that John Hancock used to create and maintain his wealth?75.82.160.175 (talk) 16:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Certainly. This book (1898) has some extensive business correspondence of Hancock's including ship references. We even have an article on one of Hancock's ships, which was involved in a 1768 incident: The sloop Liberty. Another ship of the Hancocks was the Lydia (see here), perhaps named after Hancock's aunt Lydia (Henchman) Hancock. The Lydia was engaged in transporting "a valuable load of Spanish wine" (see here) when it was involved in the same 1968 incident as the Liberty.

What other goods did John Hancock, his uncle Thomas Hancock, and other relatives carry? Pretty much everything: Thousands of pounds of tea; food; tools; clothing; rum (see here); whale oil and baleen (or whalebone) (see here); and on one occasion "a handsome new carriage for himself and expensive table linen, fraudulently listed as canvas" (here). Neutrality^talk 21:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Renting floor trading privileges and exchange memberships

The Steve Fossett article says this is how he made his fortune. But the sources cited for this do not actually mention it. How exactly did renting exchange memberships or floor trading priviliges work? 92.28.245.233 (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Stock exchange#ownership touches on this. Securities exchanges' members are allowed to charge a commission for the transactions of their clients. Often there are a limited number of "seats" which the members may buy, sell, or lease. If a member holds at least one seat, they can generally make trades without commissions. 99.2.148.119 (talk) 23:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Morphine-A Soldiers Disease

I have been trying to find information on the uses of morphine in the civil war and the ill effects it had on the soldiers at the time. Is there documentation that the uses of morphine created thousands of addicts? I am looking specically for information supporting the theory of "A soldiers Disease"Hpersons (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not unique to soldiers or morphine, as all opiates used as pain-killers can be addictive, although to varying degrees. Heroin was specifically intended to avoid the addictive effects of morphine, but had the same problem. StuRat (talk) 20:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This Straight Dope article might be useful. It suggests that morphine was very widely prescribed during the war, and addiction to opiates was widespread in the US in the late 19th century, but the two facts were not directly linked: for example, the majority of opium addicts were women. --Colapeninsula (talk) 00:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Authors and LLCs

Since it's so easy and inexpensive, in most states in the US, to form an LLC, I was wondering how often authors of books (particularly authors of tell-alls or unauthorized biographies) form an LLC (with a single owner or not) to act legally as the author of their book. The author would transfer all rights to the LLC, or would even write the book whilst in the role of the manager and a member of the LLC, such that the LLC is the author of the book, legally. Whenever the LLC receives revenue, the author performs a draw and gets the money right away. If the author is sued for something like libel or possibly even something like copyright infringement, then the LLC (the legal author) is who's liable, so if there were a large court judgment, the author would fold the LLC and future lawsuits would only be able to challenge the empty husk of the defunct LLC. The author's historical revenue could not be taken from him.

Assuming there were no fraud involved such that there could be a piercing of the corporate veil, the only disadvantage I can think of is that I think a natural human author has much lengthier copyright benefits. Do any authors do this? Who? (I do expect a full explanation to be longer than a normal Reference Desk answer, so any pointers to articles are welcome.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Court cases are decided by jurists and juries, who may or may not act as if the corporate veil is open for any corporation comprised of one person. Books are often commissioned in advance from publishers. While what you suggest may seem fair to you, as someone trying to answer your questions, it seems a lot to me like you are trying to solicit legal advice. I am sorry this answer is not as comprehensive as you might like, but if you want an authoritative answer you will have to ask an attorney. Also, would the LLC and the individual both pay income tax? 99.2.148.119 (talk) 23:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't give statistics, but as a voracious reader and lifelong book collector, and former bookseller and later publisher's editor, I glance at the publishing details on the Title page verso of every book I buy and/or read, and as OR can say that a book's being copyrighted to a LLC rather than the author's name has not been uncommon over the last half century - I'd guess at about 1 author in 30. It's more usual when an author has become particularly prolific and successful, presumably because making the author the employee of the LLC, which may also have other employees such as secretaries and researchers, has more tax advantages when the revenue from the writing is greater, though I'm unfamiliar with the details: one example is Isaac Asimov, whose later works are "© Nightfall Inc".

Sometimes, of course, writers are merely commissioned by the owner of an intellectual property to produce for a fee 'work for hire' that remains the copyright of the owner, who may be another author (see Ellery Queen) or the publisher, the estate of a dead author (see for example V. C. Andrews), or a corporation (frequent with novelisations of media properties such as Star Trek). Such works may appear under the real writer's name, the late author's name, or a House name (aka Collective name) depending on the circumstances. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.33 (talk) 00:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Faith

Is it possible to define faith without reference to doubt? 99.2.148.119 (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Well... most of the definitions here don't reference doubt. So... yes, it is possible. Blueboar (talk) 23:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)