Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/H

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

January 20

Sino-Sikh War fact check?

The climactic Battle of Punjab (August, 1842) was won by the Chinese who executed the enemy general. Was it Gulab Singh or Matraiya Vyas, as an anon suggests? I can't find reference in Google Books to Mr. Vyas, so I'm guessing this is spam. -- Zanimum (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it was vandalism: thanks for the vandalism control help, Zanhe! -- Zanimum (talk) 17:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for Ocean County Sheriff's Department

Does anyone with access to LexusNexus have the time to help find some more sources for Ocean County Sheriff's Department please?LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request which is designed for exactly this sort of request. --Jayron32 02:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Governors of Rashidun, Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates

What was the purpose of the governors in those caliphates and is there a list of governors of those caliphates? was Governor the only political that serve as the representative of the caliph? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.35.110 (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rashidun_Caliphate#Political_Administration has some information on specific subdivisions of the Caliphate; so you know what districts there were, though it does not list who each governor was. The title for governor appears to be Wāli, and the English Wikipedia appears to be sparse on the subject, perhaps another language Wikipedia, like Arabic, may have better information for you, if you speak Arabic. Umayyad_Caliphate#Umayyad_Administration is pretty sparse, only noting the existance of such governors. Abbasid Caliphate unfortunately has no information on the political organization of it. Again, let me recommend trying arabic language sources, like ar.wikipedia.org, if you speak or read arabic. It may have more info for you. I don't read it at all, perhaps someone who does may be along to help. --Jayron32 02:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blame for WWI

I'm apologize ahead of time, but this question has been bugging me for a while. If Austria-Hungary had started World War I by attacking Serbia, why did Germany "take the blame" for the war and pay reparations? I mean, sure Austria pulled out of the war before it ended but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have to own up to the war and the lives lost. So what was the reason that Germany took the blame anyway? 64.229.180.189 (talk) 04:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't Serbia start the war by an assassination directed by their secret service? Did they have to pay reparations? Edison (talk) 05:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Austria-Hungary really couldn't have afforded to take an aggressive stance if it hadn't been backed by Germany. Even more importantly, Germany aggressively attacked Belgium and France... AnonMoos (talk) 07:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; Germany only attacked France because it was part of their war plan. Belgium was only invaded because it was a sneaky way into France. Britain only entered the War because she was obliged to protect Belgian nuetrality. Alansplodge (talk) 08:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Austria-Hungary also paid a hefty price for the war: it was dismantled into many smaller coutries. I guess all the losers paid, not only Germany. --Lgriot (talk) 09:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't the winners pay a hefty price, too? Dbfirs 10:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Austria was required to take some responsibility and pay reparations by the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye (1919).

But the size of German reparations were a question of politics and in particular France's desire to punish Germany; France was the country that pushed most strongly for reparations. German reparations to France were seen as a recompense for French reparations to Germany after the 1870-71 Franco-Prussian War (see Treaty_of_Versailles#Reparations). Germany wasn't allowed to attend Versailles, so it didn't take the blame willingly. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would hardly say that the Austro-Hungarian Empire got off "scott-free". Insofar as the state essentially ceased to exist, and was broken up into a half-dozen new states, while Germany remained largely intact (excepting the loss of the Polish Corridor and Alsace-Lorraine), I'd say that Austria-Hungary ended up far worse than Germany. Certainly Germany payed a high financial and political price for the War, but at least it wasn't reduced to a bunch of smaller countries. --Jayron32 15:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blackness

Most cultures seem to associate the color black with darkness, despair, hopelessness, and evil, and the color white with the opposite qualities. Do the cultures of black people share this association? I don't mean African Americans, who are immersed in Western culture, but indigenous Africans, South Asians, Melanesians, Australians, and the like. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 06:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the root cause is that we are diurnal, and thus have eyes not well suited to night. This means we are vulnerable to predators in the dark, or to other people who mean to do us harm. Thus, a fear of the dark, and, by extension, all things black, is natural. I would expect the same is true in black cultures, with the exception of fearing black people, since they obviously can't fear themselves. StuRat (talk) 06:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As one example of how it plays out in race relations, the minority lighter-skinned Tutsi were the victims of the majority darker-skinned Hutu in the Rwandan Genocide. The Wikipedia Article specifically states that "Skin color was a general physical trait that was typically used in "ethnic" identification." This could indicate that there either were not the same associations with these colors, or that the associations were irrelevant in the scope of this awful time. Not sure if that helps. Falconus^{p t c} 07:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that it is relevant but on the plantations, the darker skinned slaves were furthest from the house and the lighter skinned were nearest. Kittybrewster ☎ 07:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, relevance uncertain but Borderline Personality disordered people think people are all black or all white. No shades of grey. Kittybrewster ☎ 07:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true of some BPD people, Kitty, but to suggest they are all like that is itself a somewhat black-white statement. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 07:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it is a characteristic. Kittybrewster ☎ 08:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The characteristic is "black-and-white" (i.e., unnuanced categorical) thinking, aka splitting—it has nothing to do with race. - Nunh-huh 14:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to this table, black as a bad colour is fairly global - they cite it as meaning "impure" in Nigeria, "ominous" in Ethiopia, "evil" in Thailand and Tibet. The exception is parts of Oceania - notably New Zealand, of course - but I think that's more likely to be because black and dark red dyes are easy to find there. I can't find any particular justification for why New Zealand's national colour is black, though. Black as the colour of death/mourning isn't universal, but that seems to have little to do with skin colour. Even in European countries, there are places where white traditionally symbolises death. Smurrayinchester 10:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

White = daylight, brightness / Black = nighttime, darkness. Definitely a strong association in western culture at least. Jesus associated with the Roman sun god. And in the song, "...He will bring us goodness and light." Satan called "The Prince of Darkness". That kind of thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, Lucifer is also called the "son of the dawn" (Isaiah 14:2)

... -- AnonMoos (talk) 11:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And doesn't "Lucifer" actually translate as "light-bearer"? --TammyMoet (talk) 12:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on black, with a long sectionon its symbolism, including authority, power, seriousness, academe, religion, and anarchism. BrainyBabe (talk) 13:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another country to have black as a national colour was Brunswick. Alansplodge (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This might be helpful. --Frumpo (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And see List of flags by color#Black (Sable). -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to Color in Chinese culture, white is the color traditionally associated with mourning there, while black has a more preferred place as the color of the Dao. I don't know these things myself, or how well-founded the article is. Wnt (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a clever color-culture graphic at http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/colours-in-cultures/ , but I don't know that I'd accept any one data-point without caution... AnonMoos (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What a bizarre way to present that data. Why on Earth did they put it in a circle ? StuRat (talk) 03:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That dataset is interesting, though. Half the time when one culture assigns black to some quality named, any other culture giving that quality a color also assigns black to it. This is true 63% of the time for red. But black and red have zero overlap - if one culture assigns one, none of the others assign the other. Either the authors have bent the data, or that indicates a less than random emotional impact of the colors over great cultural distances. Wnt (talk) 07:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After toying with a spreadsheet for a bit I've gotten this dataset into a Wiki form at [1]. (I haven't included it here because the table still takes up way too much space as coded) Provided that this study, which I haven't examined, doesn't project a common bias onto the data, it looks like either there's something to the idea that colors suggest certain broad meanings, or else those meanings have been conserved since truly ancient times, or else global communication has aligned them already. Wnt (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Insurance

A large US insurance company went bust a couple of years ago. I don't remember which - it wasn't Freddy Mae or Freddy Mac. Q1: What was it called? The US Government stepped in to bail it out. Q2: Why did they do that? Kittybrewster ☎ 07:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AIG? -- AnonMoos (talk) 07:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AIG indeed. Kittybrewster ☎ 08:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the two companies you mentioned are called Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and I don't think they are usually described as insurance companies. 130.88.99.217 (talk) 13:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unresolved

Why did the government bail out AIG? Kittybrewster ☎ 08:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because they were concerned about the wider impact on the economy if AIG were to default on its obligations. As a major reinsurer (that is, an insurance company that other insurance companies get insurance from), AIG going bust could cause a lot of other insurance companies to go bust. That would leave lots of companies and individuals having to pay for their own losses on all sorts of things, which would bankrupt them. That would cause the companies they used to do business with to go bankrupt, and the domino effect would continue on and on causing a major depression. (It's not certain if that would have happened, but the government feared it could happen, so they bailed AIG out.) --Tango (talk) 16:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What nations that have financial troubles would be keen to enact a "Verbal Morality Statute?"

Of course it would not be the United States; too many of us would be up in arms to invoke the first amendment right, even though we are deep to hell in debt.

As depicted in this clip, a "verbal morality statute" helps generate revenue for the future city of San Angeles:

Now, what countries would be more likely to favor a "verbal morality statute" wherein the fines generated would help quell their financial troubles?

In said countries, would it be practical to put in listening devices specifically meant to pick up swear words? What would it take to set up the infrastructure for this, and for auto-debiting the fine amounts from the verbal offenders' assets?

Moreover, what flaws would they be faced with such a system that was not readily apparent in Demolition Man? Thanks. --129.130.217.116 (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Swear words are immoral? I'm fucked then... --Jayron32 18:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you visit such countries, Jay, you'd best replace that word with "plucked." Moreover, for the environmentalists out here, everyone needs not worry about paper waste being printed as depicted in the film; a text message about the fine and offense would get sent to the phone. (Given that the film was made in 1993, the writers of the movie had not envisioned the smartphones coming along, with apps, texting, and what-not.) --129.130.217.116 (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think something like that would help solve financial problems. The money has to come from somewhere. Economically speaking, it is really no different to a tax increase, and all the things that are stopping such countries just putting up taxes would stop them implementing something like this too. --Tango (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tang. This is that other IP on my home's network. If it costs too much to put up the infrastructure for swear word-listening and fine-debiting, then would they supposedly put it in the cities that have the most problems? (For example, if it was in the US, which it likely won't be, they'd place such devices in East St. Louis, Compton, Camden, and Detroit.)

Moreover, your reasons are why the countries the experiment starts in would need to not have democracy as the stronger influence there, because too many would protest against it otherwise.

So as a "trial experiment," why not put it in the places with the most crime and moral issues? Then if it generates serious revenue there, the project spreads to more cities?

(And why can't the ~~damned~~^{SMS: You've been fined one Simoleon for violating the Verbal Morality Statute. Definition of word sworn: A. Adjective 1. god-forsaken. 2. Variant of the profane intensifier. B. Adverb 1. Vulgar form of "very." C. Verb 1. Simple past tense and past participle of to condemn to the Outer Darkness.} er, um, danged, video embed code work? It seems to many other places. Oh well, you can still click on it to watch.) --70.179.174.101 (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to be clearer about what the goal of this idea is. Is it to stop people swearing or is it to make money? What I'm saying is that if you are a government wanting to make more money, you can just put up taxes. I don't think this idea would be more effective at raising money than a regular tax. --Tango (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's to both. With taxes, it's involuntary. With swearing and being fined, it is by choice. Hence, since people can control how much they get fined for swearing, it would not be as derided as higher taxes are. --70.179.174.101 (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't it illegal like 100 years ago in some places to swear in front of a woman? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That argument strikes me as fallacious. The government would set the fine arbitrarily, so the level of the fine would be set to accumulate some amount of revenue, equal to that which would be raised by some other tax. While some lucky individuals might reduce this tax to some extent, on average just as many would pay more. So it's not that people are "voluntarily" paying this as opposed to the other tax - rather, they pay the same tax on average, plus suffer the indignity of additional impositions on their freedom. (plus enforcement costs etc.) Wnt (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The enforcement costs would not be as high as would have been with San Andreas's methods; it costs quite a bit to constantly supply the listening devices with paper to print fines on: The cost of the paper itself, delivery from a warehouse, to pay the deliverer the labor in which to travel to each listening device to load in said paper, etc.

On the other hand, to wirelessly transmit a text-message to the offender's phone or email would come at a tiny fraction of that cost. The only remaining costs beyond initial installation would be maintenance, but in this future, sturdier materials would make this less often of a necessity anyway. --70.179.174.101 (talk) 04:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'tiny fraction of the cost' is a moot point when you're talking about an insane cost. Few cities have even managed to make a city wide publicly accessible wifi, and you're talking about something which is going to need many more nodes, not to mention by nature they will need to be exposed, so an an easy source of vandalism. It's also impossible anyway since speech recognition is still way too crap. (Adding humans to the mix just makes your cost more insane). Nil Einne (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Teuira Henry

Was Tahitian writer and historian Teuira Henry of Native Tahitian descent? And is there any other information on her that can be present other than the information I have here?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This family tree gives very un-Tahitian names for her parents and grandparents. This discussion about Tahiti aux temps anciens describes her as not a neutral witness, while this auctioneer's notes talks about where she worked. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't think she could be Native Tahitian now. Her names and her looks just really threw me off.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Political weight of being faithful

Why do Americans care about the extra-marital affairs of their politicians? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.14.196.211 (talk) 23:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For a variety of reasons. One of them is that American politicians pontificate about and make policies affecting the institution of marriage. So when a politician who has vocally opposed marriage equality, and opined that "marriage is between one man and one woman", it strikes some people as hypocritical when it becomes public knowledge that he asked his second ex-wife to have their marriage consist of a man and a woman and another woman. For that matter, it strikes some American voters as odd that their politicians claim to value the "sanctity" of marriage in order to get votes, when those same politicians have been through one, two or three divorces. - Nunh-huh 23:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Americans have rather conservative "public" sexual mores. (In terms of their actual, private practices, they break almost all of them.) They weigh it quite heavily as a sign of character for public figures. That's not really an answer — it's just a tautological reframing of the question. Where do these mores come from? That's a very hard to answer question, for any country. Why do the French have their mores? It's not like any one of these is the "default" or "natural" position — no social stance is any more or less "natural" than the other.

If you're asking about Gingrich in particular (who has been in the news relating to this lately), the attention is in part related to the fact that his policy stance is one that pledges to defend the ideals of "traditional marriage" (that is, he is against gay marriage and abortion) but he's not very representative of the ideals of "traditional marriage" himself, which of course opens him up to charges of hypocrisy. Of course, any potentially controversial fact — whether actually resonant with the American public/voters or not — is going to be in the news at the moment, and that's more a reflection both on the political process and the nature of the 24-hour news culture than it is necessarily about American political thinking. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answers. No, I was not thinking about Gingrich, but his recent press exposure made me aware of this basic difference between Europe and the US. I'm sure there is no universal default position, but the US is, from a religious perspective, Christian like Spain, the UK, or France, (thou maybe with a bigger Jewish population), so, there is a source of morality there, that should make both sides more similar. 88.14.196.211 (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the difference between private sexual behavior is probably not that different between the countries. The public perception though is definitely different. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is an innate human tendency to think of a leader as a surrogate for the whole people of a country. If a leader behaves badly, people feel that the guilt carries over to them. Frazer's book The Golden Bough discusses this behavior pretty extensively, from a quasi-anthropological point of view. Looie496 (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But this doesn't explain at all the observed differences among countries, in and of itself, much less the different views on public vs. private morality. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looie's observation really just reinforces the question. Why does Looie describe extra-marital affairs as behaving badly? The OP didn't put a judgement on it. In many countries it's obvious that voters know about politicians' marital indiscretions, and largely ignore them when it comes to the ballot box. But not in America. HiLo48 (talk) 07:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To put your question another way, the ideal in the US seems to be fidelity during marriage, while some, like the Italians, seem to actually have an ideal of a married man who cheats on his wife every chance he gets, preferably with underage girls. Why is the US ideal different ? It probably goes back to the Puritans, who were, well, puritanical. To some extent, Puritanism is just an extrapolation of Protestantism, which was formed as a protest to the perceived lax morals of Catholics, and the Pope/Church in particular, at the time. As to why northern Europeans seemed to object more than Southern Europeans, perhaps it just came down to geography, with them being far enough from Rome to get away with it, while anyone in what would become Italy who criticized the Pope was risking his life. And, as it happened, the first immigrants to what would become the US were mainly northern European (British and Dutch), so they were able to set the moral tone for the nation. StuRat (talk) 08:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the US there is a strong sense that if a politician does not act morally in his or her personal life, the said politician's immorality will carry over into his or her political dealings. Basically, if the President cheats on his (or her) spouse, then we feel we can't trust that president to lead the country in an ethical manner. I know that this contrasts severely with the French view on matters, which I have had explained to me loosely as "what the President does in his or her personal life is between the president and the president's family; it's not really of great public concern." Also, as others have said, if the politician proclaims "The problem with this country is the breakdown of the traditional family", and proceeds to have three divorces and an affair, then the politician is a hypocrite, and nothing they say can really be trusted from that point on. Falconus^{p t c} 08:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is the North American stereotype to say that Europeans don't care about this...but in France and Italy at least, everyone is interested in the personal life of Berlusconi, or Sarkozy, or Strauss-Kahn, as much as Americans are interested in the lives of non-political celebrities. Berlusconi's affairs certainly do impact his ability to govern, although in that case it was because he himself seemed unable to separate his public and private life. True, nobody really cares that Sarkozy left his wife for Carla Bruni, that has no effect on his ability as a politician. But the Strauss-Kahn problems were different...opinion polls and such showed that many people would no longer have voted for him (if he had been able to run). It is a bit different, but it's not like people don't care at all. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strauss-Kahn didn't just have an extra-marital affair. He was accused of rape and spend some time in jail followed by house arrest. Berlusconi is also a kind of similar case. It was not just cheating on his wife, getting a divorce and so on. They were suspects of the involvement in some criminal activity here. 88.14.196.211 (talk) 13:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Berlusconi still had excellent opinion poll ratings during all the sex scandals. It was the economy that did it for him, not his personal life. The fact that he owns most of the Italian media can't have hurt, but I think it is true that Italians are more tolerant of that kind of thing than other nationalities. --Tango (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To the excellent answers above I would like to add that many people consider someone who would cheat on his wife to be a scumbag, and may say that scumbags don't deserve to be rewarded with a big job. Although it's worth remembering that many U.S. politicians have survived sex scandals, like Gerry Studds, Steve LaTourette and Jerry Springer (yes that Jerry Springer, who was mayor of Cincinnati before becoming a talk-show host). When Bill Clinton got in trouble, the prevailing opinion was that it wasn't his infidelity that bothered people so much as his lying and weaseling about it. And the attempt to throw him out of office not only failed but generated quite a backlash against those behind it. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should agree with the others that it seems relevant, but I'd say however that this isn't precisely a sexual moral issue in the Puritan sense. In other words, you can be pro-gay, but still find marital infidelity disturbing. Because you feel like if a candidate can lie to his wife, he can lie to you; if he can break a vow that he personally appears to find of great importance, he might break a principle that he seems to support; if he abandons a wife when times are tough, maybe he will sell out your cause when his opponents threaten to come at him with a serious political attack. "Never trust a traitor" would seem to be the relevant idea. Wnt (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wnt has the right idea. While folks like to make all kinds of mental "deals" to justify their own hypocritical actions, we don't often cut others the same kind of slack - he lied once = he's a liar = he lies all the time = he lied to me! Matt Deres (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's disqualifying, and frankly I doubt it ever really has been. Presidential candidates surviving sex scandals, even ones that were credible, are not novelties.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To see this thought pattern illustrated in language, Google estimates 3,010,000 results for "in bed with the oil companies", 121,000 results for "in bed with the defense contractors", 754,000 results for "in bed with al Qaida" and so forth. True, their estimates are usually tremendously inflated, but the point is, in everyday speech, Americans literally talk about politicians committing adultery with various distrusted entities. Wnt (talk) 14:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The South After the Reconstruction

In the Southern United States, what was life like for a white female schoolteacher during the Reconstruction period right after the Civil War? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.32.209.45 (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There might have been conflict, if she was forced to teach black students, since this was before segregation was established following the end of Reconstruction. Any white woman raised at that time in that place would have found this to be "unnatural" and "against God's will". Note that blacks had some political power at the time, due to being the majority in many areas, having the vote, and having protection of Union troops. StuRat (talk) 08:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where that comes from -- the Freedmen's Bureau paid many teachers, some women, most white. There were also private church-supported schools in some areas. Some women took such jobs out of idealism, but I don't see how anyone could have been "forced" to do so (unless by personal economic necessity). AnonMoos (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, economic necessity. Many Southerners had lost everything in the war. StuRat (talk) 03:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The Prudence Crandall case was rather famous in the 1830s, where great pressure was applied to force a woman not to teach blacks... AnonMoos (talk) 00:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the original question is very broad, and much would depend on circumstance, such as the teaching blacks bit. However, given the great upset after the Civil War economically in the South, my reaction to a woman making a secure living as a schoolteacher is "lucky". It was a time when few women could make their own way, and many women had their husbands or other male relatives dead or broke. However, there were parts of the South which were far less affected, especially if they had been in Union hands for several years already or were particularly remote.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 21

Crazy (purely philosophical viewpoint)

i heard that mentally ill or crazy people didnt know their condition, so how can i be 100% sure that i am not crazy? (this is a repost from science desk) MahAdik _usap 01:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rosenhan experiment showed that it's rather difficult to prove that one is sane, let alone insane. While that experiment wasn;t really about if people are sane or not (it was more about diagnosis, treatment, and hospital conditions), it did prove that even people generally considered sane, once labelled insane, couldn't do much to prove otherwise. Basically what I'm saying is you can't really know for sure, because even professionals have troubles figuring it out. Mingmingla (talk) 03:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm talking out of my a** here, but it seems to me we're all at least a little bit insane, at least some of the time. We all do things that we immediately, or soon enough, realise were dumb, dumb, dumb. What could possibly have possessed us to act that way? In that moment, we were for all intents and purposes insane. But the next moment, we're right as rain again, making good decisions again. The so called "insane person", likewise, is not insane all of the time. Many or even most of their decisions may well be perfectly OK, but perhaps they're prone to making crazy decisions more often than is considered "normal". Just exactly where the dividing line is between sanity and insanity, and who decides where it is, and how often and under what circumstances it's moved, and how much of your time you have to spend on the wrong side of the line, and over what period, to be classified as insane - those are questions that would make anyone crazy. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 04:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stupidity does not equal insanity. Royor (talk) 06:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophically, I doubt you can be 100% sure of anything. (I'm 99.99% sure there's some article about this somewhere.) Clarityfiend (talk) 08:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the answers above are on topic. This is not about insanity from a psychiatric or psychological perspective. It's about discovering if you are a brain in a bucket or connected to the Matrix. For more on that, search for the same question and pertinent answers on the Sci RD. 88.14.196.211 (talk) 13:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant links ideas in the philosophy of the mind: dream argument, brain in a vat, simulation hypothesis, evil demon, solipsism. I don't think there's really any sure-fire way to distinguish between false and real states. The best you have is some combination of skepticism, Occam's razor, and some faith in your inductive abilities. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question on this direction are sometimes self-deceiving: how can you know if you are trapped for ever into a perfect simulation of reality? Well, you can't, if the simulation is perfect and you never leave it. 88.14.196.211 (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not universally accepted that there is such a thing as "mental illness" - see the work of Thomas Szasz, R D Laing and anti-psychiatry. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and it's also not universally accepted that there is such a thing as evolution. However, nearly everyone with relevant expertise in the area knows it exists, and the opinion that it does not is not generally considered a scientific view. Overdiagnosis and overmedicalising of normal variation is a separate issue, just as epigenetics and punctuated equilibrium do not argue against evolution. This says nothing to whether some 'ultimate truth' exists in which mental illness doesn't exist, but even on the humanities desk we should be careful not to misrepresent the scientific consensus. This is, of course, a completely appropriate topic for philosophers and those who have never encountered serious mental illness. 86.164.75.123 (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised no one has suggested simply going to a doctor and asking to be assessed for any potential mental illnesses. ("Crazy" is not a medically defined term.) -- Mwalcoff (talk) 07:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about a society where anyone caught with a tiny packet of plant sap will instantly get sent to a fancy facility designed to keep him in a cage and teach him to obey gang authority absolutely as a matter of life and death in the name of reducing crime, but people who want available treatments to be free of the compulsion to obtain such sap are put on long waiting lists or required to pay more than they have handy. Everyone is crazy. Maybe Jesus was sane, so in another fine public mental health intervention they nailed him to a cross for it. Some people can delude themselves into feeling good about themselves and thinking they're sane by putting on their suits and ties or facial cosmetics to distinguish themselves from savage tribes who wear ridiculous costumes and cover their women under veils, but it is all a delusion. Wnt (talk) 07:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

American philosopher Philip K. Dick (known more as a science fiction writer) argued throughout his work and in his lectures that empathy for others represented the difference between sanity and insanity. Author Gabriel Mckee summarizes Dick's definition of insanity as "the inability to view one's fellow human beings as other individuals, even if it is often conventionally accepted". In an interview (loosely paraphrased transcription) Dick illustrated this point:

One of the things I've noticed is that many people equate insanity with extravagant behavior–shouting, impassioned violence, and so on. But if something is done very calmly and dispassionately, this is rational. "Rational" and "dispassionate" are somehow synonymous, and a person who speaks in a calm, modulated voice is, ipso facto, a rational person. This is a typical Anglo-Saxon fallacy; you won’t find this confusion in Greece or Italy or Spain. This is beautifully illustrated by the Gestapo. Himmler once delivered a very important speech, a major policy speech, to the Gestapo and SS, cautioning them that they must never enjoy the death of the Jews in the camps. They must never get emotionally excited by it, but must view it all calmly and without feeling. What Himmler was really saying was this all must be done as if it were rational: scientifically, not as the result of hate or passion. Therefore, I'm sure that to the people who did it, it seemed a rational thing they were doing. But they were making the same error. It’s not sane at all. If you remember the film Zorba the Greek, there was a great deal of behavior which, from the conventional standpoint, would be called pathological: people dancing around crazily, swilling wine, breaking things. The book was even more that way: he cut the widow's head off, for instance. It was all extravagant, grotesque, hysterical, bombastic–it was not crazy. Being crazy very commonly can be typing up a list of names and turning them over to the officer at the end of the hall. And this can be even more crazy because it is done in such a dispassionate way. This is what first led me to the thought of the machine-like quality of pathology and of the "inhuman." What’s lacking is a sense of perspective, a sense of proportion. If you pick up your instructions that morning when you go to work and it says "Twenty people will be gassed today," and this is typed out, and it's all spelled right, and it's on the right order form, and this seems fine to you, then what we have here is not just an insidious pathology, but almost, in a way, the very heart of true pathology. What we have here is a lack of an emotional grasping of a situation. We have here a purely mechanical mind; a metal sphere rotating without any contact with the earth or other humans.

However, your question about knowing whether one is mentally ill or not is identical to the philosophical question Dick asks about whether one can know if they are an android or not (see Themes_in_Blade_Runner#Deckard: human or replicant? ) It is probably the same question couched in science fiction terms. The bottom line is, there is no way to know, but a life lived with empathy is no different from Dick's definition of sanity. Viriditas (talk) 10:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tahitian Dogs

Was there a specific breeds of dog native to the island of Tahiti or the other islands of French Polynesia? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean 'native to' in the sense of not being brought over by Polynesian settlers, no. There were no land-based mammals in Polynesia prior to human settlement. The dogs on the island would be descended from whatever the Polynesians brought with them. Whether they would have been a 'distinct breed' would probably depend on how many were brought, and how long they were genetically isolated - a 'breed' of dog isn't a clearcut, objectively-definable thing. Even deciding if a 'species' is real can sometimes be difficult. See the question as to whether the dog is a separates species from the wolf for a classic example of this ambiguity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All animals came from somethere else. Since the Polynesian settlers were considered natives also, obviously I was talking about their dogs. I found the answer myself. It was the Uri-Mahoi. Does anybody know if this species/breed is extinct or not?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only references I could find to Uri-Mahoi seem to originate from The Naturalist's Library: Mammalia, Volume X, Dogs (Edinburgh 1840) by Lieut Col Charles Hamilton Smith (p.210). He also gives the English name "Poe dog". BTW, don't be too hard on AndyTheGrump; biologists make a distinction between indigenous plants and animals that find their own way to a location and those that are introduced by human activity. Dogs usually fall into the latter category. Alansplodge (talk) 09:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poi Dog

Why was the group Poi Dog Pondering named so? Was it after the Hawaiian Poi Dog?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the second sentence of the linked article, the group was founded in Hawaii.--Cam (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it was named after the dog. It was named after the fact that the members of the group are of mixed ancestry (hapa) like the dog, and espouse an eclectic range of styles and instruments. Viriditas (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marginal propensity to consume at very high income

Does the marginal propensity to consume decrease as income rises into the millions per annum, in populations where it's been studied? On a related note, do economists typically count the philanthropy of billionaires as "consumption"? Neon Merlin 05:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well Marginal_propensity_to_consume#MPC_and_nature_of_country states "The MPC is higher in the case of poor than in case of rich people. The greater a man’s income, the more of his basic human needs will have already been met, and the greater his tendency to save in order to provide for future will be...", which is unreferenced, but responds to your question that MPC would decrease as income rose into the millions. Oh, this is also why those that argue that cutting taxes for the rich or giving the rich more money will stimulate the economy through trickle-down economics are largely misguided, as increasing the spending power of the poor does far more due to stimulate the economy through this effect of the MPC (though often it's as much to do with greed and self-interest as truly being misguided). --jjron (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Antioch - positions stephen of bios & anonymous author gesta

I try to understand which position stand stephen& anonymous. I think i had found stephen of bios - between st. paul gate to dog gate where the north france stand but i quite not sure where the anonymous stand - he described that he was where the building started to bullied the castle but other described show he was near to gate of duke. someone can help? thanks --82.81.96.243 (talk) 06:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...good question. As you say, Stephen of Blois was between Bohemund and Raymond of Toulouse, who was encamped at the Dog Gate. The author of the Gesta Francorum was presumably always with Bohemund, outside the Gate of St. Paul. The gate of the Duke, where Godfrey of Bouillon was encamped, was on the other side of Raymond's camp, so I don't think the author of the Gesta would have been there. This is according to Thomas Asbridge in The First Crusade: A New History, pages 152-153; I can't see the endnotes so I don't know what sources he used, but the author of the Gesta does mention that Bohemond was at the Gate of St. Paul. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

but on 4 march, ships arrived so Bohemond Raymond went to st.symeon. The anonymous said (i think near bridge gate) the turkish attack them and more than a thousand knights or fot soldiers killed, while stephen said "we lost more than 500 of our foot-soldiers--to the glory of God. Of our horsemen, however, we lost only two" --82.81.96.243 (talk) 10:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i fount it but the picture still not clear "The crusaders decided the best use of this new resource was to build a siege fort outside the Bridge Gate. About 60 knights and many infantry were sent to the port to accompany the craftsmen and their materials on the road to Antioch. But the Turks in Antioch had got word of it. They sent out a party through the other gate, who ambushed the cavalcade, killing two knights and 500 infantry. Then when the group reached the city, the Turks sent out a sortie through the Bridge Gate, and there was a battle in front of the gate. Surprisingly, the crusaders won. Despite the loss of 1,000 men, the crusaders considered it a marvellous victory: God was on their side again." - the attack happen when Bohemond cameback at the bridge bride. "When, however, they were returning to us with those mariners, the Turks collected an army, fell suddenly upon our two leaders and forced them to a perilous In that unexpected flight we lost more than 500 of our foot-soldiers--to the glory of God. Of our horsemen, however, we lost only two, for certain.

On that same day truly, in order to receive our brethren with joy, and ignorant of their misfortunes, we went out to meet them. When, however, we approached the above-mentioned gate of the city, a mob of horsemen and foot-soldiers from Antioch, elated by the victory which they had won, rushed upon us in the same manner."
stephen said that 2 attacks hapen: Dog gate & bridge gate, those 2 on the "princes" when i look on the map its strange - something happen but i dont sure what--82.81.96.243 (talk) 11:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What map are you looking at? Adam Bishop (talk) 14:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

from the book - googlebook - Victory in the East: a military history of the First Crusade 252 - i cant see in your book so a look for pther books. also:[2] - i think i got it - maybe stephen saw on the attack in dog gate and this way the number of the death eople is less, while anonymous frist was near to the bridge and then go up to the camp where another group waited to them.--82.81.96.243 (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see that page, but can you see the map on page 266? Does that help? Adam Bishop (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

are baby tigers dangerous?

this baby tiger next to a dog is adorable: http://i.imgur.com/hRS3N.jpg

But (at the time of the photo, at that very age) is it any more dangerous than that dog next to it? Any chance it would attack you, if it did would it be any more lethal than a baby dog doing it?

Obviously dogs are domesticated and grow up to be quite tame as a rule, whereas tigers grow up to be obviously dangerous. But are they dangerous as babies? Just curious :) --80.99.254.208 (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty small and pretty helpless. It's of note that domestication in part means "acts like a juvenile it's whole life." Dogs differ from wolves largely because they act like puppies. Baby forms of most mammals are pretty harmless (with the exception of the fact that there may be a parent around). If you are not talking about mammals, though, all bets are off. Baby snakes can be just as poisonous as their adult forms, for example. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who has cats knows that they don't always keep their claws sheathed (hence the need for declawing). When trying to grab something, it's just instinct to stick their claws into it. Biting, on the other hand, usually only happens when they are angry. So, assuming tigers are the same, and this one isn't declawed, I'd think getting slashed accidentally would be a real concern. StuRat (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declawing is considered animal cruelty in most of the world, so I doubt it has been. If it's about the size of a cat then its claws are probably about the size of a cat's, so there is no more need to declaw it than there is to declaw a cat. --Tango (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see the size of those paws in the pic ? Looks to me like there are some rather large claws in them. I can't see how declawing is any more cruel than castration or spaying. StuRat (talk) 02:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is cutting the tips off all their fingers and toes. Because it interferes with their ability to climb and sit securely on high places, as well as their ability to mark their territory without spraying, which are all actually pretty important for a cat's mental well-being, and you certainly don't want a cat more likely to spray. I'm sure the reasons why it is considered a cruel procedure that most vets will not perform, in most countries, is included in our declawing article. If the conditions you would like your cat to live in are not possible when it has claws, then you need to not have the cat, or keep it in other conditions. In the same way, if that tiger will be dangerous to have in the house with its teeth and claws, the appropriate action is not to amputate its fingers and toes, and pull out all its teeth, but to find a different place for it to live. 86.164.75.123 (talk) 12:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since my family adopts abandoned pets which otherwise would be gassed, and we couldn't have them if they destroyed the furniture, your argument boils down to the cats preferring death over being declawed. They seem perfectly happy to me, so I'm not sure what you're all upset about. I, for one, would much rather live without my toenails and fingernails than die, even if the toes and fingers were chopped back a digit, and people use their fingers far more than cats do. Your argument seems similar to the anti-circumcisionists'. StuRat (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly any parent who refuses to care for a child because it isn't circumcised is not a fit parent and so should not be allowed to take care of children in the first place. So I don't think your circumcision argument helps at all. Nil Einne (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seemed to have inferred some argument I never made. The only point of comparison with circumcision is that it's removing a functional body part, and some people object. However, any argument that it's deeply immoral seems misplaced. StuRat (talk) 04:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]

My cat is extremely domesticated, totally dependant on humans for almost all its needs. It would never harm a person deliberately. It's also very clumsy. I have a large scar on my leg from when it misjudged a leap onto to my lap one summers day when I was wearing shorts, and used its claws to "save" itself. It's those claws that do the damage, even in "harmless" play. Other cats have thick fur to protect themselves. Humans don't. HiLo48 (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It you have a cat with claws, you're going to get scratched eventually. StuRat (talk) 02:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salt and silver

How does one restore a silver salt spoon which has spent too much time sitting in salt? Kittybrewster ☎ 14:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately this book doesn't help. --ColinFine (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salt corrodes silver (which is why silver salt dishes have glass liners). You may not be able to restore the lost silver, but it may be worth trying to replate the spoon if the corrosion hasn't eaten into the body of the spoon too much. Ultimately it will be worth seeking the opinion of a silversmith. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feared as much. Silver doesn't like rubber bands either. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've always thought that silver was about the worst possible choice for utensils. It's soft enough to bend out of shape, reactive enough to tarnish or dissolve and give food a bad taste, has a high enough thermal conductivity to cause you to burn your hand when picking up a spoon left in hot soup, and is expensive to boot. About the only worse material I could imagine is uranium. StuRat (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Silver is expensive and pretty. People tend to overvalue expensive and pretty things. --Jayron32 19:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a rather recursive statement. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It only is if you confuse expense (what you pay for something) with value (what it is worth). People often do that, though the two concepts are surprisingly only very tenuously related. People overvalue things which are expensive. That is because they place more value on the cost of an item than they should. Silver is considered valuable merely because of its expense, in lieu of other measures of its value, such as its utility. --Jayron32 22:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Silver utensils have more utility than lumps of silver hidden under the mattress. The benefit is that if you run out of money, you can sell the family silverware to buy food, then eat with your hands. Franamax (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Better yet to sell the silverware to buy durable stainless steel utensils, buy some food, eat it with the utensils, and still have some money left over to start saving for some little luxuries - like silver utensils :) . -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to remove the darkening (see Tarnish), try this. Prepare an enameled cast iron or Pyrex pot, a piece of aluminum foil (about 15x15cm), a table spoonful of salt, and water (about 300ml). Boil water, put the foil and salt in the boiling water, then put the spoon in it and keep boiling the water for 5 minutes or so. Oda Mari (talk) 06:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Goddard's Silver Dip is used by the Queen apparently. Alansplodge (talk) 11:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to the Royal Warrant of Appointment (United Kingdom), it says that goods are not necessarily for the use of the grantor. But I think you're probably right in this case. Well, maybe not the Queen personally, but her household would use the stuff. By the gallon. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't spoil my illusions. I'm sure HM spends many happy hours in front of the TV with a bottle of "Silver Dip" and a big pile of spoons. Alansplodge (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt. In between answering questions on the Wikipedia Reference Desk, and discussing social issues on talkback radio. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do American film studios and music recording companies pressure the US government into basically violating international law?

How do American film studios and music recording companies pressure the US government into basically violating international law? What are their 'weapons' or methods of coercion? --Broadside Perceptor (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which violation of international law were you thinking of? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See lobbying. --Tango (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but that article doesn't seem to answer my question about how they do it, or does it? --Broadside Perceptor (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And you still haven't said which law they're supposedly breaking. Hot Stop^UTC 18:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably this refers to the Megaupload raids. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And which law's been broken? Hot Stop^UTC 19:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

|}

From what I have read on other sites, now that most people are convinced that the megaupload people were committing some crime, the concern seems to have moved to their having been arrested and charged with american crimes by the american state in spite of living and working entirely in another country. 148.197.81.179 (talk) 12:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there's nothing unusual or new about people being detained and extradited for crimes they committed in another country, even if they are legally living and working in the first country. That's one point of extradition treaties. As mentioned in the extradition article (linked previous), some countries may disallow citizens to be extradited, and some countries may require double criminality, and impose other limitations, but disallowing people 'living and working in entirely another country' from being extradited is not common. What it perhaps somewhat unusual (although has some legal history behind it) is that the persons involved were AFAIK generally not in the US when they committed their alleged crimes, although they apparently used servers in the US (which makes them unlike some other cases where the US has claimed using a .com or .net domain name is enough to bring it in to their jurisdiction [3]). See also Personal jurisdiction in Internet cases in the United States. Nil Einne (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much to all for the links. Any recommended source for me to read about how lobbying works? --Broadside Perceptor (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lost African statue

Many years ago, perhaps around the 1980s or so, I saw mention on the local South London news about a man who had traveled to London from Africa looking for a lost African artifact, some kind of statue of a man or a boy. It was rather large, the height of a 6-10 year old child, and black in color. Perhaps made out of wood, but I am not sure. He was sure it was located somewhere in South London, perhaps in an attic or garage or something. I have searched using google but I cannot find anything even vaguly related. I am hoping the reference desk might be able to uncover some information. Thanks for you help. 87.98.250.244 (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ISSN registration and ad hoc frequency

Could an online publication with an single-article issue irregular frequency register for an ISSN?--128.54.193.69 (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I understand your question. The magazine has what? One issue or some issues in irregular frequency? I think ISSN is for series, independent of their frequency. 88.14.192.250 (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The later. Many issues with irregular frequency. Sometimes multiple times in one month, sometimes none for several months.--128.54.193.69 (talk) 07:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 22

Surnames as movie titles – feedback

On 10 January, here, I asked about movie titles that use only the surnames of characters, and I got lots of good ideas.

I’ve now made a half-decent list, which can be seen @ User:JackofOz/Surname-related film titles. I was right; there are lots more than I thought.

Feel free to update it. I may turn it into an article at some stage. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 00:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forgiveness without repentance

From a perfunctory reading of non-Christian religious texts, specially Eastern, I got the impression that in some belief systems it's possible to forgive without repentance from the offender. Is that true? And, if yes, wouldn't that be a kind of dangerous move, since said offenders could attack you again? 88.14.192.250 (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forgiving someone does not necessarily equate to letting them out of prison. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forgiveness doesn't imply trust. While the Pope forgave his would-be assassin, I doubt if he would meet with him without having him searched first. StuRat (talk) 02:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, in Christianity as well, one is supposed to forgive others without the need for repentence. See Matthew 18:21-22 and Matthew 6:12, 14-15 and Luke 6:37. Christian thinking makes it clear here, and in many other places, that Christians must forgive freely and willingly and without the expectance of the person you forgive to repent for their transgressions against you. This is quite different from how God reacts to such transgressions, but the OP implies that he's looking for someone "to forgive" another person, and not for a person to be forgiven by the Deity. Christianity, at least, makes a clear distinction between those two ideas. If that wasn't what the question was, I apologize, but that's how I read it. --Jayron32 02:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us", yes? No implied conditions with regard to the ones who trespassed against us. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, forgiveness is 100% in the world of the forgiver. If I forgive, I make a choice to refuse to bear ill will: the person I am forgiving may be repentant or not, present or not, alive or not, may in fact be completely unaware of me and my resentment. Forgiving somebody is something I do to heal myself, and there is no other person involved. --ColinFine (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. It's not saying "It's perfectly OK that you raped me and murdered my parents"; it's not a question of condoning the other's action at all. It's about your attitude to the person themself. Theoretically, a parent should never have to forgive a child, because their love for the child is unconditional; all their negative stuff should be directed to the child's actions, and the love for the child themself remains intact, no matter how badly they behave. It doesn't always work out that way in practice, though. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the OP, can you be a bit more specific than "Eastern"? And what did you read? IBE (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I always find it easier to forgive someone after I finish burying them in my crawlspace." :-) StuRat (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Murder in Oxford

Could someone point me to where I could find a log of crimes in Oxford (U.K.) from last year? I want to know if an assault of some kind occurred by the river near St. Aldates Street in early 2011 (Jan. or Feb., maybe March)

I tried Googling "murder" and "Oxford" but apparently there's a movie called "the Oxford Murders" that ate up all my search results.

Thanks for any help. I put this under humanities because it's about history, albeit very recent history. Sorry for the gruesome subject. 128.239.174.246 (talk) 02:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)forsummer[reply]

In the U.S., newspapers frequently publish short, unedited summaries submitted by local police departments called a "police blotter." I have no idea if something similar happens in the U.K. But it might give you a lead. --Jayron32 02:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was almost certainly an assault of some sort in the area in that time frame! You can adjust for month and crime-type, and area. If you have information about a crime, you can contact Crimestoppers anonymously [4], although obviously this was about a year ago now. 86.164.75.123 (talk) 03:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and if you know anything more specific, you could check to see if it was reported in the Oxford Mail or Oxford Times, but I think those results get swamped by the sad case of the woman with learning difficulties in Witney in January 2011. I mean, there is this, but it seems unlikely to be what you remember.86.164.75.123 (talk) 03:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your simplest option is probably to just ask the police. You can find the contact details here (obviously, don't call 999, but you could email them or call the new 101 number and they will probably be able to help you). --Tango (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The river by St. Aldates" is a bit of an odd description - St Aldates runs down to the river, crosses it on Folly Bridge, and then becomes the Abingdon Road. "Near Folly Bridge" would be the way local press would be much more likely to report it - you could try searching on assault + "folly bridge", murder + "folly bridge", which helpfully avoids the oxford + murder problem. Shimgray | talk | 22:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Economic left but social conservative and economic right but social liberal

Is there any political party that is economic left but social conservative meaning they lean left in economic issues and lean right in social issues? Is there any political party that is economic right but social liberal? -- 05:11, 22 January 2012‎ 70.31.18.111

In which country? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 06:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, which country you are talking about is very important. The definitions of "right" and "left" are relative to the norms for that country and those norms vary widely. For example, the Conservative Party (UK) is considered right-of-centre, on both economic and social issues, in the UK, but it would be considered very much on the left in the US on both issues (eg. they support public health care and have openly gay ministers in government). --Tango (talk) 14:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Libertarian Party (United States) seems to have the "keep government out of our lives" attitude, which means they are socially liberal (no government banning of drugs, prostitution, or homosexual relationships) and financially conservative (wanting a small government and minimal taxes). StuRat (talk) 08:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In general, mainstream right wing parties in the Nordic Countries support redistribution of wealth as it is currently practiced in those countries, although when faced with financial problems they are more ready to compromise such policies than traditional left-wing parties. However, perhaps the best examples would be the newish populist parties such as True Finns and Danish People's Party which do actively support both wealth redistribution and conservative social values, and such policies have been very popular especially among workers disillusioned with traditional socialist parties. 188.117.11.111 (talk) 10:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The political compass generally rates fascist parties as being economically "left" but socially "right." Most of those have gone out of favor though there are still a few here and there. Libertarians are usually economically "right" but socially "left". But using "left" and "right" in this context is very confusing. See the political compass article for somewhat more useful terms (though even these run into difficulty). --Mr.98 (talk) 01:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Various Muslim or Islamist parties are socialist or left-leaning economically but have a strong component of Islamic morality that would accord with western Christian conservatives: Hamas in Palestine, the Egyptian Arab Socialist Party (which calls for Sharia law), and various more extreme Islamist movements (although very extreme Islamists oppose all political parties). The Respect Party in the UK is a mix of traditional (ie. small-c conservative) socialist and Muslim ideas; it tends to be more socially conservative than other socialist parties.

There are also lots of socialists who oppose liberal ideas like abortion, gay marriage, or drug legalisation, in leftist parties. (And many people criticised the recent British Labour Party governments for authoritarianism; they encroached on rights to free speech, free protest, and privacy; stopped short of gay marriage; opposed drug legalisation, etc; though arguably they weren't economically leftist.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The far-right British National Party is a fairly extreme example of an economic left/social right party (unsurprisingly the party is often described as fascist) - their manifesto suggests the renationalisation of most major public services and an economic model based on worker co-operatives, but they also want a system where citizenship is based on race, oppose mixed-race marriage, and want homosexuality driven "back into the closet". Depending on how you're defining right-wing, most nationalist parties in the UK could be described as left/right, but the big ones - Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National Party - are liberal on almost every social position that isn't related to nationalism. Smurrayinchester 13:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Respect Party is social conservative? I didn't know that. By the way, what is the platform of Respect Party and who were their candidates since their first participation of the House of Commons election to recent elections?

Did you follow the link? Respect Party? Or the websites linked from that page? --TammyMoet (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did check the website of Respect Party and unfortunately, they have list of candidates since their first participation of House of Commons election and as well as their platform.

saluting during a foreign anthem

When Angela Merkel visited the US last year, she was greeted with a State Arrival Ceremony. Both the German and US national anthems were played, and the military officers saluted during both national anthems. However, President Obama did his civilian salute (with the right hand over the heart) during the US national anthem only. Was it appropriate for Obama to not salute a foreign anthem, as customary within the military, even though he is Commander in Chief? Ragettho (talk) 05:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because the salute is an American custom and what Americans do to their anthem/flag, showing their allegiance to their own country. Why should Obama owe allegiance to Germany or any other foreign countries? Do Americans expect other counties' people do the salute to The Star-Spangled Banner and the flag of the United States? Oda Mari (talk) 07:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These things are matters of protocol; which are highly scripted. It is more newsworthy when Obama is seen to have varied from protocol.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the protocols on these matters, but it is probably significant that German civilians don't do any kind of salute during their national anthem (at least, I don't think they do). --Tango (talk) 14:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is Obama considered to be a civilian, though? He is, after all, the Commander in Chief, and all military personnel are required to salute during foreign anthems in addition to the US one. Ragettho (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the British armed forces, even military personnel don't salute when they're not wearing uniform; also, if they're wearing uniform but no headgear, they still don't salute. Our Salute article suggests that it's the same for the USA. Alansplodge (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's a civilian, his authority is "over" the military chain of command as civilian authority over the military is a fairly fundamental component of liberal democracy.

ALR (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agreee with ALR, he is a civilian, although in a war he would be considered a military target by an enemy nation, so there are exceptions to his civilian status. --Lgriot (talk) 08:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While still a civilian he'd be a legitimate target under the Law of Armed Conflict. Doesn't change his status.

ALR (talk) 10:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Collective term for groups of people with physical disabilities and people with special needs

Is there a term to refer collectively to the various groups of people with physical disabilities and people with special needs as a large community? Would an article about this community in the context of a specific country be suitable for inclusion into Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.10.11 (talk) 09:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've inserted a heading to move this question into a separate section. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be difficult to find a term that wouldn't result in terminal bickering over it's political correctness, and I think that the closest you may get are the terms you have already used, "those with physical disabilities" and those with "special needs" however both have their unpopular connotations. The entire world of physical and mental difficulty is too broad for one collective term I think. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. with SGGH.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is no 'community' of 'the various groups of people with physical disabilities and people with special needs'. I'm not sure what definition of the word community you are expecting to apply here. In context, a word or phrase will be chosen. So, for example, in an educational context, we might talk about students with Special Educational Needs, which is a blanket term implying they need extra support in some way, but doesn't specify why they need that extra support: they might have a special need because they are visually impaired, or because they are dyslexic, or because they have a language difficulty, or because they find fine motor skills difficult, or because they have problems with anger, or because they are recently bereaved, or all sorts of reasons. When it comes to Disability Living Allowance, it is supposed to depend on what a person needs help with, not why they need help with it. So these are things which, broadly, lump these issues together, but they don't imply any sort of 'community', nor do they use a single term to refer to all people with any sort of special need. 86.164.75.123 (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the term "the disabled" used as a grouping expression, as in "We designed the building with the needs of the disabled in mind". HiLo48 (talk) 08:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Crips is a different group of people entirely, but South Park had fun with the term anyway. StuRat (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Negative campaigning and the political system

Is there a connection between the degree of negative campaigning (in politics) and the political system in different countries? It seems to me that countries with several large parties would have less negative campaigning. You may want to ally with the other party in the future, and from a game theory perspective just because you stop the voters from voting for party B it doesn't mean this vote is going to your party. Sjö (talk) 09:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You would at minimum have to assume a tradition of coalition-forming for that to work.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that in the US system, during the primaries, each candidate is "on their own", rather than being represented by their party. They often go bitterly negative on each other, only to "kiss and make up" once the party makes it's choice. For example, George H. W. Bush famously referred to Ronald Reagan's supply-side economics as voodoo economics, only to take the VP slot under Reagan for the general election in 1980 and again in 1984. StuRat (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rail crash at Concord West

I am seeking information in relation to a serious rail crash at Concord West around 1955. The train collided with a very large earth moving apparatus and the side was ripped out to the train. I am having difficulty finding any reference ot it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.64.171 (talk) 10:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about this?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to be a good find. That information seems to be entirely absent from Railway accidents in New South Wales though and looks to be more serious than many of the other accidents listed, so should be added in. We're assuming of course that the OP is referring to Concord West in Sydney. --jjron (talk) 03:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Almost certainly this is what he was talking about. The description of the rail crash, that is, the side of the train being ripped open, and the presence of earth-moving equipment, convince me.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

J. Edgar Hoover

Hello all. Not a Wikipedia related message, but I was hoping someone could help. I'm interested in getting to know more about this chap, and I was wondering if anyone who perhaps worked on the topic could recommend a good biography of him? I've got a grounding in the relevant areas of history so wouldn't need a "dunces text" would like something quite in depth, and something that perhaps deals with the complexities of the man as well as his actions with the FBI. Any thoughts? Thanks in advance, S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know myself, I really have never dealt much with him. If you feel comfortable asking on the article talk page, you could. The leading editor who has edited the article recently is User:Plazak, he might be worth talking to.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of biographies listed in J. Edgar_Hoover#Sources. Athan Theoharis seems to be an academic expert, so his 1993 book might be an option. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tried WP:FBI but their talk seemed pretty in-active, and I did peruse some of the biographies but couldn't tell which ones were considered definitive. I'll asked Plazak what he thinks, and look at this Theoharis one. Ta, S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have read (most of) the Theoharis; it looks good; serious, undogmatic unfantical left-wing, but perhaps not for the beginner. One thing is certain: Hoover was neither dumb, nor simply a sexual pervert (as is often alleged), but he used simply illegal means for much of his career.--Radh (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kalām cosmological argument

Um... I've never this objection anywhere, so I'm gonna ask it here.Isn't it a sort of contradiction, saying that everything needs a cause at the beginning of the argument and then saying there is something that doesn't at the end of it?--Irrational number (talk) 14:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a strict contradiction per se, but certainly an inconsistent handling of assumptions in the argument. The argument seems to be that the First Cause is so special that it has to be god. There are various embellishments ("God is outside of time and space, so does not need a cause"), but they all seem like special pleading to me. From a logical point of view, I don't see a reason why every action needs a cause (what causes a U235 atom to split at a particular time?), nor do I see why infinite regression can be ruled out. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a good overview of the argument at the Stanford Encyclopedia [5] (written by Reichenbach, who is very dependable). Hopefully you can get something out of it. This is still an active topic for both philosophers and astrophysicists and university seminars are done on it, so you can jump right into the issue and no doubt learn a lot and even come to answers which are wholly satisfactory to you, but don't expect unanimous answers all around! --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 09:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, you can see how there is not that contradiction in the way the argument in posed in the SEP article. It is not assuming that absolutely everything needs a cause, but only that all things which have a beginning (or finite past) need a cause. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 10:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

siblings on either side of the law

Do we have examples of male siblings, one of whom is a career criminal, and the other of whom is significantly involved in law enforcement? If there are many such cases, would it make sense to have a WP:List article which would be a list of siblings, one of whom is reliably sourced as having been significantly involved in criminal activity, and the other of whom is reliably sourced as having been significantly involved in law enforcement? Bus stop (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. The Bulger Brothers Whitey Bulger, Head of the Boston Irish Mafia. Billy Bulger, MA State Senate President and most powerful lawmaker in MA.

2. the Capone Brothers.

Al Capone, famous racketeer and boss of the Chicago Outfite.

James Capone, less famous Prohibition Agent (he was not assigned to chicago).

3. Guliani Family.

Gulliani, famed federal prosecutor and NY Mayor.

Gulliani's father, low level street thug and bookie who went straight around the time his son was born.

Gulliani's uncles, Officers in the New York Police Department.

Hope this helps.

David Kaczynski wasn't in law enforcement, but he did turn in his brother Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, not precisely the same situation, but Edward J. O'Hare was well-connected, being a Capone employee, though he later helped Scarface get convicted for tax evasion. His son Edward O'Hare was a war hero and got an airport named after him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably, J. Edgar Hoover was on both sides of the law at the same time. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's likely to be many of them, given the early history of the FBI. The FBI in the 1950s and 1960s especially made "organized crime" a primary mission. And by organized crime, they generally meant Italian-American organized crime (i.e. the Mafia) and they specifically and deliberately recruited agents from the same neighborhoods they would be investigating; such people would have had "inside information" and know the culture and environment. There were a lot of Italian-American agents who had "connected" relatives, maybe even siblings. this google search turns up some good leads on the topic. --Jayron32 19:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, everybody, for your responses. I consider them all appropriate. None were as stark as I was thinking would exist, but maybe my conception was simplistic. I was thinking we would see two brothers starting from similar backgrounds and for no apparent reason setting out in opposite directions—one pursuing some illegal activity, the other pursuing law enforcement. I would imagine such pairs exist but they may be lower profile individuals, neither of whom received a lot of notoriety. Bus stop (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What makes this hard to measure is that sometimes the gangsters are on the side of the police, or the police are on the side of the gangsters. See [6] where 25 Chicago police officers were dismissed or under investigation for gang affiliations in 1995. I have to say that in a situation of the type you describe, such a cynical interpretation would be my first reaction. Wnt (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that link. It shows the permeability of what I have been positing to be a strict boundary. Bus stop (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

George Orwell's Homage to Catalonia

Why did he call his book on the Spanish Civil War 'Homage to Catalonia'? Probably an easy question to answer but Google didn't help much. --Broadside Perceptor (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This, p. 91 has some discussion, although I wouldn't call it a RS.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Public Broadcasting System

I just read your information on PBS. I would like to know how much money the Federal Govt gives to PBS annually. Thank you. 69.158.3.57 (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In 2005, it was around 66 million dollars, according to the source at footnote 18 in PBS. RudolfRed (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little bit difficult to answer, as the answer depends on what exactly you're trying to find out. If it's how much money the Federal government gives directly to PBS for general operating expenses, as far as I'm aware, the answer is none: the Federal government funds the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which in turn gives money to PBS, NPR, and other broadcasters. On the CPB article page, it's listed that CPB gave $25.2 million to PBS directly for fiscal year 2010. However, because of how public television is organized, it's inaccurate to say that $25.2 million is the only Federal money going towards putting out the public television broadcast. PBS is an umbrella organization, and its member stations are independent entities which may receive funding from the government and CPB ($210.26 million from CPB for fiscal year 2010, according to the article), a portion of which (along with viewer contributions, donations, and state funds) goes to pay PBS for programming. But then, PBS doesn't really produce programs itself, rather it purchases programs from member stations (like WGBH, WNET, etc.). Additionally, a surprisingly large portion of the content on "PBS" stations actually doesn't come through PBS at all, but rather comes through independent distributors such as American Public Television (which itself often gets programs from PBS member stations), or third party producers. The production of a number of these programs is supported in part by the Federal government, either through the CPB, or through grants from other agencies like the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Education and the National Endowment for the Arts. So if you want a single number, you need to figure out what, exactly, you're looking for. -- 67.40.215.173 (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

National Gallery info

So, I get to write an essay on just about any architectural creation I want, and I chose Venturi's extension to the National Gallery, but now I come to start work, I am finding it difficult to actually find much information on the place, the various complex design features, reasons for them, criticism and praise, all that sort of thing, does anyone here know of any sites that give that sort of information?

148.197.81.179 (talk) 23:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would look for news coverage from when it opened. I would be surprised if major newspapers' architectural critics did not have something to say about it. Also check Google News Archive for the days around the time it opened.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which nation's National Gallery are we talking about? HiLo48 (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UK. Also search the BBC web site, they keep their stuff a long time.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the National Gallery. I found this, and this (click on "Download Links" in the top right margin). Also [7] this about the engineering of the place. Architecture isn't really my thing though, so I'm not sure if I'm being much help. Alansplodge (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This interview, [8], [9], [10], [11] (and just keep pressiong "NEXT" on the bottom left of the player) may be of interest too. Alansplodge (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 23

National conservatism in Europe

Which political parties are based on national conservatism?

Try national conservatism. Is this homework? IBE (talk) 04:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What denomination do born-again Christians belong to?

Here in the Philippines, I know several people who are "born-again Christians" and I see small churches all around calling themselves "Full Gospel Church" or "Non-Sectarian Gospel Church", but what denomination of Christianity are they? Our article on "born agains" is vague on the matter, although after a little bit of research, they may be Pentecostal churches. But are they Pentecostalists, Protestants, or are not part of any particular denomination? And as a side question, is the Iglesia ni Cristo Protestant and is the Philippine Independent Church and Members Church of God International Catholic? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of different denominations. "Full gospel" churches are Pentecostal, but there are plenty of other denominations (note that Pentecostals are a kind of Protestants) whose members would be likely to refer to themselves as "born-again". By the way, there are lots of Pentecostal denominations, as well as lots of independent Pentecostal churches that aren't part of any denomination; Pentecostalism is more like a family of denominations. Members of my denomination are going to describe themselves as "born-again" if you ask them, and we're very far indeed from being Pentecostal. I'll leave it to someone else to answer the side question. Nyttend (talk) 04:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC

For your first question, I agree with the above: there is no one denomination rhey belong to, though I would add that they aren't likely to be Catholics, as thry don't generally use that term. For your second question, the articles you link to answer the question, though again, if you mean Roman Catholic (the kind most people think of when they hear the word Catholic; there's more than one kind) then no, they aren't. Mingmingla (talk) 06:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just by way of adding to the above responses, you might like to read Evangelicalism. Basically, most Protestant Christians I know (in Australia) identify as evangelical, and use the term fairly often, but rarely say they are "born-again Christians" (it has a pejorative connotation here). But if you asked them whether they are born-again, I'm fairly sure they would say yes, as per the article I linked. The most often-cited distinction is really between evangelical and liberal Christians in Protestant circles, so the people you know most probably are evangelicals (unless it's different where you are). But you'd have to ask them. IBE (talk) 07:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that they aren't in any denomination--the "non-sectarian" bit suggests that to me anyway. You may want to read Nondenominational Christianity. Meelar (talk) 07:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that possibly Justification (theology) may be relevant here - though the 'again' part is difficult to reconcile with the more strict understandings of the concept of predestination. Then again, I'm an atheist, so what would I know... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, but if you look at their beliefs and practices (and history), "non-denominational" churches are generally Southern Baptists or similar who have renamed themselves "non-denominational" because of awareness that denominations (as divisions) are pretty clearly condemned in the New Testament. However, this doesn't actually mean they aren't a denomination: they have a set of beliefs and practices which are not the same as the basics that all Christians agree on, and they expect members to follow them. Their denomination is called "non-denominational", but that doesn't mean they aren't a denomination. They're generally Calvinist. It reminds me of when people belong to the majority culture in a given society, and thus say that they "have no culture", that they themselves are some sort of 'neutral'. 86.164.75.123 (talk) 09:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that they could be just about any denomination as 'born again' is a phrase used by Jesus in John 3. Eomund (talk) 02:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Born-again/evangelical Christianity isn't a denomination as such, it's more a style practised by some congregations of various protestant denominations, and some independent churches that aren't affiliated to any denomination. Where I come from (Belfast), most protestant churches are evangelical to some degree, and that includes Church of Ireland, Prebyterian, Methodist, Baptist and independent. --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overturning Dred Scott

Is Dred Scott v. Sandford generally considered to have been overturned in full? Obviously a lot of it was overturned by the Reconstruction Amendments, but I'm interested in something that none of them (and no amendments enacted since that time) seem to discuss. A key component of the ruling was that Scott, not being a US citizen, did not have standing to file the suit that he did; since no amendment ratified since the case has discussed the question of noncitizens suing in US courts, I'm not sure quite how to understand the article's statement that the case is no longer jurisprudentially important. Nyttend (talk) 05:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't necessary to settle the general issue of the rights of non-citizens in order to overturn Scott. The court ruled that Dred Scott was considered a non-citizen because he was of African ancestry. The 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause extended jus soli citizenship to anyone born on US soil (as Scott was), so Scott was therefore nullified. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 05:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that's beside the point — no constitutional amendment has granted non-citizens the right to sue in US courts, and as far as I know, no later Supreme Court decisions have stated that non-citizens have a right to sue in US courts. Can you present something to show that I'm partially or completely wrong? Nyttend (talk) 14:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest getting someone with online access to Shepard's Citations to settle it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not beside the point at all. To build on what Wehwalt says below, the ruling was not about whether or not non-citizens in general had the standing to bring a case in a US court. The ruling was about whether or not those of African descent were citizens. The ruling was about determining who was a citizen, and nothing more. The general issue of the rights of what non-citizens could and could not do was not at issue for this case, so I'm not sure why you would expect that essentially unrelated question to be settled for this to be completely put to rest. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the law, but this surely fails a reality check; see stories like "Rancher ordered to pay illegals $77,000", etc. Wnt (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, obviously that's not the way that US courts work now; I'm just curious if it's been explicitly overturned, or if precedent has essentially just ignored that finding. Nyttend (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt if there was ever a case which said that Dred Scott was overruled, explicitly. The ratification of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments put an end to those particular factual circumstances, and so that would never come before a court. That being said, there are certainly any number of Supreme Court dissents which accuse the majority of promulgating the worst case since then.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is discussed in the book Slavery, Law, and Politics: The Dred Scott Case in Historical Perspective by Don E. Fehrenbacher ISBN 0-19-502883-X. Apparently, the closest thing to an explicit judicial overturn came in the Insular Cases, when one "Justice Brown" stated that the Civil war had "produced such changes in judicial, as well as public sentiment, as to seriously impair the authority of this case". Apparently certain minor technicalities about the relationship between federal citizenship and state citizenship (not directly connected with race) still remain accepted, despite having been first introduced in Dred Scott... AnonMoos (talk) 17:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. the Conservapedia article actually appears to have a little more information than the Wikipedia article on this point. AnonMoos (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And they think Garret Hobart was from Ohio, and was a congressman. Not.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really an answer, but see standing 124.148.55.187 (talk) 13:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't the US kill Che earlier?

Hi, I've just stumbled across this video about the speech Che gave to the UN in 1964. Given that he was the enemy of the US at the time, and that he was virtually on American soil, why didn't the US send out an assassin to murder him? Are there policies regarding the actions of other nations on the soil belonging to the UN, or was Che to clever at deceiving the FBI, CIA, or any other intelligence agencies belonging to enemies of Cuba? --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 07:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Che Guevara was head of the Cuban delegation to the UN in December 1964 so his trip was not a secret; during his visit he appeared on CBS and met with US politicians. There were attempts to assassinate him while he was in New York, but they were carried out by Cuban exiles. Although the CIA had links to Cuban exile groups, it is very unlikely that the US government would have openly supported the assassination of Che Guevara while he was in New York - apart from any ethical considerations, they would not have wanted to risk Soviet retaliation. Remember this was in the middle of the Cold War and only two years after the Cuban missile crisis. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any references but I think that as part of the treaty that sited the UN in New York, the US gave certain guarantees regarding people attending the UN, allowing them to travel freely, etc. These may well include protection for anyone attending the UN in a diplomatic function. This would have prevented them from arresting/capturing Guevara, and if the US government was found to have assassinated him, the repercussions would have been even more serious, with the UN effectively unable to do business. Additionally, the US government does occasionally like to obey the law, and doesn't normally assassinate people on US soil, at least as far as we know. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure they are allowed to travel freely; when Khrushchev came to the UN (the shoe-banging), he had made himself head of the USSR's delegation, but as tensions were high and K wasn't exactly high on the State Department's Christmas card list, he was restricted to Manhattan, plus weekend trips to a country house the USSR owned on Long Island. I will look for the actual treaty too.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that it is a host countries duty to protect any members of foreign a delegation, and any diplomats. Politically and legally this would have been the worst time to assassinate him. -- Q Chris (talk) 10:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is the sort of thing that could lead to a boycotting or re-siting of the UN, at the very least. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See diplomatic immunity, a principle that has been followed for centuries. Nyttend (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Thanks for pointing that out. But what if, in a highly-implausible case, the diplomat murdered someone? Would he/she be given immunity?~~ --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 23:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Che may have been an enemy of the US, but he wasn't all that dangerous, after Cuba fell to Fidel Castro. In fact, he bickered with Castro, who sent him abroad to get rid of him (which resulted in Che's execution in 1967). I'm surprised nobody shot him sooner, if only for that hair. :-) StuRat (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think Fidel was more of a danger than Che was? The former wanted to change the political landscape in Cuba only, whereas Che wanted a World Revolution.

Because merely wanting something doesn't make it happen. You'd need a good plan and plenty of resources. Che didn't seem to have either. And, as our article states "...Guevara's known preference for confrontation rather than compromise, which had previously surfaced during his guerrilla warfare campaign in Cuba, contributed to his inability to develop successful working relationships with local leaders...". So, leaving "the forces of world revolution" with an incompetent leader may well have been their strategy. Castro, on the other hand, nearly succeeded in starting WW3 during the Cuban Missile Crisis. That makes him far more dangerous than Che. StuRat (talk) 03:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How likely is intelligence?

I was reading an interview with a noted philosopher of science in the Atlantic, and he made a novel (to me) point about the Fermi Paradox: namely, that of all the millions of species that existed on earth, humans are the first to actually have intelligence enough to use technology. His point was that even if life is common, intelligence is not, and that this could explain the "great silence". So this raises a couple questions for me. First of all, has anyone else raised this point previously, and if so, any good sources to read more about it? And secondly, is there any reason that intelligence didn't arise earlier than it did? Is there some physical or biological fact that would prevent the development of a tool-using dinosaur, for instance? Thanks! Meelar (talk) 07:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Drake equation, specifically notes 20 to 22, and anything about the parameter f_i in that equation. IBE (talk) 08:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence at the human level is not necessary to survive in the wild, so it doesn't normally happen. You don't need to be able to build carts on wheels and do the maths to calculate trajectories of balistic missiles to survive. And the brains to be able to do that are really costly, so they are not an evolutionary advantage. Something odd happened to apes, that is that we started selecting ourselves using intellingence as the key criteria, through sexual selection, (while natural selection was still operating normally). This may explain the fermi paradox, sexual selecction is not uncommon, but sexual selection of intelligence has indeed only been observed once. I have never read anything discussing the reason why it didn't happen in other social animals earlier, but I guess sexual selection criterias are decided randomly?--Lgriot (talk) 08:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Amerindians were unable to build carts on wheels because they never invented the wheel.
Sleigh (talk) 10:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And also because they never invented the horse (American bison, the only candidate beasts of burden, are very hard or impossible to domesticate). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While we're here, think about the Australian Aboriginal people. The big mammal they faced was the kangaroo. Can you imagine them as beasts of burden? HiLo48 (talk) 10:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well potentially they could have used the Diprotodon except it seems they were more than a little complicit in the diprotodon's extinction before they got a chance to come up with a use other than food. --jjron (talk) 10:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, humans are not just the first intelligent species to use technology, but based on our extraction and manipulation of resources on the surface and below, they are the last. Viriditas (talk) 11:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we eliminate ourselves in a way that leaves a more or less functioning biosphere, that may not be the case.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that based on the collective evidence from various disciplines, intelligence on Earth is a one shot deal. Viriditas (talk) 11:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We'll never know ...--Wehwalt (talk) 11:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but we already know. See future of the Earth for only one piece of evidence. There's a lot more where that came from, and it ain't pretty. We're it, folks. Viriditas (talk) 11:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That article gives us some 4 billion years before all life on Earth is extinct, which might be enough to reach intelligent life starting over from a glowing ball of magma. However, if we manage to kill off ourselves, and leave any life behind, even cockroaches, that would be a huge leap forward from nothing. StuRat (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plants and microbes will be all that's left in just 500-600 million years from now. McKay explains the one shot deal argument: "among mammals, humans developed intelligence first and are thereby effectively precluding the development of intelligence in other species. It follows from this argument that intelligence evolves once and only once on a planet, because once evolved it changes the rules of the interaction between species and effectively dominates the planet from then on." That does not mean, however, that another intelligent species (such as Troodon) did not previously evolve to build radio telescopes (the measure of intelligence according to McKay) but just that there are no technological artifacts left for us to examine if they were ever intelligent enough to create any. Viriditas (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That argument seems to assume that intelligent species are either immune from extinction, or would wipe out every other life form with them. I can quite easily imagine us wiping ourselves out without causing much permanent damage to other life on Earth, say due to a war using human-specific bioweapons. We might also engineer either self-replicating machine intelligence or biological intelligence, before we wipe ourselves out. StuRat (talk) 03:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The argument assumes neither. What determines our potential for extinction depends on which step we find ourselves along the Great Filter. But to get back to the argument at hand:

"...the overwhelming majority of living things failed to evolve smartness. Unlike streamlined bodies, wings, and eyes, intelligence of the sort that characterizes Homo sapiens is hardly a widespread biological trait, having arisen (so far as we know) just once in all the fifty billion species that have existed since the origin of life."[12]
"To attain that level of intelligence, life has to evolve to a high level of complexity, and it must do this within the few-billion-year habitability window during which the sun burns stably...the evolution of intelligent life on Earth has 'used up' about 4 billion years of the roughly 5-billion year window of opportunity, before Earth gets fried by the swelling sun...If our understanding about the sun's evolution is correct, then (according to the best estimates) there's about 800 million years to go before our planet is too hot to support intelligent life."[13]
"The fact that high levels of intelligence have evolved so seldom during the history of animal life on Earth suggests that the circumstances that favor intelligence are rare. Therefore, as evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould pointed out, if complex life were to evolve all over again, it is unlikely that a human level of intelligence would evolve...scientists should not expect to find highly intelligent life on every planet that is capable of supporting complex life. Gould strongly rejected the idea that strucurally simpler organisms are evolving toward higher intelligence."[14]
"Clearly high intelligence has little evolutionary advantage, for it has appeared once in tens of billion attempts. As Ernst Mayr has pointed out, even the development of high intelligence may not lead to the ability to communicate with distant planets. Only one of the 20 or so civilizations, some with highly developed skills in astronomy, that have arisen on Earth in the past 5000 years has developed the technology with the potential to communicate with other possible life-forms elsewhere."[15]

The bottom line is that there isn't enough time nor chance for life to evolve advanced intelligence for a second time. Based on the available evidence, we are the great inheritors of intelligence for the planet Earth and that necessitates a great deal of responsibility. Viriditas (talk) 03:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the OP's original question though, no it is certainly not a new idea. Noted evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould talked and wrote about this quite regularly. Gould would often bring up the point how, unlike many other structures found in different lineages on Earth, intelligence did not seem to show convergence; therefore it may well be that we are the single 'experiment' down this line in the universe (conversely he also pointed out that for all we know, on another planet intelligence may well be as convergent as eyes or jaws are on Earth). I'd recommend you look through his back catalogue (unfortunately I can't remember many specific titles where he wrote about this off the top of my head, although I do seem to remember a chapter on it in the very good and very readable Wonderful Life (book)). I also seem to remember that other great populariser of science from the 70s and after Carl Sagan bringing it up too. I bring it up at times myself in the course of my job.

Getting onto your second question, there's a number of interesting evolutionary 'accidents' that helped humans evolve the intelligence that they did. If not for basically sheer luck we could never have created our technology, etc; I recall Gould discussing these in some depth. For example, an obvious one is our opposable thumb, a consequence of our primate ancestry but not necessarily something that need be associated with intelligence. However, if not for the opposable thumb, we would not be able to grip things, make and use tools, and have ever done thousands or millions of other things that eventually led to where we are today. Consider a dolphin for example; they are considered quite intelligent, but there's no real possibility they could ever do what we've done with only their flippers to work with no matter how good their brains got. This type of thing contributes to humans being able to do what they've done, and if high levels of intelligence evolved in other lineages they may never be able to exploit it in the same way (past or future). --jjron (talk) 11:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, there is much literature on all these topics, ranging from scholarly books to science fiction (David Brin's Uplift books, for example). I tend to be dubious about any conclusions about the likelihood of intelligence, as we are working from one known instance in which a planet that had life evolved intelligence, and if it had not, we would not be having this discussion. It's too early to tell if the dice are loaded.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that dolphins have been known to use tools, and to teach other dolphins to do the same. So this discussion depends a bit on how one defines the use of technology. - Bilby (talk) 12:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's already assumed. We're talking about technology in terms of the Fermi paradox argument. Namely, the first civilization to develop advanced technology needed to explore their Solar System, eventually colonizes their galaxy exponentially. The fact that "they" aren't here is the paradox. Viriditas (talk) 12:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. Star travel will not be easy to develop, but it's surely trivial in terms of geologic time, and we have no reason to believe the Sun or Earth particularly exceptional by galactic standards, or early developing.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all, these were very helpful. Meelar (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And, in addition to the opposable thumb, bipedal locomotion was also important, in that it freed our hands to use tools (it likely first developed as a way to see above high grass). Other body configuration, like that of the mythical centaur, could also accomplish this. Cephalopods appear to be intelligent, probably in part because they also have "free arms" to use tools. Other factors which seem to select for intelligence are being social animals, omnivores, and prey for carnivores. StuRat (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To see over tall grass? What is your basis for saying this is the "likely" explanation for human bipedal motion? I've seen a lot of theories, and a lot of just-so stories, but I don't think I've ever seen that one, even from old works that uncritically accepted the Savannah hypothesis. 86.164.75.123 (talk) 09:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright in US judicial decisions

Since it's an established principle that US federal government works are in the public domain, rulings of federal courts are free to copy, sell, modify, etc. How does this work in cases such as this story or Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., in which the rulings include works created by others? I'm just guessing that someone copying these images or song lyrics would not have a substantial argument in saying that s/he was just copying part of a federal court decision, but I can't understand exactly that would stand up; on the other hand, it doesn't seem likely that these works would be considered to be in the public domain. Nyttend (talk) 14:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There would be no trouble reproducing it as a part of the court decision, or a substantial part thereof. On its own, I don't think you'd get away with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A notable instance was the Fishman affidavit; in this case some Scientology materials were sort of dumped into a massive court filing, making them publicly accessible. The affidavit was later sealed, but it is still readily available on the Internet... Wnt (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The rule is that US institutions cannot hold copyright; it simply never accrues to them. (Note that to the best of my knowledge there is no active process of "public domain"ing already copyrighted works.) Thus federal employees such as judges do not hold copyright over materials they create (judgments) but whilst they are still free to quote other sources in their judgments, those sources remain copyright by their authors. Reproducing judgments that include quantities of quoted material is undoubtedly problematic; it's really a case of seeing how much infringement you can "get away with" under the doctrine of fair use rather than pure and simple immunity. (Realistically, I think the judge him/herself does operate under conditions of de facto immunity, but not, I think, de jure. By way of a side note, the same applies in the UK in some interesting cases such as examination papers.) - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 14:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The government can actually acquire copyrights; I've run into that in getting Antonin Scalia to FA; the justice's official portraits were done at government expense but by private photographers, rights to which the government purchased. The Court offered us the images on condition they not be used commercially, but that's a license we can't accept and instead we cropped Scalia from a group shot taken by the Court's employee photographer.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Intriguing. (Come to mention it, I remember a similar thing with the whole "seizing the copyright of states you're at war" with thing, the official name of which I forget.) So yeah, it probably is best to leave it as "no copyright accrues to the federal government" and leave everything else the same (i.e. there is still the risk of infringing copyright when reproducing federal judgments). - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 14:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

rights of a tenant

Does a tenant of privately rented accommodation have the right to know the identity of a stranger entering his/her home? For example; If the landlord decides to sell his property and sends a potential buyer to view the property, accompanied by an estate agent representative, has the tenant a right to know the name and occupation of the stranger entering his/her home? (identity presentation as per; passport/driving licence82.12.88.52 (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would depend on what the contract said, and what the law is in your state. We can't answer that, it is giving legal advice.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I gather on second reading that you are non-US. It is still dependent on the local law, and what the contracts say.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK my experience is that they give 24h notice of a viewing, but that may just be a kindness, and as Wehwalt says, you can't take this as legal advice. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about occupation (irrelevent as far as I am concerned), but it's just common sense to ask for ID from anyone entering your home anyway. I don't know if they legally have to show it, but you, as a tenant, have the right to turn anybody away. However, IANAL, so if you think you need legal advice on this matter, consult a lawyer, or the CAB, or the Housing Association, or your estate agent. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not that easy. If the real estate agent has a bona fide right to be there, does the occupant have a right to demand ID from the people with the agent? It is a complicated matter, but I suspect it's being asked for use with a specific application.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The real estate agent? As opposed to an imposter? This is partly what we are talking about here :) KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

real estate agent--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should check the terms of your lease. Most leases in the United States have a provision allowing the landlord to show the property to potential renters or buyers with reasonable advance notice (often 24 hours) to the tenant. The tenant does not have the right to decline entry to the property in such a case and may even be required to make the property presentable, though the wording of that last requirement is usually vague and difficult to enforce. I have never heard of a right of the tenant to demand identification from the landlord or anyone visiting a property on the landlord's behalf. However, laws protecting tenants may be stronger where you live, so please consult an attorney or tenant's organization that will have information specific to your jurisdiction on your rights and obligations. Marco polo (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have experienced, as a landlord in the UK, the situation where the tenant repeatedly refused a prospective buyer entry. Actually, I found out that despite making appointments with at least 24 hours notice, the tenant always seemed to be out what ever the appointment time. It would have been so much better if the tenant had cooperated, but I eventually had to evict the tenant (a two month process in the UK) just so the estate agent could easily gain entry and show prospective buyers round. Astronaut (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History

Hi, at school we had an assignment to write an analysis of a specific or general piece of history. I uploaded mine to wikipedia in the hopes that you guys could review it for me and tell me if its any good or not? I know your policy is to do your own homework but technically its already done I just need a few pointers. Thanks here is the essay User:Hadseys/The State of the World. --Hadseys (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit long for me to want to read. However, here are a few pointers:

1) I don't see a "thesis statement" at the beginning about what you hope to show.

2) Anything that long needs to be split up into chapters. StuRat (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a whole collection of "don't"s there. (a) Your topic ("The State of the World") is far too broad; you need to narrow it down. (b) A strong essay is usually based around a problem or question, and should begin by exposing as quickly as possible what the problem or question is. Then everything else in the essay should contribute toward solving the problem or answering the question. (c) You would benefit greatly from a "pyramid" structure in which you begin by summarizing in your first paragraph the structure of your essay. (d) Your paragraphs lack coherence. A good paragraph should almost always begin with a topic sentence that expresses the point the paragraph is intended to make, and then every other sentence in the paragraph should clearly work in support of that topic sentence. Looie496 (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My view, although, like Stu, I couldn't read the whole thing: really brilliant in many ways, but too long, and way too ambitious. Edward Gibbon published the Decline and Fall at about 37 years of age, and even he attempted less in several thousand pages than you are trying to accomplish in 40 paragraphs. Basically, your writing is great, but it needs a bit of editing, as there is some incorrect use of commas, and a few typos which I'm sure you'll figure out. Your individual paragraphs didn't seem too bad to me, but the connection between them was vague, largely because you are trying to write such a broad essay. It looks erudite, and is interesting for a while, but it is just wearying reading generalisations without a clear overarching purpose. Also, your beginning seems somewhat irrelevant to the essay, and stylistically, points like this, making a superficial connection between the culturual origins (Greece) and a recent venue (Beijing) of the Olympics, are best suited to journalism. But you have a lot of talent, and we would benefit from your increased participation on this Ref Desk. You'll also learn a lot about addressing specific questions, if I may say so. IBE (talk) 02:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a general point about writing assignments, check that you have completely met the specifications your teacher gave you. If the teacher said your essay was to be 1500 words long, and you have written 15,000 (or 1501 for that matter), then you have failed! If the teacher said your essay was to be about a general piece of history, and you have given you opinions about the state the world is in today, then you have failed! Make sure you have met the original brief. That is possibly the most important piece of advice regarding writing any form of essay I can give you (as a retired teacher myself). --TammyMoet (talk) 08:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't resist checking - it's 10,000+ words long. I was told an honours thesis can be around 15,000 words, although I admit that sounds short. So, Hadseys, you have written about half an honours thesis, but it was a pretty fine effort anyway. I would like to revise some of my earlier points - I think the structure is clear enough early on, then it wanders (in my understanding) when you start talking about the Greeks, then medicine, then violence, etc. Also, you double a few words, so you need to proofread it again. Then some of your sentences start off sounding really professional, but go on for too long. IBE (talk) 09:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everybody for the constructive criticism! --Hadseys (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be tempted to load it into a word processor and run the spell checker (and a grammar checker if available). And then get someone else to proofread it for you. I too think it is rather long. Are you sure the assignment was for such a lengthy piece? - if so, that's quite unusual. Like Tammy hints at above, you could be penalised if it is way too long though I disagree that you would fail if you are only a few words over (or under). Astronaut (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a relationship between the analysis of King Lear and the contemporary culture wars?

I was reading the article on King Lear, and judging by the wording of the analysis and interpretations on Wikipedia's article, I found that it represented a characteristic of contemporary culture wars. Now, I may be misinterpreting what it says, so I am wondering there is any analysis out there that compares King Lear and the contemporary culture wars. It appears that both of them are arguing this: pure reason vs. pure emotion. 164.107.190.95 (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I really understand the connection between "contemporary culture wars" and "pure reason vs. pure emotion". Taking one contemporary culture war: 'western' lifestyles versus hardline fundamentalist Islamicism, neither of the two seems particularly pure, neither is very well reasoned and both come with ladelfuls of emotion. --Dweller (talk) 13:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"O Lear, Lear, Lear!/Beat at this gate, that let thy folly in" (King Lear, Act I, scene iv, ll 225-6). Lear was nevertheless Teh Epic FAIL in terms of insight and self-awareness. Is that what you are asking about? Hmm. --Shirt58 (talk) 14:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bengalis in former British colonies

is there any history of former British colonies in Africa(Gambia, Nigeria, Sudan, Kenya, Uganda, Ghana, Sierra Leone, Egypt, Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland, Namibia, Libya, Somalia, and Malawi, Seychelles and Mauritius) have labor workers who were Bengali from British Raj? i have a feeling most of them were from Bangladesh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.154.116 (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles you may find useful to answer your question:

There are no Wikipedia articles titled "Bangladeshis in <blank>" where <blank> is a former African colony, so that may be a clue that there are not sizable numbers of Bangladeshis specifically in those places, but British Bangladeshi may give you some leads as well. --Jayron32 19:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also Indian indenture system which includes a table of Colonial British Indian indentured labour transportation by country. However, there is no break-down for which part of the Indian Empire these labourers came from. I may be generalising, but Bengal was known for being densely populated and not very wealthy, so you are probably right that a good proportion of them may have been Bengalis. Alansplodge (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that Bangladesh didn't exist as such until the early 1970's. Before that it was East Pakistan or East Bengal. It's likely that no distinction was made between migrants from eastern or western Bengal. Rojomoke (talk) 14:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Give It Your Best!

I'm interested in learning more about this WWII poster. It happens to be "Give It Your Best!" What's the history behind it? I also learned a new version was created after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. What's the significance between the two versions?24.90.204.234 (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was commissioned by the Office of Emergency Management in 1942 in an effort to boost factory production[16]. It was designed by Charles Coiner [17][18] - NOT Charles Coiner that we have a Wikipedea page for! He died in 1989 at the age of 91 [19] and also designed Roosevelt's 1933 "Blue Eagle" poster for the National Recovery Administration, although Wikipedea doesn't credit him for it. Looks like enough ammo for an article, if anybody is bored. Alansplodge (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Full name was Charles Toucey Coiner, (1898 - 1989) [20][21]. Alansplodge (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My ears are burning. I guess I'll have to give it my best. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voilà: Charles T. Coiner. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. But I'm still trying to find the significance between the WWII version and the 9/11 version.24.90.204.234 (talk) 02:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had a short rummage through Google last night looking for any mention of the 2001 version of the poster, but failed miserably. From my (British) side of the Atlantic, it seems that anything prominently featuring the Stars and Stripes and an upbeat slogan would have gone down well at that time. Oh, well done Clarityfiend, I knew someone would take the bait ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 11:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

number of men who had membership in puritan church who sign mayflower compact

of the settlers traveling on the Mayflower, how many were adult men? how many adult men were "saints", having membership in puritan the church? did women qualify to be "saints"? did all the adult male "saints" sign the Compact? if not, why not? where there any non-English among the settlers? aboard mayflower? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.31.220.207 (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our list of passengers on the Mayflower provides (linked) names and information on all of the passengers on that ship. All of the passengers were English. I do not think that any of them were Puritans, or Englishmen who wanted to purify the Church of England of pagan or Catholic elements. Instead, the Pilgrims were separatists, who wished to break from the Church of England altogether. Not all of the passengers on the Mayflower shared the religious views of the Pilgrim leadership. Apparently, however, all adult male passengers on the Mayflower signed the Compact, not just those who shared the religious views of the Pilgrims. Marco polo (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, those settlers onboard the Mayflower who were emigrating for "religious" reasons were the ones identified in that article as "Leyden congregation and families". The original settlers would have identified this group as "the Saints". All of the other passengers would have been considered "the Strangers", and included anyone who was not part of the "Pilgrim" religious group. See also Plymouth_Colony#English, which has a good explanation (or, generally I think so, as I wrote most of it). --Jayron32 20:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

accounts of 17th century weddings

Can anyone point me to 17th Century accounts of aristocratic weddings? - especially ones in France, though in English please - and with emphasis on the decorations of the place where the wedding was set, too, if possible.

Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a famous painting of the wedding of Louis XIV and Maria Theresa in 1660; there are a few versions of it on Commons, if that helps. There is also a book titled "Scenes from the Marriage of Louis XIV: Nuptial Fictions and the Making of Absolutist Power" (see Amazon for example). Is that perhaps too aristocratic? You may be looking for a more, well, normal ceremony... Adam Bishop (talk) 22:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, Louis is fine - thanks, Adam, I'll follow up those leads. Adambrowne666 (talk) 05:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 24

Argentina and the Falklands during WWII - general questions

I have been reading some editorials from Argentine newspapers during WWII, and I am surprised by the absence of any discussion of the Falklands issue. Considering that Britain was tied up in an existential crisis, what prevented Argentina from annexing the Falklands? Were the islands strategically valuable enough to the British to justify diverting scarce resources to defend them? Were Argentine politicians simply not concerned about the Falklands at that time? Was Argentina leery of any such action due to internal anti-fascist sentiment? Wouldn't pro-Axis Argentines have been particularly eager to annex the Falklands? Was there ever any discussion of a "trade" whereby Britain would have relinquished the islands in return for Argentine assistance in the war? LANTZY ^TALK 02:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that Juan Peron was a possible fascist with ties to Nazi Germany (these ties being demonstrated post-WW2, when Argentina became a haven for Nazis), and was VP starting in 1944, soon to be President, any action taken against any of the Allies might have gotten Argentina lumped in with the Axis Powers. If so, I expect their actions would have been ignored until Germany surrendered, at which point the full force of the British and US Atlantic fleets would have been brought to bear against Argentina, perhaps attacking more than just the Falklands. StuRat (talk) 03:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seizing the Falklands would be tantamount to declaring war under any circumstances, much less during a global conflict in which an attack on the UK would assuredly incur the wrath of the rest of the Allies. Isolated with a long indefensible border, Argentina would be committing national suicide, not right away, but eventually. Brazilian President Getúlio Vargas seemed to favor the Axis as well, but he knew which side his bread was buttered on. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Offhand, I can't think of anything worthwhile Argentina could trade either. According to Argentine Navy#20th century, in 1940, it had two old battleships, three modern cruisers, a dozen destroyers and three submarines. The army and air force would be irrelevant, since they'd be pretty far from the action. By D-Day and afterward, the Allies had enough trouble supplying their own forces. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that Britain was one of the world's leading powers during World War II, and was much more powerful in military and economic terms than it was in 1982. As such, it's likely that the Argentines would have believed that going to war with the UK over some economically worthless islands was a really bad idea. The 1982 war was also a bad idea for much the same reasons, but the UK was militarily weaker and the Argentine government was desperate and dumb. Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to The Falkland Islands Museum & National Trust "In 1942 a garrison was posted to protect the Islands in case of attack by the Japanese. The main body of this garrison was the 11th Battalion of the West Yorks, replaced by a smaller garrison of the Royal Scots in 1944." So apparently no perceived threat from Argentina at the War Office. Alansplodge (talk) 11:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Either that, or they made very sure the Argies were fully aware of the strength of the troops in the Falklands. After all, it is not like the Falklands were a likely target for the Japanese.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only if the Japanese were desperately short of sheep. :-) StuRat (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Until the 1970s Argentina had no real interest in the Falklands, South Georgia, or the South Sandwich Islands. They're as far away from anywhere as it's possible to get, with (then) no strategic and negligible economic value. The waters around them contain only fish and whales, which can be harvested from a home port on the Argentine mainland much more affordably. But by the '70s the realistic prospect of future mineral extraction on continental Antarctica, and later offshore oil extraction, became a foreseeable prospect. Ownership of the Falklands (et al) gives the UK a claim on these (claims that overlap and conflict with Argentina's). Elimination of those claims is in Argentina's long-term economic interest, maintenance of them in the UK's. 87.113.28.157 (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would the advent of Exclusive Economic Zones be another relevant factor? Nowadays, owning a small isolated group of islands gives control over marine resources in a large swathe of the ocean, which I don't think was the case during the second world war. 130.88.99.231 (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As our article states "...the Galtieri government hoped to mobilise Argentines' long-standing patriotic feelings towards the islands and thus divert public attention from the country's chronic economic problems and the regime's ongoing human rights violations". I believe that's the real reason. StuRat (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mormonism and the US Presidency

I'm not American and won't be voting, so this isn't a POV question.

I watch US politics with interest. (It's so very different from our politics here in Australia.) In my lifetime I've seen the first Catholic President and the first black President. In neither case did that "first time" characteristics seem to make any major difference to the behaviour of the President, despite massive fears (and fear-mongering) among and by some opponents before their election.

A possibility right now is the first Mormon president. Now I'm sure Romney is a wise politician, and not dumb enough to impose all values of his faith on the country on the day of his inauguration, but what are those values? You see, we don't have many Mormons here, apart from those well dressed missionary boys, mostly from the US, who knock on our doors at times. What do Mormons believe in that is significantly different from the mainstream American political and social direction? HiLo48 (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try Mormonism#Theological_foundations and Mormonism and Christianity and see if those answer your questions. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A true-blue Mormon has to believe in the literal truth of the Book of Mormon, which is pretty wacky. Historically the religion was associated with polygamy. They disavow it now, but the association still remains present in people's minds. Beyond that they are not a whole lot different from other very conservative Christian sects. Looie496 (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ecX2) Note that the President wouldn't be able to impose his values on the nation, in any case. But, here are some values and actions of Mormonism at odds with many Americans:

1) Originally, Mormons believed in multiple wives, and a few breakaway sects still do. This also seems to imply they don't believe that women should be treated as equals, since they didn't have that right.

2) The core of their belief system is that Joseph Smith was an American prophet, who communicated with God.

3) The Mormons were briefly at war with the US, after they massacred a wagon train of US citizens. At the conclusion of that war, they agreed to give up plural marriages. StuRat (talk) 03:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have never read the Book of Mormon, so I can't say I know a lot about the subject. However, I do know that Mormons consider their faith a branch of Christianity. Like most devout Christians in the U.S., devout Mormons tend to have socially conservative views: against homosexuality, against pornography, against abortion, etc. However, not all Mormons feel this way, and there have been Mormons elected to office as Democrats too. Anyway, Mitt Romney is from Massachusetts and, despite what he might say during the primary campaign, is generally thought of as a "Main Street Republican" more concerned about economic issues than social ones. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There hasn't really been a lot of talk about Mormonism in this campaign, at least not officially. It's a touchy area. And ironically enough, the current darling of the right wing, Newt Gingrich, is much closer to being a de facto polygamist than Mitt Romney is, so far as is known. Romney, Santorum and Obama all pass the "family values" litmus test, and Gingrich fails it miserably. Which suggests that the voters aren't all that concerned with social issues either. Almost all of the debates have been dominated by discussions about money... as Tom Lehrer once said, "the one thing all Americans sincerely and deeply believe in." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From an archaeological perspective, Mormons believe in some strange things, Archaeology and the Book of Mormon outlines it pretty well. He iro 05:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How significant is archaeology in US electoral politics? ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk)~

We have more fossils in office than you might think. —Kevin Myers 07:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The OP asked what Mormons believe in that are significantly different from mainstream America, and although s/he focused on politics, I thought they might be interested in some of the other non-mainstream beliefs of the group. Since one of the tenets of the religion is that the Book of Mormon was "translated" with divine help, many believe that it is a factual account of ancient North America, that Native Americans are the descendants of Jewish exiles, that Jesus appeared here to them(Native Americans) after he died but before he ascended to heaven, and plenty of other non-mainstream things. Since I primarily edit Native American archaeological subjects here I occasionally run across the subject of Mormons and archaeology. And while many Mormons declare themselves to be just another branch of Christianity, they do have beliefs that are significantly different from other denominations. I find it interesting and I thought the OP would as well, since they stated that they do not have much experience with Mormon beliefs. My apologies if no one else does. He iro 07:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, Mormons don't believe in anything dumber than any other form of Christianity. They just don't have two thousand years of tradition to back it up. In the year 4000 it probably won't seem so strange. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is it significant that Mormons used to support polygamy? Plenty of people in the Bible have two or more wives. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 08:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is true. However, we don't do lots of things that were done in the Bible. Public stonings, for example. Polygamy is what stuck in people's craws although there were certainly other divisions between Mormons and other Americans. Utah got statehood well after neighboring states (1896) and the state was required to ban polygamy at the outset, I believe in its constitution. This followed many years of unrest and sometimes fairly nasty relations between the Mormons and Washington. This is a complicated story that does not reduce well to a paragraph. However what people remember is the polygamy. You might do well to research the presidential run of George Romney, his dad, in 1968 and see what attitudes were expressed then.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Mainstream" Christians would say that New Testament passages such as 1 Timothy 3:1-2 are relevant. Moreover, even the Old Testament is not that enthusiastic about large harems (1 Kings 11). AnonMoos (talk) 15:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does Romney abstain from alcohol, tobacco, coffee and tea, like many Mormons, in accord with modern Mormon practice? Wine is commonly served at state dinners in the White House, but there have been tee-totalling Presidents in the past. Such total abstention would be out of the American mainstream, but not unheard of. As for polygamy, his great-grandfather Miles Romney left the US with his four wives and moved to Mexico with a splinter group of Mormons who wanted to practice polygamy, which is why his father was born in Mexico and later immigrated to the US. I've read that Romney is eligible for Mexican citizenship because his father was born there. He has many Romney cousins still living in Colonia Juarez, Mexico. Edison (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If he does (and I have no knowledge one way or another), I wouldn't think it would be an issue at all. Most Mormons I have known personally have been abstainers without being prohibitionists, and if Romney abstains, I would think he fits into that mold as well. That is, even if Romney doesn't smoke or drink alcohol or coffee or tea it doesn't mean that he's interested in stopping anyone else from doing so. I think many Mormons recognize that others don't abide by the same dietary restrictions they do. If we had a Jewish president, I don't think people (meaning any people with half a brain) would seriously think such a president would impose any bans on bacon or lobster even if they themselves wouldn't partake of it. Likewise with a Mormon president, I don't know that one would see any ban on such substances. It should also be noted that not all Presidents are known for following the professed tenets of their religion in terms of their politics. Richard Nixon was a Quaker, a sect which is overtly pacifist; a stance which I don't think Nixon himself held too closely in the political sphere. Religion in American politics is not unlike sex or money: people don't mind if you have it, as long as you don't talk about it in mixed company. --Jayron32 18:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although we have had Presidents who referred to what they thought God wanted them to do, most notably George W. Bush. He was a mainstream Protestant, though, so people didn't find this quite as objectionable as if someone with a wackier religion started saying such things. StuRat (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of Bush, didn't he say he was a self reformed alcoholic who became a teetotaller earlier in his life? I see we have a George W. Bush substance abuse controversy which suggests this is indeed the case (although mentions cases when he was possibly drinking during his presidency). So there was a self proclaimed tee-totaller in the White House less then 4 years ago. Nil Einne (talk) 02:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Romney has stated that his drink of choice is caffeine-free Diet Coke, which goes along with the Mormon prohibition against caffeine. Surely as Governor of Massachusetts, Romney had official dinners, does anybody know if alcohol was served then? What about when he was the Head of the Salt Lake Olympic Committee? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He abstains from alcohol and tobacco, except for once when he was a 'wayward teenager' [22] (he is also listed in List of teetotalers). [23] suggests he holds meet-n-greets in coffee houses but potentially does not drink coffee. [24] quotes a spokesperson who says he doesn't drink alcohol, tea or coffee or use tobacco but does drink Vanilla Coke and potentially other caffeinated soft drinks (they aren't specifically prohibited according to the common understanding of his faith) but would prefer not to discuss religious issues. IMO the later seems to be supported by his historic behaviour. As Mwalcoff said, he seems more main stream then his rivals in many areas and from a religious POV seems less interested in involving his religion then recent president mentioned above.

As also mentioned by someone else, considering the alleged behaviour of one of the other republican candidates, the historic polygamy thing seems a non-issue.

To use another random example with some relation to his religious beliefs, his views on evolution [25] don't seem too bad, although although of course it can be difficult to know how genuine such statements are during the middle of a campaign. As a case in point one remaining candidate who is/was a medical doctor gave some fairly bizzare comments in his 2007/2008 campaign but as I understand it later came out with a less strange sentiment in a book.

Nil Einne (talk) 02:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

President of the United States whose most recent service was House of Representatives

If Newt Gingrich should become President, would he be the first President since Abraham Lincoln whose most recent federal service was as a member of the House of Representatives? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to List of Presidents of the United States by other offices held, you've got Rutherford B. Hayes, James A. Garfield and William McKinley (all Ohioans). -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

McKinley and Hayes served as governors after being in the House. According to our article, though, Garfield went directly from the House to the presidency. Looie496 (talk) 03:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I missed Garfield. Thanks. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Governors are at the state level, not federal, so I don't think governorship matters for the purpose of the question. RudolfRed (talk) 03:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Garfield was also a senator-elect. The state legislatures then designated senators, and had elected him before the 1880 campaign to begin his service in 1881. Our articles says in late 1879 but I suspect that is wrong and it is January 1880. I do not believe he was ever sworn in as a senator. McKinley was defeated in the House in 1890; the Democrats basically redistricted him out of every Republican vote they could, McKinley was controversial for having sponsored a tariff bill that had raised prices, and he still only lost narrowly. As there was no assurance the Republicans could regain control of the legislature in 1891 and redistrict McKinley into a friendly seat (there was then no ten year limit on redistricting) and as that meant he would spend two years out of office, he and his advisors decided on a run for governor, which was an excellent bully pulpit to look presidential from as there were then few duties to the positon, and he was elected in 1891 and 1893, setting himself up nicely for a presidential bid.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia books

Why are wikipedia articles showing up in google book search as books? http://books.google.com/books?id=wtuiSgAACAAJ. Isn't this bad?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They're licensed copyleft, so any "publishers" can reprint them if they follow the requisite licensing instructions. Google Books is not very discriminatory. If someone has bothered to pay for an ISBN for something, they'll put it in the catalog. The idea is likely to sell copies of the eBook through various marketplaces. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason that I fail to understand, Books LLC thinks there is a market for collecting some loosely related Wikipedia articles together and publishing them as a real book. I wonder if the "...free access to book updates online..." is simply a Wikipedia URL? And I wonder what's with the "...free trial membership in the publisher's book club"? Astronaut (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Memphis desegregation

When was the city of Memphis desegregated? I found an article online that says the schools were desegregated in 1954. The city had to have preceded this. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 04:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why did the city have to go first ? And, for that matter, what does it mean to say the city was desegregated ? They may have had a segregated police force, fire department, buses, etc., and various segregation laws in effect, and I doubt if they all ended at once. As for where people choose to live, there is still a remarkable degree of self-segregation in many cities to this day. StuRat (talk) 04:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

School desegregation followed from the national Supreme Court decision Brown v Board of Education with "all deliberate speed", while many other types of segregation were contested on a very local level until well into the 1960s... AnonMoos (talk) 08:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw an article, I believe in the New York Times, about recent (mostly black) students in Memphis being allowed to attend schools in the rest of Shelby County due to merger of school districts. Such articles probably discuss desegregation there. I find the 1954 date likely dubious and a mistaken understanding of Brown. Few school districts desegregated immediately in the wake of Brown, even those proceeding in good faith required some period of planning to re-do school attendance lines, etc.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

getting in touch with Valerie Browne Lester

hi - this is after an edit conflict - I'm writing on behalf of my father, a descendent of Phiz; he is very eager to contact the abovenamed author, but we're having trouble finding a way to do so - can anyone help?

I hope it's ok my posting another question while I have 2 others current on the desks.

Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 09:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's sort of roundabout; but her son's Web site has a contact page, and if you explain to him why you'd like to contact her, he'd probably be willing to give you her e-mail address. Deor (talk) 12:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another way would be to contact one of her publishers either to ask for contact information or to ask them to relay a message to her. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much more likely he'd pass it on; contact information is often intentionally difficult to get.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks heaps, all, for the detective work! Will try her son first of all - would be interested to get in touch with him anywayAdambrowne666 (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the mainstream economists' view of the New Deal?

According to the article Great Depression, the common view among mainstream economists is that FDR's New Deal accelerated the recovery, however this claim is unsourced. I am curious as to what the mainstream view is on the New Deal and the effect that it had on the recovery, and whether it did indeed accelerate the recovery or prolonged the depression. A source would be nice, too. 124.171.112.28 (talk) 13:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think a generalization can be made here. Clearly different economists are going to take different views on this. Since we cannot compare it with a world in which Hoover won a second term, it is all theory anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want sources, start with New_Deal#Critical_interpretations_of_New_Deal_economic_policies and follow the footnotes in that section. --Jayron32 18:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the mainstream economists might say "While the New Deal lessened the suffering of the Great Depression, preventing a potential communist revolution in the US, it also laid the seeds of big government which, in subsequent decades, have led to out of control government spending and the unsustainable debt burden we currently face". For those who don't think there was a real danger of a communist revolution, had people been left to fend for themselves, I suggest reading The Grapes of Wrath. StuRat (talk) 18:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some mainstream economists would say that, but I think that the mainstream encompasses a range of positions on the question. For example, Ben Bernanke and Paul Krugman are both mainstream economists by any reasonable definition. Both support government stimulus as a response to economic recession or depression, and neither seems to think that current government spending is "out of control". Marco polo (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Borrowing money to stimulate the economy during recessions makes sense, it's borrowing more money during good times that makes no sense whatsoever (that's when the money borrowed previously should have been paid off). StuRat (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be surprised to see economists use such loaded political terms as "big government," but StuRat is right on the possibility of a communist revolt. Without the New Deal, there's strong indication the US economy would have progressed from depression to outright collapse, which is a ripe environment for a change of regime. It took the New Deal combined with WW2 industrial spending to bring the economy back. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Big C, no; little c, possibly. The more enduring threat than a "communist revolt" is that the US employers be forced into something like the Australian Arbitration system—as a way to cripple an even more threatening workers movement. TBH, comrades, fascism (militant, populist, change driven, right wing politics) is far more likely a result of system collapse in the US in the 1930s. The networks of proletarian consciousness were limited due to the evisceration of the IWW in the 1920s, and didn't start to rebuild until late in the 1930s with the CIO. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Default through inflation"

In the book "This Time Is Different" by Reinhart and Rogoff, the authors repeatedly talk about governments 'defaulting through high inflation': using high inflation to erode away defaults and how hyperinflation is essentially equivalent to default. I must admit, I don't think I fully understand what they're going on about here. I can't find much information on the concept online which is accessible to a layman (I am certainly by no means an economist!), and was hoping someone might be able to walk me through the basics of how this works.

I can see that inflation reflects a decrease in the actual tangible value of a currency (you can use it to buy less goods, simple enough), and yet at the same time, if the government has a debt of say £100 (I'm looking at you, UK) and massive inflation occurs putting up the price of goods and services, the government will still owe the same debt of £100: it hasn't actually become any 'cheaper' in the literal sense. Is the concept to do with the fact that a decrease in the value of their currency will mean any money the government takes in from externally (say, dollars) will be worth more GBP and therefore the debt will be more manageable? I suspect not - I think forex rates are a different matter entirely, and I expect governments would not want to rely on foreign currencies to service their own debt. However, I can't see how then they have "inflated the debt away".

Is it meant to be a sort of 'trickle-down effect', whereby a decreasing value of money means businesses take in more money, higher wages must be paid to compensate for higher cost of living etc and since people have a greater amount of money (in quantity, not value), the government can tax more (in quantity) and thus pay off its debts which are, relatively speaking, smaller? Any simple-ish explanation as to what's going on when a government cuts debt through inflation would be extremely appreciated - many thanks in advance, 86.26.13.2 (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine that I owe you £100 at a fixed interest rate.. That's about €115 right now. If the inflation in the UK is going up I just could sit here and wait until my €115 become something like £110, which could save me money, since my debt is still the nominal £100 at a fixed interest rate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.231.17.82 (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But that only works if you're using a currency external to the one the debt is in; otherwise your £100 will always be £100 no matter what happens to inflation - so it is a case of using other currencies to 'step outside' the inflation of the currency the debt is in? 86.26.13.2 (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the point is, if people used to make thousands of dollars and now they make millions of dollars (but can buy no more at the grocery store than before), then they can pay hundreds of thousands in taxes and paying that $100 is a petty transaction. It is obviously not default in the legal sense, as the exact amount of money is repaid - that's the point. Wnt (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The government doesn't need two currencies to reduce your debt through inflation. It has heavily borrowed at a rate of, let's say, 5%. If inflation goes up, it will lend money at a higher rate, and so increase its income. 88.8.69.246 (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, it works something like this. Suppose $1 = £1. (This is just an example). The Government A, which uses dollars, owes Government B £1000. They decide to print new dollars and pay off the loan. They give Government B $1000. However, printing all this money will cause hyperinflation. So maybe $100 = £1 now. So the $1000 they paid is actually only worth £10. So instead of getting £1000, government B gets £10 from government A, even though the debt is paid in full. I may be completely wrong, but I think this is what it is talking about. Eomund (talk) 04:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's far simpler than all of that. Remember that money represents goods and services. Inflation means an increase in price of all goods and services (or a decrease in value compared to those goods or services). The government gets its money as a percentage of incomes, profits and sales and inflation increases the nominal value of each of those. So when a government prints a tonne of money, tax receipts (in nominal terms) go up, but the (nominal) value of the debt does not. Suddenly it becomes easier to pay off. Alternatively the government could just give the printed money to its lenders, but most countries cannot do that by law. 124.148.55.187 (talk) 13:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pope Gregory XI

I notice that in Papal conclave, 1370 it says that Cardinal Pierre Roger de Beaufort first opposed his election but eventually accepted. Is there further details somewhere as to who or what convinced Beaufort to accept his nomination?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 23:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cardinal de Beaufort became Gregory XI: awkward wording for a reluctant candidate.--Wetman (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)All of the other Wikipedias that have a topic on that belong to traditionally Catholic cultures - sadly, they're not much more help - they all state he initially refused before accepting (indicating it's a noteworthy part), but the French one adds that this was 'according to common custom' - none of them have sources for the statement, and I can't immediately find anything to back up that suggestion. (Possibly not so helpful, but at least that's a few potential sources of help ruled out, and an idea to check out :)) --Saalstin (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Ah, Wetman and I have read this two different ways - Doug, if you were asking 'Why did the Cardinal oppose the election of Pope Gregory XI', the answer is, as Wetman said, he was elected to the post and initially refused to serve before giving in. If you're asking 'Why did he refuse his own election?', that's what I was going at) --Saalstin (talk) 23:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am mostly interested in who ultimately convinced Beaufort to accept the post.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 00:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found a reference for who convinced him, but aside from the usual theatrics of reluctance, he was also a cardinal nephew who had titles and honours heaped upon him as a child and young adult. He wasn't even an ordained priest when he was elected pope. He was only ordained on January 4, the day before his consecration. Since, by all accounts, he was of excellent morals, and a scholar in canon law, maybe he opposed the election on legal grounds. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the Borgia TV-series the Dean told Rodrigo that it was common custom to answer no to the first acceptasne question and yes only to the second. Rodrigo accepted this, though unwillingly. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 10:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 25

What makes a fictional work existential

Why people say that some fictional works - films and books - are existential? What has to happen in the work? Since many, or almost all, films and books could be a reflexion on our human life somehow, wouldn't the term existential be almost meaningless? 88.8.69.246 (talk) 00:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A nice line from the intro of our article on Existentialism: "In existentialism, the individual's starting point is characterized by what has been called 'the existential attitude', or a sense of disorientation and confusion in the face of an apparently meaningless or absurd world." That's jibes with what I've usually associated with works existential fiction or film. There are plenty of works of art which do not fit into this category: they are about showing or glorifying order, or meaning, or success. Concrete examples: An existentialist war film, for example, would be about the meaningless or absurdity of war (think Catch-22 or Apocalypse Now). A non-existentialist war film, by contrast, would be about the glory of war, soldiers, or technology, or what have you (think Saving Private Ryan or Lawrence of Arabia (film)). Now you could say, there are plenty of glorifying war films that have absurdity in them; but it's not the entire point of them, it's not the conclusion of them. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does India get its oil from the Strait of Hormuz?

Does India get some of its oil supply from the Strait of Hormuz? 99.245.83.28 (talk) 02:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it does from "Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, the UAE and Kuwait" via the Strait. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that it wouldn't particularly matter, in that world oil prices would shoot up if Iran mined the Straight, so even those who get oil from other sources would be affected. StuRat (talk) 05:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strait...--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The oil prices will go up, by any real problem like mines or imaginary, like silly politicians from both sides talking about war.

the 17th century equivalent of 'decor'

This is a question I posed at Language, which people had trouble answering - the consensus, finally, was 'furnishings' - I wonder if someone here might be able to find something different? It's possible there was no word for it until 'decor' was coined....

Here's the original question: Decor is a 19th Century term; was there some equivalent that was current in English or French in the 1650s? Our interior design article is very heavy on US designers - I was hoping for something earlier, obviously: I suppose 'interior design' must be a very recent phrase - I wonder what term it replaced...

Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 05:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The words appoint and appointment(s) are now somewhat pretentious but have been used of furnishings in the 16th Century. The OED gives, for sense 15 of appoint, the quote "Their several Lodgings, which were as well appointed as such a season would permit." (1664). And for appointment, from a private letter from 1575, "Hiz honorz exquisit appointment of a beautifull garden." It seems from the other quotes that these words were more often used of clothes, but they certainly could apply to a room or a garden.--Rallette (talk) 07:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a little from the OED that might be of use to you.

furniture:

"4. ... d. Hangings and ornamental drapery; also, the coverlets and linen for a bed. ...

1683 T. Tryon Way to Health 586 Most People take care that their Furnitures are daily brushed and rubbed."

"7. ... a. (The prevailing sense.) Movable articles, whether useful or ornamental, in a dwelling-house, place of business, or public building. Formerly including also the fittings. (†Occas. const. as pl.) ...

1637 Documents against Prynne (Camden) 99 My interest in the lease of Swanswick, and my hangings, pictures, and furniture there."

decoration:

"2. That which decorates or adorns; an ornament, embellishment; esp. an ornament temporarily put up on some special occasion; formerly used (after the French) of scenery on the stage.

a1678 A. Marvell Wks. (1875) II. 208 (R.) Our church did even then exceed the Romish in ceremonies and decorations."

household:

†3. The contents or appurtenances of a house considered collectively; household goods or furniture. Obs.

1621 in S. Tymms Wills & Inventories Bury St. Edmunds (1850) 167 Desiringe him‥he would bestowe some of my howsholde of my brother Nicke."

design [I think this one captures at least one meaning of our contemporary 'decor' particularly well):

"7. ... a. The combination of artistic details or architectural features which go to make up a picture, statue, building, etc.; the artistic idea as executed; a piece of decorative work, an artistic device.

1644 J. Evelyn Mem. (1857) I. 73, I was particularly desirous of seeing this palace, from the extravagance of the design.

1670 Sir S. Crow in 12th Rep. Royal Comm. Hist. MSS (1890) App. v. 15 Their ordnary designes [in tapestry]‥beeing deformed and mishapen."

--Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 12:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WWII pilot commemorative plush toy

I'm trying to find a Pappy the Black Sheep plush toy. It's a sheep wearing a black outfit. It's supposed to represent the Black Sheep Squadron. Where can I find such a plush toy? Anyone know?24.90.204.234 (talk) 07:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Stuart (Michigan politician) : cause of miltary career brutal end in 1863 ?

Hello Learned Humanitarians ! I translated into WP french "David Stuart (Michigan politician)", & am doing the same for Political general (& BTW a lot of thanks for the text !) .

It seems that before and during the Vicksburg Campaign D. Stuart has been faithfull to Sherman and Grant rather to McClernand. He resigned from the Union Army in April, 1863.

Are there any proofs that D. Stuart's nomination as brig.gen. was refused by the US Senate because John A. McClernand's friends vetoed against it ?

Thanks ++++ beforehand for your answers Arapaima (talk) 08:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]