Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

April 23

"ST"

[1]

What is the meaning of "ST" in "Heavy Duty Mechanic - Scrap (ST)"?Curb Chain (talk) 03:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Sarah Tudge? She is the person assigned to handle the applications, according to the announcement. Looie496 (talk) 03:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, what about [2],[3],[4]?Curb Chain (talk) 05:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

???? All of them have her as the assigned contact so.... Nil Einne (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Right. I'm just feeling that posting a job with the initials are just not usual practice so I feel that it must mean something else?Curb Chain (talk) 23:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why you believe that. Have you looked at many job listings? I haven't really, but I have noticed before it's hardly uncommon for a job listing to have some sort of ref in the description to make internal routing & recognition easier (I presume) which sometimes includes the contact persons initials. In this case it appears the initial alone are considered enough by the advertisers (who aren't always the company itself, in fact I would say the practice is more common when the advertisers aren't the company itself but a recruiting company or similar which is hardly surprising). Within about 5 seconds of visiting the page of the site you're using I found a similar example [5] (archive [6]) albeit with the addition of a number and there are several with that same ref [7] (archive [8]). I'm sure I could look at any number of job listing sites and see something similar since as I've said, from my limited experience, it's very common. Nil Einne (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure enough another 5 seconds later, same recruitement company as the one I linked, but different contact person [9] (archive [10]). I can't remember BTW if the ST cases was a recruitement company or the company looking for the position and the links no longer work (although a search for her name suggests she works for the same recruitement company as the other two) but either way, I see no reason to think Looie496's suggestion is wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Just to show this isn't unique to Canada or that particular recruitement agency, about 15 seconds after looking at Malaysian job sites [11] (which admitedly came after a ~3 minute look at NZ sites), I have [12] (archived [13]) and another 45 seconds later [14] (archive: [15]) Nil Einne (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

"Greatest country in the world"

Is there any historical or psychological reason why Americans frequently call the US the "greatest country in the world?" I frequently hear this phrase in American media, especially in Fox News Channel. Besides, I don't remember Canadian, British or even Chinese media call themselves the "greatest country in the world", so why the US? Is there a historical reason as to why Americans frequently do it while other countries don't do it as often? Was the trend common during the Vietnam War or the Cold War? (Except for a few nationalists, in most countries they would say that they love their country, but not necessarily call it the greatest). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

You're right that Canadians don't call Canada the "greatest country in the world". What they call it, and I quote, is "the best country in the world". The implication that "best" is in the sense of "morally best" is not remotely subtle. --Trovatore (talk) 03:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The concept has a name, it's called American exceptionalism (that is, the idea that American's call their country the best in the world, not that it actually is.). --Jayron32 03:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Try to keep up. It's Canadians that call Canada the "best" country. Americans call America the "greatest" country. --Trovatore (talk) 03:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

That's only true insofar as bestness is correlated to one's inability to recognize synonyms. --Jayron32 04:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It's different. The "greatest" country is the one that, take your pick, accomplishes the most, is the most powerful, perhaps does the most good, is the most generally awesome. The "best" country is the one that most does the right thing, whether or not anyone notices. I think that's pretty much how the terms are intended in the two countries, and the word choice is not an accident. --Trovatore (talk) 04:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I see, so Canadians are best at redefining commonly understood words to meet their particular needs in making a silly point. That's definitely something to hang national pride on. --Jayron32 04:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many times I heard "best country in the world" while I lived in Canada, but it was certainly more than once. I don't ever recall hearing anyone call it the "greatest country in the world". It was clear to me that they meant morally best, and I think that is the commonly understood sense of the phrase. --Trovatore (talk) 04:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Right, because no one ever uses the words greatest and best interchangably, and if I called Babe Ruth the best baseball player ever, the preponderance of English speakers would think I mean he was the morally best baseball player. --Jayron32 04:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Come on, it's not the same thing and you know it. You're just being argumentative at this point.

By the way, while I found the phrase (and the Canadian moralism behind it) irritating, Canadian moralism does have its points. See for example Roméo Dallaire. --Trovatore (talk) 04:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey, you're the one who first called me out because I didn't use your idiosyncratic definition of the word best. I raised no issue until you started demanding that my statement was somehow wrong. I was trying to show you that it wasn't. It is perfectly acceptable to use best and greatest as synonyms of each other, and now that it is inconvenient for you to do so, you're backpedalling. Which is it? Was I wrong to use best as a synonym of greatest or not? --Jayron32 04:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

You were responding to me, by the indentation. I had clearly made the point that Canadians said "best", and that it was not an accident. You ignored that, which might have been fine, except that you were responding to me, and ignoring the main point of a short post. --Trovatore (talk) 04:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Except that there is also a clearly moral component to American exceptionalism as well, being best morally does not preclude one from being best in other ways (perceived or actual). Americans don't merely think of themselves as the most advanced, Americans also think their country has a monopoly on freedom and liberty, and that it is truly uniquely positioned (as in the only country in the whole world), in a moral sense, to spread that freedom and liberty throughout the world. If you'd read American exceptionalism, such an idea would have become apparent quickly. In other words, American exceptionalism is about Americans' opinion that America and only America has the moral right to spread its ideals throughout the world, and that the very concepts of goodness and freedom and liberty come from America as a gift to the world. That's American exceptionalism, and given what that was, it clearly relates to your post on Canadian moral superiority. --Jayron32 05:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Americans may also think the US is the best country, but that's different from thinking it's the greatest country. A subtle difference but relevant in context. --Trovatore (talk) 05:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Everybody can claim to be the "greatest" at something. Usually it's self-aggrandizing. And there's no circumstance in which everyone will agree with you. And so nationalism of this kind is a little distasteful. But why are you so convinced the U.S. is the worst in this respect? Do you mean that in absolute terms? Relative terms? Shadowjams (talk) 05:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not really sure what makes you think that I think that the US is "the worst in this respect". Just that I said Canadians don't claim to be "the greatest"? That's one country, and anyway the claim to be "the best" is at least equally irritating. --Trovatore (talk) 06:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

To me, when I hear Canada being described as the "best country in the world", the main implied meaning is "to live in", not some moral superiority. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, could be. But that's not how I interpreted, who was it, Paul Martin maybe? when he said it. Didn't seem to fit the context, not that I remember exactly what the context was. Anyway, what about the comment on your user page, about being Canadian so people must like you? --Trovatore (talk) 06:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

No moral superiority implied. It's just pretty well accepted that Canadians are generally well liked. Maybe because we're not too pushy/arrogant/visible on the world scene. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It probably has to do with the US being the most recent nation to dominate the world. I imagine you would have found a similar sentiment in Britain, when it was at it's peak. StuRat (talk) 03:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Stu is quite astute. The article Pax Britannica covers a similar mentality towards the peak of the British Empire, whereby Britain saw itself as the undisputed superior power, and that the very weight of its Empire established worldwide peace and goodwill in its wake. The notion is demonstratably false, as LOTS of horrific wars occured during the time period (e.g. Revolutions of 1848, Franco-Prussian war, Opium Wars, Crimean War, Boer Wars etc. etc.) many of which involved Britain directly. However, like American exceptionalism, it still stems from the view that hegemony carries a moral component, that somehow becoming a major power occurs because one is morally right, and that moralism + hegemony grants the country truly unique moral rights and responsibilities with regard to its dominant position, especially the right to spread its values around the world. --Jayron32 05:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly I could not agree more with Stu in this instance. How about the other side of that coin? That other countries criticize the other major power. Sometimes fair, sometimes unfair. And by the way, if Canada calls itself the best, the U.S. certainly isn't the only country to make bold claims. At least the U.S. has some reasons (canada does too... this is a snipe at north korea... not your country, and if you're from north korea.... find yourself an embassy). Shadowjams (talk) 05:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

As Giacomo Casanova wrote, "It is a belief shared by all nations, each thinking itself the best. And they are all right." Deor (talk) 06:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

"Greatest" doesn't necessarily mean moral superiority; it's often used to denote power, as in "Rome was the world's greatest empire for hundreds of years". In that sense, the US is objectively the greatest country in the world in terms of economic/military power, industrial/scientific prowess, cultural dominance, and almost every other criteria. Similarly, some Canadians could mean "best country to live in" when they say "best", and they'd probably be right. 12% of the Canadian population lives in Toronto, Vancouver, or Calgary, and all 3 are in the top 5 of the world's most livable cities. --140.180.1.1 (talk) 06:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. I lived in Toronto for a year. Beautiful city, but livability? Give me Los Angeles any day. --Trovatore (talk) 06:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The trope about Canada being the best country in the world dates back to the mid-1990s and the first few editions of the United Nations' Human Development Index which placed Canada in the top spot (bunched up with Scandinavian and other European countries; never mind that the HDI is not designed to compare countries at the top of the chart and that differences in ranking among the top 20 or so are essentially meaningless.). The Chrétien government jumped on this for propaganda purposes at a time of tension with separatists in Quebec and started trumpeting the "best country on the world" line all over the place. In future editions of the rankings, Canada fell back a few places, and the trumpeting by the federal government ceased, but the idea had been established in the mind of many Canadians that somehow, the world had validated us as the "best". And so it continues to this day. --Xuxl (talk) 10:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't known that. That does put a different spin on it. --Trovatore (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

People in many countries call their country the best/greatest etc. In India, there is a song, Saare Jahan Se Achcha meaning "Better than the entire world". --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 10:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Objectively speaking, the really greatest countries is the world are Hong Kong (in terms of economy) and Netherlands (in terms of civil liberties). --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 10:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

(Bear with me, my mind and Google-fu are letting me down somewhat) The BBC recently broadcast a three-part documentary series on why we English believe we are the greatest nation in the world. I can't, however, find it on the BBC website to give you a link. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, the British Empire once introduced modernization throughout the entire world. Even modern Americans are also descendants of the British. So we can say much of the world is contribution of the British. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 12:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The historical and psychological reasons for the claim by some Americans to have "the greatest country in the world", as others have said, involve conflating dominance with moral superiority. There is the feeling that dominance is the result of moral superiority. It is also a very useful sentiment for ruling classes to exploit to justify acts of aggression and brutality abroad. They can say, "Because we are the greatest country in the world, they should be grateful that we are liberating/protecting/aiding them." That kind of statement rallies US public opinion behind foreign interventions, which are presented not as the prerogative but as the moral responsibility of the world's greatest nation. In short, the claim is part of an ideology of imperialism. This kind of claim is not generally made by Americans on the left because they understand its connection to imperialism, which they oppose. However, it is often made by the right (for which Fox News is a voice), because the right backs an imperialist agenda. The claim was made a little less stridently or often in the wake of Vietnam, when many Americans doubted American "greatness", but the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 was partly about reviving the "greatness" claim. Marco polo (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Somewhat OT but I definitely wouldn't assume best country in the world has an morally best implications. I can't speak for Canadians thoug. Nil Einne (talk) 16:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I was about to say that claiming to be "the greatest nation" was a particularly un-British piece of boastfulness, when I found that our former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, had said exactly that in his 2007 resignation speech: "This country is a blessed nation. The British are special, the world knows it, in our innermost thoughts, we know it. This is the greatest nation on Earth."[16] He was a master of blowing-one's-own-trumpet.

As to the use of the phrase in US culture, there are many pages of Google Books results from the first three decades of the 20th century, when America was certainly an economic powerhouse, but in terms of international relations was isolationist and inward looking (except for 1917-18) and was a military minnow in comparison to Britain and France. The earliest American use of the phrase that I could find was The Yale literary magazine, Volumes 12-13 (1847) p.275; "But the truth is, we are the greatest nation on earth, and we feel it. Whether we, who are now on the stage of action, deserve much credit for it, or not, the fact is so." Alansplodge (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised you don't remember the "this sceptred isle" speech - Richard II, Shakespeare ! --TammyMoet (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Well yes, point taken; but old Bill Shakespeare goes to a bit more effort than just crowing "We're the greatest!". Also, the speech finishes on a self-critical note; "England, bound in with the triumphant sea / Whose rocky shore beats back the envious siege / Of watery Neptune, is now bound in with shame, / With inky blots and rotten parchment bonds: / That England, that was wont to conquer others, / Hath made a shameful conquest of itself." How very prescient. For the full text, see Prophecy of the dying John of Gaunt Alansplodge (talk) 00:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

They must have the best food there, and it must be getting better and better there, see here:

"Americans are not just getting fatter, they are ballooning to extremely obese proportions at an alarming rate." Count Iblis (talk) 02:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Is Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead out of copyright in Canada?

If I understand correctly, her work Anthem is in the public domain since it was published under a pseudonym and more than fifty years ago; I have heard the same thing about 1984 by George Orwell (Eric Blair). Is the same true of The Fountainhead? --✶♏✶ 06:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Was The Fountainhead published under a pseudonym? The word "pseudonym" does not appear in our article on it (but then neither does it appear in our article on Anthem). --Trovatore (talk) 06:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh wait, are you saying "Ayn Rand" itself is a pseudonym? Canada is a common law country, which should mean that your name is what you call yourself and are known as. Didn't she use that as her actual name? --Trovatore (talk) 06:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Who exactly told you Anthem was out of copyright? According to List of countries' copyright length, in Canada anonymous works have a 50 year period, but anonymous is not the same as pseudonymous. Also note that we cannot provide legal advice, but only idle speculation. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

George S. Messersmith and William Phillips

Hello learned ones ! Recently, while writing for the WP french article on George S. Messersmith , I read somewhere (maybe on a doc with an URL beginning with http://www.fleetwoodpa.org/messersmith_george/ , but it appears that my very small computing skills do not allow me to go back to that ref....) that "Messersmith wrote in 1933 to William Phillips that USA should try to side with USSR, so as to check nazi Germany". Who might be this William Phillips ? Disambiguation in WP en displays a reasonable choice between a scientist, a diplomat, an editor...

Thanks a lot beforehand for your answers, and feel free to enter into the french article, I found some interesting facts on WP de (and the poster "en travaux" is there only to repel the crows who might be attracted by that freshly sown-in plot...) Arapaima (talk) 07:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The article William Phillips (diplomat) states that "he was Under Secretary of State again from 1933 to 1936" (i.e., the most important man in the United States Department of State after the United States Secretary of State). It's almost certainly him. --Xuxl (talk) 10:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

A page at the fleetwoodpa site that you (Arapaima) referred to does link to the texts of two letters that Messersmith wrote to Phillips (the one identified by Xuxl above) in 1933, but neither mentions the Soviet Union. I'm so far unable to find evidence of a letter expressing the pro-Soviet sentiment you refer to, but a thorough search of the Messersmith Papers at the University of Delaware may turn up something. There are a number of messages to Phillips there. Deor (talk) 10:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot to both. Deor, you're right : hint at USSR is not in the letter to Phillips, but further down the doc. visible on fleetwoodpa.org Arapaima (talk) 07:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Unimpeachable source - yea or nay?

Is there such a thing as an 'unimpeachable source', in terms of the source being 'beyond doubt', or, 'beyond reproach'? ... I ask because I claimed in an academmic paper I wrote a few years ago that my Father's war diaries were an unimpeachable. Benyoch^{Don't panic! Don't panic!} (talk) 08:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

If you are involved in a debate about what counts as a reliable source on Wikipedia, please take it to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

No, no debate in Wiki, Cola'. Question arises from an academic paper I wrote. I will adjust Q to reflect this. Thanks. Benyoch^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 09:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake! --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

"Reproach" suggests a rather strong negative judgement on the source, so I would think that many sources would be unimpeachable if it is sufficient that they are beyond reproach. Denniston is certainly beyond reproach as a source for the Greek particles. Are any sources beyond doubt? I suppose it depends on what you mean, but I'm sure some authors have written works with nothing but tautologies, which would certainly be as far beyond doubt as possible. Even if no one has done this, it certainly would not be hard to do so. Take the following as a complete work: (∀x)x=x. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 10:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Atethnekos, your idea of 'beyond doubt' offers another dimension, but I think it refers mainly to the content rather than the author - yet I am not so sure either way. Thanks for your thoughts. Benyoch^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 13:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I did mean to refer to the content; sorry, I used that metonymy of using the author's name to refer to the content the author wrote. E.g., "I was reading Shakespeare" but not actually, just his works. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Urggh. My understanding of the current state of text analysis in historiography is that many historians agree that texts, or sources, are inherently unreliable in such a variety of ways that no source is "unimpeachable." In particularly the "literary turn" has emphasised that language itself is untrustworthy, in ways in which people who have never engaged in hermeneutic type analyses find convincing. On top of this is the standard misreporting, bias, and faulty memory. Even if your Father wrote his war diaries daily, and in the act, the limitation of his perspective means that the diaries themselves will not provide adequate context regarding the object of analysis (even if that object is the interior state of your Father's mind). Most historians try to get around this problem by triangulating the object of inquiry using multiple sources, source types, and reading techniques. "Unimpeachable" in this context sounds hyperbolic, almost to the point of irony. Your father's war diaries could certainly be "trustworthy" in that they didn't say what didn't happen, did say what happened within the limits of their decision about what would be important (ie: not omitting shameful acts, but still not necessarily diarising the colour of his underwear on a daily basis), and from the vantage held, said what was perceived to be happening at the time at which things were happening (and not with 20 years of hindsight and self-justification).

For example, I used a translated, published, diary of an anti-communist Hungarian student, who died on October 23, to indicate that the MEFESZ and DISZ student meetings immediately prior to the October 23 protest march were not aimed at toppling Communist Party rule in Hungary, nor interested in confronting the Party. Now despite the translation and publication problem—both of which are surmountable by pointing to the intensity of scrutiny displayed by pro-Soviet authors into anti-Soviet publications—this diary is very trustworthy. It was written on the day of the events, and the author died before the subsequent events coloured his recollections of the meeting. The author's politics were so rabidly anti-Party that you'd expect them to pounce on any sign of anti-Party activity to praise it. So it is a trustworthy source to claim that the Hungarian students were not plotting revolution; this can be triangulated against post-Revolutionary reports by MEFESZ and DISZ survivors' recollections which are tainted, to make a reasonably strong claim that Hungarian students weren't plotting revolution. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Or to put it more briefly, your father's war diaries are an unimpeachable source for what your father wanted future readers to know, but they are not necessarily an unimpeachable source for reality as it actually occurred. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Urggh, urggh! :) I am good for trying to figure out what the author meant and intended, and making a solid, yet fallible effort to do so. The decision by the diarist to include what was important excludes a lot, I would presume. In relation to your last sentence, what do we say about the diaries if my father 'wanted future readers to know' ... 'the reality as it actually occured'. If he wanted to convey some other 'reality' then he becomes a novelist, and the work is impeached as an unreliable source as to what actually happened. The reader/historian today must surely impose their assessment and that may include an unfair impeachment. Benyoch^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 13:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The deal is, you're not going to get a better answer than this: The human mind does not experience reality, nor can it express reality. Your mind filters the reality you experience in many ways, and even at the most basic level, and it approximates that reality. Even if we look at something very basic, like having you report on the color of an object. I can ask you a simple question, like "what color is this object" and you can say "yellow". However, what is yellow? Is it something which reflects light of a specific single wavelength of light at 580 nanometers ? Yes, that's one possibility. But you will also experience as yellow many other things, such as a grid of tiny green and red dots (that's how your television set produces yellow for you), or a mixture of a number of different wavelengths of light, etc. That is, you can be made to experience the color yellow in contexts where no actual light of that wavelength exists. So are your senses able to detect reality correctly? How do you distinguish between pure yellow color, and a composite of non-yellow colors your brain thinks is yellow? If you take this concept, and layer on top of it all of the various aspects of emotion and pyschology and the like, there is no perfect human representation of reality. There are only acceptable approximations. To put it simply, there is no way that any human report of an event is perfectly complete and accurate. There are only human reports of an event which are inaccurate, but acceptably so, and depending on the context, that definition varies. Is your father's diary an acceptable source for his experiences in the War? Quite possibly. Are they an acceptable source for what other people experienced in the war? Maybe less so... --Jayron32 14:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

'The deal is, you're not going to get a better answer than this:...' rather diminishes the contribution of all other wiki commentators here - but thanks for your considered and detailed thoughts, anyway. Benyoch^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 03:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

In my experience, Jayron is almost always (and sometimes annoyingly) right about most any matter you'd care to bring up. Specifically, the best you can hope for in his diary is that he wrote honestly about what he saw and experienced. If so, then his sincerity would be unimpeachable. That doesn't mean his facts are. Or aren't. But in any case, I bet they would make for some fascinating reading. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

A personal diary is like any other eyewitness account: it can't be taken as gospel about facts. The best you can say is that it reflects what the writer wanted to write. Now, if other personal journals independently make similar observations, then you start to have some reliability, or at least consensus. One of the recent TV programs about Titanic pointed out that eyewitnesses gave conflicting testimony as to whether the ship cracked in two before, or while, it sank. Some were absolutely certain that it did, and others were absolutely certain that it didn't. Both couldn't be right. Yet their own personal "truth" was "right" to them. The "real" truth was that it did. However, that doesn't prove that anyone lied about it. They may just not have been in position to notice it - especially, as Cameron's team calculated that the angle of tilt was rather less dramatic than the stereotype (and his film) would indicate. Eyewitness accounts are both useful and suspect at the same time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Some useful thougts, Bugs, although I have a different perspective on the reliability of 'eyewitness accounts' and the (alleged) 'facts' they convey. I would think that, unless a writer is entirely deceitful on a matter, that what they wanted to write actually reflects the facts of the matter -- from their perspective. Differences of opinion on the same event can be as much about different perspectives (e.g. titanic) as about the problem with conveying meaning and the interpretation of that meaning? And, yes, 'both useful and suspect' as you say -- quite a tension to rsolve. Thanks for your thoughts. Benyoch^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 03:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, it's not even an unimpeachable source on your father's own life and experiences, as people have a natural instinct to justify themselves or gloss over their shortcomings. --Dweller (talk) 10:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

And exactly which parts of the diary has my Father justified himself or glossed over his shortcomings? If all people exhibit such failings, then that fact does not affect a diary's contents as far as they were intended to be read. Strangely, the contents are reliably unreliable, I suppose. But that's all another story. Thanks for your thoughts. Benyoch^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 03:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm reminded of what Will Rogers said in the intro to his autobiography, which went something like, "An autobiography is where you talk about all the things you wish you had done, and leave out the things you wish you hadn't done." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Patron "saints" of England?

In the Edward the Confessor article, it says that he was replaced as "one of the patron saints of England" by St George by Edward III. Who were the other patron saints of England that are referred to here? --TammyMoet (talk) 12:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The other one was Edmund the Martyr. Our article also says he was replaced by Edward III (although it doesn't mention Edward the Confessor). Adam Bishop (talk) 12:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! --TammyMoet (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

French legislative election, June 2012

Can anyone find a poll predicting the results of the French legislative elections in June. I read French and tried searching Google News with the terms "elections legislatives sondages" but couldn't find any actual polls. I am wondering whether Hollande, after his likely presidential victory, is likely to face a "cohabitation" or whether he will be able to pursue Socialist policies unfettered. (I am following French politics closely because I think they are pivotal for the euro zone at this point and consequently for the global political economy.) Thanks for any leads. Marco polo (talk) 14:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, there's an article here that attempts to predict the outcome of the legislative elections. It looks like they are basing their predictions on pretty scant information, but they seem to think that the same party is likely to win both the presidential and legislative elections (I took the liberty of linking your question to the relevant article). 81.98.43.107 (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The results of the second round of the presidential elections are likely to have a large impact on the legislative elections, as a newly-elected President has historically had a significant coattail effect on the subsequent legislative elections. As a result, polls conducted until then are not particularly useful. --Xuxl (talk) 14:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Interesting that this suggests that French voters aim to avoid cohabitation (presidency and parliament controlled by different parties). The opposite seems to be true here in the United States. Marco polo (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

As a student of politics I should point out that I disagree. The fundamental issue at stake is that voters overwhelming vote for the same kind of people in multiple elections with little time difference between them – simply because their preferences do not change. I don't think that's a particularly controversial statement. The same is basically just as true in the US as France - the slight difference being, I would suggest, that parties in the US are more ideologically varied than in France, giving more room for a single individual to agree with a Republican Presidential candidate than the Democrat, but his Democratic House nominee more than his Republican (think Southern Democrats here, for example).

To answer the OP, I'm afraid I could find legislative prediction either, only party ratings. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 16:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Out of the last 20 US Congresses, 14 had at least one house controlled by a different party than the president at the time, and 9, or almost half, had both houses controlled by a different party. In several cases, a president started with a Congress controlled by his own party, but control shifted in one or more houses during the president's term of office. In recent US history, the party of the president has been likely to lose control of Congress during that president's term. That to me shows a US preference (whether it is really the preference of US citizens or that of money in politics) for divided government.

No, Americans want everyone in the government to be of the party they identify with. The deal is that the only people who vote in midterm elections are people who don't like the President, so we end up with a lot more divided government than otherwise. But that isn't because individual voters want their President and Congress to be controlled by different parties. Far from it. Its because it is because a President tends to bring in people of his own party during the years when they are elected (see coattail effect), whereas in midterm elections the only people who show up to the polls are the people who are pissed. The lone exception I can think of is the Reagan Democrats who basically represented the mass-exodus of labor from the Democratic Party; they still identified with their local Democratic candidates but supported the conservative social polices of the Republicans. A generation later, those Reagan Democrats have all, by-and-large, become Republicans as well. In more recent years, party politics has become more divisive and dogmatic. Now, more than in the past, Americans are more likely to vote "straight ticket" and select only people from their own identified party. --Jayron32 20:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I suspect there's something to both points. Midterm elections have always favored the opposition, but there probably are a fair number of voters who are afraid of what both major parties would do if they had control of both the legislature and the executive. --Trovatore (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

When we had monolothic governments, they led us into seemingly never-ending wars, in Vietnam and Afghanistan respectively. Whether the public is sufficiently wary of that situation, is hard to know. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Ahem. There have been polls! Just barely in the plural. http://www.sondages-en-france.fr/sondages/Elections/L%C3%A9gislatives%202012 gives the result of one in the Paris 2nd, and one from 6 months ago in the Charente-Maritimes first. Neither of which exactly threw up surprises for those single constituencies. Generally though, yeah, the surveys seem rather more focused on the Presidential --Saalstin (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Rivals in Europe politics

Who are the main rivals of Labour Party in Norway? Who are the main rivals of Swedish Social Democrats? Who are the main rivals of Social Democrats in Denmark? Who are the main rivals of Labour Party in Netherlands? Who are the main rivals of Social Democrats in Germany? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.106.179 (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm familiar only with Germany. The traditional rivals of the German Social Democrats (SDP SPD) are the Christian Democrats (CDU/CSU). Over the past decade or so, though, a new rivalry among parties on the left (SDP, Alliance '90/The Greens, and Die Linke) has made the old binary opposition no longer accurate. Marco polo (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The party is called SPD. --Wrongfilter (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

We have a lot of articles like Politics of the Netherlands which you can check. In the Netherlands, the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy is the biggest right-wing party, though there are others with significant votes (Christian Democratic Appeal, People's Party for Freedom and Democracy). --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Try Politics of Norway. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to Wrongfilter for pointing out my embarrassing typo, which I've corrected above. Marco polo (talk) 19:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

And Politics of Denmark and Politics of Sweden. --Saddhiyama (talk) 07:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Some law questions

1)what is the degrees of murders ? What's the difference between manslaughter and homicide?

2)what would happen if a paroled person would not return to jail after the period ends?Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 19:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The article on murder should help with your first question (quick summary: "it's complicated"). As for the second, generally, that's the expected outcome — when you're paroled, you are not expected back in prison unless you violate the terms of your parole or commit another offense. --Trovatore (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the OP is confusing parole (which is basically a looser version of house arrest) and work release, which is sometimes also called "furlough" in the U.S. In work release, a person lives at prison, but is allowed out to work in the community. In parole, a person can both live and work in the community, but has certain restrictions (must check in with a parole officer, can't travel outside of the state, etc.) In cases of both parole and furlough, the expectation is that the person abides by their restrictions, failure to do so would result in more restrictive punishment, but as long as a person follows the rules, it is expected that, at the end of their sentence, they be given full rights and privileges back again. --Jayron32 20:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Except that, with some types of offence, the end of the formal sentence does not mean the end of the effective penalty. For example, sex offenders are typically required to go on to a register and are permanently barred from working with certain groups of people. Also, any ex-prisoner is going to find gaining employment more of a challenge than might otherwise be the case, because many employers are wary of hiring ex-cons. Yes, they can choose not to reveal their history straight up, but many employers require a police records check as part of standard short-listed applicant processing. Others just ask the applicants; if they admit it, they risk not being employed; if they deny it, and their criminal record is later discovered, they risk being sacked. Walking out of prison is not the end of the sentence by any means. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The difference between murder charges and manslaughter is whether the accused is of the same race, nationality, ethnic group, language, and class as the prosecutor. StuRat (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

And what about gender and sexual orientation?88.9.107.123 (talk) 21:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Sexual orientation, yes, but they might very well go easier on suspects of the opposite gender, if the prosecutor is straight and hopes to be "thanked" in a rather personal way. StuRat (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Stu, is that a soapbox in your pocket, or are you just pleased to see me? AlexTiefling (talk) 22:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a homework question to me. If you can't browse your way over to our murder and homicide articles, you should get an F. And Stu... come on man. As an IP told you earlier this month, you don't have to respond to every single thread. Shadowjams (talk) 23:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I am not a school student anymore.I'm just asking the question for my general knowledge.I want to summary in short, as i am finding difficulties to interpret information from the article.By the way, what is dispute with User:StuRat?Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 00:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

There are varying degrees of the "severity" of homicide, usually a function of the circumstances. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The answers to these questions will depend on the country you're talking about. In the UK, for example, there are no "degrees" of murder. --Dweller (talk) 09:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

So, in the UK, if someone jumps out from the sidewalk and you accidentally hit him, are you send to the slammer for the same length of time as if you did it on purpose? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

They don't have degrees of murder, but they do have manslaughter. I suspect they also have torts corresponding to wrongful death when there is no crime, and probably also notion of homicide that is a pure accident (no negligence) and therefore not even a tort, but that's just speculation on my part; I'm certainly no expert on UK homicide law. --Trovatore (talk) 02:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

For BB's scenario, the USA has Vehicular manslaughter and the UK has Causing death by dangerous driving. Dbfirs 13:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm no lawyer, but in our excellent Murder in English law article, it makes clear that our definition of murder includes intent. --Dweller (talk) 13:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. In practice the judge decides the degree of the offence in murder cases; for instance, the pre-meditated murder of a long time abuser is likely to attract a more lenient sentence than sadistic killing of a weaker person. Killing without intent, but with the reasonable expectation that the act would cause significant harm is manslaughter. Running someone over when you're drunk or driving very badly is causing death by dangerous driving. Killing someone by an unforeseeable accident is just an accident. Alansplodge (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, in the UK, there is a temporary licence, occasionally called temporary parole, where the individual is expected to return to prison. If they don't, it is apparently a specific offence of failure to return; police will attempt to capture them, and they may have time added to their sentence, eligibility for future parole removed, etc. There's some information here. Warofdreams talk 09:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Repsol

Why does Repsol have an OTC price and a non-OTC price? See here: [[17]] and here [[18]]. And why are both prices not the same? Can't you buy in one market and sell in the other? 88.9.107.123 (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Anarchism

Is anarchism left-wing or right-wing?

Bowei Huang 2 (talk) 23:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Neither. Anarchism is a school of thought which is neither inherently left or right-wing and consists of a number of variants which may be either or neither of these. Robert Nozick for example is a 'Minarchist' who believes (I'm simplifying here massively) that all that matters is private property rights and so no state should exist beyond a police force to enforce such rights. This is usually considered very right-wing. By contrast Anarcho-Communism is (as the name implies) very left-wing. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism#Anarchist_schools_of_thought . 130.88.172.34 (talk) 00:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

A minarchist is a libertarian who is not an anarchist, so why drag him in? ¶ While it's true that the positions of some libertarians (including some anarchists) can be summarized as "all that matters is private property rights", that phrasing is misleading unless it's specified that our conception of property rights does not end with landlords; it includes, for example, freedom of speech, freedom of travel, and a right not to be poisoned by pollution (your property begins with your body). —Tamfang (talk) 07:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

To the extent that Left and Right have any consistent meaning over the centuries, they seem to me to represent emphasis on equality (in varying senses!) and stability respectively. You may note that individual autonomy is not strongly correlated with either of those. Communism is seen as aligned with the Left, and vice versa; but I think this is largely historical accident, because Communism's big successes have been against very traditional (thus Right) regimes.

Some of my friends describe themselves as "Right anarchists" (or "anarcho-capitalists") in contrast with the "Left anarchists" who, given a choice between abolishing the State and abolishing private property, would preserve the State. I am coming around to the view that this is a tactical and substantive error. Though "anarcho-capitalists" may be put off by some of the language used by Kevin Carson (who describes himself as "left-libertarian" and "free-market anti-capitalist"), I doubt that they would find much ground to disagree with his thesis that the State, far from protecting us against big business, is its chief enabler and friend. Carson and Roderick Long use the word capitalism as Marx coined it, to mean the system of State protections and subsidies that discourage competition and thereby keep wages lower than they would otherwise be (because in a freer market the worker could more readily threaten to go start a new business).

It has been said that "free people are not equal, and equal people are not free"; but I reckon that free people are more equal than governed people. Therefore, anarchism is of the Left. —Tamfang (talk) 07:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The various forms of "social anarchism" have much in common with radical left-wing perspectives (anarcho-communism with communism, anarcho-syndicalism with syndicalism, etc). Individualist anarchism, with which Tamfang, above, appears to identify, can have something in common with certain right-wing viewpoints, such as Ayn Rand's Objectivism, although its core social outlook is very different from most of the right. Warofdreams talk 09:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Does individualism or Objectivism aim to preserve a rigid social class system? Does either aim to concentrate authority, like fascism (and any Communist Party ever in power)? Does "right-wing" mean anything, anymore, other than not-Welfare-statist? —Tamfang (talk) 21:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Does it mean even that? I have the impression that Marine Le Pen's party is very welfare-statist, and we are reliably informed by the mainstream media that she's on the "far right". --Trovatore (talk) 21:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't mean that. Our articles have decent summaries - left-wing means desiring to bring about greater equality, right-wing means supporting or accepting inequality. In various countries, at different times, many other ideas have become associated with the left- or right-wing, but those are the key ones. Warofdreams talk 08:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't really buy that. That's Norberto Bobbio's formulation, and I don't agree with Bobbio on much. How egalitarian was Mao or Lenin or Stalin, or is Hugo Chavez? --Trovatore (talk) 08:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

That broad principle did fundamentally inform all of their ideologies, even though they may have been inconsistent, counter-productive, self-important and/or enjoyed personal privilege. Where they did things entirely at odds with egalitarian aims, those acts aren't conventionally described as left-wing, although they are sometimes justified by left-wingers as necessary or expedient. Warofdreams talk 09:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

This sounds to me like left-wing apologetics rather than a neutral analysis of the various philosophies. --Trovatore (talk) 09:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

First time I've seen apologetics which included a long list of criticisms and not a single word of praise! Warofdreams talk 09:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The issues is not left-wing vs right-wing. The left-right spectrum is outdated. The issue is individualism vs collectivism. The first holds the individual is the supreme being in the universe and their own ruler. So there may be difference between Bill Gates and the hawker in the street in terms of capital accumulation, but they are their own kings. No external agency can interfere in their business. On the contrary, collectivism does not recognize the individual, instead it views the individual as part of an imagery larger super-entity (such as society, nation, religion etc). Thus all forms of collectivism, fascism, communism, welfare statism, dehumanizes the individual. Collectivism denies the existence of the individual in favor of a collective. It holds the individual is incapable in governing themselves, so an external ruler is necessary to protect and discipline them. This goes against what Benjamin Tucker said, "if the individual has the right to govern himself, all external government is tyranny". --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 10:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

"We are an anarcho-syndicalist commune..." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Feminism and Sexism

Is feminism left-wing or right-wing? Is sexism left-wing or right-wing? Bowei Huang 2 (talk) 23:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes. And Yes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Is trolling yin or yang? --Trovatore (talk) 00:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

"I unsheathed my Bowei knife..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

If you're interested in an answer, feminist movements and ideologies is a start. Feminism has more often been associated with the left-wing, although there certainly has been a right-wing feminism. Overt sexism is principally associated with the right-wing, but there have been important critiques of sexism within left-wing groups and cultures. Warofdreams talk 09:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I have yet to see a revolution in which the women do not have to do all the cooking and cleaning up after men.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

List of conservative feminisms might be of interest, although the links are more useful than the article itself. Warofdreams talk 09:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

That is a poorly written list. Individualist feminism is in no way conservative. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 12:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

April 24

Treasury Department Award to a Writer?

I'm working on expanding the article on the children's writer Aileen Fisher. Her obit in the NY Times and the LA Times both say that she received an award from the US Treasury Department. I have researched every way I can think of for days and cannot find any other reference to this award. Can you find what it was, and when and perhaps why it was given? Thank you very much. Here's a link to the LA Times article, stating "a Silver Medal from the U.S. Treasury Department;" [19] Tlqk56 (talk) 05:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

This AP story says she won "the 1940 silver medal for distinguished service to the education section of the Treasury Department". --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much. For some reason the link doesn't work for me, but I can use the information. I appreciate it. Tlqk56 (talk)

It said:

"Aileen Fisher, an award-winning children's poetry and book author, has died. She was 96.

She died Dec. 2 of natural causes, the Boulder Daily Camera reported.

Fisher wrote children's poetry, plays, nature fiction and biographical novels, publishing more than 100 books since the 1930s.

Her first book, ``The Coffee Pot Face, was the 1932 choice of the Junior Literary Guild.

Among her awards was the 1940 silver medal for distinguished service to the education section of the Treasury Department, the 1968 Honor Book on the Hans Christian Anderson award list, and the 1976 National Council of Teachers of English award for excellence in poetry for children."

StuRat (talk) 02:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again. Tlqk56 (talk) 04:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

April 25

Secretary-General of the United Nations

What is his daily schedule? What is it that he usually does each day as a part of his job? —Bzweebl— ^talk 04:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

His schedule for the current day only is shown here (it doesn't look like there is a way to view past or future schedules). Much of his time is spent travelling, see here. You can click the links on that page to see a detailed rundown of what he did on each trip. --Viennese Waltz 07:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Cool! —Bzweebl— ^talk 02:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Did a mischievous golfer destroyed the Benin Air Force?

I just found much source on the internet and some books, but I would like to see if there are some more specific sources about this event.--58.251.146.129 (talk) 10:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It's made up. See our article on Benin Armed Forces for current resources. --Dweller (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I just felt strange about that there is no official reports on this accident, but now I see. Plus, does anyone know the origin of this joke?--58.251.146.129 (talk) 05:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Japanese prime ministers

What are the reasons why Japanese prime ministers get unpopular so quickly? Since Junichiro Koizumi, there has not been one Japanese prime minister who lasted more than one-and-a-half years in office. Shinzo Abe and Yasuo Fukuda followed, then resigned for different reasons. Then came Taro Aso, Japan's only Catholic Prime Minister, whose long-time ruling party the LDP was defeated by Yukio Hatoyama's DPJ, but he too resigned after just eight months because he said he broke some promises involving a American military base. He was replaced by Naoto Kan who oversaw Japan's rebuilding after the 2011 earthquake, but eventually he became unpopular and resigned. The current prime minister, Yoshihiko Noda, seems to be quite unpopular will probably be on his way out soon. But anyway, why have they become so unpopular lately? I can think of many governments that had financial problems but didn't burn through many leaders in such a short amount of time, but why Japan? Of course, there was the removal from office of Italian, Spanish and Greek Prime Ministers recently, but their Prime Ministers don't seem to be unpopular (yet), and those events have only occurred within the last year or so, this has been going on in Japan for six years. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Does Politics of Japan help answer your question? --Jayron32 12:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

There have been controversies over the privatisation of Japan Post (which is a massively controversial issue), over nuclear power following the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, over the war in Afghanistan[20]; the Japanese economy hasn't been in a good condition for 20 years, with an end to the job-to-life culture and layoffs at even the most established companies, plus deflation, the recent recession (Japanese economy#Current economic issues) and a sense that Japan is no longer a world leader with the rise of China and India. But a lot of it is down to circumstances and the lack of charismatic leaders with popular appeal - a long sequence of grey men in grey suits with no particular idea of how to sort Japan's problems. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Beyond the other answers, you're hardly the first person to notice this, so a quick search for 'japan prime minister short' (or something similar) will find plenty of discussions, e.g. [21] [22] [23] [24] and indirectly [25] Nil Einne (talk) 17:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Definition of theft

I have a question regarding a potential situation that came to mind. I'm not seeking legal advice, I'm simply curious.

If I ordered something online, say an iPod classic 30GB, but they sent me a 60GB model by accident, is it legally theft if I keep it if they don't ask for it back? If the situation was slightly different, and they DID ask for it back, would it be theft if I refused? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.202.154.192 (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

When an error is made, it is generally expected that the error be corrected. There are many examples of this, say a person receiving $10,000 on a check that should have only been paid $100 (say, if the bank misreads $100.00 as $10000), and in those cases, the person is legally obligated to return the money. You can do find lots of examples from google where that has been the case, i found two examples in about 10 seconds: [26] and [27] That doesn't mean that a person wouldn't "get away" with keeping the more expensive product, but the company in question would be within its legal rights to ask for, and receive, it back. Not getting caught is not the same thing as not breaking the law. --Jayron32 14:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

This does get into an interesting moral or ethical area. It's kind of the flip side of "let the buyer beware". Moral absolutists (maybe "Abe Lincolnists") would probably say there's no moral difference between "stealing" a penny vs. "stealing" 10,000 dollars. However, practicality intervenes. If you're supposed to get 25 cents in change at your local McDonald's and they give you 35 cents instead, and you discover it when you get home, driving back to the store to give them 10 cents is a waste of gasoline, and you're liable to get incredulous looks. But if they gave you a 10 dollar bill instead of a 1, the clerk will probably be grateful, as they may well be docked for any shortage in the till. If the bank gives you 100 dollars and 10 cents, the cost of them doing the adjustment might exceed that 10 cents. However, if they give you 10,000 dollars instead of 100 dollars, and you tell them about it, you'll probably be a hero, get your mug on the nightly news, and maybe even get a reward for your honesty, such as a free toaster. In all cases, though, if someone asks for it back, you should return it without hesitation. In the OP's case, it's kind of borderline. Since they basically "gave" it to you, you could keep your mouth shut until or if they notice it. However, someone might get fired over a mistake like that. So the optimal course of action probably would be to contact them and ask them what they want you to do. Given the cost of shipping (which they should have to bear), they might just tell you to keep it. Communication is good. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

My dad pointed out a mistake his bank had made in his favour (I'm not sure how large) and got a box of their branded pens as a thank-you gift - whenever you picked up a pen in his house for the next few years, it always had that bank's logo on it! Probably quite good advertising for the bank... --Tango (talk) 18:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The short answer is, if they ask for it back you will have to return it. If they don't ask for it back, then really it's up to your conscience! It's possible you could get into trouble for not reporting it, but I've never heard of something like that happening unless you failed to give it back when asked. --Tango (talk) 18:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

To answer the question rather than talk about the moral issue, in most jurisdictions theft must be an act of commission, rather than omission, so they likely could not have you charged with theft and arrested. However, they could sue in civil court, and recover the item, or the value of the item, in that manner. As a practicality, this would only be done with valuable items. If you paid by credit card, however, they might very well just charge you for the more expensive item, without your permission to do so. StuRat (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't answer the original question. That would be legal advice. Broba (talk) 21:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Even forgetting that, no one answer is actually possible, because the laws vary from place to place. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

A practical concern, if you will: if you purchased this from Apple, you're going to have to connect to them somehow with your new toy (to register it, to activate iTunes, etc., they're much more "into" your stuff than many other tech firms). At that point, they're going to "know" what you've got and they could easily compare what you've got with what you paid for. Whether they'd bother doing that is an open question. Matt Deres (talk) 01:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

(the following is not legal advice - its advice to myself) If this happened to me, to keep a clear conscience, I would simply email them and advise them of the discrepency, ask if they want to correct it, offer my terms of making good (at no cost to me). I would also limit them to 10 working days to reply; after which time, if they havent I will advise them I will assume they do not want the thing back, and then get on with my life. Benyoch^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 02:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

At this point I'm reminded of this one: A guy sends a note to the IRS, saying, "I under-reported my income, and I can't sleep at night. Enclosed find check for $500, and if I still can't sleep, I'll send you the balance." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Canada South Asian Chinese election politics vs USA African Americans and hispanics

Ever since the 2012 US Presidential election is coming up, television networks like AlJazeera have been talking about how African-Americans and Hispanics have bigger role in US politics because people have claim especially political analysts that these two largest non-white groups tend to vote Democrats more than vote Republicans because of their immigration and crime policy. Even there books dealing with Hispanics and African Americans having a voice in the election. So, I want to about how South Asians and Chinese. So far, I know that they are the largest non-white groups in Canada(South Asians first and Chinese second in population). How come these two groups are never mentioned in the media when it comes to Canadian general election and never get that tag that they vote Liberal or NDP more than they vote for Conservative? Is there any books about these two groups having voice in Canadian general elections? Is there a website where it shows tables, graphs and figures about South Asians and Chinese and their views on different issues like Quebec, immigration, economy and social issues during the Canadian general elections 2011? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.106.98 (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I would suppose it's not that it isn't interesting, but the relative proportion is smaller than hispanics in the US, so they aren't as as able to 'swing' an election even if there was a noticeable voting bloc. Mingmingla (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly what you're looking for, but Jacques Parizeau blamed the outcome of the 1995 Quebec referendum on "the ethnic vote". Adam Bishop (talk) 17:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, isn't the Canadian immigration policy more favorable to immigrants ? If so, they would have less reason to vote for or against a party, based on that. Other issues would seem more important, like the economy. StuRat (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Most Hispanics look pretty white to me. HiLo48 (talk) 20:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how they look to you; in North America they are often treated as another race (or at least ethnic group). It doesn't matter whether or not there is even such a thing as race, it just is. Mingmingla (talk) 00:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

But how do you tell the difference? HiLo48 (talk) 08:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, as often or not, you can't. Mingmingla (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you try reading our article on the topic, as well as Black Hispanic and Latino Americans, which is well-populated and well-referenced, and Asian Hispanic and Latino Americans, which sadly isn't so much. But it should be reasonably apparent that, say, Franklin Chang-Diaz and Alex Rodriguez cannot readily be classed as 'just European'. As far as I (a Brit) can tell, the controlling factor for being Hispanic is identifying oneself with one's heritage in a Spanish-speaking culture (or possibly Lusophone - but probably not). AlexTiefling (talk) 08:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Traditionally, recent immigrant groups in Canada voted largely for the Liberal party. This was because the Liberal party was in power during the second half of the 1960s and 1970s under Lester B. Pearson and Pierre Elliott Trudeau when immigration policy changed to allow more non-European immigrants. Studies show (sorry, I don't have time to look them up) that these groups were grateful to that government and party for allowing them to become citizens. Similarly, they were largely opposed to Quebec separatism, out of a sense of loyalty to the federal government which issued immigration visas (hence Jacques Parizeau's infamous remarks, mentioned above). This seems to have changed in recent years; the Conservatives did not significantly change immigration policies when they were in power under Brian Mulroney in the 1980s, and the current Stephen Harper party and government has courted them openly, with some success. All parties now have members representing all major communities in Canada. It is the same in Quebec, where both camps in the sovereignty debates have supporters coming from various immigrant communities. There is thus no clear "Chinese" or "Indian" or "Arabic" or whatever vote in Canada anymore, and political scientists look to other factors to explain current electoral behaviour. --Xuxl (talk) 08:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

What is the longest book written that is NOT a novel?

Hello, I was trying to look for the longest books written (in English or not) that were not novels, but all I can find are lists for the longest novels ever written. So I was wondering if anyone can think of the longest written works that are not novels. Sorry if you think this is the wrong desk to ask this, I was thinking I could also ask this in the Language or even the Entertainment desks, but I concluded the type of books I would like to find were more akin to the humanities. Thanks in advance. --Kreachure (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Britannica? Or maybe there's a bigger encyclopaedia somewhere? HiLo48 (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Apparently the Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeo-americana is several times longer than the Britannica. Kreachure (talk) 21:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec) By "book", do you exclude official reports such as the one into the 9/11 attacks or the report of the Warren Commission into JFK's assassination? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Great suggestions, and good question. I guess they would count, as long as each is considered a distinct, clearly delimited, single written work of its own (especially so that an unambiguous word count may be possible). Kreachure (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Unabridged dictionaries are quite large. RudolfRed (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Our Mahabharata page says it is "the longest Sanskrit epic", at about 1.8 million words. But I'd bet there are longer "distinct, clearly delimited, single written works". Pfly (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, but the Mahabharata is dwarfed by some encyclopedias. Some large ones are listed at Wikipedia:Size comparisons#Comparison of encyclopedias. Siku Quanshu is listed at 800 million Chinese characters; the Yongle Encyclopedia at 370 million characters. Pfly (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec) You're right, it turns out reference works like encyclopedias are some of the longest types of works out there. Now that we know this, I would like to know of works outside of reference works, like the Mahabharata. If anything because, unlike the Mahabharata, an encyclopedia is not something that is intended to be read from beginning to end as a whole. :) Kreachure (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Giacomo Casanova's autobiography is a single, although unfinished, work, and in its full form runs to twelve generous volumes. There are a number of examples of outsider art literature which are extremely long, too. But I'm sure even longer examples can be found... AlexTiefling (talk) 21:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The History of the Second World War published by HMSO appears (by my count) to run to over 90 volumes. However, our article says; "The volumes were written to be read individually, rather than as a whole series." Alansplodge (talk) 00:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.248.126 (talk) 08:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Isn't every autobiography necessarily unfinished? —Tamfang (talk) 08:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

In a trivial sense, yes. But in Casanova's case, he left a bunch of notes about things he wanted to write about, but hadn't got around to (including, apparently, a few same-sex encounters that were potentially more spicy than the ones he did mention). AlexTiefling (talk) 08:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's a fairly random example of a 40-volume encyclopedia on one specific topic. "Reclaiming history: Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies produces 40-volume work on Muslim women scholars and prayer leaders" BrainyBabe (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Simon Winchester in his Krakatoa: The Day the World Exploded ISBN 0-141-00517-3 claims Raden Ngabahi Rangga Warsita wrote a book called the Book of Kings (apparently one we don't have an article about), which ran to about six million words. Winchester says it was written in a version of Bahasa called Court Javanese. Zoonoses (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous music critics

I'm researching Henry Cope (H. C.) Colles, who was the chief music critic of The Times from 1911 to his death in 1943, and also edited the 3rd and 4th editions of Grove's Dictionary of Music and Musicians, among many other activities. My primary source is the article on Colles in the 5th edition of Grove, written by his successor Eric Blom. Blom writes about Colles's time at The Times:

• ... and although his work was necessarily anonymous, readers learnt not only to recognise it, but also to admire it for its admirable qualities of comprehensive taste, sure and fair judgment, and, above all, perhaps, for an unfailing tact and humanity that tempered even his severest strictures.

The "necessarily anonymous" bit intrigues me. Why was it necessary to remain anonymous? I'm sure modern-day music critics, and journalists of all kinds, all have their bylines, and this is far from being a recent thing. I see that "An exception is the British weekly The Economist, which publishes nearly all material anonymously". Was this also the case at The Times? When did it change?

Also, how would the casual reader recognise the pen of Colles, unless they had already been exposed to his other (nonymous) writings. Maybe the readers of The Times in those days were all exceedingly erudite and moved in the most educated of circles, musicologically speaking, I don't know, but it all sounds a bit closed-shop high-brow to me. (Mind you, that's from back in the day when The Times was still a broadsheet. With tabloids - and Rupert Murdoch - one never really knows, does one. :)

Can anyone enlighten me about this? Thanks. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 23:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, Times reviewers' work was anonymous into the 1970s. This obit of a fellow who became editor of the TLS in 1974, for instance, says that "as editor, Mr. Gross broke with longstanding tradition and began attaching bylines to reviews, which had been anonymous." Deor (talk) 00:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and Blom's words say no more than that readers recognized Colles's work (presumably in distinction to the work of other authors of Times music reviews), not that they knew the name of the man responsible for that work. Deor (talk) 00:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see. But Blom seems to be going beyond mere recognition, and into admiration. How would readers express their admiration for, or even just refer to, that particularly admired writer whose name they didn't know? How would this sentence end: Oh, I'm looking forward to the review of last night's concert, and I really hope it's written by [....]. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 02:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

". . . that guy I like"? Deor (talk) 14:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Or "...the good reviewer"? The Beano and the Dandy don't let their artists have bylines, and until relatively recently I didn't have any way to find out who drew what (the internet is great). But, as a child, I certainly recognised certain artists by their work, and sought out other strips by them, and was cheered when they drew another strip, and was displeased when someone else drew one of their regular strips, all without knowing their name. For example, I would happily note that a strip in the Dandy at the dentist's was drawn by the same person who regularly drew Calamity James in the Beano, and could tell people that without knowing who the artist was. 86.140.54.3 (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

That visual analogy works well. The styles of different cartoonists are very distinctive and are instantly apparent, before you've even got to focussing on what the cartoon's about. Writers have styles that are just as distinctive in their way as those of visual artists, but they can't generally display their style in just two or three words. Reading is a sequential activity, and you have to read some way into the text before you have any real sense of the style. Still, well before the end of the piece it would be apparent that it's by "that writer I like" or "some other writer". Thanks for the replies. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

April 26

Winning the Presidency with only a quarter of the popular vote!

Is it true that it's possible to obtain a majority in the Electoral College with only about a quarter of the popular vote, by winning in the states where your vote counts the absolute most? Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 02:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

If you're asking about the Electoral_College_(United_States), then yes I think that could happen, depending on voter turnout. If you had low turnout in high-count states like California and Texas and won 50.1% of the popular vote there, and high turnout in smaller count states like North Dakota and only won a small percent of popular vote, then you could end up with a small percentage of the total popular vote and win the electoral college. You would need to do the math on all the state voter numbers, but it seems possible if unlikely. RudolfRed (talk) 03:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

There are lots of theoretical scenarios which are much more extreme. Members of the Electoral College (United States) are not bound by law to vote for a specific candidate so you can get 100% in the Electoral College with 0% in the popular vote. There could be unpledged electors who never pledged to vote for a specific candidate. There could be pledged electors who become faithless electors. If all electors are pledged and follow it faithfully then one candidate could theoretically win large states where only one voter actually votes, while another candidate gets 100% in other states where everybody votes. There could be many candidates splitting the votes so all candidates get a small percentage of the popular vote. The population of states could change dramatically from the latest census used to determine the number of electors for each state. Some states could change the way they appoint electors so it's not based on a popular vote in the state. And so on. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

According to the article, electors for some states are bound to specific vote and the vote will be voided if the elector votes for someone else. The article says Michigan does this, and implies there are others but doesn't name them. RudolfRed (talk) 03:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

But according to the article and faithless elector the law punishing people for voting improperly have never been tested in court. It doesn't comment on the specifics of invalidating the vote but I presume this is similarly untested since it sounds like the only thing tested is that electors can be required to take pledges and rejected if they refuse. Nil Einne (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you win 50%+1 votes in the correct states to give you 50%+1 electoral college votes, and 0% of the vote in every other state, you win the presidency. As a practical matter, that will never happen, but there have been cases where someone has lost the popular vote, and still won the presidency in the electoral college. Stictly speaking, to get the 270 votes you need, you'd only need to win the states of California (55), Texas (38), Florida (29), New York (29), Illinois (20), Pennsylvania (20), Ohio (18), Michigan (16), Georgia (16), North Carolina (15), and New Jersey (14) = exactly 270 votes. That means winning just 11 states (out of 50) is needed to win the Presidency. These 11 states represent a population of about 177 million, or 56.5% of the country's population. Since smaller states have a larger representation in the Electoral College, if you won the 40 smallest states, you would have a population of about 45% of the country represented for those same 270 Electoral votes, assuming you won the bare minimum of those 40 states, and literally zero votes in the other 11 (we're assuming DC counts as a state for presidential election purposes here), you would have less than 25% of the popular vote. As noted, this is impossible, from a practical point of view. However, people have won the electoral college when losing the popular vote, I can think of a few off the top of my head: the United States presidential election, 1876 was awarded to Rutherford B. Hayes by the courts, Samuel Tilden won the national popular vote, but there were several states whose results were too close to call; a special judicial commission awarded those electoral college votes to Hayes, giving him the absolte bare minimum to win the electoral college. In the United States presidential election, 2000, Al Gore had a plurality (but not an absolute majority) of the popular vote, while George W. Bush came in second in the popular vote. As in 1876, the results of a closely contested state (Florida) was disputed and eventual ended up getting decided by the Supreme Court, who awarded the state to Bush. In general, however, the electoral college tends to be a lot more lopsided than the popular vote; in most elections the margin of victory in the electoral college is much greater than the popular vote, because of the "winner take all" nature of most states (except Maine and Nebraska) in the electoral college. For example, in the United States presidential election, 1960, Kennedy defeated Nixon by the tiniest margin in the popular vote (just over 100,000 votes, or 0.2%) but won the electoral college vote handily (by a 74 vote margin). Likewise, in the famous "Reagan Landslide" election of United States presidential election, 1984, Reagan won 58% of the popular vote, but won an astounding 525/538 (97.5%) of the electoral college. --Jayron32 03:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing that says that the president has to receive any popular votes. Let's say there's a deadlocked election, 269-269, except one of the electors is faithless and votes for someone else. The election is carried into the House of Representatives, and that someone else is on the ballot, since the House of Representatives chooses from among the top three electoral vote getters. Who knows what might happen?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Possible. Such dark horse candidates have won their party conventions under similar circumstances (James Knox Polk and Warren G. Harding for example). There was some question in 1992 before Ross Perot let his crazy out that, if he took too many electoral college votes from the other candidates, that no candidate would get the needed 270 votes. Thankfully, Perot went a bit nuts, and ended up mortally wounding his election chances and didn't end up winning any electoral college votes, but there was serious contention that, in 1992, it may have been thrown to the House for a vote. However, it is unlikely to the point of impossibility that a "dark horse" would end up winning the House election. Voting would likely run on strict party lines, and there are an odd number of Representatives, so someone would win, and it would be whatever party had the Majority in the House. --Jayron32 13:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

1896 and Bryan ... Not as easy as all that. If you read the 12th Amendment, the House votes by state, each state casting one vote no matter what the size of the delegation, and you need a majority of all the states to win. Easy to conceive a scenario where several states are deadlocked 1-1 or 2-2 preventing either side from getting to 26, and that third candidate starts to look attractive ...--Wehwalt (talk) 13:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

What happens if Obama quits the election ?

Who would the Democrats field in his place, or would there be no Democratic candidate ? Has this type of thing happened before ? StuRat (talk) 03:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

If he quits before the convention, the delegates will have to vote for someone else. See LBJ#1968_presidential_election RudolfRed (talk) 03:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

A more interesting situation (though incredibly unlikely) is a presidential candidate dropping out (or dying or otherwise being incapacitated) after winning the popular election but before being inaugurated. I wonder whether the incumbent vice president would be sworn in on January 20, or if legal acrobats may arrange for the winning VP candidate to inaugurated. I don't think this has happened before, so it would certainly pose an interesting problem for those who would have to sort it out. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 03:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Why the outgoing VP rather than the new one? To step on all the bases, the VP-elect could be sworn in as VP and then sworn in again as President. —Tamfang (talk) 08:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There are different procedures for what happens depending on when he quits. If he quits before the Democratic National Convention, the convention will just nominate someone else. (strictly speaking, the convention isn't bound by the primaries, and prior to the 20th century, many states didn't have primaries; the nominees were picked in "smoke filled rooms" at the convention itself). If he were to quit after the convention, but before the general election, then it would likely fall to his running mate, who would then select another running mate. I'm not sure anyone has quit that late in the process, but there have been some Presidents who made a late decision not to run for re-election (famously LBJ in 1968, who withdrew from the election in March, 1968). There was also the curious case of Daniel Webster in 1852, who died so close to the election that he remained on the official ballot in several states, and as a corpse managed to get something like 7000 votes. --Jayron32 03:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

If something happened between the time of the public election and the meeting of the Electoral College, presumably the Electors would go with someone else. If something happened after the Electoral College and before inauguration day, the Supreme Court might need to step in. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Tangentally related, see United States presidential election, 1872 and Horace Greeley. Greeley died at the exact wrong time, after the general election but before the meeting of the electoral college. As a result, his electors had no guidance in how to vote, so they voted for an array of candidates from Greeley's party. It was moot anyways, as Grant won in a landslide. But had the election gone the other way, it would have created quite a mess. --Jayron32 04:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

People I've talked to about that scenario seem to feel that, were it to happen today, nothing very interesting would happen. The electors would duly vote for the candidate to whom they're pledged, notwithstanding that person's metabolically challenged status. He would be duly elected, found immediately unable to discharge the duties of his office, and the newly minted veep would take over. But who really knows. Depends on how 538 electors, the House of Representatives, and the Supreme Court respond to the unexpected. --Trovatore (talk) 07:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Out of interest, what would happen nowadays if one of the main candidates died or dropped out in similar circumstances to Webster, just before the election and without enough time for the ballots to be altered - would the election be postponed, would votes for that candidate be ignored, or would they still be counted, with the corresponding Electors presumably voting for their Vice Presidential candidate (and picking somebody else for Vice President)? I'm also wondering about the same situation in a UK general election - if a candidate dies shortly before or during an election, the election in their constituency is postponed for 28 days, which would make things very complicated if it happened in, say, the constituency of the leader of the party winning the overall election, or in the incumbent Speaker's seat. 130.88.73.65 (talk) 11:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The Democratic National Committee has the power to fill vacancies on the ticket; this has happened once in 1972, when vice presidential candidate Alan Eagleson was dumped from the ticket when it was revealed he had been treated for depression. It came reasonably close to happening in 1952 to the Republicans; had Nixon resigned rather than delivering the Checkers speech, the RNC would have filled the vacancy. If it happened, say, on the evening before election day with no way for the national committee to convene in time, remember, you are voting for electors, all of whom are party loyalists these days, they would almost certainly do as the national committee directed, though I'm sure there would be huge media speculation about rogue electors.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

And the Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides answers to some of these conundrums.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd be fairly confident the flexible constitutional provisions of the UK could handle anything like that. If it is indeed the leader of the largest party's constituency, the Queen (or King) would have to take a view on it. Probably, the incumbent PM would remain PM until the prospective leader had successfully defended his or her seat; if unsuccessful, the Queen would simply pick someone else (although picking is not necessarily an easy process, it was not uncommon in the past), with the potential for a leadership election to prompt another change in PM. With regard to speakers, the speaker would simply remain an MP (and indeed speaker) until (s)he actually lost, at which point a vote would be scheduled; in the interim, the Speaker's deputies would perform all practical roles such as chairing debates. As I understand it, anyway. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 11:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

That's what is nice about the flexibility inherent in the Westminster system. In the U.S. everything is rigidly tied to certain dates and numbers; the Constitutional question about what happens if something untowards happens and a date gets missed is entirely unanswered. --Jayron32 12:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You say that after the Prime Ministerial succession in the UK of 1963?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

What point about 1963 are you referring to? The fact it took 5 days, the fact that the Conservatives' selection procedure (which essentially dictated the "advice" given to the Queen) has been accused of bias, or something else? - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 12:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

1963 was a rough year for the British: death of the Opposition leader, Profumo sex scandal, the messy way that the Macmillan to Douglas-Home transition worked, with Douglas-Home having to resign from Lords to take the PM job. --Jayron32 12:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I refer to the messy way in which Home was picked.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012

Why hasn't Ron Paul's current delegate count been up dated? He has won 14 Delegates in Iowa, 20 in Minnesota and Nevada as of April 26,2012 See Here: http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2012/04/ron_paul_actually_won_minnesotas_gop_presidential_primary_it_turns_out.php

and Here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#47151825 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim Randleman (talk • contribs) 17:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

If you see an error on Wikipedia, Be Bold and fix it. RudolfRed (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

SS Ottowa or Ottawa?

Ottawa is the most common spelling. There seem to be two ships of the same name though. SS_Germanic_(1875)#Ottawa and Passengers_of_the_RMS_Titanic#Passenger_list. The latter is listed as a ship that recovered bodies and there is a hidden note not to change the spelling that cites a very old document with the Ottowa spelling. Were they two different ships? I am going to look for more discussion on it in WP, but I was just wondering if anyone is familiar with it. I can't see anything about it on the talk pages.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks like "Ottowa" is a misspelling. These two places[28][29] refer to an SS Ottawa recovering a body from the Titanic. The hidden note is unreliable and does not even establish a connection to the disaster, only that three people traveled on the "Ottowa" between 1902 and 1906. It also doesn't appear to be the renamed Germanic, since its article states it was sold to the Turkish government in 1910 and used to ferry troops to Yemen. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I may wikilink to the article on the correct ship. It also seems strange that that ship was not named Ottawa on April 15, 1912 though."..leaving Liverpool for the last time on 15 May 1911, carrying the name Gul Djemal..."--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done(for now)

I have found no less than four ships that could possibly be the one. The one spelled Ottowa may be a mispelling, but I am going to leave it for now as the recovery ship. It is the only one that has dates that work.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

American schools

To what extent have American school systems informed American students about the role of U.S companies in the holocaust? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.152.23.10 (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you could research the subject and improve the article here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Based on my experience of history teaching in U.S. school systems, I would say that the subject is seldom addressed. It certainly isn't mentioned in the leading textbooks. Marco polo (talk) 01:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

So, U.S. companies were sending Jews to the death camps? I thought Hitler was the one doing that. Silly me. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The OP made no such assertion, but I do wonder just what they are referring to. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 03:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

One example is that IBM sold them computers used to track Jew's whereabouts, etc. StuRat (talk) 03:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Nobody sold anybody computers until 1951, when the holocaust was well over. And IBM began selling them in 1952. IBM did sell M1 carbine rifles. HiLo48 (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

"Tabulating equipment", then, if you prefer, although I consider those to be mechanical computers, versus the current electronic computers. StuRat (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fair. HiLo48 (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that US schools wouldn't spend much time on the relatively minor role some US companies played. But, to put this in perspective, compare this to Japan, which glosses right over WW2 entirely, and Turkey, where any mention of the Armenian Genocide can get you tossed in jail. StuRat (talk) 03:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Where's your evidence that Japan glosses over WW2 entirely? According to Japanese history textbook controversies,"Despite the efforts of the nationalist textbook reformers, by the late 1990s the most common Japanese schoolbooks contained references to, for instance, the Nanking Massacre, Unit 731, and the comfort women of World War II,[2] all historical issues which have faced challenges from ultranationalists in the past.[3] The most recent of the controversial textbooks, the New History Textbook, published in 2000, was shunned by 'nearly all of Japan's school districts'." Even ultra-nationalists are not proposing to pretend that WWII never happened. Your claim that "any mention of the Armenian Genocide can get you tossed in jail" is also highly exaggerated, considering that [prosecutions under [Article 301]] are relatively rare, and most of the high-profile ones have resulted in acquittals. --140.180.51.64 (talk) 06:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps Japan has made some recent progress, but, according to Japanese_history_textbook_controversies#New_History_Textbook, that text which completely whitewashes Japan's role in WW2 was approved, by the Ministry of Education there, in 2001, and is still used in a few schools. So, there is still a bit of a problem there, if such a book can get official government approval and be used at all. As for Turkey, officially denying the genocide and having a law against discussing it is problem enough, even if they don't toss many in jail as a result. StuRat (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

"Completely whitewashing Japan's role in WW2" is a far cry from glossing over WW2 entirely, especially since said textbook is used in a tiny fraction of Japanese schools. Officially denying the genocide and throwing a handful of people in jail, while despicable, is a far cry from what you were saying--that "any mention of the Armenian Genocide can get you tossed in jail". --140.180.0.231 (talk) 05:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Which American schools? Grade school? High school? Colleges? The first two likely never mention it since there's just too much other info about the war to pack into a semester. The last may mention it in passing unless the course is specific to the holocaust or business ethics. Dismas|^(talk) 04:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I did look at some High School textbooks, and some of them mentioned large German corporations such as IG Farbin aiding the Nazis, or supporting their rise to power, but none of them mention GM, IBM or Ford's support of the Nazis. All of them mention the important role Ford and GM played in manufacturing equipment for the U.S army.

I've read that IBM equipment was used to track the victims of the holocaust. Would that qualify? See IBM and the Holocaust, [30] . Less directly, there has been much published about US corporations aiding Hitler. See IG Farben, Wall Street and the rise of Hitler. See also Yahoo Answers: [31]. A Google search provides sources stating that Hitler was aided by several major US companies and wealthy families. I doubt that anything relating to this is included in standard high school history textbooks, but some college courses may cover the material. Edison (talk) 04:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

If these companies did play a significant role, why is this not included in textbooks? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.124.35 (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Two reasons that I can think of, A) The companies likely didn't know that they were helping the holocaust. They likely were just happy to have a lucrative government contract and didn't know until after the parts/services were already sold just what they had a hand in. So why point it out and unnecessarily brand them criminals? B) For a grade school or high school class, the teachers and text book writers have priorities about what they are going to teach in a given semester. I don't know about other grade/high schools but mine was large and didn't have a course specifically on the war. So, the teachers have maybe a week or two to cover the entire war. Even if the course is just 1900 to the present, that's still a lot of material to cover considering there's a whole other world war plus one or two other wars to cover. Companies selling stuff to the Nazis (which wasn't vilified until long after they came to power) isn't the biggest part of the story. Dismas|^(talk) 15:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Did they play a significant role? You're kind of assuming that piece, which seems to be the most critical. Something like our WP:UNDUE policy might be a useful analogy. There also were significant restrictions on trade with Germany during WW2 under the Trading with the Enemy Act. The treasury secretary imposed restrictions not just on obvious countries, but those in occupied countries as well. (Kern Alexander, Economic sanctions: law and public policy, 0230525555, p 94).

Even before that the Neutrality Act prohibited certain American assistance to England, France, and Germany, although this was later modified (NYT, Hulen, November 5, 1939). Shadowjams (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

This reminds me of another issue I heard about in Canada years ago. I was told that maps in American schools end at the Canadian border. They just show white, no cities, mountains, etc. Is there any truth that this was the case, or still is? Also you may wish to find a book called Other Losses, it documents atrocities performed by the allies in WWII.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Other Losses - have you read the critisism section before mentioning it? It is not widely accepted. Rmhermen (talk) 05:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Some do, some don't. I remember watching TV weather forecasts and watching a weather system disappear when it crossed the border into the great white north. This was particularly problematic, since I was in upstate New York, at the time, which gets it's weather from Southern Ontario. StuRat (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

We also round pi down to 3 and teach creationism exclusively! Also, I'm pretty sure the Earth is in the middle of our solar system... our very very flat solar system. Shadowjams (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I used to use 22/7 because my calculator didn't have a pi button. According to the big bang theory I am actually at the center of the universe, and the solar system isn't quite flat because Uranus' orbit is off by a few degrees.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Saint Agostina Petrantoni

I see that there's no entry for Saint Agostina Petrantoni in Wikipedia. Is there a reason why? Given that wikipedia's entries on saints are pretty thorough, I thought I should point this out. For information on her, please see http://saints.sqpn.com/saint-agostina-petrantoni/

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.24.176 (talk) 23:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Saints#Roman Catholicism says: One Roman Catholic website states that "There are over 10,000 named saints and beatified people from history, the Roman Martyrology and Orthodox sources, but no definitive head count".

Wikipedia is big but we don't have 10,000 biographies of saints. She is spelled Pietrantoni in Wikipedia and is one of many red links in these lists: Chronological list of saints and blesseds in the 19th century, List of saints canonized by Pope John Paul II, List of canonizations#Pontificate of Pope John Paul II. I don't know whether she is considered more significant than the many other saints without biographies. See Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Your first article if you want to write an article. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

She has an article on the Italian Wikipedia: [32] The main source appears to be an encyclopedia of saints. Perhaps you can ask for a translation on the Language Desk. 184.147.123.69 (talk) 13:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

April 27

Fantasy and sci-fi hottest spot

Which nations are arguably best for their Science fiction novels? and which nations are arguably best for their fantasy fiction novels? like Sweden, Denmark and Norway and England are arguably best for their mystery and crime fiction novels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.106.38 (talk) 14:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure any nations have special reputations for excellence in science fiction or fantasy novels. As you recognize, this is a very subjective question. There are many resources that compile "best" science fiction and fantasy works, often in short story form and often for a given year. Here on Wikipedia, see The Best of Science Fiction for an older example of such a work. A quick look at the authors from that work looks like they're mostly American and English. You could refer to resources such as those and make your own judgment based on the nationalities of the authors. Keep in mind that these anthologies will reflect the biases of their editors and compilers, however. Some may explicitly cover the "best of American science fiction" or something, but others may focus on a single country without saying so. The short version? Find fantasy or sci fi works that you like and look for a pattern in authors' nationalities. --BDD (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The United States IMO for science fiction. It took widespread root the earliest there and spawned the greatest number of authors, good, bad or otherwise (thank you Hugo Gernsback). Plus the fact that Robert Heinlein was an American would skew the ranking just by itself, and another of the "Big Three" was too. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Polygamy in US and Canada

I don't understand. Polygamy in USA and Canada is illegal but still some Canadians and Americans do polygamy without being getting caught by the law. Hollywood actors are the best examples I know for this situation and yet they get caught. What if a Muslim man wants to do polygamy because for health issues or economic issues and same thing other men and other women of other faiths? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.106.38 (talk) 15:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you might misunderstand what polygamy is. Why not read the article? Dismas|^(talk) 16:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

It's only illegal if you are legally married to multiple people at once. One way around this is to have, at most, one official marriage, recorded by the state. You can then have as many unofficial marriages as you want, even having names legally changed, if desired.

For those actually committing bigamy (multiple official legal marriages at once), the governments remain reluctant to prosecute, since this results in breaking up families and putting many people "on the dole", who were self-supporting, and this looks very bad according to public opinion, especially with video of crying children being taken away from their parents. StuRat (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think the way to fix this is to completely decouple a civil marriage (the legal, official one) from a religious marriage. Indeed, it seems to me that the separation of church and state requires this. The legal one can be called a "civil partnership" or "civil union", if preferred, and the state can define the rules there. As for a religious marriage, the churches, temples, mosques, etc., can decide the rules there. If your church says you can marry multiple people, or even trees, that's fine, but it will have no legal meaning. StuRat (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The one legal argument against polygamy that makes some sense is that it can cause unbalanced numbers of unmarried women and men, leading to social problems. This happens in polygamous communities, and they handle it by having many of the excess single gender leave the community. This wouldn't work on a national level, though, unless you allow massive emigration of the excess gender. However, this problem exists whether marriages are official or unofficial, so it doesn't make sense to only put restrictions on official marriages. On the other hand, policing who everyone is sleeping with is both impossible and repugnant. So, what are we left with ? Perhaps just hope that polygamy doesn't become so widespread and one-way as to cause major disruptions. Based on it's currently lack of popularity in North America, I don't see it as much of a risk. StuRat (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

All liberal states allow emigration, heh. North America, by the way, as a migration sink, has a chronic surplus of bachelors (or so I've been told). —Tamfang (talk) 19:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious as to what "health issues" are ameliorated by polygamy. LANTZY^TALK 19:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the OP is referring to a man who wants to have biological children (or more biological children) but is unable to because his wife has low fertility (allegedly anyway as the assumption often seems to be made the wife is at fault without testing). While fertility treatments may help and using a surrogate mother and perhaps an egg donor is another option in the modern era, tradionally at least marrying another (generally younger) woman was another in some cultures. Nil Einne (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Hollywood actors? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Shia Islam in Pakistan and India

Which ethnic groups mostly practice Jafari Shia and Ismaili Shia in Pakistan and which ethnic groups mostly practice Jafari Shia and Ismaili Shia in India? Which part of Pakistan has the most Shia Jafaris and which part of Pakistan has the most Shia Ismailis? Which part of India has the most Shia Jafaris and which part of India has the most Shia Ismailis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.106.38 (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Have you seen the articles Islam in India and Islam in Pakistan? If they don't directly answer your question, they will provide a launching point for you research. --Jayron32 03:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Messianic Secret

This is a question about the article "Messianic Secret," which I find possibly incomplete in a way that may or may not be deemed significant. From my point of view, as a student of literary theory and criticism, rather than of biblical studies, it is significant; but I refer to the judgment of others. My main object is not to have an answer sent to me (though that would be OK), but to have the question referred to those more knowledgeable on the subject, for possible expansion of the article.

The omission that I notice is this. The article identifies the "Messianic Secret" theory as originating in 1901, commanding considerable attention for the next quarter-century, but then by mid-century or a little later pretty much fallen out of favor among biblical scholars. This surprised me, because it was in "The Genesis of Secrecy" (1979) by Frank Kermode, a highly regarded literary critic, that I first encountered the idea. He speaks as if the theory has by that point become well established as a standard bit of knowledge--no longer a mere theory--and proceeds from there to apply it in the larger field of literary criticism.

My questions: 1) Is any of this worth mentioning in terms of the larger influence of Wrede's 1901 theory? 2) What is the current status of Kermode's book in literary circles? That is, has it too now become largely discredited or ignored?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.221.212.206 (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

If you make a link to the article ("Messianic Secret"), you increase the likelihood that someone will read the article, and you increase the likelihood that someone will try to answer your question. Also, here is a link to the article "Frank Kermode". Instructions on linking are at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking, which you can reach with the shortcut WP:LINK.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

In debt – in credit?

If you owe money to a creditor, you're in debt. Do we have any analogous term for the state you're in when you're owed money – i.e. "in credit"?

Specifically, we can say that someone who is unlikely to pay off one's debts is "deeply in debt" – what can we say of someone who is unlikely to have their loans repaid?

Alfonse Stompanato (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The Language Desk would be a good place to ask this. One term used for something similar is "liquidity". That is, if you have cash on hand, you are "liquid", while if you have it loaned out to many others, you suffer from "illiquidity". StuRat (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Haven't heard "in credit", but budgets etc. can be said to be "in surplus", and the phrase "in the black" contrasts to "in the red"... AnonMoos (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

'In credit' is used widely here in the Uk to mean you have more a positive amount of money in your bank. If you have credit that is unlikely to be repaid you might call it Bad debt. ny156uk (talk) 19:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The next sucker beneficiary of my sure fire "investment opportunity". Clarityfiend (talk) 03:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Is the bible a novel?

79.148.233.179 (talk) 19:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

At a minimum, a novel is a long prose narrative. The Bible fails this test, as it is not a single narrative, and it includes non-narrative components. Marco polo (talk) 19:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The bible is a lot of things. Most of the bible is organized topically: Parts of it tell an historical narrative (much of the Pentateuch, as well as the Samuel-Kings-Chronicles section). The next section are books of "wisdom", that is Proverbs-Ecclesiastes. There the Psalter, which is basically a hymnal or song book. There's the books of the prophets, which are exhortations to the Nation of Israel to clean up their act or face God's wrath. In the New Testament, there's the four Gospels, followed by Acts (which is the second volume of Luke's gospel) which cover the narrative aspect. The Epistles are letters from Paul and a few other early church leaders to various churches instructing them on proper Christian life. The last book in the New Testament is Revelation, which is a dense symbolic book, the purpose of which is clouded but which seems to, among many scholars, be a narrative of the end times (see Eschatology). Some books, or sections of books, do have a novel-like quality in that they have a clear narrative. Other parts, however, are poetry, or songs, or letters, or any number of other sorts of writing. --Jayron32 19:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

You may also wish to note that it was first recorded on paper long after most events happened, then re-written and edited by many over the centuries. It would be nice if a "Factual Bible" were written. It would be smaller, but at least would contain mostly factual entries.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Although there are arguments made that none of it is historical narrative, but rather a work of fiction to be used for educational purposes.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 20:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Fiction is a word that is a bit loaded. It may be best to say that parts of it are allegorical. That is, they espouse truth, but the truth comes in the lessons taught, not in the narrative itself, i.e. Jesus' parables. --Jayron32 21:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

(after ec) I don't think you'll find any reliable source claiming that the Bible is a single work of fiction for any purpose whatever. Parts of it may well be as you describe - Job, in particular, and probably most if not all of Jonah and Daniel, along with chunks of Genesis. But (for example) when 2 Kings talks about Tiglath-Pileser III, or 1 Maccabees refers to Alexander the Great, it may not be a reliable historical document, but it is clearly intended as an historical account. (Contrast the book of Judith, which depicts an invasion, and a location, which as far as we can tell never existed.) And of course genres such as poetry (Psalms, Song of Songs) and wisdom literature (Proverbs, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiastes) are not susceptible to the distinction of truth and fiction. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps "inspired by a true story" is the closest to the way a modern author would put it. StuRat (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Parts of the Bible which could be called rather "novelistic" include the Book of Esther, and (in the Apocrypha), the Book of Tobit... AnonMoos (talk) 01:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

"I believe the entire Bible literally, even the parts that contradict the other parts." - Ned Flanders - StuRat (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The Bible has also perhaps the earliest example of detective fiction. Not just one but two tales.85.52.87.200 (talk) 23:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The Bible is an anthology, not a novel. It's also not very novel, as all or most of it is at least 19 centuries old. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Were the Neanderthal human?

79.148.233.179 (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by human. They were much farther genetically from modern humans than any group of modern humans is from any other group. Scientists disagree over whether Neanderthals were part of the same species as modern humans. However, they were certainly in the same genus, and they would probably seem to us more human than "animal." Marco polo (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

See the "Classification" section of our Neanderthal article for further discussion. Neanderthals could reproduce with Homo sapiens, which suggests they could be considered fundamentally human. However, this isn't set in stone; horses and donkeys can reproduce (creating a mule or, rarely, a hinny), despite being of different species. If you're looking for a yes or no answer, I'd say yes, but I'd add that many people much more informed than me would say no. Taxonomy isn't an exact science. --BDD (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Neanderthals and modern humans did sometimes mate, but it seems exceedingly likely that Neanderthals lacked the final biological refinements of human language capacity into its fully modern form which apparently took place about 50,000-75,000 years ago (what is known archaeologically as the "Great leap forward" or behavioral modernity). AnonMoos (talk) 01:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

According to professor David Christian in his lecture course Big History, Neanderthals and homo sapiens were distinct species but linked to a common ancestor. Our ancestors (homo sapien sapiens is the technical term I think) competed with Neanderthals and won; that is the most accepted theory at this time. What humans had (which Neanderthals may have lacked) was what Christian described as learning which accumulates. Humans, by speech, could pass on what was learned, which accelerated the pace of knowledge. Humans were forever learning new tricks which enabled us to exploit our environment better, to live in new places; Neanderthals, even though they constructed tools, could not keep up.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty meaningless to say that "Neanderthals and homo sapiens were distinct species but linked to a common ancestor"; the same can be said of butterflies and dinosaurs or any two species. The crucial point is how distant the common ancestor is, and in the case of Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens, the answer is "quite recent". Since neanderthals were in the genus Homo, they were human, unless one makes the question tautological by capriciously asserting that only Homo sapiens were human. - Nunh-huh 11:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Except by merging with "humans". They interbred, and it's very likely that most people alive today have a Neanderthal ancestor. It's merely arbitrary that we call ourselves humans and not the continuation of the Neanderthal line. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 05:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

JackofOz -- The latest results are that Africans generally have no Neanderthal DNA, while non-Africans have 4% or less Neanderthal DNA, so under those circumstances it's really not "arbitrary" to state that present-day humanity is a continuation of non-Neanderthal modern humans (traditionally called "Cro-Magnons" in a European context), and not a continuation of Neanderthals. Also, Neanderthals had some specialized anatomical features which are not found in modern people. And on the cognitive side, Neanderthals probably had a communicative capacity which was far in advance of chimpanzees, but which fell significantly short of the complexities and capabilities of human languages as we know them today. AnonMoos (talk) 11:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

List of countries by life expectancy

Why does Spain have the highest life expectancy in the EU?79.148.233.179 (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Because people who live in Spain tend to live the longest of all EU nations. --Jayron32 19:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

It's tied with Sweden, and only 2.4 months ahead of metro France. I wouldn't have guessed Spain was at the top myself, but most of those countries are so close statistically that it's just an exercise in opinion, at least from what we can offer here, to guess why one is better than the other. All the usual stuff... health care, obesity, endemic disease, smoking, accident rates, those are the big killers. I'm not so sure Spain's very different from many other EU countries in those regards. (ec) Jayron's response is gonna be the most accurate in this entire thread too. Shadowjams (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

In addition to what Jayron and SJ have said, I would note according to the article it's actually only Spanish females who live the longest of all EU nations. They are also the tied (with Switzerland) third in the world. Spanish males only live the third longest of all EU nations and 13th in the world. In addition those are UN estimates for 2005-2010. Right below them is the CIA World Factbook estimates for 2011 where Spain is below Italy and metropolitan France (in overall terms). Nil Einne (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Spanish males live the second longest of all EU nations according to the article. Apparently you counted Norway as an EU country, which it is not. 88.9.107.228 (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

If they are accurate, those statistics are interesting, because Spain has a relatively high (for Europe) percentage of daily smokers. Thinking about how the Spanish lifestyle differs from that of other European countries, I wonder whether moderate daily alcohol consumption and regular consumption of oily fish might have something to do with it. But that's just speculation. Marco polo (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

List of countries by cigarette consumption per capita confirms half of your point. Different food is a commonly cited argument. 88.9.107.228 (talk) 21:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Statistics are curious things. Not to be humourous, but some stats like that are similar to "Why was the number 12 drawn on the lottery more than others in March?" type thing. More research can explain why, but stats usually just state results of events.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Noting that both Spain and Switzerland were neutral in WW2, perhaps avoiding all the stresses of that war helped them live a bit longer. (The Spanish Civil War was also brutal, but most people old enough then to be stressed by it would be dead now, in any case.) If so, you could expect this advantage to soon disappear, as those old enough to be stressed by WW2 also die off. StuRat (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Additional reasons: the weather is better, sun is good for you, at least less people commit suicide here in Spain. Spain is less radioactive than, for example, Germany. Less population density is good for your health. 88.9.107.228 (talk) 21:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think sunlight is actually good for you, other than helping you get vitamin D₃, which you can get from food and vitamin pills anyway. The downside is skin cancer and skin aging. However, if the weather encourages people to exercise more and be less stressed out, then it might help that way, provided they wear sunblock. StuRat (talk) 22:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe you get vitamine D from the sun. You always get it from the food, the sun just makes you process it, even if you only get a little of it. However, my point here is that it makes you less depressed, mental health is a huge help when it comes to keeping physically healthy too. 88.9.107.228 (talk) 22:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

That would be why I said "helping you get" as opposed to "magically delivers vitamin D that materializes directly from photons". :-) StuRat (talk) 23:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah? And why did you say "you can get from food and vitamin pills"? There is no "can get" here. You get them from the food, the sun just makes you process it. Just ask Jayron if you don't believe me, he seems to know such kind of thing, and it's kind of idle regarding the present question. XPPaul (talk) 00:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Historically, food only contained the precursor, 7-dehydrocholesterol, which then required exposure to UV light to form vitamin D₃. However, both vitamin pills and foods supplemented with D₃ bypass the need for sunlight. StuRat (talk) 00:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe you are right on this one. Vitamin D supplements do not improve the vitamin D level absorption by your body, it only improves the level of vitamin D in your blood, and it can be even detrimental. So, children: do not go with StuRat's suggestion and keep a healthy diet + healthy amount of exposure to sunlight. XPPaul (talk) 12:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Where is ths famed contribution from Jayron? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

It was removed here: [33]. I put it back. --Jayron32 23:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

It begs the question: why do they live longer? (even if it's just a little bit more than the French). XPPaul (talk) 00:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Corporate lawsuit/criminal records

I was wondering where I could look for the records of corporate crimes and lawsuits. For example say business X is found guilty of Y, where is this recorded and how can I access it? I am seeking the records for all large businesses at least in the developed world. Thank you, 65.95.23.172 (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Lexis nexis. XPPaul (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Which jurisdiction are you interested in? Shadowjams (talk) 05:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

April 28

The Serbs in the Yugoslav wars

Did the Serbs during the Yugoslav wars show any signs of supremacism or triumphalism? --Broadside Perceptor (talk) 00:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Many claimed supremacy, yes, especially over Muslim ethnic Albanians. StuRat (talk) 00:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Why are women beautiful?

Philosophers don't seem to know. Any ideas?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Because God started with the best looking rib? HiLo48 (talk) 03:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So that men will want to impregnate them. See sexual selection. Individuals of a species develop characteristics which makes the opposite gender want to have sex with them. It also isn't random or unknown, researchers have identified certain traits that the preponderance of people will find beautiful. The Wikipedia article on Physical attractiveness is rather detailed in this regard. --Jayron32 03:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if Tom's question was intended to be read that way, i.e. "beautiful" in the eyes of men, or more broadly, as if beauty is some absolute concept, and equally valid from the perspective of men and other women? I'm a man, interested in women in general (don't tell my wife that), but I've certainly met some women I don't regard as beautiful. HiLo48 (talk) 03:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The most profound message I ever got in a fortune cookie was this: "It is God who makes women beautiful, and the Devil who makes them pretty." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @HiLo48: No, of course it isn't an absolute, as in every woman would be automatically the paragon of beauty. However, the article physical attractiveness has a lot to say on the subject, and it also notes that physical attractiveness is distinct from sexual interest: it is possible to find someone physically attractive without wanting to have sex with them. However, the concept of physical attractiveness as a component of sexual selection is farily sound. Ultimately, human concepts of beauty are arbitrary, in the same way that other species concepts of what makes a good mate are arbitrary. What makes a mandrill get hot and bothered over the sight of a swollen blue ass? What makes a peahen swoon over the sight of a peacock's giant plumage? Why does a ewe want to mate with the ram with the biggest rack? It's all in the drive to pass on your genes. --Jayron32 04:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Many men look for the mate with the biggest rack, too. StuRat (talk) 04:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

This reminds of a theory that may exist. Women are usually attracted to a man's brawn and looks. If they were more attracted to their intelligence would we be breeding smarter as a species. I could be wrong about the majority of attractions as well as intelligence being hereditary.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The theory certainly exists as a subset of general Evolutionary Theory and Sexual Selection, and is addressed within the sphere of Evolutionary psychology. Intelligence is indeed partially hereditary (though it is also be influenced by environmental factors from conception onwards), and women's attraction to men usually does include an intelligence factor, since better intelligence enhances survival and therefore successful reproduction just as appropriate physical traits do, though there is always a trade-off between its benefits and the considerabler metabolic expense of maintaining the larger brain necessary.

Characteristics which signal the collection of mental abilities we group under the term "intelligence" enable women to assess a potential mate's desireability: they include inventiveness (enabling one to deal with novel threats), humour (a form of linguistic inventiveness), and artistic ability. If we view human's large brains as men's equivalents to the peacock's tail, we can explain the development of sciences and fine arts as examples of Fisherian runaway.

As a species we certainly have "bred smarter" over the 5+ million years since our ancestor's divergence from that of the chimpanzee/bonobo line, but evolution, which by definition proceeds and manifests over many successive generations, proceeds in macroscopic fauna much more slowly that is observable by an individual member of that fauna. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.194 (talk) 07:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

There are a lot of things I think are beautiful that I don't want to impregnate. Humans are attractive to other humans for both primary and secondary selection effects; in many cases the secondary effect of forming cohesive social relationships is more important for long term survival of offspring than mere reproductive urges. 70.58.10.111 (talk) 04:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

What 70.58 said... --Jayron32 04:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

If you think that only women are beautiful, you need to find some prettier men. Or at least ask the opinion of someone with different aesthetic (and perhaps sexual) tastes to you. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

God's Responsibilities

Does God have responsibilities, obligations, or duties? Is God responsible?

Bowei Huang 2 (talk) 06:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Which of the many possibly theoretical deities are you referring to, by the term "God"? →Στc. 06:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I sometimes think she is irresponsible, just like you Bowei Huang 2. HiLo48 (talk) 06:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If you mean the Christian God, then His responsibility would be to act out of a perfect moral sense, to remain eternally consistent. To perfectly fullfill His character as laid out in the Bible. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Please explain the consistency between "an eye for an eye" and "turn the other cheek". No, don't bother. I've heard all the clichés before, just like that first lot. HiLo48 (talk) 07:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Then why ask? Plasmic Physics (talk) 07:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

That should be obvious. HiLo48 (talk) 08:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

All that is obvious to me is that you are conceited, and that you assume that your understanding is perfect. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I claim no such certainty. It's you, writing in meaningless, old fashioned, oft-repeated clichés, with no added rational thought, who seems to think he just knows that his God is right. It saddens me. HiLo48 (talk) 08:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

If you don't claim such certainty, then why do you answer your own question so matter of factly? Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Er, "an eye for an eye" isn't stated to be God's law, but just "the law in those days". And "turn the other cheek" was Jesus' advice to his followers, thousands of years later (hundreds of years after Genesis reached its present form). The authors of those two passages never expected them to be compared in this way. The real reason we shouldn't answer such a question is that (just like Bowei) you aren't interested in a sensible answer. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

It's all claimed to be God's word. Obfuscation never helps. I am certain that I don't know. I'm also certain that Plasma Physics doesn't know, but his faith and belief that he knows gets in the way of rational discussion, which is what an encyclopaedia is for. HiLo48 (talk) 10:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

"It's all claimed to be God's word" is a fairly unhelpfully sweeping characterisation of the views of scripture taken by the various faiths who use part or all of what we call 'the Bible'. To take the Genesis example, even those who claim that the Bible is the infallible word of God would not necessarily claim that it says "an eye for an eye" is God's law (some do, some don't). But equally, there are millions of Jews for whom Genesis is scriptural, but the gospels (for which "turn the other cheek" comes) are not. You're letting your personal beef with Plasmic Physics get in the way of considering the question seriously. You can't juxtapose any two arbitrary phrases from different parts of scripture and claim to be persuaded of anything when they don't agree. I also am certain I don't know for sure whether there's a God. But there are perfectly respectable academic discussions to be had about the historical origins and meaning of scripture, the consistency (or not) of theology, and so on. None of this requires us to take one side's opinion or another on faith.

For what it's worth, I think Plasmic Physics is mischaracterising Christian (and Jewish) theology with his answer above. It's not at all clear that those are God's responsibilities, or that they could even be regarded as meaningful responsibilities at all. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

An eye for an eye is a lesson in fair justice, turn the other cheeck does not replace it, but adds to it - it is a lesson in long-suffering. Explained: if justice is to be carried out, then make the punishment equal the crime, no more no less; suffering at the hands of another is better than to exact revenge. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your interpretation, but I think there's more to it than that - Jesus said that by loving your enemy, you "heap hot coals on his head". I think the idea is to frustrate the desire to do evil by showing it to be unproductive. But all of these interpretations are what we read into the text; they're not inherent. And when Jesus speaks of the law, he generally seems to mean the law attributed to Moses, rather than the Noahide law or the "eye for an eye" customary law which, as I say, doesn't seem to be set out as God's law anywhere. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is always more, but are we really interested in comprehensively discussing the meaning behind these two phrases? Jesus speaks of two sets of laws in the Gospels, He mensions that He did not come to do away with the law, but to fulfill it. This is God's law, any of the given laws that protects and nurtures relationships between God and fellow mankind, namely the Ten Commandments, but any other given law that is build upon it is included. The law which was nailed to the cross, was the laws concerning customs, like the fixing of tassels to the garments, and the Holy observances, like Passover. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I really don't share your interpretation here at all; but we can debate that another time, as it's rather off-topic. It's been pointed out to me that "The law in those days was 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth'" is in fact a direct allusion to Babylonian law (see the 'punishment' section of that article, and also lex talionis). Like St Paul's allusion to the liar paradox, this is a clear example of the biblical authors deliberately referring to external matter that their readers would have been familiar with. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

A better question may be do God's' have responsibilities...etc. I once heard a quote: "If God wanted everyone to get along, whe did he give himself so many names?"--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

If a putative sole God did have responsibilities, obligations, and/or duties, what would compel him/her/it to fulfil them? I see a circular argument looming. By analogy with human (and for that mater non-human) societies, a pantheon would in this respect be more intelligible. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.194 (talk) 08:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

See Covenant. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 08:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

If He was not compelled to fulfill them, then why should He be trusted, why should He be worshipped? Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

But the obvious trite response to that is if God is compelled to do something, is he really omnipotent? And if he is not omnipotent, why should he be worshipped? And is he compelled by something more powerful than him? And why don't we worship that instead? And so on and so forth. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the word often used here is kenosis, which has a specific meaning in Christology, but can be used more broadly. Essentially, God may in principle be omnipotent, but chooses to limit his/her power voluntarily by (for example) entering into covenants with humans, or becoming human him/herself. The Tanakh in particular emphasises that God "keeps his promise forever" - thus showing an obvious form of self-limitation. This isn't logically inconsistent, because clearly nothing can compel God not to keep his word. And that's very much what I think of when I think of God's responsibilities. (I'm something of an agnostic, so I wouldn't like to say that it really happened like that - but that's the theory.) AlexTiefling (talk) 09:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure the word kenosis is "often used here"? I've been involved in a fair few religious discussions and have never heard it before. Thanks for broadening my vocabulary and knowledge. 10:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, if I'm honest, by "here" I mean "in this context" and by "often" I mean "sometimes" - and this is pure anecdata, mainly gathered from personal discussions with other theologians. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Although reading our kenosis article, I see that the 'Protestantism' section attributes a related view of kenosis to C S Lewis; namely, that the act of creation was a self-emptying too - that self-emptying and self-denial characterise God more widely than just in the specifics of the incarnation. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

What I'm saying, is that He is obligated to act wholy according His character to uphold His reputation as a perfect being. If He fails in a single case to be perfect, then it would make Scipture null and void. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

It's far easier for scripture (written and transmitted by humans) to fail than for God (here assumed to be essentially perfect) to do so. So it seems strange that you would think God was bound to be a certain way in order to justify scripture. Perfection is surely not a matter of reputation, but of essential property. And we all act in accordance with our characters all the time. "God must be as God is" is a pretty vacuous statement. I think fidelity to his covenants is a far more historically and theologically relevant form of responsibility. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

We can look at it another way, He has no obligations, fidelity to His Covenants is not optional. Perfection is His nature, and by definition He is unable to deviate from it, which is not to say that He has no free will, simply that He cannot choose to deviate. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The very idea of humans pontificating on what God can or cannot choose to do is the most absurd, and, if I may say so, arrogant, thing imagineable. If you accept He exists, then you accept His nature is utterly unknowable, and that He is not to be held to human concepts of morality or capacity. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 11:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that He's not perfect? Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I said nothing about His perfection. But since you ask, I will say His perfection is not what any human can understand as "perfection", which is why, when things go "wrong", humans are wrong to either blame Him or to deny He could possibly even exist if He could be so cruel as to allow such a dreadful thing to happen. Anyone who can create the Universe has more than a few more tricks up His sleeve than humans can possibly comprehend, and there are reasons for everything. "God moves in a mysterious way" and the mystery never gets any closer to being solved. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 11:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

However, I was talking about His perfection. Perfection in the sense of the word is synonymous with incorruptable. Failing fidelity to a Covenant requires a failure of perfection. Since He is able to be only perfect, then He cannot choose to fail. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

But isn't that just a convenient way of ignoring something that doesn't make any sense? What is more arrogant, to try to understand what "God" is, or to dismiss the question as unanswerable and those who ask it as fools? Anyway, if you accept that there is an omnipotent and omniscient universe-creating God, would it not have been possible for him to create humans with the ability to understand him and why he did that? Why must God be mysterious? (And why am I asking this rhetorical questions to which I already know the answers? Another mystery!) Adam Bishop (talk) 12:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Or would amen be more appropriate? Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Jorge Borges quote

It's from Labyrinths, I think, to the effect that each innovation creates its own precedents - by which he meant, we don't know they're precedents until the innovation comes about... Does anyone know where to find it?

Thanks,

Adambrowne666 (talk) 10:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I think so. In his essay "Kafka and His Precursors", translated by James E. Irby in the Penguin edition of Labyrinths, he says, "The fact is that every writer creates his own precursors. His work modifies our conception of the past, as it will modify the future." --Antiquary (talk) 10:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful! So prompt, and spot on! Question answered, thank you - someone put the SOLVED icon up please! Adambrowne666 (talk) 10:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Printing The Gideons Bible

I came across a question here which got me wondering. How do Gideons International print their bibles? Do they do it in house or do they engage a publisher? Where does the unusual leatherette cover come from? I did try Googling this, but nothing immediately jumped out at me. So I'm curious, particularly as I still have my copy that was presented to me at school. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)