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

October 24

Priest vs. Clergy

Are there more priest in prison for child offenses than other types of clergy, say Baptist or Lutherans? I am not singeling out anyone, I really am interested in the percentages. Many thanks, JeffJDLane13 (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

When you say "priest", are you referring to Catholic clergy? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes I am and thanksJDLane13 (talk) 01:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Define "more". Total per denomination? Or percentage of the given denomination's clergy? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Also: in one particular country, or worldwide? Marnanel (talk) 04:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

And bear in mind that there are 1.2 billion Roman Catholics, and only 75 million Lutherans.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The OP did say he's interested in the percentages, which I suppose means looking at the relative proportion of offenders within each denomination. The Catholics do seem to get most of the bad press in this area. That's partly because there are a lot more Catholic priests and brothers than religious of other denominations, and it may be that some much smaller group has a higher proportion of offenders within their ranks than the Catholics do. But I hope that's never going to be used to downplay or point-score, along the lines of "We Catholics only have 15% of our people up on child molestation charges worldwide. You Discalced Restricted Calathumpians of the Blessed Foreskin of Zebedee have 25%, and you're the folks who obviously need to clean up your act before pointing the finger at us". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Overall, I expect you would find the percentage of convicted felons in any denomination is an extremely low percentage. You occasionally hear about child-molesting charges in Protestant denominations. It seems to be same-sex among the Catholic and opposite-sex among the Protestant, which is not necessarily an endorsement or a condemnation of either denomination. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily an endorsement? You mean it could be a plus, either way? And not necessarily a bad thing, either way? Regardless of who commits them, are you actually defending these atrocities?

Here's what the Deputy Police Commissioner of Victoria said last week to an official enquiry being held by the Victorian Parliament. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I think Bugs merely meant that there was no moral lesson to be drawn from the apparent gender biases of child abusers from different denominations, which is certainly true. However, I'm not convinced that such biases are statistically significant, and anecdotal evidence has suggested that women and girls abused by celibate clergy have a harder time being believed, because of the alleged same-sex preference factor. Moreover, Bugs seemed to find the topic amusing enough when he joked about it in the Boy Scout thread further back - in response to a question apparently asked by a Scout, no less. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I call it "dark humor". The common thread among these institutions is their public condemnation of "non-conforming" adult sexual interactions, while also tolerating and hiding predatory sexual interactions. As for the scouts specifically, the joke about starting a fire by rubbing two scouts together I first heard several decades ago, probably on TV, and I don't think it had any nefarious implications, although I was really too young to know about such things. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The title of this section keeps bugging me. Priests are clergy; there are clergy who are not priests; there are priests who are not Roman Catholic. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. It's a bit like saying "Pastors vs. Ministers". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The question is comparing apples and oranges. Baptist and Lutheran ministers may marry. You'd have to compare among all unmarried or all married ministers. μηδείς (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't get you Medeis. Married men are just as likely to be child-abusers as are single men, possibly more so as they have more opportunity. DuncanHill (talk) 19:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

You don't get me? More like you are not familiar with how to set up an objective experiment. One compares like to like and controls for independent variables so far as possible. μηδείς (talk) 05:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

wouldn't the later be part of the point though? Nil Einne (talk) 04:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

You could do both. Set it up as an observational study and use multivariate analysis to see if unmarked Catholic priests were more likely to abuse than other clergy in general and if they were more likely than other unmarked clergy You could even see what effect adjusting for the relative density of clergy has. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

That's what you might do in order to discover whether or not there's any correlation between marital status and propensity to sexually offend. But Medeis seems to be taking this as a given. Until otherwise demonstrated, the marital status of sex offenders is about as relevant as the colour of their hair or their astrological sign. Unless it's being suggesting that men abuse children or rape people only because they're sexually frustrated as a result of not being married. If so, where's the proof? And what about people who are not married in the eyes of any church or the law, but have ready access to one or more adult sexual partners? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I googled [list of clergy convicted of sexual abuse] just to see what might turn up, and there is no shortage of such lists. This one may be of some interest. The OP could add up the counts given for first letter of last name and divide by the total number of priests to get some very rough idea of a percentage. I googled [number of catholic priests in usa] and one of the items that turned up was Catholic Church in the United States, which suggests America has 40,000+ priests. One caution would be that 40,000 is only the active number of priests, so the ratio of suspects to priests would be inflated, but it would give an upper bound. It's possible someone has done the math on both Catholics and other denominations, which would require further googling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Tax cuts

If we are to offer people in the U.S. tax cuts with the premise of helping American achieve jobs, innovation and etc., can it be mandated that the money offered must remain in the U.S.? Why would give tax breaks for someone to take it out of the the offering country to another because the make more profit? Wouldn't this defeat the intended purpose? Thanks JDJDLane13 (talk) 01:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The Reference desks are intended for questions that can be answered with facts or references. That doesn't hold for this question, so it really isn't appropriate here. Looie496 (talk) 01:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The first question is appropriate for the ref desk. The second and third are the problem. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

How exactly would you enforce such a law ? It wouldn't be enforceable on an individual level like that. However, multinational corporations are required to report where they spend their money, so it might work on that level. StuRat (talk) 03:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Money is fungible... the multinational would simply take some of the funds it was originally planning on spending in the US and spend it elsewhere instead. Blueboar (talk) 03:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

On a technical level, the refund could be in the form of a debit card that is only authorized for purchases from American corporations, although that doesn't guarantee the money will stay in the US in the end. Don't food stamps now come in the form of a debit card that only works at places that sell groceries? Someguy1221 (talk) 03:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe food stamps were always restricted to certain foods. They now have the bridge card, with similar restrictions. Also, a tax cut isn't the same as a tax refund. If the government never has the money, it can't really control what people do with it. StuRat (talk) 03:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The premise of the question is that keeping the money in the US is best, but that's not at all clear. Suppose that I got a tax cut of $20,000, and I used the money to buy $15,000 of Vietnamese blue jeans with fancy custom stitching on the pockets, then spent $2,000 to have them shipped here and to have, I don't know, $1,000 worth of rivets from Mexico riveted onto the legs in downtown Los Angeles, and then I spent $2,000 on web banner ads on a Canadian website, and I sold half of the jeans here in the US for $30,000, and half in Canada for $20,000. My profit is $30,000, all of which I then use to buy a Honda Accord that was assembled in Ohio. And I use the $20,000 left over to do this again with the blue jeans. Is this so bad? An American (me) now has a $30,000 car plus this interesting cash engine of a blue jeans business. Globalization is super-complicated and although there is an obvious appeal to spending money within the US, because it adds to the country's GDP, it might be better for numerous Americans in the chain if the money goes outside of the US in exchange for something else. Tarcil (talk) 03:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

People are talking about "money offered" and "refunds", which is not what tax cuts are about. The govt would simply be taking less off you than they would otherwise have taken. They're not giving you anything. You're still giving money to them, but less of it. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The idea of Tax expenditures is well-accepted in some contexts... AnonMoos (talk) 06:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

They might be giving you something. Tax credits fall into two classes: refundable and non-refundable. The difference is that only refundable tax credits can bring your tax burden below zero. (An example of a refundable tax credit is the EIC in the US.) If you have enough refundable tax credits on your income tax, you will receive money from the government at the end of the year. They are commonly used as a subtle method of wealth distribution to ensure the poor don't actually starve, while not riling the right wing about "handouts". Marnanel (talk) 06:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Multiple manslaughter

Is "multiple manslaughter" really a crime in Italian law, or does the phrase simply mean "multiple counts of manslaughter"? Our article on the 2009 L'Aquila earthquake speaks of scientists being convicted of "multiple manslaughter", as does the BBC, so I'm rather confused. Nyttend (talk) 02:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The news stories I've seen in the Italian press say omicidio colposo plurimo, "plural manslaughter". I don't know whether that's a legal phrase in Italian or not, but at least the Beeb came by it honestly. --Trovatore (talk) 03:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Mayor of Rurutu

Does anybody know the names and terms of the Mayors of Rurutu? I need to know the name of the mayor in 1982.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

According to Teuruarii IV's article, his grandson, Toromona (Solomon) Teuruarii, was "mayor of Rurutu in the 1970s". The JOURNAL OFFICIEL DE LA POLYNESIE FRANGA1SE (sic) lists "Solomona Teuruarii" as le maire on 8 May 1980. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Pierre De Chevigne

Was Pierre De Chevigne Secretary of Defence in the French Government in November 1952 because an account in the National Archives,ref. 751G.00/11-2452 of RG 59 of 24 November, has him visiting Indochina for three weeks using that title. You have withthat title only from May to June in 1958.124.176.54.133 (talk) 07:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The French wikipedia has a detailed list of Chevigné's various mandates [1]. He was Secretary of State for War ("Secrétaire d'État à la Guerre") from August 1951 to June 1954, keeping the title under five successive Prime Ministers in those thays of short-lived governements. The title means he was a junior Minister of Defense responsible for the Army; in those days, France has a Minister of National Defense, an Associate Minister of National Defense (at times), and Secretaries of state for War, for the Navy and for the Air Force. He was briefly the actual Minister of Defense from May-June 1958, in the short-lived Pflimlim Government that was the last government of the IVth Republic. In November of 1952, René Pleven was the Minister of National Defense, and Chevigné was one of three Secretaries of State reporting to him. See here [2]. --Xuxl (talk) 08:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Electoral College - Tie Scenarios

I am sure they exist somewhere, but I can't to seem to find them. Where can I find a list of possibilities for an Obama/Romney tie? or even colored maps showing such scenarios? Also, what is the most likely path towards a tie come election day? _{Hisham1987 (talk) 08:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)}

This has been discussed a bit on FiveThirtyEight.com. The entry on 1st October 2012 discusses it in detail. 86.166.191.232 (talk) 09:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

See Electoral College (United States)#Contingent presidential election by House and Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In any case where someone doesn't receive a clear majority (more than half) of the electoral votes, then the election of the President goes to the House of Representatives, and the election of the VP goes to the senate, with each state's delegation (not individual legislators, the delegation as a whole) getting one vote. A clear majority (not merely a plurality) is needed for a win: it can be a perfect tie, or it can be a case where there are three candidates receiving votes, and none gets more than 1/2. Per the text of the twelfth amendment "if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote" --Jayron32 12:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Note that the Senate would choose the vice president from among the top two electoral vote recipients for vice president, a majority being necessary. This would be the newly-elected House and Senate, by the way, as they do not meet for the joint session at which the electoral vote is counted until after January 3. Not sure if the vice presidential tiebreaking vote applies, if it goes 50-50.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I think Jayron's and Wehwalt's posts miss the point of the OP's question, which I believe is what plausible combinations of states going for Romney and states going for Obama would lead to a tie. Interesting question. I can't see how to get to the 1 October article on FiveThirtyEight.com that was referenced by 86.166.191.232. Duoduoduo (talk) 14:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It's here [3]. It's easy to get to by scrolling to the bottom of the blog and following the link to older enteries and keep going back until you find the enteries for 1 October 2012 and then finding the relevent post. You have to go back a few times since the blog is updated regularly but it shouldn't take long, it was on page 5 when I looked for it just now (and you can always modify the page number in the URL to skip a few pages). Nil Einne (talk) 15:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you everyone - OP here. The fivethirtyeight link answers my questions perfectly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hisham1987 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I know he said this was answered, but I just spent like 30 minutes working this out, so I'm posting it anyways, after the edit conflicts. AH! Sorry, in that case, assuming no state ends up going for a third party candidate, there are quite a number of scenarios leading to a 269-269 split. In general, most of the states aren't "in play", that is some states will vote Republican, and others Democrat regardless of who is running as a candidate (back in the days of the Solid South, this was referred to as Yellow Dog Democrats: people who would vote for a Yellow dog than vote for a Republican. This concept still applies to both parties in certain states, such that there is no realistic chance of having a close race in them). Looking at the article Red states and blue states and Electoral College (United States) we see the following breakdown, based on recent past performances of the parties:

• Romney is probably a "lock" in the following states: Idaho 4, Montana 3, Utah 6, Wyoming 3, North Dakota 3, South Dakota 3, Nebraska 5, Kansas 6, Oklahoma 7, Texas 38, Alaska 3, Alabama 9, Mississppi 6, Georgia 16, South Carolina 9, for a total of 121 votes
• Obama is probably going to win all of the following states: Washington 12, Oregon 7, California 55, Hawaii 4, Minnesota 10, Wisconsin 10, Illinois 20, Michigan 16, Maryland 10, Delaware 3, Pennsylvania 20, New Jersey 14, New York 29, Vermont 3, Massachusetts 11, Connecticut 7, Rhode Island 4, Maine 4, D.C. 3, for a total of 242
• The following states are thus "in play", or "swing states" as they are popularly known: Nevada 6, Arizona 11, New Mexico 5, Colorado 9, Iowa 6, Missouri 10, Arkansas 6, Louisiana 8, Indiana 11, Ohio 18, Kentucky 8, Tennessee 11, West Virginia 5, Virginia 13, North Carolina 15, New Hampshire 4, Florida 29, for a total of 175

Several of the above "swing states" are probably more in one camp than the other, but this is probably the largest list of states where the election could go either way (realistically, I've seen several news reports that narrows it down to just 4-6 states: Ohio, Virginia, Florida, and North Carolina being the most important as they are closest to a 50-50 split, and have enough electoral college votes to make it worth the while. Also, there are a few "solid" states I wouldn't be surprised to swing this election. Georgia has a strong, affluent African-American population in and around Atlanta that could swing the state Democrat, likewise a state like Pennsylvania could also be in play for the Republicans, likewise Romney's home state of Michigan, or Massachusetts where he was Governor). However, just on the lists above, which gives the widest, most realistic chance of making the election, if every candidate took exactly the states they are supposed to, you could have the following swing states break the following ways:

• Obama gets: Virginia (13), New Hampshire (4) Missouri (10) = 27 more than his "locks" = 269 total
• Romney gets all the rest for 269 total.

There's your tie. There's probably many other ways it could break down for a tie, (especially if either Nebraska or Maine split their vote, as they do from time to time) but there's one realistic scenario. --Jayron32 16:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Finding ties in the electoral college is an interesting example of a subset sum problem. Duoduoduo (talk) 16:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

For any given value of 'interesting'. --Jayron32 18:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Commanders who never lost a battle

From the introduction of the Jan Žižka article: "Žižka is ... one of six commanders in history who never lost a battle (alongside Alexander the Great, Scipio Africanus, Genghis Khan, Alexander Suvorov, and Khalid ibn al-Walid)." The introduction of Alexander Suvorov lists Lucius Cornelius Sulla instead of Scipio Africanus. But other articles attribute the same virtue also to other military leaders, in a trice namely Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck and possibly Uesugi Kenshin. I assume the lists above to be original research and POV; where do they come from? Are there lists that might possibly claim justifiably to be complete? But then, there might be several military leaders who just won a single battle in their life and then died of a disease... any help to clear this is welcome. --KnightMove (talk) 08:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

This seems a rather vague thing to try to define. Would a commander who never fought a battle count ? How about a commander who only fought one ? Or a commander who avoided all battles except the easy victories ? None of these sound particularly heroic, do they ? StuRat (talk) 08:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's a pointless categorisation. Someone who only became involved in a war in its dying stages could easily score that label. HiLo48 (talk) 09:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

To say nothing of the fact that a number of the commanders above probably did loss a battle. Alexander the Great for example lost a number of engagements, it has just become common not to count any of them as a full battle, but in that case what are we really recording? 86.166.191.232 (talk) 09:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree it is a pointless characterisation, and furthermore, unless it is directly stated in a reliable source, it is synthesis and should be removed from Wikipedia on that ground. I suggest you remove it; or discuss it on the article's talk page if you are not confident in doing that. --ColinFine (talk) 10:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

What about American commanders who led only in the Spanish-American War, say, and retired before WWI?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It can't possibly be supported by a viable source in any event. Definitely a contentious claim and almost assuredly someone's original research; definetly needs to be removed. Snow (talk) 05:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The list is blatantly incomplete. Marlborough is famous for never having fought a battle he didn't win, and never having besieged a city he didn't take. Looie496 (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I've just removed this claim from the article per the above discussion. Nick-D (talk) 22:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

... and I did the same for Alexander Suvorov. --KnightMove (talk) 06:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Why hasn't the electoral college system used in the United States caught on in the rest of the world?

With the US presidential election happening in a few weeks, this question came into my mind. The United States is extremely unique among presidential republics in that people don't actually directly vote for the president, but rather the people vote for a group of people who will make the decision for them. As I pointed out in another related question here, this is, to my knowledge, the only system of kind in the world (the electoral colleges of India and Pakistan being composed of lawmakers rather than a group of people elected specifically to elect the President). The closest equivalents would probably be the Election Committee of Hong Kong which elects the Chief Executive (although I'm not sure if the Committee's members themselves are elected or are chosen by interest groups) or the Assembly of Experts which elects Iran's Supreme Leader (although he isn't a president). Interestingly, the American sytle of government has been copied around the world, especially in South America, except for the electoral college. The question is, why? Why has the concept of an Electoral College not caught on in the rest of the world? I know that the College was a product of the Great Compromise, but if other countries can copy other elements of the US government (like having an executive president with veto powers), then why didn't they copy the Electoral College? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Why would they? What would be the advantages of the elctoral college system? The US is one of the oldest electoral democracies around, and as a result it has a highly anachronistic electoral system. --Soman (talk) 12:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not a big fan of the electoral college system (I prefer direct elections), but I can see why they used it. it would benefit states with small populations. This would mean that even the electoral votes of, say Wyoming or Alaska, would have the same weight as the votes of Texas. Not really, but it would mean a more proportionate voting. That is why they had the Great Compromise in the first place. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec) It's not at all clear on the surface that the Great Compromise -- the disproportionate power granted to small states in the Senate -- is tied to the Electoral College. Without knowing the Federalist Papers offhand, I rather suspect that the reasons for the College shape closely to Article 1 Section 3, that is, the indirect election of Senators (which has no possible ties to state size). Note further that there is no constitutional requirement that Electors vote in accordance with, well, anything. Strictly speaking, there's not even a requirement that a popular election be involved in Elector selection (and this is a key component of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which is attempting to tie state electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of state-level results). So no, it's not a Great Compromise thing, but rather a means of insulating the more powerful offices (i.e. anything but Representatives) from the common voter. I'm sure the Federalist Papers go into detail somewhere about why that gap was written in, both for the President and for Senators. — Lomn 13:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Relevent Federalist Papers to the topic worth reading (a great insight to understanding the mindset and rationale of the Constitution writers themselves) are Federalist No. 49 and Federalist No. 51 (on the need for checks and balances generally), Federalist No. 10 (on the problem with factions, and on the need to institute measures in the government to combat factions, even factions of the majority, aka Tyranny of the majority), Federalist No. 39 is relevent, as a sizable portion of it deals with the inherent nature of whether the national government was intended to represent the Governments of the States, or the People directly: measures were built in to address both, but directly relevent is that the Presidency and the Senate were supposed to be representatives of the states, while the House of Representatives were representatives of the people. However, if we really want to get down to brass tacks, the relevent paper is Federalist No. 68, titled by Hamilton "The Mode of Electing the President", the text is availible at Wikisource if you want to read it, but especially germane here is the passage:

It was desirable, that the sense of the People should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preëstablished body, but to men chosen by the People for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture. It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. (bold mine)

The founding fathers believed in representative democracy over direct democracy because they believed that the great masses of people were easily swayed by small, inconsequential things, and that it would be trivial to establish a majority which would decide issues that, in the end, would not be in the best interest of the country. The idea would be that wise, well-trained, and well informed individuals would themselves be selected by the people, and THOSE individuals would make all of the important decisions. The "electoral college" was intended to be as independent and vital as the Senate and House of Representatives; it was basically intended to be a third, special-purpose legislature which would meet, debate and deliberate, and then elect a president from their deliberations. That was the clear intent of the body from Federalist No. 68. Now, that it very quickly devolved into a mere formality is a historical fact, but was not something the Constitution writers envisioned or hoped for: the original intent was that the Electoral College would be chosen, not to represent specific candidates (as is done today), but to represent the people generally, and would through their collective wisdom and deliberation, elect a President themselves, but that the members of the College would be unencumbered by direct association with any party or faction. It is somewhat ironic that the actual operation of the College works exactly opposite of that: the members of the Electoral College are tied directly to the party they represent, and are in many cases actually forbidden by state law from voting independently. --Jayron32 14:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Judging from what I read at the time of the Bush-Gore debacle, and from the article on the topic, the whole point was a compromise between secondary election (by individual states) and direct election (just one person - one vote). The downside is that it currently works much like a direct election, with this intermediate business of electoral colleges. I see no reason to imitate. IBE (talk) 13:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec) And that (the fact that it was designed to suit the peculiarities of US politics back then) is in a nutshell why it has not caught on elsewhere.

The electoral college is mechanically similar to any other method of choosing a leader via electorates - for example the way the UK prime minister is chosen (voters voting in electorates for MPs, the candidate commanding the support of the largest number of MPs gets to be prime minister). However, in reality the electoral college is just a slightly less democratic version of a directly elected system. So in countries where there isn't the same precise pressues that led to the electoral college model being adopted (and, countries being as different as they are, these would be few and far between), it would be more expedient to simply choose a directly elected model, or an appointed model, or a parliamentary model, or a different kind of compromise to suit their own situation.

So, as the OP mentioned, the "electoral college" in Hong Kong is partly directly elected, partly elected by interest groups, and partly appointed. It is a different kind of compromise, this one between the pressues of democracy, interest groups and the Chinese government's wish for control over the process. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I would also be cautious about simply regarding a country's system as "copied" from another. Most mature political systems are compromises of some sort, adopting elements of earlier systems and applying certain innovations or reforms. There are quirks to each country's system, so it would be rare to find one that's identical to another in any respect, not just the electoral college. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5 -- the electoral college was well-adapted to the U.S. situation in the late 18th century and early 19th century: i.e. a semi-loose federation spread over a wide geographic area with relatively poor communications, where there was a legitimate concern that voters in one state might not know enough about politicians in other states to have an informed opinion on them, and there was little desire to have centralized government control to the degree that voting qualifications and election administration could be standardized between the individual states in a manner which would allow for throwing all the votes in the states together into one common national pool (a necessity for a national popular vote system). So as late as 1824 there weren't really national presidential candidates, but only a series of regional candidates; as late as the Dorr Rebellion of the early 1840s there was resistance in some areas even to Jacksonite "universal white manhood suffrage"; and as late as 1860, South Carolina didn't allow individual voters to vote for president at all.

Of course, there's no reason why what was found to be necessary for the U.S. in the late 18th century and early 19th century should be considered ideal for any other country in 2012... AnonMoos (talk) 14:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

That's fascinatng, AnonMoos -- as late as 1860, South Carolina didn't allow individual voters to vote for president at all. Do you mean just in 1860, or in all years up to and including 1860? Can you provide a reference about this? Thanks. Duoduoduo (talk) 14:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It's also true: From 1788-1860 inclusive, South Carolina's state legislature selected it's Presidential Electors, without the use of a popular election. Start at United States presidential election, 1860 and work backwards and you can confirm that there was no popular vote in South Carolina. As you go backwards, you can also confirm that there was no popular vote in progressively more and more states. South Carolina was a pretty long hold-out in not using a popular election, but United States presidential election, 1828 shows that Delaware didn't hold a popular vote either, and United States presidential election, 1824 shows 6 states which appointed the electors in the Legislature, and United States presidential election, 1816 has a near even split: of the 19 states at the time, 10 used a form of popular vote, with the other 9 having electors appointed by the legislature. Prior to that, about half (more or less, depending on the number of states at the time) didn't have a popular vote. --Jayron32 15:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

After the 1824 election (whose outcome was considered deeply undemocratic by many, see Corrupt_Bargain#Election_of_1824), there was the rise of "Jacksonian democracy", which in presidential elections meant a close approximation to universal white manhood suffrage, and direct popular election of presidential electors -- Rhode Island and South Carolina being the main holdouts... AnonMoos (talk) 16:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Please say "male sufferage". When you say "manhood sufferage" it makes it seem like only a specific part of the body is voting. Of course, that lends an interesting twist on the phrase "pulling the lever" (from the old "lever style" ballot-marking machines) to refer to voting. --Jayron32 17:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

And actually the word is "suffrage". I don't even want to think about "manhood sufferage"...--TammyMoet (talk) 17:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd vote against that... --Jayron32 18:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't come up with the phrase -- see article Universal manhood sufferage... AnonMoos (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Which redirects to the correctly spelt Universal manhood suffrage. Which in turn ought to be moved to Universal male suffrage because the "manhood" version of the terminology is outdated, but that's already a redirect to Universal suffrage. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

"Universal manhood suffrage" was the historically-used term, and doesn't create any potential confusion about whether boys are allowed to vote... (By the way, I was spelling it correctly before I picked up on Jayron32's misspelling.) AnonMoos (talk) 00:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

In 2005 there was an unsuccessful proposal on Talk:Universal manhood suffrage to change manhood to male. Duoduoduo (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to change the redirect for Universal male suffrage away from Universal suffrage to Universal manhood suffrage. Duoduoduo (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Why? Because there doesn't exist a single country structured like America. America is unique in this respect, and is foremost a nation of states. During the Civil War, a lot of people chose sides based on what state they lived in, even if they disagreed with ideaology over slavery. Befor the American Revolution, people identified themselves not as Americans, but as a Virginian or a New Yorker... In orderto properly represent the views of all these states, rather than represent only the views of about 5 large states with large populations that can elect a president, the electoral college is a unique system that works. --Jethro B 00:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly so. Switzerland was assembled much like America: originally as an association of essentially independent states that have gradually, over time, grown into a more federal (than confederal) relationship. See Old Swiss Confederacy for some perspective. South Africa also has its history as a voluntary federation of independent states, but it is today a unitary state. America is certainly an unusual type of nation, given that more states are "unitary states" without any subnational unit having true sovereignty, and most of the remaining federations have a "Strong federal" model whereby the National law supercedes State/Provincial law in more cases than not: In countries like Canada, unless something is specifically assigned to the Provinces as their responsibility, it is reserved to the Federal government. The U.S. has a "weak federal" model whereby the National government has only a series of "enumerated powers" and other than those specific powers and roles (such as military, currency, interstate commerce, etc.) all other sovereign powers are specifically reserved to the states. Unusual, but not sui generis. Other states with similar arrangements include the aforementioned Switzerland, the United Arab Emirates and Malaysia. --Jayron32 03:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Every country is different. Australia is also an assemblage of formerly separate colonies, and federal powers are also enumerated in the constitution, either as exclusive to the federal government or as shared by the federal and state governments (but with federal laws prevailing to the extent of any inconsistentcy). All other powers not so enumerated is reserved to the states.

However, Australia has never had a need for an electoral college system because the Australian head of government is selected by the majority parliamentary party from among its ranks, and the Australian head of state in practice (the Governor-General) is mostly ceremonial and nowadays basically appointed by the government.

Every country is different, and no doubt reasons also exist why the other countries you listed would not have adopted an electoral college system. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

And also relevant — the Governor-General has never been an elected position; regardless of who chooses him (government or Colonial Office), he's always been appointed. Nyttend (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

female muezzin and female imams reading the prayer out loud during Maghrib, isha and fajr prayers.

What does islam say about women being muezzin for women-only congreagtion only and also, if a woman leads the maghrib, isha and fajr prayers for the women-only congregation, does she read the prayers out loud or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmust90 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I expect that someone who knows more about this than I do will be along shortly. But just as with the earlier question about female clergy in Christianity, there's no single unified position about this within Islam. I remember reading recently about a large programme in Turkey to train women for ministry as imams. This was met with a wide range of reactions, and this reflects the complexity and diversity of opinion - popular and scholarly - even in such a clearly Muslim-majority country as Turkey. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles Islamic_feminism#Equality_in_leading_prayer and Women as imams... -- AnonMoos (talk) 17:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

October 25

the price of David Copperfield's caul

“ ... the caul was put up in a raffle down in our part of the country, to fifty members at half-a-crown a head, the winner to spend five shillings. ”

What does "winner to spend" mean? That the winner receives 5s spending-money? Or that the winner, to claim the grand prize, must put up another 5s (twice the price of the raffle ticket)? —Tamfang (talk) 00:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like he won an option. μηδείς (talk) 02:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Or the bidders are submitting binding offers, with the winning bid selected by lottery. It is not clear just from the passage quoted whether the winner, once selected, has the option of backing out of the purchase or not (if they do, it would be an option, if not, it wouldn't be.) --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Speaking purely as a reader (I think I may have formally studied the novel at school, but that was a looong time ago), I understood it to mean your second alternative, that the winner would have to pay an additional 5/- over and above his 2/6 raffle ticket in order to claim the prize: thus the organisers would (before expenses) gain 50 x 2/6 + 5/- = £6 10/-. {The poster formerly known as 87.85.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 13:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

For any reader wondering what on earth this is all about, our Caul articles says that it is "...is a piece of membrane that can cover a newborn's head and face immediately after birth." It continues; "A legend developed suggesting that possession of a baby's caul would give its bearer good luck and protect that person from death by drowning." The winner of David Copperfield's caul was an old lady who "... was never drowned, but died triumphantly in bed, at ninety-two." Alansplodge (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I was wondering about that, and why anyone would want a magician's caul. :-) StuRat (talk) 18:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

[4] - for anyone who didn't understand StuRat's allusion. (Like me, for ex.) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

And, of course, for anyone who doesn't know, David Copperfield (illusionist) is also the name of a famous magician. Here's one of my fave lines from 3rd Rock from the Sun: "My teacher assigned us some big old book named David Copperfield, but I found it on video instead. And you know, the video isn't boring at all, he makes the Statue of Liberty disappear and everything ... I'm gonna totally ace this report !" - Tommy Soloman. StuRat (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Why not charge an extra penny and avoid the winner having to pay the five shillings?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Not sure but a) there was a 2s 6d coin so it would have been easier to collect (and account for). b) The caul was originally offered for 15 Guineas ie £15 15s (£15.75p decimal) so even at 7s 6d (37.5p) it was still a considerable bargain. Alansplodge (talk) 22:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, I think lotteries required leave of the government or an act of Parliament or some such. If the prize is an option (which, of course, could be declined), it may avoid that problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Roman Catholic incorporation?

In The Castilian Fathers at the Council of Basel, it states "Cardinal Cervantes incorporated on November 29, 1432 along with three members of his household." Obviously, he didn't go into business. What does this mean? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I think what we're talking about here is College (canon law). Marnanel (talk) 05:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

The mechanics of the Imperial Diet of the HRE

So, I was just reading through some articles about the Holy Roman Empire, and while perusing through List of Reichstag participants (1792), I had some questions about how the Reichstag worked during this time period. Reading Imperial Diet (Holy Roman Empire) doesn't give a lot of insight as to the mechanics of how various Diets operated, excepting to note that "The precise role and function of the Imperial Diet changed over the centuries" without noting the operation of the Body. In List of Reichstag participants (1792) there are several things I have questions about regarding how that Diet would have operated, based on the voting membership:

• Several "seats" in the Diet are held by the same person. For example, Archduke Maximilian Francis of Austria has several seats on the body: One as Elector of Cologne, a separate one as Bishop of Munster, and another as Grand Master of the Teutonic Knights. When Maximilian Francis officially recorded a vote, did it represent the vote of one man (as his vote) or the did it count as 3 votes (one for each office he held)?
• Several members of the Diet are foreign princes who held important offices elsewhere. For example, many of the seats are held by George III of the United Kingdom through his various German titles. However, George never set foot in Hanover, and I don't believe he attended the Diet in person, which brings up the question of his votes: Could he "vote by mail", sending envoy of his official vote on various issues, or could he "vote by proxy" by sending a representative in his stead to represent his voice, and vote for him? And if so, did he send one envoy (to represent him) or several (to represent each state he had title to)? Or, if he wasn't personally present, did he forfeit his right to vote?
• Some seats are held simultaneously by more than one person, sometimes many people combined for one vote. For example, the vote held by The Duke of Saxe-Coburg was officially split between two men: did they have to achieve consensus to register their single vote, or did each man represent 1/2 vote in the tally? The vote of The Prince of Anhalt is similarly divided among 4 people, and others similarly.
• Regarding the "Colleges" Were they handled differently for the split votes of some Duchies noted above, which collectively represented a single vote? I suspect, from the wording of our articles, that the single vote of the College of The Counts of Swabia would be arrived at by the College voting amongst itself first, and then recording that as their one Vote in the diet? Or was there a representative elected from the college that served as the person who made the votes in the diet? Or did one of the members of the College have hereditary right to represent it in the diet?

Just some questions that come to mind. Any ideas or thoughts? --Jayron32 18:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Erzherzog Maximilian Franz von Österreich didn't inherit any votes, he was a self-made Diet seat-holder. All his votes weren't hereditary. I'm guessing the votes were cast in order of precedence, the name of the seat was called out and the holder stood and cast his vote for all to hear. I'm guessing if the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland didn't send a deputy then he would lose his multple votes. I'm guessing the split votes would require agreement before the vote or the holders would alternate each vote. For the circles that held one vote, I'm guessing the majority of an internal vote was used or maybe rounds like the election of the Pope.
Sleigh (talk) 21:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a category de:Kategorie:Funktionsweise Reichstag (HRR) with a couple of small articles or stubs on the functioning of the diet, the corporate votes were called Kuriatstimmen and the personal votes Virilstimmen. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 22:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you translate, perchance, the relevent bits? I don't have much German skills. Danke schoen. --Jayron32 22:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

My best guess is: (Question 1) Counted as 3 votes. (Question 2) I do not think that personal presence ever played a role. Everybody was represented. (Question 3) By consensus. (Question 4) Internal consensus reached first. Please correct. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 22:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

What am I supposed to correct? Do you have any documents or sources which inform your guesses? --Jayron32 01:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Everybody is supposed to correct my answers, for I have only marginal knowledge in this realm. The answers are confirmed, however, by Reichstag in de:Universal-Lexikon der Gegenwart und Vergangenheit, online [5] or [6]. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 12:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Your answers are helpful then! Just one question for clarification. Your answer for number 2 is unclear. When you say " I do not think that personal presence ever played a role. Everybody was represented." Does that mean that "Every person who had a seat in the Reichstag was represented by somebody other than themselves" or does it mean that "Every person who had a seat in the Reichstag was represented, some in person and others by proxy"? If the second, was the "proxy" a single person per seat or per representative: That is, was George III represented in the Reichstag by a single proxy to represent him, or by one proxy for each of his German realms? --Jayron32 13:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

If we do not talk about the periodical diets of 1486-1654, but about the Perpetual Diet of Regensburg 1663-1806, I guess the Emperor never attended this diet in person, hence the electors and princes saw no need to attend it in person, hence everybody sent representatives in the diplomatic rank of envoys (not even ambassadors). Such an envoy (I would not compare this to proxy voting) represented one or several votes, even of different princes, see also PDF with images. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 13:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) - If this was anything like the Imperial electoral college, there would be a rigorous process for the acknowledgement of proxy voters, and each prince would only need one proxy, no matter how many votes he held. (I suspect that the split and collegiate votes would result in the delegation of one proxy voter each, too - but I have less basis for this.) And remember: in the United States, it's your vote that counts. In the HRE, it's your Count that votes. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Old people over here

I just want to know whether there are old people on here. I'm 77 and I remember it clearly to hear on the radio about the death of last surviving veterans, such as Albert Woolson of the American Civil War, or Hugh Theodore Pinhey, of the Second Anglo-Afghan War, or other people's death such as that of Samuel J. Seymour, who was the last witness to the assassination of President Lincoln. I remember it all. Is there anyone on here with the same memories? Thank you. Iowafromiowa (talk) 19:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure there are other people your age on here. For my part, I'm acutely aware that (if I'm spared) I will one day be in your position. As it is, I'm old enough to be slightly awed by the people here who don't remember the Cold War, Thatcher and Reagan, and so on. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Then you'll be really awed by people like me, who don't remember 9/11. --140.180.252.244 (talk) 10:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

It's chilling to realise the Beatles formed half a century ago, and last performed 43 years ago. And Lennon's been dead for almost 32 years.

I remember going to Anzac Day marches where veterans from the Boer Wars marched, but I don't remember hearing when the last Boer veteran died. They didn't seem to make as big a thing of such "last events" back then as they do now.

I was born in the dying months of 1950. The first historical event I remember was the arrival of television in Australia in September 1956. We lived in the country and didn't have TV till about 1963, but all our Sydney relatives got them early, and it was always a big talking point when the next lot of rellos got a TV. Ironically, I have no memory of the 1956 Melbourne Olympics, which was why TV was necessary, but it would have been radio news in our case, rather than TV broadcasts, so .... I imagine the first time I actually saw television was at Christmas 1956 when we visited Sydney, but the Olympics were over by then. I clearly remember hearing about the launch of Sputnik 1 in October 1957. I remember often hearing on the radio about some dude named what sounded to my tender ears as "President Ivanhoe". I have a vague memory of hearing when Oliver Hardy died in 1957, and when Mike Todd was killed in March 1958 (but mainly because he was Elizabeth Taylor's husband - yes, she was very well known even to 7 year old boys). But the first clear memory I have of a notable person dying was that of Pope Pius XII in October 1958. Church bells rang unexpectedly, and we didn't have to come to school the next day. Yippee. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I was born in 1963. The first historical event I remember knowing about was Expo '70 in Japan, I wanted my parents to take me there from New Jersey ... when I visited Osaka in 2002, I was careful to visit the site. The first death of a notable person I remember was J. Edgar Hoover, I was home from school (1972) and it was on TV. I remember watching a moon landing on TV, not certain which one, but my late mother told me that I fell asleep for Armstrong's small step. I suppose I became aware more of the world in 1972, as I remember watching Avery Brundage's famous Munich speech on September 6, 1972 (perhaps it was on tape). Also, my father had a reel-to-reel audio and 8-track tapes, neither of which he used often.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Though I prefer not to give my precise age, like JackofOz I'm a sexagenarian and pretty active here (though not nearly so much as Jack, sheesh). There's not anywhere nearly so many of us as there are the young whippersnappers, but we're represented (and a lot wiser, heh, heh, heh). I don't have the memories you do, you've got a few years on me, but I can remember some things just short of those. (43 years since the last Beatles performance? I hadn't realized that until now. Now I'm depressed...) Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I listened live to the radio broadcasts of Marilyn Bell's swim across Lake Ontario. Bielle (talk) 21:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I remember where I was when I heard about the Assassination of John F. Kennedy - I was 5 years old. I also remember watching the funeral of Winston Churchill on TV, I had reached the grand old age of 6 by then. Alansplodge (talk) 14:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, you guys make me depressed to think that one day, I'll be as old as you. I'm not old enough to remember any major historical events except the 2008 financial crisis; my earliest memory was right after 9/11, which I wouldn't even call a major event. The Cold War might as well be the Peloponnesian War from 2400 years ago, because that's how much I can relate to either (and actually, if you read Thucydides, it's depressing how similar the Athenian/Spartan justifications for war mirror those offered for the "hot" proxy wars by the US/USSR). Considering the murderous passions that historical conflicts seem to incite in people generations after they take place, I'm very glad that I don't remember any. --140.180.252.244 (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Even more depressing is to think that in 20 years or so, your "nostalgia" radio channel will be playing such eternal classics as "Call Me Maybe" and "Gangnam Style". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey, those will be widely praised after their creators die, just like a lot of famous works. Also, radio channels? If every square centimeter of my beloved city doesn't have high-speed WiFi coverage by 2022, I'll make it happen. --140.180.252.244 (talk) 10:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Funny, I just had a nightmare about a nuclear war two nights ago. That dates you. My earliest historical memories are of the last moon shot and Watergate. Elvis's death and Jonestown I remember clearly. John David Stutts shooting Reagan and Mehmet Ali Agca shooting the Pope happened a few months ago, and 9/11 last week. μηδείς (talk) 21:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

As you grow older, hopefully you'll come to realize it's even more depressing not to reach our Mathusalean age. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

After you have lived about maybe 80 years to 100 years then you will have a feeling of you have lived enough. Seriously, I wouldn't live pass 200 years, it is just too much. Death always has been the natural cycle of life, you can't escape it no matter what. Even if one day we, humans, somehow can make ourselves live forever then that would defy natural and to me it is not a good thing. And I'm very sure when you live to a certain point you WILL want to die. Even the most lively people will want to die "eventually". Maybe not after 1 thousand years or 1 million years or 1 billions or 1 trillions.... Eventually you will want to die, you got my point. Perhaps that was the reason Albert Einstein, a genius, who has well understood the meaning of life, refused to get a surgery to prolong his life (doesn't matter how long the surgery could have prolonged his live but the point here is he doesn't want to prolong his life even for 1 second). When it is time to go, just be happy to go, that's my way of taking it. Just live a meaningful life so when you died you will feel the fulfillment of life! That's all there is to the world! 184.97.240.247 (talk) 03:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Malthusian? Methuselahian? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

As in like Mathusal, Methuselah's older, illiterate brother. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I remember watching The Day After as a college student (1983), everyone in the dorm got together and watched it in the lounge. Very somber, as I recall, lots of crying, even a few of the guys.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I just watched that again over the summer, great film. And it did influence my nightmare. Probably the best work the KGB ever did. μηδείς (talk) 02:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that would surprise the writer, who is (or was) a card-carrying Republican. Oh, I forgot: anything to the left of Genghis Khan is commie. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 04:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not a Republican, your comment on party affiliation is silly. It's documented that the KGB led a misinformation campaign aimed at getting the American left to support unilateral disarmament. Carl Sagan's politically premissed nuclear winter paper data was never published. According to Sergei Tretyakov,[7] the KGB held a party to celebrate the showing of The Day After, which was coordinated with the nuclear winter propaganda campaign and a special on ABC which ran the miniseries. As for political labels, I am not interested. If you think there's some sort of essential distinction between the murderous dictator Genghis Khan and the murderous dictator Joseph Stalin your thought is too subtle for me. Nevertheless, The Day After was a great movie. μηδείς (talk) 05:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

IMHO, Genghis Khan was no more a dictator than he was a misogynist or a homophobe Asmrulz (talk) 14:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

When I was young the world population was just over a third of what it is now. I lived in a jungle and spoke another language. Now the jungle is cut down and there is a town there. My father and mother went back there a few years ago and found a couple of pictures of themselves hung up in the town hall, the people were astonished some of the 'ancestors' were still alive! Dmcq (talk) 10:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

There are always some things that seem to define a generation, that younger people on hearing it think you are really old. When I was a kid (born 1960) it was people who remembered WW2. In my case people even a decade younger than me are amazed that I can remember steam trains on British rail. My daughter says that people a few years younger are amazed when she talks about "before there were mobile phones" or the internet. Somehow to each generation each thing feels like it is in the distant past, even though it was not that long ago. -- Q Chris (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The phenomenon of remembering significant and often unexpected events in vivid detail is called flashbulb memory. For what it's worth, I was born in Australia in 1987, and the first event I remember vividly was relatively local in nature – the rescue of Stuart Diver after the 1997 Thredbo landslide; . I also vividly remember the slightly later death of Princess Diana and being bitterly disappointed that the TV show Who Dares Wins was cancelled due to coverage of her demise. However I only have vague memories of the Port Arthur massacre and, going back a bit further, I can't remember much at all about the Oklahoma City bombing or the Srebrenica massacre. I'm totally blind as it says on my user page, so this doubtless affects my perception and memory of TV news reports. Graham87 15:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I can also vaguely remember former Australian Prime Minister John Howard's acceptance speech after his party won the 1996 election; some of my classmates in high school seemed pretty amazed at that. But all I can remember him saying is that he'd support people with disabilities ... enough blathering from me. :-) Graham87 15:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, the article Childhood amnesia says: "Research has suggested that public events are remembered from approximately age 6". Graham87 16:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

For many American (recent) high school graduates, one of their earliest memories might be the Millennium, or 9/11, and the idea of a world without the internet (or Wikipedia) is quite alien. The typical 25 year-old probably thinks of Ronald Reagan the way I think of Harry Truman (a few years before my time), and doesn’t know a world without computers. An American 40 years of age can’t remember the outrage Richard Nixon generated, nor the controversey of the way Garry Trudeau protrayed Watergate in Doonesbury. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Why does Obama vote in Chicago?

Why not Washington, where he lives, or Hawaii, where he was born? OsmanRF34 (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

If he does, that is because Chicago is where he is registered. Bielle (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The basic answer is that when a person has a temporary residence, like Obama does in DC or while you're in college or on an extended but temporary job assignment, the law in the US affords quite a bit of choice to you to decide what your permanent residence (i.e. your domicile) is going to be. That determines where you vote. Ordinarily, and most easily, you'll either choose between where you are now, with the idea that though it started out as being temporary you don't intend to leave when the temporary situation ends) or the last place you did live as a permanent residence. That, in Obama's case, was Chicago. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

"Choice" — in practice, maybe. In theory, no. States have definite rules about whether you are a resident or not, and choice does not enter into them. "Intent", on the other hand, does enter into them, but your intent is a question of fact, and in theory they could attempt to prove that you are a resident even though you say you're not (or vice versa). --Trovatore (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

College students frequently vote in the district of their permanent residence and not where they spend the night when on campus. Living in a dormitory on a college campus doesn't make a student automatically and unambiguously a resident of the district where the dorm is located, and not a resident of, say, their parent's home where they used to sleep most nights. Presidents traditionally always vote in their "official" home district, and not Washington DC. A quick perusal will easily show George W. Bush voting in Texas, Bill Clinton voting in Arkansas, etc, etc, back through time. Obama isn't doing anything that every president prior to him didn't do.--Jayron32 22:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, the courts have pretty regularly upheld that students are allowed to vote in their college precincts, even if they live in, for example, a dormitory [8]. It really is, in most cases up to the student what they consider to be their residence. Buddy431 (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Your link doesn't indicate, at least literally, that a student can choose where he/she votes. It says it depends on whether the student intends to return to the parental home on graduation. Of course, in many cases that's not particularly well-defined, but in theory a student who clearly intends to return home after graduation is supposed to vote there rather than where the school is. And conversely, a student who definitely does not intend to return home is probably not supposed to vote there. --Trovatore (talk) 00:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

True. My hometown being in Salina, Kansas that's where I cast my ballot (via absentee ballot) even though I have the choice to register as a voter in Norman, Oklahoma. I've even seen voter registration drives on campus the past couple years. I feel like I have more of a say casting my ballot back home than I do at university, so I stay registered at home. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

There's not much about it in our Wikipedia article, but in Texas Waller County is semi-notorious for repeatedly down the years coming up with semi-ingenious schemes to inconvenience students at a historically-black college in the county from voting there (a right which they indisputably have under relevant state laws)... AnonMoos (talk) 22:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

No one cares where they vote for president. The issue is voting for local officials by out-of-towners living off and with their parents. That's a concern in every college town I have lived in. μηδείς (talk) 23:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

"Out of towners" who live there the majority of the year? The courts have consistently upheld the rights of college students to vote in the elections of their school's district if that's where they consider themselves to be residents. Buddy431 (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not arguing for or against, just pointing out that the concern does exist, since yes, the interests of temporary student residents and families and property owners can certainly clash. μηδείς (talk) 01:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

It becomes an issue when the kids have their parents' state's drivers license, which is a privilege of state citizenship (or, in a few cases, employment). That's one of the issues over voter ID laws.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

A driver's license is not a prerequisite for voting. I'll be voting this year in the state that I go to school, while my driver's license is from the state where I used to live. An ID at the polls (what most current voter ID laws deal with) is to prove that you are who you say you are, not that you're a resident of the precinct (they check that when you register to vote). Buddy431 (talk) 23:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

You might want to look into what your new state has by way of requiring that you get a local license when you move into a new state ... I think there's something about it in the interstate compact on drivers, which is probably part of your state's law ...--Wehwalt (talk) 23:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure, my state has rules about how quickly I have to get a new driver's license (90 days). But that has nothing to do with whether or not I am eligible to vote. Buddy431 (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Both are generally privileges of state citizenship, though different time periods for a change on moving are involved, and it is possible to get a driver's license from a state sometimes though you are not a resident.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

It's probably got more attention this time because he voted early, which I think is a first for a president. When the spotlight shines, it illuminates everything. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

So, did he vote Green, or Socialist? μηδείς (talk) 23:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

straight Official Monster Raving Loony Party ticket. Blueboar (talk) 00:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

(removed, just saw the immediate preceding post) The Masked Booby (talk) 00:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I hear he wanted to write in for vice president and they wouldn't let him.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I heard... well actually, I didn't hear, because he voted by Secret ballot. He can write in whoever he wants, and they'll only determine the validity of the ballot and the vote anonymously, when all votes are tallied. Buddy431 (talk) 01:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

You can't actually write in for vice president as you are voting for electors, so it was meant humorously.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I can write in for vice president on my Kansas ballot...if you chose to write in there are blank lines for you to write in both the president and vice president you're voting for. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. Can you vote Obama for pres but someone else besides Biden for vp?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

In my state, there are several paired choices, and then a single line for a write-in. Obviously, write-ins have no chance of winning the popular vote. But if they did, the state would have to somehow come up with a slate of electors. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I saw an odd possibility in the paper. If there is an exact 50-50 split in the electoral college, the election is decided by the two houses of Congress, which will presumably vote on party lines. The House of Representives elects the president (1 vote for each state, presumably decided by the party that controls that state's delegation) and the Senate elects the president. Anyway the numbers work out that the House is Republican controlled and would pick Romney, while the Senate is Democrat controlled and would pick Biden. So we'd have Romney as President and Biden as VP. What a weird thought. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 07:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

It's the new House and the new Senate, so that's a bit more up for grabs than you note. Running quickly down the list of current representatives, I get 31 states with a majority of Republicans in the House, 16 states Democratic, three deadlocked (though one deadlock, Washington, is created by a vacancy caused by the death of a Democrat, so if form holds, that state would go Obama in a House vote.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

(Outdent.) Something has just occurred to me: suppose you lived (say) in both Philly and Chicago, because you were a college student. Would it be possible to have a vote in electing the mayors of both cities? If you would, is there any theoretical or practical reason you could not also have a vote in electing the presidential electors from both PA and IL? Marnanel (talk) 04:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Is Chicago really known for its stringent election rules? --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 04:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Well... --Jayron32 05:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I see dead people ... voting. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Off topic, but it might be interesting to people to know that in the UK, you can register to vote at more than one address if you spend "an equal amount of time at each". This is frequently done by students. In a general election, you can choose which of them to vote in (and you don't have to decide in advance, just turn up to one or other polling station on the day). In local elections, you can legally vote in both locations on the same day, if you so choose. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 10:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Marnanel -- at one point I was registered in two different counties at the same time (though I didn't want to be). If I had voted in both counties for the same election, then I would have committed a crime... AnonMoos (talk) 10:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

October 26

Standard Oil

I know this company was broken into 33 different companies. I wonder how the process happened. Like who are the 33 different people that each own a company? Did John D. Rockefeller choose those people? Can those 33 people are all Rockefeller's descendants? And if his company was broken into 33 different companies so is that mean he is going to lose 32 out of 33 amount of his fortune? 184.97.240.247 (talk) 02:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Standard Oil wasn't owned by one person. It was a Joint-stock company which means it was owned by its shareholders. Anyone that owns stock in a company is an "owner". Rockefeller didn't own Standard Oil, as one might "own" a car. He owned a lot of shares of Standard Oil, was a founder of it, and served as its President and CEO, but founding a company is not the same thing as owning a Sole proprietorship. The specific ownership structure of Standard Oil in the early days is described at Standard Oil. Being the founder of a company is more like being the founder of a club: there are many stakeholders and many owners (those people who owned shares). Rockefeller owned enough shares to have a Controlling interest in the company. In his position as President and CEO, he directed the company through its major business decisions, but again it wasn't "his company" in the sense that he owned it as one owns an object. Standard Oil explains his role pretty well in the opening. It is also important to note that Standard Oil was basically a Holding company: it's main operation was the aquiring and integration of other companies into itself, or the founding of specific companies with specific purposes. So, Standard either bought an existing company, or would found a new company (wholly owned by Standard Oil) to cover some operation, either to market specific oil products in specific geographic locations, or to handle some aspect of the exploration, transportation, or processing of crude oil. Thus, the "break up" of Standard Oil wasn't arbitrary; the new companies already operated as semi-autonomous units within the Standard Oil Trust. What happened was that these companies were legally seperated into truly autonomous units, which were supposed to run seperately so they had to compete with each other and with other, non-Standard oil companies. The way this worked was that individual "Baby Standards" were granted regional monopolies over the use of the "Standard" name in a certain geographic area, but that's pretty much how Standard worked pre-break up. The only thing that really changed via the breakup was the corporate governance and ownership structure: The companies sold their own shares and had their own independent governance, and there was no industry-wide national coordination between them, though many of the companies did coordinate bilaterally (for example only a few of the Baby Standards were actual suppliers as well as marketers: Kyso stations soldExxon and Mobil products which were often rebranded as "Kyso", but they were manufactured by Exxon or Mobil) this page isn't strictly a "reliable source" by Wikipedia standards, but it does have some good information on the history of the growth, domination, and later dissolution of the Standard Oil trust, as well as the modern fates of all of those companies. --Jayron32 02:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Alright to my understanding of your explanation, let me sum it up. So before the breakup there were many small companies that were part of the Standard Oil and after the breakup they became independent companies. So do those small companies within the Standard Oil has to pay the Standard Oil to breakup? Did the Standard Oil gain any money from the breakup? Or did it actually lose trusts in the companies without being paid?184.97.240.247(talk) 03:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

That's a good question. Since anti-trust court proceedings are civil and not criminal, it would seem that prima facie even without a direct link to answer your question, that the shareholders of Standard Oil could not have been deprived of their property without receiving equal value. So Rockefeller et al would have lost control of the Baby Standards from a corporate governance point of view, but they could not be deprived of the value of their shares when the breakup occured. As to the specific means of their compensation, I don't have any direct evidence yet (i'll look), but I suspect that there are a number of ways that could have happened. First, they could have been given fair market value of their shares; i.e. forceably "bought out" of their company by being provided cash at "fair market value" based on reasonable estimates of the value of the company: I.E. if Rockefeller had owned 30% of the company, he would have been given cash equal to %30 of the value of the company. The mechanics of how that cash would be acquired, and what would have happened to his shares (i.e. who would have bought them) sounds like a nightmare. The other possibility I can think of (one that seems more likely) is that he was given equivalentnon-voting shares equivalent to his former position in the companies: He still owns the same value of shares (the same part of the companies) but as his shares are no longer voting shares, he has no say in corporate governance. I'll do some searching to see if I can find any harder sources on what actually happened. --Jayron3204:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

This source from The Economist doesn't directly answer the question, but has an interesting quote:

On May 15th 1911, Rockefeller, again out on the golf course, was told that the Supreme Court had found the firm guilty of antitrust violations, and ordered it to be broken up. “Buy Standard Oil,” he advised his playing partner. A good tip: its pieces proved to be worth far more apart than together.

In other words, if my second scenario holds true, financially the windfall would have benefited Rockefeller greatly, as he stood to make a LOT of money on his shares in the new, separate companies, even if they were non-voting shares. Still looking for more. --Jayron32 04:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

This source of somewhat uncertain reliability, does state "The Court ordered the Standard Oil Trust to dismantle 33 of its most important affiliates and to distribute the stock to its own shareholders and not to a new trust." That is, the stock of the new companies was distributed to the existing shareholders of the old Trust. More evidence for my second explanation, though it doesn't indicate the nature of those shares (voting, nonvoting, common, preferred, etc.) --Jayron32 05:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

More: "Although Standard was physically broken up, Rockefeller maintained his one-quarter ownership in the business, only this time it was one-quarter of thirty-some new companies. J.P. Morgan was said to have remarked, "How the hell is any court going to compel a man to compete with himself?" The new set of companies continued to dominate the markets well into the 1930s." So more evidence of how the dissolution was handled. Stock exchange from the old Trust to the new individual companies seems like how it happened. --Jayron32 05:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

this book starting on page 106-107 largely confirms the last two sources. --Jayron32 05:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Geographical information on ancient cities

I am looking for geographical information on ancient cities. Primarily urban layout maps of cities built around large stone temples or acropoli. I am wondering about any large stone structure that is centrally located in an urban area, such as greek cities. For example, I am to understand that scholars believe the Egyptian pyramids were built far away from cities rather than in them. Mayan pyramids, however, were built in the center of large cities settled on flat open ground. A large stone in the sunlight would get warmer than the textured urban area adjecent, and would therefore create a convection current which caused air to flow across the city even during times of zero or very low winds. I am researching the possibility that early humans may have been aware of the phenomenon and even planned it into their cities in order to improve sanitation. The greek acropolis might have had this effect, as would a pyramid or maybe even a castle. I am also looking for any information that might suggest this is a possibility, or not a possibility. Such an engineering design might become obsolete with the advent of flowing water, which would allow for a level of sanitation not possible before then, and therefore post roman era (in Europe) would cease to be important to residents of such an area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by66.188.214.218 (talk) 04:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking for information that would relate to the possibility that early human engineers were using large stone structures to create convection currents in the middle of urban areas on days with little to no wind. So, for example, a bunch of buildings have shade, indoors, fabric canopies, plants, etc. that would create a certain air temperature in sunlight, and the centrally located acropolis, pyramid, or other large temple would be exposed stone and therefore attain a higher temperature. This would cause the air in the urban area to flow, even at night as the heat stored in the stone was released, improving sanitation before flowing water became accessable via such means as the aqueduct. — Precedingunsigned comment added by 66.188.214.218 (talk) 04:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

That theory doesn't sound feasible to me. For one thing, you'd want the central rock/stone to be black, but it often seems to be white. Also, there are many other reasons for building up in the center, from defense in depth to impressing all the citizens living below. Also, air pollution wasn't much of a problem prior to industrialization and cities with huge, dense populations. StuRat (talk) 04:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so the a white pyramid would work backwards, as well as provide access to upper air currents. And as to the smell of someone not taking a bath or shower, disposing of their waste in a chamber pot, owning several animals, and rarely doing laundry, I would say it might have caused health problems if the air wasn't being ventilated. So it could be possible that the smell was bad enough without the modern density. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.214.218 (talk) 04:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The theory fails Occam's razor in the sense that it proposes a complex and far-fetched explanation for events that have more commonplace and easy-to-understand explanations (sometimes this is known as the "Zebra solution": If you hear hooves, you shouldn't think "Zebra" instantly, you should think "Horse": look for the easier explanation, because it is usually right). In the case of cities built around hills, like Rome or the various Greek cities like Athens built around the Acropolis, the answer doesn't have anything to do with knowledge of convection currents. It has to do with knowledge of pointy sticks: Defending a static position is easier from the top of a hill than anywhere else. Large structures are often located within cities because large structures need lots of people to build them, and cities have lots of people in a central location: you don't have to move your labor force far away to build your temple or pyramid or whatever. Even the Giza Necropolis, though not at the center of a city, is not far from one. It was within easy distance of Memphis, the capital of the Old Kingdom and thus the administrative and commercial center of the Kingdom. Using a latitude/longitude calculator available online and the coordinates from our articles finds that Giza was 18 kilometers from Memphis, i.e. not downtown, but certainly within a reasonable distance to administer the work being done there. --Jayron32 04:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

One further question I consider in response. Suppose that there indeed was such a convection current (it would occur regardless of engineering, the heating patterns of a surface determine the effects of convection) and suppose it did indeed create a healthier more pleasant atmosphere for those in the central location, it might have caused the people who lived there to be more generally successful, as well as drive immigration by making an area more popular, making that city able to grow more than a competing city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.214.218 (talk) 04:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, again per the Zebra principle: Why search for an obscure, unlikely explanation for why people formed cities when there are a plethora of better reasons already availible. If you are generally interested in what actual historians have to actually say on the actual reasons why cities likely formed this page here[9] has a fairly easy to follow outline of the major factors in urban history and the development of cities, along with lots of good other sources to read. Wikipedia also has some good information at City#Origins. Does this help direct your thinking here? --Jayron32 05:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

There are plenty of ways to make your city more windy. Just putting it on a hill, like the Greek acropolis, would have made it much windier because no trees can block the wind. Building near a body of water helps, for the same reason the OP described, except that the heat sink is the entire ocean instead of a tiny piece of stone. See sea breeze and the corresponding land breeze. Narrow corridors like streets with buildings on both sides tend to channel the wind, which increases its speed. All of these effects dwarf any gain that could be had by placing a stone downtown. Needless to say, there are much more compelling reasons to build streets or locate your city on a hill and near an ocean. I'd be surprised if anybody who founded a city thought "oh, I'll build it on a hill to make it windier", instead of "I'll build it on a hill so the other dude doesn't kill me with his army".

Semi-random aside, because I've lately been obsessed with the Trojan War: the city of Troy was built on a hill, in between 2 rivers near their confluence, and beside a bay that extended from the Dardanelles (the bay has since dried up). The gods must have been with them, because that's just an amazing strategic location. Homer frequently calls the city "windy Troy". Gee, I wonder why... --140.180.252.244 (talk) 08:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Probably because it was windy. Meanwhile, the story makes it clear that the enemy had a tough time penetrating Troy due to those geographic features. Throughout history, cities have been built on high ground, primarily for defensive reasons. This was the practice for thousands of years. It was compromised significantly once gunpowder and cannons were invented. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 13:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Not really. Well into the "gunpowder age", armies which maintained the high ground maintained an advantage in battle. Consider examples like Fortification of Dorchester Heights where a vastly undermanned American army was able to drive a much better manned, better armed, and better trained British army out of Boston merely by getting to the highest point in the area. Or the Battle of Bunker Hill a nominal "British" victory, but one which was clearly Pyrrhic: the "losing" Americans exacted a heavy toll on the advancing British forces marching up the hill before their retreat. The cases where high ground didn't provide an advantage are often due to incompetence in leadership, more than anything, i.e. Battle of the Little Bighorn, where Custer and his lieutenants had a combination of poor strategic decisions leading up to and during the battle, and where a tragic lack of coordination in the command structure led to the American forces being crushed despite holding the high ground. Cases of military incompetence aside, ground forces have always had an easier time defending a static position from a place of high ground than their assaulters, and likewise attacking downhill provides a significant advantage. In the here-and-now holding high ground doesn't necessarily have an advantage, but that's because the nature of warfare is such that it isn't based on armies in the open field engaged in pitched battle. Warfare today is about flushing small bands of enemies out of positions of hiding, or using such small bands to harass ones enemy from a concealed position. But even today, if I was trying to beat another large army of men with rifles with my own large army of men with rifles in open battle, I'd want to be the one on top of the hill and not the one at the bottom. --Jayron32 14:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Just a sidenote—as I understand, it is quite unclear how the Battle of the Little Bighorn went. The traditional story of Custer and his men making a "last stand" on what is now called "Last Stand Hill" is certainly mythologized and probably wrong. It is likely that the main battle took place in the valley with various routed groups making "last stands" in various places, including hills but also gulches. Custer himself may well have been killed at Minneconjou Ford and his body taken to the hilltop later (perhaps by his own troops). In any case, I though I'd point out how this particular battle may not be the best example of defeat "despite holding the high ground". The historiography of the battle is interesting though, and a number of books have been written about it (the changing history of our understanding of the battle). Pfly (talk) 05:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed; consider the Battle of Monte Cassino in 1944. However, in earlier times, the need for an adequate water supply was a factor against hilltop fortifications. The other consideration is that a city needs commerce to survive, and so a sea or river frontage was usually a requirement.Alansplodge (talk) 14:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, rivers aren't strictly required, but water supply is a key thing to having a defensible city. Ancient Jerusalem was cited where it was, both because it was on top of a hill and because of its access to reliable groundwater supplies. Jerusalem is an excellent example of a defensible city for those reasons: the Gihon Spring was able to supply Jerusalem with the waters it needed, and its position on the hill made it very defensible, despite being neither coastal nor on a river. Jerusalem's commercial importance came from its position along the Kidron Valley which was part of a series of natural "roads" through the area, and thus Jerusalem's position at a high point along the valley made it a key place to locate a fortified city to tap and control regional trade. --Jayron32 15:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, you've got me there. Alansplodge (talk) 19:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Let me explicitly list some reasons why a hill is more defensible:

1) Increases the range of your weapons and decreases the range of enemy weapons. This is true of arrows and artillery, but less significant for bullets.

2) Your forces not engaged in fighting can hide on the far side of the hill during enemy fire, if the enemy is on one side only.

3) If your enemy charges up the hill, the sheer effort of scaling the hill will slow them down and cause fatigue. If steep enough, a fall can injure or kill the enemy. If even steeper, ladders may be required.

4) There's the possibility of using gravity weapons, like boulders rolled down the hill, or flaming logs.

5) It's difficult to use poison gas against such a target, as it will tend to either sink back down, rise up, or blow away.

6) If the hill has outcropping of rocks, those can be carved out to build bunkers. This is also possible in a valley, but rock outcroppings are more common on hills, as dirt tends to settle in low spots and cover rocks there. StuRat (talk) 19:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

We have an article on acropoleis in general, which is not very informative, and some small articles on the Acropolis of Rhodes and theAcrocorinth. The Acropolis of Athens article has much more information. Cities were built on an acropolis mostly for practical reasons of defense. It's more difficult to attack a city on a hill (although not impossible, the Persians sacked the Athenian acropolis for example). Rome and Byzantium were also founded on a single hill, originally. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Recognizing that indeed defense is an important factor, it must be considered that for the success of a settlement there are other needs, such as adequate resources and ineed a healthy atmosphere. wars lasted on very short periods of time and for all of the rest of the time the success of each citizen was based on peacetime activities. pillaging can only feed a raiding army during a raid. As to the desireability of other locations they were indeed settled first. coastal towns and cities and mountain towns and cities all existed by them time people started settling flat open ground, but there was nowhere else that was economically feasible to go. a temple or pyramid is hardly a mere rock, and if people were aware of the conditions of hte natural acropolis and how they were disirable, they may have wanted to create those conditions again. there is information to be found on microscale convective weather, and it would certainly have been occurring on the athenian acropolis. It would not create a wind, per se, but it would create the kind of airflow we create with our household ventilation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by66.188.214.218 (talk) 14:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Until modern sanitation, cities were notoriously unhealthy but the causes were not understood. See miasma theory. Rmhermen (talk) 16:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Healthy atmosphere" sounds like a basic requirement, but cities like London pretty much fly in the face of that assumption. London has long been one of the major world cities, and it is basically built in a giant toilet bowl (i.e. Great Stink). If "fresh air" were such a necessity, or if nasty air were such a hindrance to development, London would have never grown into its massive proportions in the first place. Now, public health concerns in general did lead to London working very hard to clean up its air and water over time, but that came after, and not before, the growth of London into one of the world's great urban centers. Your hypothesis sounds plausible if you ignore actual data and history. But when you really look at how and when and where and why cities develop, having a "nice breeze" was never a primary motivation, either through conscious choice or by some "invisible hand", for locating a city or for a city's growth. It simply doesn't appear, from the actual historic references, to have been a factor. --Jayron32 17:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Also note that clean water is far more important than clean air. If everyone just craps into the same water they drink from, with no water or sewage treatment, water-borne diseases can cut life expectancy in half. By comparison, relatively few people die from stinky air. StuRat (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

London became a major power long after the age of stone megaliths. I can imagine a place where if people had fewer technologies they might have been very high skilled in areas such as masonry, and building megaliths would have been easier than we make it out to be. If there were a major city on the nile and the economy grew significantly there would be a humongous growth in the population. Assuming a fair level of social development, the people might have tried to do things to improve the peacetime environment of their homes, and if it was readily apparent that living near a large stone construction, such a centrally located temple (probably reserved for the very wealthy) then they might build more. London as a power came from people outside of london being successful. The residents of london were subject to legendary poverty that could not have existed before that time. The more ancient empires might have had to have more success within their city limits. Clean water is important, but clean air still matters, and enourmously. If everyone doesn't crap in the water, where do they crap? where do they put food waste? Even buried crap stinks. London had more baths. Ancient poor peoples might have bathed for celebrations or rights of passage only in some places. Some days have virtually no flowing air. Near or in deserts this can last for a week or longer. Whole sections of town were evacuated even as recently as the aforementioned london due to gases from decay of sewage. This might have been encountered frequently in order for humans to learn about waste disposal. It might be that at a low enough level of technology (how expensive can wheels be?) living next to a landform that keeps the air flowing isn't much different than having a clean water source.

also I should add that these guys are right about defense, but there is lots of time and people have lots of other problems, and they solve them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by66.188.214.218 (talk) 03:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Child slavery in nineteenth-century America.

My son wants to know how children his own age (4 years) laboured as American slaves. Did their work differ significantly from that of grown slaves, both in the field and in the house? If so, how?

(I note our article's reference to Gwyn Campbell, "Children and slavery in the new world: A review," Slavery & Abolition, Aug 2006, Vol. 27 Issue 2, pp 261–285, but I have not yet had opportunity to read this.)

Any advice of interest to a 4-year-old is especially welcome.82.31.133.165 (talk) 12:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Obviously they did not do hard agricultural field labor that would have been far beyond their physical strength. Sometimes they might have done light gathering or cleaning tasks that would have been within their abilities and attention spans. According to the Autobiography of Frederick Douglass, until he was 7 or 8, "I was not old enough to work in the field, and there being little else than field work to do, I had a great deal of leisure time. The most I had to do was to drive up the cows at evening, keep the fowls out of the garden, keep the front yard clean, and run of errands for my old master's daughter, Mrs. Lucretia Auld." AnonMoos (talk) 12:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

This source notes "Even small children and the elderly were not exempt from these long work hours." though it does not age "small children", so I don't know exactly what age (4 or 9 could both be described as "small"). This page states that "Slave children were sent into the fields at about 12 years of age where they worked from sun up to sun down." Though it doesn't note if other work or shorter hours were expected of younger children. This one states that "The combination of hard physical labor, corporal punishment, a diet often lacking nutritional value, and poor living conditions contributed to a very high infant mortality rate—at least 20 percent of the slave children died before the age of five—and a much lower life expectancy than southern whites.", though it doesn't strictly state what children younger than 5 died of: whether being overworked, or simply malnutrition and preventable disease. While none of those sources is strictly scholarly or detailed, I did find this source which appears to be much more so. It states "Generally, in the U.S. South, children entered field work between the ages of eight and 12." I hope that gives you some leads to follow. --Jayron32 12:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Another account of a slave childhood is in the first chapter of Up from Slavery, Booker T. Washington’s autobiography. He says when he was too small for field work he still worked, and mentions “cleaning the yards, carrying water to the men in the fields, or going to the mill to which I used to take the corn, once a week, to be ground. … required to go to the "big house" at meal-times to fan the flies from the table by means of a large set of paper fans operated by a pulley … ” There are lots of details that would interest a child – for example, the corn often fell off the horse and since he was too small to reload it, he had to wait for a chance helpful passerby. He often didn’t get home until after dark. His family never had a sit-down meal together. He longed to try cookies, which he saw white children eating. He went barefoot but had a pair of wooden shoes, which were very noisy. He owned one shirt, made of a painful, scratchy material, and no trousers.

FYI, there’s a very interesting list of autobiographies of slaves (with the texts), here.

Also, googling forpicture books about slavery brings up tons of age-appropriate suggestions. Taknaran (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Amplifying Jayron32's prevarication—simply because labour was beyond a person, does not mean that they didn't work it (I'm rereading the Gulag Archipelagofor "pleasure"). There are likely to be a wide variety of slave narratives covering a wide variety of resistance and accommodations by slaves and masters in local productive environments. Given that the purpose of this is to excite a four year old child further about a history they're already interested in, I'd suggest finding life narratives from individuals who you yourself admire. These seem particularly common for example, full text html; a discussion of the role of childhood slavery in recent history;a discussion on narrative source quality. Then there's this:intro to CHILD SLAVES IN THE MODERN WORLD. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

For background, and also an interesting story, I would recommend Harriet Jacobs' Incidents in the Life of of a Slave Girl, a slave narrative written in the 1850s and published in Britain in 1862. The short answer is probably "it varied widely". The Key to Uncle Tom's Cabin discusses the tearing apart of families. It is probably worth remembering that virtually everyone writing at the time had an axe to grind, and (some) more modern scholarly works go to great pains to avoid inheriting these biases. Rich Farmbrough, 18:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC).

(Deskers may note that Child slavery is tagged, rightly, for a complete re-write.) Rich Farmbrough, 02:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC).

In northern regions, where and how did people bury their dead during winter?

In the middle ages, and the old days in general, how and where did people bury their dead in the colder regions during winter? Obviously the ground was frozen, and likely covered by deep snow. If someone died during winter, what did they do with the corpse? You can't dig through frozen earth. Of course, some places probably had catacombs and crypts of some kind, but in places without such burial sites, what did they do?

Krikkert7 (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

See our previous answer: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 August 6#Winter burials. Rmhermen (talk) 16:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Legally Protestant status of the Church of England

Is the Church of England still officially Protestant according to the laws of the realm? According to Universalis Ecclesiae, 10 George IV c. 10 (no clue what its short title is/was) was a law promulgated under George IV that referred to the Church as being Protestant, although of course I understand that it might have been repealed or superseded since then. Nyttend (talk) 18:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

What does "protestant" mean anyways? In the broadest sense, "Protestant" can mean literally any non-Catholic western Christian denomination founded during or after the Reformation. There's not really any unifying theological definition beyond that. I'm pretty sure that the meaning of "Protestant" in regards to the C of E merely means "Does not recognize the authority of the Pope" and literally nothing else. I've seen several reliable discourses over the classification of Anglicanism and Episcopalianism, and from a theological perspective, it isn't a settled matter by any means. There are serious arguments to be made in both directions: That it is Protestant because it did begin as a rejection of the Church of Rome, or that it isn't protestant because the theology more closely allies with Catholicism than it does with Lutheran or Calvinist theologies. Protestant#Anglicans and Episcopalians has a brief discussion of the problem of classifying the Anglican Community as "protestant". Now, what this means for the legal status of the Church of England specifically within the Laws of the United Kingdom is another matter, but I am fairly certain that the term Protestant in that context merely means "Not under papal authority" and little else. --Jayron32 18:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

More: Anglicanism#Terminology states " In British parliamentary legislation referring to the English Established Church, it is described as the "Protestant Episcopal Church", thereby distinguishing it from the counterpart established "Protestant Presbyterian Church" in Scotland. High Churchmen, who objected to the term "Protestant"," That is, the term may have been imposed by Parliament on the church, but may not have been unilaterally accepted as valid by those within the church at the time of the legislation. --Jayron32 18:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Even more: This blog post and the missive it discusses both seem to be HIGHLY relevent to the nature of this question. --Jayron32 18:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

And yet more:here is an interesting perspective from a single Anglican church on the distinction and use of the terms here. --Jayron32 18:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

At the Coronation of a British monarch, the new sovereign is asked (among other things); "Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law?" The required answer is "All this I promise to do."[10] Alansplodge (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Although it's about as likely as my being elected Pope, what would happen if the monarch-to-be refused to take this oath? Would that essentially be a statement of abdication? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 23:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

No. A British monarch cannot unilaterally abdicate per se. But if they refuse to abide by any condition of their monarchy, I suppose the powers that be would be forced to take action, which might in extremis include passing a law deeming the monarch to have abdicated. Note that the throne is never vacant. The new monarch accedes the instant the previous one dies (or otherwise ceases to be monarch), simply by operation of the law. The Coronation, which might be 12-18 months down the track, does not make them the monarch, but it may well test whether they're suitable to remain monarch. Realistically, if the monarch had any issues about supporting Protestantism, I think they'd have raised them well before the Coronation, and probably well before they ever became monarch in the first place. A very unlikely scenario, as you say. But Pope Bugs I has a certain ring to it. Just remember we've always been the closest of friends, and I expect you to fast track my canonisation when the time comes.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

You bet! Once I'm the Pope, you'll be at the top of the list. Saint Jack of Oz has a nice ring to it also. :) Oh, I forgot one thing. You'd have to be dead. :( :( :( But not to worry. I'll issue a decree that "going on walkabout" qualifies. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Bless you, my son. I'll now add you to the list of papabili, and you can add me to the list of santabili. What? No article? No matter, this is Wikipedia. Be bold and create one. :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers; unfortunately I didn't have time to dig for resources earlier, beyond reading the article that I cited above. I emphasised the legal nature of the question largely because I'm well aware of the concept of via media and was surprised at the possibility of the law calling the Church Protestant. I was also thinking of the coronation oath, but I forgot the actual words and thought that it was something like "the true reformed religion", with "reformed" obviously meaning non-Catholic, not Reformed churches. Nyttend (talk) 00:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

From the horse's mouth: The Church of England is the Established Church of England and has been since 1689. That link makes no mention of it ceasing to be Protestant. From the Queen's point of view: the Church of Scotland is the Scottish counterpart to the Church of England. There are no Established Churches in Northern Ireland or Wales, or any of the Commonwealth realms according to that link (and I think it's pretty authoritative). --TammyMoet (talk) 09:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the Anglican churches in Ireland and Wales have been disestablished (in 1871 and 1920 respectively). The movement opposing this was calledantidisestablishmentarianism providing generations of schoolchildren with "the longest word in the dictionary". Alansplodge (talk) 09:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

To answer the narrow question originally posed, 10 George IV c. 10, according to List of Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, 1820–1839, is theMilitia Act 1829.

This Act is not found on the legislation.gov.uk website, and I have not been able to find it even in professional citators of legislation - but there is a Militia Act 1661, Militia Act 1802 and a Militia Act 1882. All of these (but not he 1829 Act) were repealed by the Reserved Forces Act 1980. My theory is that the 1829 Act must have been repealed by a later legislation which itself has later been repealed and that is why no trace of it is left in today's database.--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a tantalising "snippet view" on Google Books; Conscientious objection to various compulsions under British law, Constance Braithwaite 1995 which only confirms that Geo IV etc is indeed the Militia Act of 1829.Alansplodge (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Found something else on Google books: source has the long title and a summary of the chapters, but not the full text. --PalaceGuard008(Talk) 09:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Omzwervingen door de eilandenwereld van den Grooten-oceaan

Omzwervingen door de eilandenwereld van den Grooten-oceaan seems to be a German version of Promenades en Océanie: les Tubuaï et l'archipel de Cook. Is there an English translation of this?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

It's certainly not German, but Dutch. What makes you think these are the same books?

edit: "Omzwervingen door de eilandenwereld van den Grooten-oceaan" seems to originate in the Dutch 'travel literature magazine'De Aarde en haar volken. - Lindert (talk) 19:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh sorry, not the entire book but this chapter same as Promenades en Océanie: les Tubuaï et l'archipel de Cook found in Le Tour du monde, Volumes 50. Does anybody know if there is an English translation?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

If I'm translating it correctly, the english title could be "Circumnavigating through the island-world of the great ocean." Definitely dutch. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

That's quite a literal translation, but seeing that "Grooten-oceaan" is written with a capital letter, it should be translated 'Pacific Ocean'. I think "Omzwervingen" is closer to 'roamings' or 'undirected travels'. - Lindert (talk) 13:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I searched Google Books for "Edouard Petit" and "translated by" and nothing came up; had similar results in my university library system. Everything by Petit seems to be in French. 184.147.123.169 (talk) 14:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Did the Kaiser plan to invade Britain?

I've been working on an article about the British Volunteer Training Corps (World War I), a sort of early Home Guard. There seems to have been plenty of preparations for an expected invasion, but I wondered if there were actually any German plans. Apparently, the French had plans before 1908, but I haven't been able to uncover anything from the Germans, even a study that showed it was impossible. Can anyone help please? Alansplodge (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't find anything either, despite several searches using German search terms. I think that British fears of a German invasion were overblown and not based on any real plans by Germany, whose attitude toward Britain was defensive. Plans for a hypothetical German invasion may have been part of a project on the part of Britain's military establishment to spread fear and loathing of Germany and to justify military expenditures, just as exaggerated estimates of Soviet military power were used to justify military expenditures to the public in the United States and other western allies during the Cold War. Marco polo(talk) 19:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, many thanks for trying. I found this alternate history site which has a scenario where Britain is invaded in 1915. It starts with the premise "...plans for invasion of Great Britain, in a possible future European war, were first proposed by the German Navy in 1912...". I wondered if this was factual or imagined by the author. Alansplodge (talk) 10:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Our article at invasion literature implies that public fears of such invasion were much greater than any actual threat, but there's no specific cite regarding Germany's actual plans one way or the other. Matt Deres (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

While not plans, we can infer a bit about the Generalstab's proximate intentions regarding Britain from the actions they assigned their secret agents there. Christopher Andrew's The Defence of the Realm discusses the activities of many, and they all seem to be concerned with the movements of Royal Navy and the goings-on in ports. This is unlike what Abteilung III b had their people in France and behind enemy lines in the Low Countries, where they were more active in the hinterland, reporting on movements of troops and materiel. The few German agents who weren't quickly British agents too don't seem to have spent any time doing the things you'd expect would be necessary when preparing for an invasion of a whole country. They're not scouting beaches, planning railway sabotage, or plotting with fifth columnists and dissidents. This doesn't entirely refute the suggestion that there was such a plan, as Germany would need to neutralise the Grand Fleet before setting an army over the channel in wobbly Rhine barges, but I think it does show that if such a plan existed at all, it was very low down in the Generalstab's priorities. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 11:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the Germans had no plans to invade Britain during World War I. Doing so would have been pretty much impossible given the Royal Navy's greater strength, and Germany's near total lack of amphibious warfare capabilities. The British actually developed plans to invade Germany by sea, but this was rejected as being a doomed venture (from memory, Churchill was the key figure in having these plans developed and advocating the scheme). Nick-D(talk) 03:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The Kaiser would have to be on quite a roll to be able to invade the UK. StuRat (talk) 04:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I understand the probabilities; I was looking for a reference for an article. Alansplodge (talk) 09:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, that reads as rather blunt, but you get the gist... Alansplodge (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Gubernatorial primary elections (U.S.)

Hello, I have two questions about the primary elections for governors: At which time (month) do the gubernatorial primaries start and end? Are they beginning in January and finish in June like presidential primaries? I need to know that for writing a book about a story with a (fictive) governor. I'm esepecially interested in the state of California because the story of my book is playing in that state; and, last but not least, have those primary elections also been held in the 1960s? If not, how have candidates/nomiees for the general election been elected? --78.52.186.187 (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The dates vary from one state to another. Also, typically primary elections for governor are held on the same date together with primaries for other state offices. The date of the state primary may be different from the date of the presidential primary in a given state. In California, gubernatorial elections are offset from presidential elections by two years. There have been gubernatorial primaries in California since the early 20th century. Since at least the 1960s, gubernatorial primaries in California have always been held in early June. See this source on the 1966 election and this one on the 1962 election. However, in states other than California, state primaries have been held in different months. Marco polo (talk) 20:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. When they were held in June, that means nothing happend much before, like in spring? --78.51.166.21 (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

When you say "nothing happened", what are you referring to?... I would assume that the various contenders for their party's nomination would be attending rallies, giving speeches and holding fundraisers throughout the spring.

One thing to remember: Primary elections in the US are Party based... and if the Gubernatorial candidate for a given party is running unopposed (within that party), there is no need for that party to hold a Gubernatorial primary election. And if this is true for all political parties, then a State might not even hold a Gubernatorial primary election. Blueboar (talk) 14:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Which day of the week for elections, and why?

Here in Australia elections have always been held on a Saturday. That made a lot of sense to me as I was growing up because it avoided a work day for most people, and avoided the Sunday when your'e supposed to be going to church and resting. It also made it easier to find the thousands of people needed to operate the polling booths

The US election is on a Tuesday. I have a vague impression in my (repressed through old age) memory that UK elections are held on a week day too. What's "normal" around the world? Does holding elections on a week day restrict access to a vote for some classes of people? Is that deliberate? How did the non-Saturday voting days get chosen? (e.g Why Tuesday in the USA?)HiLo48 (talk) 21:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Many countries hold elections on Sundays (or the equivalent day-off of the week), in order to enable higher participation. For example in Sweden, general elections always take place on the third Sunday of September. Many countries have special voting days for people working in police or army (as they would be on duty during the polling day). In the recent West Bank local election, the polling station at the small Samaritan community was open for an hour longer than all others as the regular polling fell on the Sabbath.

Do note that the US stands out amongst Western countries in restricting its citizens from voting in general elections. Whereas some European countries have mandatory voting, the US employs the system of voter registration (unheard of in other developed countries). --Soman (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

That last comment seems to be quite unrelated to the topic of this thread.

See Election Day (politics), Election Day (United Kingdom) and Election Day (United States). -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant to the topic but relevant to Soman's last sentence
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The comment is not only unrelated, but seems to be wrong unless Soman either means a specific form of voter registration or doesn't consider a number of countries most of the world considers developed. Voter registration mentions non automatic (albeit mandatory) registration in Australia (which also has mandatory voting) and the UK (a rather odd system of the head of household being the one registering which may be changed). New Zealand also has mandatory but non automatic voter registration (but not voting). As our article mentions, it's not generally needed in countries with Resident registration although some (or at least one non developed) countries still require voter registration despite resident registration. As I mentioned, the US system likely has differences from voter registration in other countries but Soman didn't specify that the specific voter registration system in the US is unique (besides as our article attests, there isn't one system in the US since it depends on the states) simply that the system of voter registration is unique. Nil Einne(talk) 09:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC) You yourself point out that the British, Oz and NZ voter registrations are very different from the US system. The US system still stands out, as it effectively disenfranchises large sections of population from voting (I know Guatemala has a similar system, effectively depriving tens of thousands of indigenous inhabitants from voting). --Soman (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC) But why are we discussing this issue at all? The topic is about which day of the week the election is held. Nothing to do with voter registration, (dis)enfranchisement of voters, or any of the zillions of other matters related to elections. I'm hatting this tangent. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 19:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC) I apologise for continuing this tangent but I strongly dislike inaccurate claims being made on the the RD and Soman did make the claim without any sources or any explaination and now seems to have even conceded that their initial claim was at least poorly worded. If people don't want their claims to be challenged, they're free not to make them. Nil Einne (talk) Actually you're mistaken. I never 'point out that the British, Oz and NZ voter registrations are very different from the US system'. I simply pointed out there obviously is going to be some differences. There are also differences between the British, Australian and NZ registration systems. How different the US systems are from the other systems, nor do I know it stands out, baring the fact it's at a state level. I have head a lot of controversy regarding US voting laws but I've never investigated it enough to know how bad it is in truth and in any case it seems to depend on the state, and a lot of the controversy does not concern registration but other stuff like voter ID laws and banning some perceived low level convicts. In any case if you are going to make the claim, you should at least provide the sources and preferably make an accurate claim in the first place and also do it in an on topic discussion rather then bringing it up off topic. As it stands I've provided the only sources (admitedly not for NZ but here[11] [12][13]), it seems the one which does stand out is the UK which per our article technically allows the head of the household to stop someone from voting. Nil Einne (talk) 05:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC) It occured to me I hadn't read our article properly so I checked it out and can't see any discussion related to the US registration system which makes it particularly distinct or bad compared to the rest in general. It mentions stuff like the disenfrachment of convicts and mentions how extreme it can be in some cases (anyone with a felony conviction barred for life) although as I discussed earlier this is distinct from the requirement for registration (you can bar convicts from voting with automatic registration or without requiring registration). Although I recall from some documentary that some states used private companies and ended up removing a lot of people they shouldn't have preventing them from voting which it's probably fair to say is part of the requirement for registration. It also seems to suggest in some cases it's better then NZ, Australia or UK since some states allows registration on election day whereas the best case for the other 3 appears to be NZ which allows it up to the day before (compared to according to our article, 3 weeks before for Australia and possibly slightly over 2 weeks for the UK [14]). P.S. North Dakota doesn't even require registration so it's even more unclear what's so unique about the US's registration requirement. Nil Einne (talk) 06:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

In the UK General elections are traditionally held on a Thursday.No-one appears to know why. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Jack and Mike. Very helpful. Those first two articles Jack referenced tell us what day voting occurs too, but also not why. The US article is excellent in that it tells us why - "In 1845, the United States was largely an agrarian society. Farmers often needed a full day to travel by horse-drawn vehicles to the county seat to vote. Tuesday was established as election day because it did not interfere with the Biblical Sabbath or with market day, which was on Wednesday in many towns." As with many other laws established so long ago (in many countries, not just the US), it's obviously an irrelevant reason today. But will it ever change? HiLo48 (talk) 22:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

NPR did a story on this just the other day. See this. Zoonoses (talk) 00:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

October 27

UK House of Commons trivia

Two questions:

1. When do newly-elected MPs take office? Basically as soon as a winner is officially named by elections officials, or is there some set period (e.g. "Ten days after the election") between election and officially taking office?
2. What's the salary for the Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds? Presumably there's something, or it wouldn't be good for resignation purposes; is it something like £1 per year?

I've looked around for both of these answers, finding such documents as this, but I wasn't able to find anything through Google or at UK House of Commons, Kissing hands, the Chiltern steward article, or anywhere else that I looked. Have to admit that these questions grew out of reading the thread just above this one. Nyttend (talk) 00:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

On Q. 1: I assume this is covered in Erskine May: Parliamentary Practice but I'm having trouble accessing an online version. Having worked in this part of the Australian bureaucracy, I can assure you that members of our lower house commence their service and are paid from election day, no matter how long it might take for the result in their division to become clear or be officially declared. SeeOdgers' House of Representatives Practiceat "Members' remuneration and entitlements":

• A Member is paid salary and allowances from and including the day of the election, ...

See also further down the page at "Titles accorded to members":

• A Member's status as a Member does not depend on the meeting of the Parliament, nor on the Member taking his or her seat or making the oath or affirmation. A Member is technically regarded as a Member from the day of election—that is, when he or she is, in the words of the Constitution, ‘chosen by the people’. A new Member is entitled to use the title MP once this status is officially confirmed by the declaration of the poll.

Australia has a Westminster system modelled after the UK's, so I can only assume it's the same there. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Right, I'm going to have a bash at the Chiltern Hundreds question. For those playing along at home, the post of Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds is asinecure used to permit members of the House of Commons to leave their posts. By tradition, MPs are forbidden to resign. This dates from a 1624 resolution that states that MPs have been entrusted to represent their constituencies, and are not at liberty to resign this trust. At this time, serving in parliament was seen much more as a duty than a privilege, so it was more necessary to 'force' MPs to serve.

However, under the 1701 Act of Settlement, no person who holds an Office of profit under the crown may continue to be an MP. Thus, any MP appointed to a position which entitles them to receive money from the Crown will cease to be an MP. In modern times, MPs use this loophole to resign, and MPs wishing to resign are appointed to either post of Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds or Steward of the Manor of Northstead. Appointments usually alternate between the two.

In terms of the actual 'salary' one receives for these roles, things are somewhat unclear. According to theEncyclopædia Britannica of 1911, "Up to the 19th century there was a nominal salary of 20S. attached to the post[of Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds]", but "There are no traces of any profits having ever been derived from the office [of Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead]". There's no mention of when in the C19th the salary was abolished.

The Mirror of Parliament, Volume 1 by John Henry Barrow (1839) says: "...a salary of 20l a year is attached to it, though the money is never received by any person accepting the office." (p.276). 20l (italic small-case "L") would be £20 in modern notation. Alansplodge (talk) 09:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Isn't that 20/-? That is, 20 followed by a solidus, meaning 20 shillings or £1 in new money. See £sd. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 11:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

No, in the 19th century and before, pounds were signified by an italic "L" after the amount. See Old Bailey Proceedings Online; 4th February 1839. "...he had clothes which came to 2l. 4s. 6d., and 3l. 0s. 6d. in cash". Also Calendar of Treasury Books, Volume 8 - 1685-1689 "Petitioner has sworn before Baron Atkins that what has been recovered of the premises is only worth 5l. 10s. 0d. per an." There is some inconclusive discussion at Talk:Pound sign.Alansplodge (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

A new Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds used to cost £14 15/- in an inauguration fee, which at one point came from the profits on the land. There was also stamp duty of £2 on the writ of appointment. The sale of land led to the estates becoming much less valuable and the Government paid the fee (seeMagazine, January 1841 p. 43). There is a note in National Archives file E 197/1, the Crown book of appointments to the Stewardships from 1772 to 1847, which states "Fee of £16·15 on Appointment to the Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds discontinued according to Mr. Trevelyan's letter to me of the 22 Jan. 1840. R.B.A." The signature is presumably that of R.B. Adderley of the Exchequer Seal Office. Perhaps significantly, Trevelyan had only started work on the previous day. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

According to the House of Commons Background Paper: Resignation from the House of Commons "Other such offices have been used for this purpose in the past, and some of them have carried duties and salaries: this is not the case today." This would suggest that the Stewards do not now receive any money following their appointments, nominal or otherwise.

I think the way this works is that by being appointed to one of these posts, MPs are entitled to receive the duties attached to the manors. The fact that, for at least a few hundred years, those duties have been £0.00 (or £0-0-0) is immaterial. It's the 'entitlement' to the profit that makes one inelegible to sit in the House. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 11:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

According to the Parliamentary fact sheet, "During the seventeenth century, a hundred years after any records of their actual administration cease, the office of Steward became divorced from any former actual duties, and ceased to enjoy any revenues from the area." So it's an "office for profit", but any profit has been stripped from it. It's the UK. It does not have to make sense ;-).--Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

On when a person elected becomes a Member of Parliament, elections are formally ordered by a Writ being sent from the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to the Returning Officer in each Parliamentary constituency. The UK doesn't have any arrangement whereby absentee postal votes which arrive after polling stations close can be added to the count, so (unusually in a Western democracy) the count which takes place from 10 PM is the final result (save if it is challenged through an election petition). The official in charge of the election is called the 'Returning Officer' because the duty is that of making a Return to the Writ, which is to send back to the Clerk of the Crown the name and address of the person who has been duly elected. The Writ also formally tells the Returning Officer the date, time and place when the Parliament is summoned to meet. The Returns are all gathered together in a large white book and about ten minutes before the new Parliament meets, the book is formally handed over to the Clerk of the House of Commons. (SeeVotes and Proceedings for the record of this handover happening in the current Parliament.) Each person elected to Parliament then has to take the oath or affirm allegiance to the Crown in order to take their seat.

It is difficult to be precise about when a newly elected person has formally become a Member. It is certainly possible to argue that it is as soon as the Returning Officer has formally declared them elected. Against this it could be argued that no-one can be a member of a Parliament which has not yet been summoned, so it would be as soon as the Parliament had met. Members of Parliament are not paid unless they have taken the oath, but when they do take the oath their pay is backdated to the date their Return was received (see Briefing on Parliamentary Oath, p 8). However Members who have not taken the oath are still Members of Parliament and able to perform some functions. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I looked at two UK MPs chosen at random - Tony Blair and Patricia Hewitt. Blair was elected at the 1983 general election, held on 9 June. His own page tells me he was the Member for Sedgfield from, you guessed it, 9 June 1983. Hewitt was elected at at the1997 election, held on 1 May. Her page says she was the Member for Leicester West from 1 May 1997. It seems clear that UK MPs are members from election day or by-election day as the case may be. If that were not the case, we'd have some explaining to do about Blair, Hewitt et no doubt al. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

That seems to be the answer to a subtly different question - "When should Wikipedia count a Parliamentarian's term as beginning?" It is custom and practice here as elsewhere to refer to the polling day in the general election. In fact only a very few fast-counting constituencies are able to produce a result in the two hours between the close of the poll and midnight. I have, though, undone an edit which used the fact that a byelection count had concluded after midnight as a reason for saying the successful candidate's term began on the following day. (There's more disagreement about when the term ends for an MP who is defeated: is it on polling day, or the day Parliament was dissolved? Practice seems to differ.) Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The background paper downloadable from here talks about the Father of the House

• The Father of the House heads the ‘seniority list’ of Members, a list of Members in order of their length of unbroken service. If two or more Members enter the House at the same election, each with unbroken service, their seniority is determined by the date and/or time they took the oath.

That is, for the purposes of determining who the Father of the House is, it may be necessary to look at when two or more members took the oath. But the implication is that, for general purposes, the term of service of an MP commences on their election day. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The disqualification attaching to offices of profit under the Crown is triggered if there is a possibility of payment through the office; it is not necessary for any actual payment to have been made. In 1955 there were a series of problems with Members of Parliament who had posts which were unpaid but where there was a theoretical entitlement to expenses; they were held to be disqualifying. As a result of the confusion the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957 was passed which lists all the affected posts in a Schedule, so that there is no doubt. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

diffrenciation and cost leadership

can a firm or business achieve diffrenciation and mantian a low cos leadership at the sametime? — Precedingunsigned comment added by 61.175.228.68 (talk) 01:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at Differentiation (economics), Cost leadership and especially Porter generic strategies; does that help?184.147.123.169 (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Generally, a differentiation strategy will employ advertising and other means, which will increase cost, over, say, generic alternatives. However, there may be exceptions. For example, once a company finds itself with a near monopoly, the economy of scale may allow them to advertise and still remain the lowest cost producer. StuRat (talk) 23:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Hebrew english dictionary transliteration

Is there a website that is a Hebrew-english and English-Hebrew with English transliteration? I am trying to translate some English words into Hebrew like strong, might and union but I have hard time reading Hebrew that's why I need transliteration. — Precedingunsigned comment added by 70.31.22.30 (talk) 02:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I google [hebrew transliteration online] and there seems to be a number of possibilities. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Have no idea about on-line, but in the dead-tree world, "Webster's New World Hebrew Dictionary" by Hayim Baltsan (ISBN 0-671-88991-5) is aimed at people like you... AnonMoos (talk) 05:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiBooks has the beginnings of an elementary Hebrew course with transliteration here, but as of now it is woefully incomplete. The Foreign Services Institute has a very comprehensive course in Hebrew, with transliteration and accompanying recorded classes in mp3 format (around twenty hours of such material, by my tally) here. It's particularly useful in figuring out the particular Modern Israeli articulations of phonemes (especially vowels, which are by no means interchangeable with any of their English counterparts), something that is often neglected with the other gratis courses out there. Also, it's not exactly transliteration, but you might tryMilon and Foundation Stone (downloadable), both of which include audio files of Hebrew pronunciation. And if it's good-ol' Biblical Hebrew you're working with, most editions of Strong's I've seen have transliteration in one form or another. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Those may be good resources, but if the original questioner wants to look up Hebrew words based on their modern Israeli pronunciations (ignoring the Hebrew alphabet), then the Baltsan book seems to be one of the few tools that allows this... AnonMoos (talk) 10:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Google Translate is simple and easy if you want an ok translation. Otherwise, as someone noted above, just googling "Hebrew dictionary online" or "Hebrew translation online" will get tons of results. If you want specific words, feel free to ask me on my talkpage.

• Strong = חזק (pronounced as chazak)

• Might = עָצְמָה (pronounced as otz-mah. Note: if you're asking it as in "Might I go to the bathroom," it'd be האם, pronounced as ha-eem)

• Union = איחוד (pronounced as ee-chood)

Hope it helps! --JethroB 00:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

To help a bit more, I'll indicate the stressed syllables in all caps and substitute letters I believe are closer to the Hebrew sounds: kha-ZAK, ots-MAH, ee-KHOOD - though in the _trade_ union context, I'd suggest ee-GOOD (rhymes with "see food"; Morfix online H>E dico gives "unification, merger, unity" foree-KHOOD). -- Deborahjay (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

איחוד is sometimes transliterated in writing as Ihud. --Soman (talk) 16:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

London geography - Primrose Hill

This question is related to some content from the Regent's Park page, but there is no content dispute, I am just curious about the facts. In fact, the reason I am asking here is to a large extent because it seems no one cares over at Talk:Regent's Park.

Primrose Hill is a hill in London. At some point content was introduced into the Regent's Park article to say:

"Primrose Hill is a Royal Park and belongs to the Sovereign along with all the other Royal Parks of the Crown Estate.

The supposition that Primrose Hill is owned and maintained by the Corporation of London is an error that has been the subject of successful Crown litigation in both in the High Court and Court of Appeal"

Now, I am wondering about the facts behind these statements because 1) Primrose Hill is not listed as a Royal Park in London, and 2) the second sentence seems a bit non sequitur - is there really a supposition that Primrose Hill is owned by the Corporation of London? And has the Crown really sued the City in the High Court and the Court of Appeal? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll take the first bit: Whilst Primrose Hill isn't a separate Royal Park in and of itself, it is a part of Regent's Park. This is confirmed byCamden Borough Council: "Regent’s Park and Primrose Hill are operated by Royal Parks", bythis Royal Parks proposal for improvements to the summit and by the map of Regent's Park. I haven't found any evidence so far about the Corporation of London being involved, but these things sometimes get into the Wikipedia article by someone adding something they think they know, someone else reverting it, and the compromise being that the information is left in, qualified by 'it is often thought that...'. I'll keep looking. -Cucumber Mike (talk) 15:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

(EC) On 1), see THE REGENT’S PARK & PRIMROSE HILL OPERATIONS PLAN: January 2009 "The Regent’s Park and Primrose Hill are distinct but contiguous public parks jointly managed by The Royal Parks". However, on the Royal Parks website, there is no mention of Primrose Hill on the list on their Parkspage, however the accompanying map shows "The Regents Park and Primrose Hill" but when you click on the link, you only get details of Regent's Park.Alansplodge (talk) 15:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Old and New London: Volume 5: CHAPTER XXII PRIMROSE HILL AND CHALK FARM (1878) says; "In 1827, the provost and fellows of Eton (who owned Primrose Hill at the time) began to see that their property would soon become valuable, and they obtained an Act of Parliament (7 Geo. IV., c. 25, private), enabling them to grant leases of lands in the parishes of Hampstead and Marylebone. Soon after the accession of Queen Victoria, endeavours were made to obtain Primrose Hill for the Crown, and a public act was passed (5 and 6 Vict., c. 78), for effecting an exchange between Her Majesty and the provost and college of Eton. By this act Eton College received certain property at Eton, and gave up all their rights in the Hill." Still searching for mention of litigation. Alansplodge (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Regent's Park and Primrose Hill by Martin Sheppard (2010) says that Primrose Hill was acquired in 1841 because of a proposed scheme to turn it into a cemetery (p.97). No mention of any court case though, I suggest a "Citation needed" tag would be in order. Alansplodge (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the informative answers. On the first question then, it seems that Primrose Hill is managed as part of Regent's Park even if it geographically might not be within the Park's boundaries. Primrose Hill is not listed in our list in the Royal Parks of London article, but I am also wondering where the original author derived that list of the Royal Parks from - it cites section 22 of the Crown Lands Act 1851, but that statutory provision also includes many other pieces of land other than the ones listed in the Royal Parks of London article, including Primrose Hill. Perhaps someone could come up with a way to reconcile the two lists? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Since I still haven't found the details of the alleged court case, I'll just mention that one way in which the Corporation of the City of London isinvolved with Primrose Hill is over the subject of the Protected views: nothing is allowed to be built such that it would block the view of the dome of St Paul's Cathedral, or of the Palace of Westminster, from the top of Primrose Hill. Consideration is also given to the backdrop: there are restrictions on what may be built behind the buildings mentioned as well.document has more details. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that interesting cite. Definitely a tag needed on the second sentence. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

U.S. election timings

Hey all. I'm looking for an updated version of http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3760822.stm (for any timezone) but my google-fu just isn't up to strength. Does anyone know where I can find one? Or are the timings all going to be the same? Also, that page equivalates "polls close" and "result declared" --how good an approximation is that likely to be? I'm trying to organise a social event around the elections, you see :) Thanks, -Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 15:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I would assume that the timings are going to be very close to the 2004 values (here's a less-readily-useful but updated2012 reference). As for "how good an approximation" -- no one can really say. Only a few swing states are really in play, so none of the west coast states in the late brackets are likely to matter (in terms of dramatic uncertainty). Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight currently estimates a 50/50 chance that Ohio will determine the election -- so on that basis, Ohio closing at 0030 UTC may be the highlight of the evening. If it's a landslide, that might be clear within 30 minutes (and good enough for pundits to declare X the all-but-inevitable winner). On the other hand, votes might be close enough to trigger a repeat of the 2000 election and take weeks to resolve, or any other timetable in between. — Lomn 18:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec) [15] The results of many races will be able to be reliably predicted by news networks soon after the polls are closed (or even before the polls close, based on exit polling. In closer races, the information will take several hours as the different precincts report there numbers (maybe up to 12 hours, but most probably within 3-6 hours). However, most news networks will continue to give a blow-by-blow account as different results come in, so it could still be interesting (if you find that sort of thing interesting). If the race is close enough to trigger arecount, then the results could take a long time. If it's for president, as in the Florida election recount, they'll probably still try to get a president sworn in by January. If it's for a lower office, as in the United States Senate election in Minnesota, 2008, it could go significantly longer.Buddy431 (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, Buddy431's version of the link is substantially better. My advice, after the above caveats, is that 0000 - 0300 UTC is probably the sweet spot. If Romney has not made substantial progress in the Obama-leaning swing states of Virginia, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Colorado (all of which close by 0200), Obama probably wins, even with the remaining states yet to close (as those are the last of the large swing states). If Obama takes Florida (the largest Romney-leaning swing state) and Ohio, that's also probably good enough to call it his way. — Lomn 19:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks all. If I called it an evening at, say, 03:45 UTC, then, the general consensus is that I'd go to bed confident of the result? -Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 11:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Not if it goes like it did in 2000. In fact, CBS projected Bush the winner in Florida, and then had to backtrack as the situation became clearer (or muddier). It was a good stretch of time before they got the Florida thing figured out. And it could happen again. ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, barring a goes-to-recount result in a critical state in an otherwise-close election, I think the answer will be in hand by 0345. — Lomn 22:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I guess you'd both agree that extending to (say) 04:30 UTC probably would not increase the chance of knowing greatly? Thanks! -Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 16:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Freemasonry and homosexuality

My question is whether or not Freemasons accept homosexuals as member of their Lodges. Thank you. Iowafromiowa (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

A google search for "freemason homosexual membership" is instructive, provided you filter past the conspiracy-theorist results. The forums associated with AskAFreemason suggest "it depends on the lodge". This story from Lexington, KY, notes a vote to dismiss a proposal that would have banned gay members for that state. The presence of a vote at that level suggests to me that the initial link is on the right track: it depends on the lodge. — Lomn 19:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Freemasonry, as an institution, accepts homosexuals. There is no Grand Lodge that has a ban on homosexuals being initiated. However, election to the fraternity takes place at the individual lodge level... so: "It depends on the individual lodge" is the correct answer. I personally know several several Freemasons who are openly homosexual. They joined lodges that either did not care about a candidate's sexual orientation, or actively sought out gay men. However, I also personally know several Freemasons who are openly homophobic. They tend to belong to lodges that consist of other homophobes... lodges that would reject an openly gay men (or even a man who the members suspect is gay).

It also can depend on what area of your state you are in. Freemasonry is a cross section of society in general. In a town or city where broader society is accepting of homosexuality, the local Masonic lodge will tend to reflect that societal acceptance. In a town or city where broader society is not accepting, the local Masonic lodge will reflect that lack of acceptance. Blueboar (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Dividends and stock price

When people know upfront that some company is paying dividends, and I suppose it's almost always announced, how does that influence the price? I thought at first that the price would increase shortly afterbefore the payment day, and fall after that, but it seems that it follows a different logic. How does it work?Comploose (talk) 21:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you would think that. To me it seems more logical that the price should be highest shortly before the dividend payout, because there is going to be a very quick cash return. In most cases, though, the dividend is not a large enough fraction of the stock price to have a major short-term effect one way or the other. Looie496 (talk) 21:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant before. BTW, some dividends are higher than 5%, isn't that much? Comploose (talk) 22:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but most dividends are paid quarterly, and the difference between getting 2% tomorrow and 2% three months from now is not all that much.Looie496 (talk) 03:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The difference between getting the 2% tomorrow or in three months would be huge, if you could re-use your money for obtaining other 2% the day after tomorrow. But, things don't work like that. The expectation of getting 2% dividends for your stock is balanced by any other existent negative expectation. And these negative expectations exist if a company is paying dividends, since that's only due to the fact that there are good reasons to expect a negative outcome. That's way dividend paying stock is not getting up before they pay and down after. OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The price will change on the announcement depending on how the announcement compares with market expectations. The price immediately before the announcement will be based on the expected dividend. If the actual dividend is larger, the price will go up. If it is smaller, the price will go down. (This is the same as you see following profit announcements - if profits are higher than expected, the price goes up, if they are lower, the price goes down - this is why it is common for a price to go up following news of a massive fall in profits, it's just that the fall wasn't quite as massive as people were expecting). The price will then drop by the amount of the dividend on the day the stock goes "ex-dividend", meaning the day it is determined who gets the dividend (if you sell your stock just before the ex-dividend date, they get the dividend, if you sell it just after, you get it - it will actually be paid a few days after that). It is clear that the price must drop, since the total amount of wealth of the shareholders can't change because of a purely financial action (nothing has happened that could actually create new wealth). --Tango (talk) 01:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Write-in Candidates

One of the earlier threads about the upcoming election in the US made me think about write-in candidates. Being from a country where such a thing would never be allowed I'm just curious as to how that works. In particular I'd like to know how the people who count the votes determine who was meant by the people who wrote in their choice. It probably has no relevance in the real world but imagine this scenario: John Doe was never a candidate for any office but thousands of people write him in on the ballot (by the way, how do you write a name in on those ballots that are actually punchcards?). So John Doe gets the majority of the votes and thus becomes mayor-elect (or whatever office we're talking about). The John Doe everybody had in mind now says he doesn't really want to be mayor and declines the office. Since there is no shortage of John Does in the City, some other John Doe goes up there and says: "My name is John Doe and John Doe was elected mayor and I'd be happy to assume that office." How do you legally stop him becoming mayor?--Zoppp (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

See the second paragraph of our article on Write-in candidates. I've copied it below.-gadfium 23:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

"Some jurisdictions require write-in candidates be registered as official candidates before the election. This is standard in elections with a large pool of potential candidates, as there may be multiple candidates with the same name that could be written in."

But not all jurisdictions require that. As I noted in the other thread, Pennsylvania has no such requirement. And while the scenario that Zopppdescribed is unlikely in a city, in a small community it does happen. In my town a few years ago, a man was elected to borough council by write-in vote. No one was running for the office, but there were several dozen write-in votes. Each person written in had one vote, except for one man who had 3 votes. No one had ever even campaigned for the seat. But since he had the most votes, he was on council.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 03:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

This issue doesn't just affect write-in candidates: [16] AlexTiefling (talk) 12:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

October 28

Did some of the world war 2, Korean War and Vietnam soldiers lie about their age and are any of soldiers who lied are alive today?

I'm wondering if some the ww2 , Korean war soldiers and Vietnam soldiers lied about their age and they were 17 or 16 they lied and they lied said they were 18. I could be wrong about this but back then they didn't have photo ID like today so it was easy to lie about their age. A birth certificate was probably needed, but if the person could pass for the required age, they could get in. I think also the country was eager to get any volunteers they could to protect and fight for their country. They did this in ww1 but what about ww2, Korean War and the Vietnam war and are any those soldiers who lied are alive today? 00:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The Veterans of Underage Military Service says it has 29 active members who served in the US military or merchant marine at age 13, plus others older. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

This February 2012 article gives Walter Holy's account of his enlistment at the age of 15 and service with the paratroopers. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

You'll need a pretty blind recruiting sergeant to let a 13 years old pass as 18. OsmanRF34 (talk) 01:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes, but then even today minimum enlistment age in the US is 17 (with parental consent), not 18. And boy seamen were allowed into the Royal Navy at age 14, though I don't know the equivalent in the US. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

There are some pretty big 13 year olds.[17] Clarityfiend (talk) 05:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

And some young-looking 18 year-olds. Alansplodge (talk) 09:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• My father lied about his age to join the army at 15, was in the Korean war, and is alive today. That sort of thing was pretty common.Looie496 (talk) 15:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe he's lying today to you and he's not a vet of the Korean war OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I wonder about how long ago the OP thinks the Vietnam War was! The youngest American veterans (18 in early 1975) are only 55 years old now. I doubt there are many reliable sources about the youngest Vietnamese veterans. Roger (talk) 18:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The Korean War is not the Vietnam War. --140.180.252.244 (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

See Dan Bullock "...the youngest American serviceman killed in action during the Vietnam War." He joined the Marine Corps at 14 and was killed at An Hoa Combat Base aged 15. Alansplodge (talk) 19:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

See also My Father's Story by Crissandra L. Turner, which says of Edward Turner Jr. "In 1953 he sneaked off and joined the army Airborne using a cousin’s name at the age of 14, making him the youngest Korean War Veteran from the State of Missouri." Alansplodge (talk) 20:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The movie Too Young the Hero is the true story of Calvin Graham, a 12-year-old who joined the Navy during World War II. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 00:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

My grandfather lied to get into WW2 at 17, but that was near the end of the war. My partner's grandfather joined at 16 for WW2 and for years never collected his military pension because he was afraid they'd find out & strip him of his rank. His family finally talked him into it, and the government didn't care one whit that he'd entered too young. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

how much cropland is lost to circle farming?

duplicate question, new answers should go at thescience desk
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
how much cropland is lost to circle farming? Naively, we might assume that 2r*2r is the square equivalent versus pi * rsquared is the circle equivalent. But that would mean 4 rsquared versus 3.141 r squared - i.e. "almost a third" more area is actually available (1.27x more) if they farmed squares instad of farming circles. Is this right though? Because you don't need clearance of a full square around the circle, you can pack the next circle in slightly more closely. I'm asking about this. http://www.google.com/search?q=circle+farming&tbm=isch how much cropland is lost to circle famring instad of square farming? --89.132.116.35 (talk) 13:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC) answers moved to science desk

Are there any black people in Greenland living there?

Are there any black people in Greenland living there? Neptunekh94 (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I would assume that there are black people stationed at Thule Air Base. Although that may not be what you are talking about (as the service men living at the base there are not permanent residents). Blueboar (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

88% of Greenland's population is Inuit, and the Inuit are kind of black. Do they count? --140.180.252.244 (talk) 22:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

They're only black in the very vague and unhelpful sense of 'not European'. They're not (generally) part of the African Diaspora, although like Clarityfiend, I did immediately think of Matthew Henson's descendants, who are an exception to this. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

There are descendents of Matthew Henson, who are also Inuit.[18] Clarityfiend(talk) 22:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Tete-Michel Kpomassie, 1981, An African in Greenland. — kwami (talk) 23:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

US capital gains tax

I'm curious about the definition of "capital gains tax" in the U.S. How does the IRS treat the income made by partners in a professional partnership like a law firm? Does it treat it like dividend income (and hence subject to a lower rate) or is it considered ordinary income like a salary? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by94.99.100.234 (talk) 20:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

In a partnership, income generally retains its character, and the distribution to partners (or failure to do so) is a non-event for tax purposes. This has led to controversy in the case of carried interest, when distributions to a hedge fund manager are treated as capital gains, even though the manager is receiving the distributions because of its provision of professional services to the partnership. John M Baker (talk) 21:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

October 29

Presidential candidates not elected by their home state

How many times has a presidential candidate not been elected by either their home state or the state they previously ran in as a senator/governor/representative? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.125.190.85 (talk) 02:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Here you go:

• In United States presidential election, 1844 James Knox Polk didn't win either his birth state (North Carolina) or his home state (Tennessee).
• In United States presidential election, 1848, Zachary Taylor's official home state was Louisiana, which he won, but he lost his Birth state of Virginia.
• In both United States presidential election, 1860 and United States presidential election, 1864, Abraham Lincoln didn't win his birth state of Kentucky (but he did win his home state of Illinois).
• In United States presidential election, 1916, Woodrow Wilson lost his home state of New Jersey (but he did win his Birth state of Virginia).
• In United States presidential election, 1968, Richard Nixon lost his official state of residence (New York), but he won California, which was the state he was born in and which he had earlier represented as a Senator. In 1972, he had re-established his California residency.
• In United States presidential election, 1988, George H. W. Bush lost his birth state of Massachusetts, but he won Texas, his state of residency, which he had served in the House of Representatives..
• In United States presidential election, 2000 and United States presidential election, 2004, George W. Bush lost his birth state of Connecticut both times, but won Texas, his state of Residency which he had served as governor.

That's the complete list I got by combing the full list of Presidential elections. --Jayron32 03:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Al Gore lost his home state in 2000. It's not clear from the question if only eventual winners, or if the user is asking about all the candidates. RudolfRed (talk) 03:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

In that case, the list is likely a LOT longer. In several elections, major candidates came from the same state, so only one could win that state. If the OP is interested in expanding the list to include all of the significant candidates, even those that lost, they can do what I did: Start in 1787, check each page in turn, and create their own list. --Jayron32 03:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

John Kerry lost the state he was born in too. Hot Stop (Edits) 03:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

And, of course, Mitt Romney is likely to lose both his birth state of Michigan, due to his opposition to bailing out the auto companies while supporting Wall Street bailouts, and Massachusetts, due to his move from the center to the right (shown by his rejection of "Obamacare", even though his "Romneycare" was quite similar). See election prediction map here: [19]. StuRat (talk) 04:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course General Motors was not bailed out, it was seized and its creditors not paid in abrogation of the bankruptcy laws. As for his "supporting" the Wall Street bailout, how did he vote on that in congress? μηδείς (talk) 16:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

In 1972 George McGovern lost his home state of South Dakota, winning only Massachusetts and the District of Columbia. Duoduoduo (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Every "minor party" candidate for a long time now ... —Tamfang (talk) 00:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Mass shootings and suicides

In several mass shootings, at the end, the perpetrators commit suicide (if they aren't killed by the police first). The question is, when planning the shootings, do such perpetrators already plan to make the day of the shooting their last day on Earth, or do they initially not want to kill themselves and only later do so out of remorse or so that they would not be caught? That is, do they plan to commit suicide after the shooting from the start, or do they only decide to do so when they're about to be caught? And in a related question, did the perpetrators of the Columbine High School and Virginia Tech massacres plan to commit suicide from the start or did they do it out of remorse or convenience? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure how many have given interviews, but one could write them and ask.... μηδείς (talk) 03:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

They could've kept diaries or documents where they said what they plan to do. --Jethro B 03:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, several have left web pages and such, which announced their intention to commit suicide after their killing spree. StuRat (talk) 04:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

And were their killing sprees becasue they hated life/depressed & thus the suicide, or was the suicide b/c they had no other option after the killing spree, other than being arrested? --Jethro B 06:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

For those who said they planned on committing suicide, I'd say most fall into the first category. After all, if they wanted to live, they would have planned a way to get away, as many murderers do. StuRat (talk) 06:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

You've basically got two cohorts, the in-cold-blood alienated children and loners who may have a manifesto, and the crime-of-passion adult who snaps due to a firing or a breakup or the like. I can't think of any instance among the latter group where a plan was found afterwards. μηδείς (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Quinzaine Coloniale, 10 novembre, page 667

What source is this book referring to? "Voir la Quinzaine Coloniale, 10 novembre, page 667"--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

La Quinzaine Coloniale is a periodical (ISSN: 11491833) published from 1897 to 1923 every two weeks by L'Union Coloniale Française. Some volumes are availables on the site of the BNF (Bibliothèque Nationale de France) here. Are you looking for this page (10 November 1902, page 667)? — AldoSyrt (talk) 12:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Survey revealed men have "a bit too much" sex

I'm looking for a very specific scientific article about this survey where a researcher found out based on his calculations that the men in a (tribe?) village are having proportionally a lot of sex per day. In reality the men of the village didn't know the guy was a researcher and so instead of giving accurate information they exaggerated their sexual activity. I can't remember the country, the name of the researcher or any dates, but I do know it's often cited as an example of a survey gone wrong. Can anyone fill me in with the details? --109.246.247.215 (talk) 08:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

While I didn't find details of this particular example, I would note the accuracy of what participants tell reseachers is usually a concern in any research which relies on such things and particularly so in cases involving intimate stuff like sexual activity. See [20] for example. Nil Einne (talk) 13:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

This question reminded me of Margaret Mead, who was accused by some of having been duped by some Samoan local's "jokes" into believing something different from the truth. But that wouldn't fit the OP's description of "his calculations". HiLo48 (talk) 16:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Margaret Mead focused on the lives of teenage girls in Samoa anyway... AnonMoos (talk) 02:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Note also somewhat reenforcing my earlier point, as highlighted in our articles covering the controversy, there's question of who was actually duped. Some suggest it was those who claimed to have found that the people she interviewed lied were in fact generally the ones duped. Nil Einne (talk) 06:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

In some past decades I was intermittently keeping track of the Derek Freeman controversy, and it seemed then that Freeman was fairly viciously anti-Mead, but hadn't been able to do much more than establish that by focusing on teenage girls, Mead had a somewhat narrow view of Samoan society as a whole (which is no great surprise -- though on the other hand, in anthropology before the 1970s, anthropologists were rarely considered to have a narrow view of a society when they talked almost exclusively with high-ranking adult males...). To judge from the Derek Freeman article, little has changed since then. AnonMoos (talk) 13:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Is there a point in the Ocean which is the most remote place of all Oceans?

Thank you. Iowafromiowa (talk) 11:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes - Point Nemo, or the oceanic pole of inaccessibility.

I believe it's possible to prove that on a finite globe with bounded coastlines, such a place must exist. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Theoretically, if there were only two circular land masses on exactly opposite sides of the world, then there would be a ring of inaccessibility, not a point. You can also imagine scenarios with multiple points. StuRat (talk) 16:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

As far as human settlement goes, Edinburgh of the Seven Seas is apparently the most remote. 192.51.44.16 (talk) 01:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Why do the Brits call soccer football?

Thank you. Iowafromiowa (talk) 11:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

A better question would be why American football is called "football" - the name implies a game primarily played with the feet. You'll find more at Names_for_association_football. --Dweller (talk) 12:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's the short short version:

• At first, there was just football, but there were hundreds of different varieties, whereby every village and town in the UK and US played different sports called football. The only commonality was that there was a ball that had to enter a goal area, and the game was played on foot (this was to distinguish it from games of similar rules played on horseback (c.f Polo). They all had a wide variation in rules. Some only allowed the ball to be kicked. Some allowed the use of hand, some not, some allowed the ball to be caught, some not, some allowed running, some not, some allowed throwing, some not, etc. etc. The first 1869 Princeton-Rutgers game was played under these conditions: the two teams used the set of rules played under Rutgers rules. A later game played at Princeton used their rules. Dartmouth had a game called Old division football. Over time, by the late 1800's, two distinct "codes" of football began to form: Association football, which did not allow the use of hands, and Rugby football, which did. This happened in the U.K. and Canada before it happened in the U.S. During the first few decades of organized football in the U.S. no uniform set of rules developed until the 1874 game between McGill and Harvard. Many of the other Northeastern American schools had settled on a code of football similar to soccer, but Harvard played a local game called the "Boston Game" that allowed players to handle the ball with their hands. Since the other schools didn't, Harvard had a hard time scheduling games against American teams, so they worked out a game against McGill University, a school from Montreal. Being Canadian, they had already adopted Rugby as their uniform code, so they taught the game to Harvard. Harvard fell in love with Rugby, and taught it to Yale. After working out some tweaks to the Rugby game (called the "Concessionary rules") Yale and Harvard would spread the Rugby-style game to other American schools. Over time, an annual rules convention in Springfield, Massachusetts developed to tweak the rules each year. These conventions (which eventually grew into the NCAA) would become dominated by Walter Camp who introduced a series of rules changes which changed the game from essentially Rugby football to a different sport entirely. The last major rule change to create American football was the 1905 change which allowed the forward pass. Canada, independent of the U.S., developed their own form of football which eventually adopted some similar rules.

So, there you go. American football and Canadian football both descend from rugby football, which was one of the two codes of football to become standardized in the nineteenth century. That's why they're all called football. --Jayron32 12:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Rugby football has a fair amount of kicking in it, but also a lot of non-forward passing. American football likewise used to have more kicking in it, but the forward pass diminished the need for the kick as a game strategy. You still occasionally see a quick punt on situations other than 4th down, known as a "pooch punt". There's still plenty of kicking in American football, just not as much as there once was. And it's worth pointing out that the all-time scoring leaders in American football tend to be... quess what... kickers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but to be fair, kicking is not considered as vital a part of the game as other parts. Kickers are usually considered fairly interchangeable, and undervalued by those inside of football and those that cover the sport in the media and serious history. The Pro Football Hall of Fame has four players who played kicker for a significant portion of their career, but two played significant time at other positions (QB-K George Blanda and RB-K Paul Hornung) and were not cited specifically as kickers. Of the other two, only Jan Stenerud played kicker exclusively (Lou "the Toe" Groza also played at offensive tackle). There isn't a single punter in the pro football hall of fame, though several lists of "Who's not in the HOF but absolutely should be" have Ray Guy at the top of such a list. Kicking is an important part of American Football, but it isn't clear that kickers are. --Jayron32 01:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

"Football" is one of those words, like "corn", which is applied to the most common variety in a particular location. Where wheat is the most common grain, "corn" is wheat. Similarly for barley, oats, maize etc. Where soccer is the most popular game, people call it "football", and call other football games by other names. Similarly for American football, the various versions of rugby, Gaelic football, Australian rules football, and so on. The question realy ought to be, why do so many Americans seem think that what they call "corn" and "football" are the only things those words can mean? --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Getting off-topic here, but the bit about corn is wrong. Americans don't call corn "corn" because it's the "most common grain". For all I know it may well be the grain that we grow the most of, by total tonnage, but we grow plenty of wheat as well, and if you ask an American to think of a grain, I would expect him to think of wheat, or maybe even rice, before corn. In American English, the word "corn" simply means what you call "maize". (The word "maize" here is usually understood to refer to "Indian corn" — brightly-colored hard-kernel corn used as a decoration around Thanksgiving.) --Trovatore (talk) 01:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

What we call "corn" was originally called "Indian corn", to distinguish it from other types of corn (maybe you've heard the term "barleycorn", for example). As "Indian corn" came to be commonly called just "corn" in America, the term "Indian corn" narrowed to the decorative corn you're referring to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's history worth pointing out. I'm aware that corn in UK usage means, basically, "grain". But I think that's as specific as it gets. What Nicknack009 is missing is that that's not what it means in the States. In the UK, unless I'm mistaken, even if wheat is the most important local grain, corn still means "grain" and not specifically "wheat". (Here's a test: Potato bread, oat bread, then normal bread is ---- bread? I'm pretty sure the answer in the UK is not cornbread.)

In the US, on the other hand, corn means one thing specifically, not grain in general. This is a qualitative difference, and Nicknack009 is mistaken in his claim that the US usage is just an instance of a general pattern. --Trovatore (talk) 09:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The real question is why do so many non-Americans seem to think that Americans don't know that words mean different things in different places. --Jayron32 13:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Because of questions like the OP, and a 'World Series' in which a tiny fraction of the world competes? AlexTiefling (talk) 14:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the real question is why all these non-Americans seem to think they're right. We invented this language! U-S-A! U-S-A! — Lomn 14:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

_{What do you call an elevator with a group of intelligent, softly-spoken people inside? A lift.} Ankh.Morpork 14:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Since fewer than three in 10 think it important to know the locations of countries in the news and half don't know where India is?[21] Ankh.Morpork 14:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Show me the equivalent version of that question for your country of preference. Can we quit all being so brilliantly baited by such obvious troll questions? Shadowjams (talk) 05:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

For some REAL football, see the Royal Shrovetide Football which seems to have been played in the town of Ashbourne since 1667. Here's an exciting moment from last year's game. Alansplodge (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not just the Brits. It's a lot of Europe and even Asian countries. --Jethro B 16:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention most of the countries on the American continent and Africa, all using their own native equivalent of "football". So it is basically most of the world. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

However, the question was about the use of the word "football", hence the Anglo-centric nature of the discussion. Alansplodge (talk) 21:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The article Names for association football highlights the fact that what Americans call soccer has many names around the world. In Australia, there are four different professional games called football by at least some of their fans - Australian Football, Rugby League, Rugby Union and Soccer. (They're in alphabetical order, in case anyone wants to take offence!) American Football and Gaelic Football are played at an amateur level. The fight by some Soccer fans to demand that their game be only called football is a very aggressive one. Those with a lot of time on their hands may be amused by Talk:Soccer in Australia#Requested move. Not one of the nicest nor rational debates ever on Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 16:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Why is the national team called "Socceroos" instead of "Footieroos" then? -- AnonMoos (talk) 02:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

As our article mentions until 2005 the organisation responsible was known as Soccer Australia or Australian Soccer Association. In 2005 it renamed itself to Football Federation Australia in line with general international usage of the word football. So the nickname arose at the time when the organisation itself used the word soccer, hence isn't particularly surprising. Changing it now is unlikely (plus to be blunt anything you can come up with foot and roo in it is likely to sound dumber then socceroos). Nil Einne (talk) 05:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The name chosen for the national league operated by Football Federation Australia, the A League, avoids the issue of the name of the sport completely. HiLo48 (talk) 01:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Presidential children and Proms

Did Susan Ford (who I think had her prom at the White House) or Caroline Kennedy wear dresses or female tuxedeos to their Proms. It was the mid-1970s, the height of Womens Liberation, so I'm just curious. Paul Austin (talk) 14:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

A simple search for 'Susan Ford prom' finds [22] which mentions her being in a jersey-gown. A simple image search for the same terms finds plenty of images like [23] showing her in her prom dress. Caroline Kennedy's prom presuming she had and attended one must have been a long time after her father's death given her age so I suspect was a more private affair (and searches aren't helped by various references to other stuff) Nil Einne (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I doubt Caroline Kennedy would have worn a "female tuxedo". For one thing, the "female tuxedo" - known more accurately as Le Smoking - was ten years out of style by that time. For another, Kennedy attended Concord Academy, a very old-fashioned school, and it seems vanishingly unlikely bordering on unimaginable that school authorities would have allowed a girl to wear a suit like that. (Yes, "allowed" - schools had draconian dress codes back then.) Looking at the dates, by the way, it's very possible that she didn't even attend her school prom, as her stepfather died in March of that year. --NellieBly (talk) 05:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Accelerated depreciation disincentive

From page 5 of [24] I have questions about this:

"Corporations complain that the corporate income tax discourages investment, but with interest deductible and with accelerated depreciation (relative to what economists call “true economic depreciation”¹¹) it may be that the tax system actually is biased the other way.¹²"

The corresponding footnotes are:

"11. True economic depreciation would allow firms only to deduct the reduced value of the asset that results from usage, obsolescence and aging.

"12. That is, the cost of borrowing is reduced in the same proportion that returns are reduced."

My question is, can someone find a good source (preferably peer reviewed, secondary, or both) which elaborates this point about deductible interest and accelerated deduction? I can find many sources, but they aren't very scholarly. Thanks for any and all help with this. 64.134.60.65 (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Biblical Inerrancy

How many people in the world believe that the Bible is inerrant or written without error? 140.254.226.217 (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

What type of errors do you mean? Are you referring to grammatical errors/cantillation errors as a result of passing on throughout the years, or errors since the inception? --Jethro B 19:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

A huge issue is if you take the Bible literally or figuratively. So, when it says the universe was created pretty much in it's current state in one week, does this literally mean seven 24-hour periods ? If so, this conflicts with just about every branch of science, so not many believe in that. However, if you take it figuratively, where a "day" can be billions of years, far more believe in that. StuRat (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

If you want to include fictional characters, we have Ned Flanders: "I literally believe in every bit of the Bible, even the parts that conflict with the other parts." :-) StuRat (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

All inconsistencies in holy scripture are only apparent. Explaining them away is intellectual entertainment for reasonably sophisticated believers. Unfortunately, these are increasingly rarer nowadays. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Well in Judaism, these "inconsistencies" are determined to be consistent as analyzed in the Talmud and lengthy debates, but that's not relevant to Christianity or Islam (which are far more than 1% of the world's population). --Jethro B 20:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Expanding on the distinction StuRat lays out, there's also "inerrant theology", which says little about the story aspect of the text. Specifically, in addition to "literal 7 day creation" and "figurative 'days' are 'billions' creation", there's also the "the point is, God saw that people were 'very good' creation". The literal interpretation is probably the easiest to define, but I'd be wary of assuming that arbitrary sources (like the one below) mean 'literal' when they say 'inerrant'. — Lomn 21:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

From [25], about 31% of US Americans. Don't know about other countries, but you can leave out the 2/3 of the world that are not Christian, and America is of course quite religious. I got this from googling, btw. IBE (talk) 19:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

That's hardly fair to the 1/6 of the world that's Muslim that believes in its literally inerrant scripture--far outnumbering such Christians. μηδείς (talk) 23:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Do we know that all nominal Muslims so believe? —Tamfang (talk) 00:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

We can't make windows into men's souls, but we do know that the central message of Mohammed was that the prior books had become corrupted, and that he was personally given the literal word of Allah to correct the situation. There is certainly no waffling on that from the major sects like the Sunni and the Shia, and it's the reason for the uproar over The Satanic Verses. Catholicism, on the other hand is far from literalist, and literalism is a minority stance among Protestants, but it's growing. μηδείς (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think one needs to be a literalist to find the idea offensive that your prophet got revelation from the devil and couldn't tell it apart from divine revelation. (though of course you are correct about the mainstream view of scripture in Islam) - Lindert (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

(after ec) The original question was about the Bible, though. Mainstream Islamic belief is that the Hebrew scriptures and the New Testament have become corrupted over time, and do not represent the inerrant word of God. As to exactly how literally to take the Qu'ran - well, there's a diversity of opinion about that, too, although I agree that it tends more to the literalist end than the vast majority of Christians' or Jews' views of the Bible. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

But see Theistic evolution, the reconciling of evolution with Christianity. The leadership of the Roman Catholic Church do not subscribe to creationism. See Catholic Church and evolution. ""In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith... Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis." John Paul II, 1996. For Anglicans, the Archbishop of Canterbury recently said that ""creationism is, in a sense, a kind of category mistake..." (he likes to talk in riddles, but I think he's against it). In the UK, a recent poll showed that 17% of the population believed in "Young Earth Creationism" which I think is surprisingly high. I've only ever met one adult who believed this - the rest probably keep quiet about it. Alansplodge (talk) 21:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that the survey results would greatly depend on how you pose the Q: "Do you literally believe everything in the Bible is true ?" ... "Sure !" ... "So, then you believe the universe was literally created in 7 days ?" ... "Heck no !". Thus, for many, their belief in Biblical inerrancy depends on their Biblical illiteracy. StuRat (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Six days, heathen! —Tamfang (talk) 00:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

StuRat -- the many who have held to the "day-age theory" didn't think they were denying the truth of the Bible at all. AnonMoos (talk) 02:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

So far this discussion has concentrated on Old Testament stories, but the Jesus bits require a bit of faith too. Apart from the basic stuff of Son of God and the resurrection, there's the loaves and fishes, walking on water, and healing the sick, etc. Mostly impossible from a scientific perspective, so belief in inerrancy would require some faith. HiLo48 (talk) 22:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, faith is a fundamental requirement of Christianity, or indeed, any faith. That's why they're called "faiths" as well as religions etc. There's no point adhering to a religion if every single thing they teach is scientifically provable; if that were the case, it would just be some branch of history or science or anthropology. The very nature of these organisations puts them outside any of those mainstream disciplines. That in itself is theoretically OK, because people are not technically compelled to believe or follow a single thing they teach. There have been some rather notable exceptions to this theory, which has made for extremely muddy waters. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Religion would not be religion, if it is scientifically provable. Science is good, but there may be something more out there - something unquantifiable or immeasurable - that belongs in the realm of philosophical discussion or religious inquiry. Since religion caters to subjectivity, emotions, and experience, I am quite sure that they are not provable by science at all. We may study emotion, experience, and subjectivity, but we may also seek to value them as they have their own intrinsic worth. 140.254.226.198 (talk) 15:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Within Anglicanism, there is a strand of liberal theology that suggests that literal belief in the all of the New Testament is not a requirement of Christianity. Its most famous proponent. Dr David Jenkins, formally the Bishop of Durham is quoted as saying; "To believe in a Christian way, you don't necessarily have to have a belief that Jesus was born from literally a virgin mother, nor a precise belief that the risen Jesus had a literally physical body,"[26] Of course, to many Christians, even Anglican ones, this is an anathema. Alansplodge (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

At the other extreme, there are millions of people who never give the scriptural nuts and bolts of Christianity any thought at all, but still consider themselves to be Christians because, to them, being a Christian means always being kind and courteous and decent and polite and "nice" and never swearing and never speaking out of turn and always paying your bills on time and never speeding. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I know someone who routinely speeds, and STILL consider himself a Christian! HiLo48 (talk) 21:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

In the letter to the Romans, Paul begins with a discussion of the state of humanity before the possibility of salvation through faith in Jesus. So, I suppose the "salvation by faith alone in Jesus and not by works to achieve salvation" thing is scriptural, and through that faith (which includes repenting old sinful ways) brings good works such as the neat stuff you mention. Sort of. 164.107.182.63 (talk) 21:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

North Korean official executed by mortar

Is Kim Il-ch'ŏl the same Kim Chol who was destroyed in spectacular fashion for not properly mourning the late Kim Jong-il? If so, he was pretty old. 205.156.136.229 (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. Kim Il-ch'ŏl's article says he was retired from all offices in 2010. On the other hand, he was born in 1928, 1933 and 1941 (until I found a reliable source), so who knows? Black is white, and up is down in that country. Difficult to say. An article says the executed man was a "vice minister of the army", while Kim Il-ch'ŏl, while "first deputy chief of the People’s Armed Forces Ministry", was later made head of the ministry, so you'd think he'd be described differently. However, Kim Il-ch'ŏl had previously displayed a drinking problem in public in 2000.[27] Clarityfiend (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm reverting to my previous opinion. According to the Chosun Ilbo, Kim Chol was vice minister at the time of the alleged offense, and Kim Il-ch'ŏl was retired in 2010. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

There is also Kim Chol-man who's even older but from the sound of it also retired [28] Nil Einne (talk) 05:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

You probably know this already, but our Kim (Korean name) article says that 21.6% of Korean people have the surname Kim, Gim or Ghim. Alansplodge (talk) 19:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Is Shinto animist or polytheist?

--168.7.230.21 (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

An examination of the animism and polytheism articles suggests that can be considered to be both. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

It's generally considered animist, although there may be people who consider animism to be polytheist. --Jethro B 21:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

In essence it`s animist, but there are a couple of more or less well defined deities as well so it has some polytheist tinge to it. 164.71.1.221 (talk) 02:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Voter turnout based on polls

Has there been any research on how polls affect voter turnout? I'd think that if a likely voter hears that his party is way ahead, then it decreases the likelihood that he'll bother to vote. I'm interested in any data that demonstrates this, or refutes it. (I'm aware of the time zone problem the US had in the 1984 election and earlier with regard to exit polling, and I don't care about that for the purposes of this question.) Thank you! Tarcil (talk) 23:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean polls on the day itself, or just a feeling ahead of time about how comfortable the result is likely to be? If you're excluding 1984, etc, I assume you mean the latter, so let's have a look at the voluminous literature on how perceptions of closeness affect turnout.

In support, Geys (2006) presents some evidence of a link, although it's not clear that he controlled for enough variables in his study. Likewise, one of the big things thought to indicate this effect is that PR systems (which have no "safe seats") seem to have higher turnout than majoritarian systems that do though it is not clear why (Blais 2008; Blais and Dobrynzynska 1998). On the other hand, it turns out to be really hard to pin this down. For example, in the 1997 British Electoral Survey, we see that seats with a 0-10%, 10-20% and 20-30% margin of victory all had similar levels of turnout, mostly because Conservative voters in the UK seem to turn out regardless of how safe a Conservative seat it is they're voting in (there's a better correlation among Labour voters). My lecturer adds that the "relationship between district marginality and turnout is even weaker in the US and Canada" though he doesn't provide a citation for that.

One might ask: if the closeness of the election does not affect turnout, why do we see higher turnout in the elections presumed to be close like the 2010 British General Election? The answer is probably because voters perceive greater difference between the parties in these close-run elections and/or become better informed about those differences, both of which have been statistically linked with higher turnout (see BES 1997 for example). You might argue that the publication of polls showing a close result contributes to those two effects and thereby boosts turnout. Anyway, I hope that gives you some pointers about the variables involved here, if I did indeed interpret your question correctly. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 00:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Great answer and thank you! Tarcil (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

A poll released shortly ahead of the European Parliament election, 2004 (Sweden) gave the June List slightly above four-percent threshold for the first time in a national poll. In the election they won almost 14.5% of the vote. In this case the tripling between the poll and the subsequent election was presumably a consequence of people adjusting their behaviour based on the poll. Gabbe (talk) 07:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be just as likely that it's an inaccurate poll? There is a lot of noise in polling. Tarcil (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

October 30

When did the US and the UK become allies?

Comploose (talk) 00:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

See United Kingdom–United States relations. A common interpretation is that they were neutral from 1815 to the 1880s, and became "allies" sometime between then and the First World War (depending on your definition of allies). HTH, - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 00:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

According to chapter 5 of The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers by Paul Kennedy, the U.K. offered several concessions to the U.S. ca. the early 1900s (on the Alaska boundary dispute, fisheries and the Panama Canal) as part of a general policy of reducing colonial frictions to allow for greater diplomatic freedom of action in Europe. The U.S. and U.K. weren't militarily allied until 1917... AnonMoos (talk) 01:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Note that after World War I, although there were close economic ties, the US was careful to keep itself aloof from any military alliances. The US didn't join the League of Nations, which was dominated by Britain and France. US military planners even had plans for war with Britain, see War Plan Red. Although Britain and France were favoured over the Axis at the start of World War II, they still made us pay top dollar for the arms they were sending us (I believe that we had to pay up front in gold bullion). See British Purchasing Commission. Later on there was Lend Lease and help with convoy escorts, but the US didn't enter the war against Germany until Hitler declared war. Alansplodge (talk) 10:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Well that's being a bit technical. Franklin Roosevelt had a bit of a problem with the U.S. Congress (and public too) at the time, but Pearl Harbor changed everything. Although it made the case for war in Europe much stronger when Hitler, somewhat inexplicably, declared war on the U.S. after it declared war on Japan. But don't mistake American isolationism post-WWI for hostility towards Britain. Lend Lease can hardly be seen as anything except the U.S. helping the Allied powers. Nevermind the next ~6 years. Shadowjams (talk) 05:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Also note that the US opposed the UK (and France and Israel) during the Suez Crisis. StuRat (talk) 02:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the definition of "ally" is not "blindly endorses everything the other does". The U.S. - U.K. alliance does not preclude them disagreeing on major issues. --Jayron32 05:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec)The U.S. opposes All three of those countries quite often on lots of things. That's hardly here-nor-there when answering that question. But maybe the better question is when's the last time the U.S. and Britain have directly been in conflict, and/or indirectly (diplomatic maneuvering hardly qualifies). Yes, what jayron says exactly. Shadowjams (talk) 05:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the last time that the U.K. and U.S. fought a pitched battle was the Battle of New Orleans, though Britain did economically support the South in the Civil War, see Cotton diplomacy, and Union blockade which notes the unofficial support of the South by the British in defiance of the embargo. There were probably some naval skirmishes between privately-manned British ships and Union ships during the Civil war. --Jayron32 05:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Britain hasn't fought Russia since the Crimean War, but it doesn't mean that we're allies. Alansplodge (talk) 10:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Two questions about the Japanese military

1. Does the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force use metric or imperial units for navigation?

2. In WWII, do IJN pilots carry swords during sorties? A8875 (talk) 00:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

For Q.1, I presume they follow the standards here. Otherwise, Japan appears to be metrified. Mingmingla (talk) 00:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Then what about outside of navigation? For short distances would they use yards or meters? A8875 (talk) 01:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

They would use metres, as yards are a completely alien concept and they would have no reason to adopt British measuring systems. They currently use the metric system. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 07:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for that? A8875 (talk) 10:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

1957 KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

See Japanese units of measurement; "From 1924, the shakkanhō system was replaced by the metric system..." So it seems that they went straight from their own indigenous measures (of Chinese origin), to the metric system, without ever using Imperial or US measures. However, the International Nautical mile of 1,852 metres was adopted as an international standard in 1929, so I imagine that the Japanese naval forces navigate in nautical miles and metres. I can't find a direct reference for that at the moment. Alansplodge (talk) 13:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, you two, but I'm asking about the JMSDF in particular. I am well aware that Japan is metricized but that has little to no bearing on what a specialized field use in specialized situations; consider how altitude is still measured in feet in most metricized countries. I'm looking for references specific to the JMSDF.A8875 (talk) 13:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Why would altitude 'still be measured in feet' in a country which has never used feet as a measuring system? It's measured in metres. The Japanese Wikipedia page on Mt. Fuji gives the height of the mountain in metres. This is what we are trying to tell you. Japan is completely metricised, apart from measuring rooms in apartments by tsubo. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

KageTora, there's a bit of confusion between height and altitude. In aviation altitude is given in feet, see flight level. So Mt. Fuji would be in metres but Haneda Airport is at an elevation of 21ft. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Seems like the JSDF is exempt from the metrication laws[29][30]. In practice seems like most naval and aviation equipment uses US customary units[31]. Your contributions, however erroneous, are much appropriated, but please try to provide references next time. A8875 (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

However, our article, International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea says; "In 1975 the assembly of the International Maritime Organization decided that the 1974 convention should in future use SI units only." Although warships are specifically exempted from these regulations, they would have to follow them when communicating with civilian vessels. This wouldn't rule out the use of nautical miles or knots, as these have been approved for use with the SI system. The links supporting the use of US Customary units quoted by A8875 above, appear to refer to the maintenance and calibration of US made equipment, rather than navigational use, which was the original question (I only found a machine translation of the third link, which talks about the size of American built helicopter rotors among other things). Please correct me if I've got the wrong end of the stick. Alansplodge (talk) 17:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Japanese Naval Aviation Uniforms and Equipment 1937-45 (p. 56) says, "The only known exceptions to naval fighter pilots carrying a sword in their aircraft during flight would have been between late October 1944 and the end of the war, if a pilot were assigned to a kamikaze suicide attack mission." According to The Feel of Steel, "... in World War II, Japanese kamikaze pilots took their samurai swords into their cockpits in order to go to their deaths with honour." Clarityfiend (talk) 04:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Aren't those two statements mutually contradictory? Unless "exceptions" is being used in an unusual sense? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The first statement could be interpreted to mean they were only allowed to kamikazes. It sounds a bit odd to say that only kamikazes couldn't take swords. Unfortunately, my preview doesn't show the previous page, which might have cleared things up. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I found a view of the previous page (55) which says; "Army officer pilots sometimes carried swords into their aircraft, as a symbol of authority... Navy pilots on the other hand, did not follow this tradition, and thus did not carry their swords in their aircraft for two specific reasons." (My summary:) 1) Not enough space in the cockpit of naval aircraft 2) The large piece of steel might affect the compass. Alansplodge (talk) 13:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Support for Romney's healthcare plan

Can someone provide references that show thinktanks, organizations, fact-checkers, etc, that support elements (or all) of Romney's healthcare plan?

Thanks. --Jethro B 01:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you want Republican party backed thinktanks, organizations, etc. or Democratic party backed thinktanks, organizations, etc.? --Jayron32 01:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd prefer neutral organizations, but as long as it's reputable, I'm fine with that. --Jethro B 19:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean the plan he passed as Massachusetts governor, or his current positions on federal government involvement in healthcare (which don't seem to add up to much of a coherent "plan")? -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm referring to the policies he wants to implement as president, if he's elected. --Jethro B 19:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

If you ever find any specifics, the rest of the country would like to know as well. He's been very vague on how he plans to accomplish any of his goals (repeal the parts of Obamacare he doesn't like, "fix" Medicare, remove the deficit, lower taxes, etc.). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I know, and that's why I turned here. But he's made claims like Obamacare removes $716 billion from Medicare and he'd put the $716 billion back in. So if there's some group that says "Our factcheck backs this up" or "our research backs this up," I'd be interested in that. That's just an example. I understand how tough this can be, normally I'd just google it myself but most of it seems to be negative (and I need positive in order to play devil's advocate). --Jethro B 22:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Funny thing how Paul Ryan had the same $716 billion maneuver in his proposed budget, but that didn't keep Romney from choosing him as VP candidate. Maybe Romney should run anti-Ryan ads... AnonMoos (talk) 01:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Undent. Kaiser is a reputable source on most things healthcare, but for our daily consumption Politifact gave Romney's $716 billion a "Mostly false". Politifact also told me Romney has said his plan would 'look most like' his VP's. It has a few points only, such as Medicare for younger-than-55s. Politifact ruled it untrue that, as advertised, most of those individuals would enjoy as good healthcare as members of Congress. Politifact ruled it true that the expenses would go up on average (I believe double), citing Kaiser which who said it was "because private plans have higher administrative costs and typically pay higher fees to providers than Medicare." 83.108.141.146 (talk) 01:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, but my question asked for support, not opposition. --Jethro B 03:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Winner-Take-All - Part 2

I obviously spawned a lively discussion which was good by the way. I learned a lot which is what intended. But I am still curious about the second part of my question I asked above. What is the history of this winner-take-all policy enacted by most states? Has it been enacted since the beginning of the electoral college (seems unlikely to me but you never know)? Did it happen later? When did it happen? Did all of the states adopt it simultaneously or was it slowly one by one by one?70.58.0.141 (talk) 05:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

See Electoral vote changes between United States presidential elections and in particular the footnotes of the tables for info on states not giving all their electoral votes to one candidate, all the way back to 1816. These footnotes give the impression that splitting a state's electoral votes was the exception rather than the rule even back then. Duoduoduo (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Postponing elections?

Given the damage being wrought by Hurricane Sandy in the USA at the moment, does provision exist for the Presidential election to be postponed to help with the clear-up? --TammyMoet (talk) 10:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, but how would postponing it help with the clear-up? --Viennese Waltz 10:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Postponing because many New Yorkers won't be able to vote next Tuesday might be more meaningful, specially for Obama, since these are millions of Democratic votes. OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Voters from both sides will be equally inconvenienced by the storm. I don't see how it could disproportionally affect Democrats. Whether Obama wins NY by 1 vote or 1 million votes doesn't matter, since it's still 29 electors in the end. A8875 (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

They won't necessarily be equally inconvenienced. Generally there's a big urban/rural split in party affiliation, and in New York, urban/rural follows the Upstate New York/NYC split. Note the location of red versus blue in File:New York Presidential Election Results by County, 2008a.svg. Upstate, being further from the coast, (as well as things like generally less reliant on subway travel, etc.) will be less inconvenienced by the storm than city dwellers. Will that make enough of a difference to tip the results? Who knows, but probably not, as New York state polls solidly Obama, and even a moderate inconvenience to Democrats is unlikely to change that. - I'll also link the well-followed FiveThirtyEight blog on this topic [32] [33]-- 20:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.124.30 (talk)

Unsurprisingly, this is a much discussed topic. A simple search for something like 'us postpone election sandy' will find plenty of results (some are indirect links) like [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39]. From those results, some states have existing provisions for postponing their elections, others would need new legislation. However the date for presidential elections are set by the US Congress to the Tuesday after the first Monday of November. Theoretically Congress could legislate for a new date but there isn't any real existing provision for postponement, in fact Congress has previously passed a resolution against postponing elections in the event of a terrorist attack. Note if the election dates are postponed this doesn't change the date when electors have to meet meaning you'll get less time for possible recounts etc. The general consensus is a postponement is unlikely although some measures like extended voting hours may be used. Funnily enough as per previous discussions there has been a big push for early voting, it seems that Sandy may be another push for future elections at the very least. Nil Einne (talk) 12:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

It's basically a case of "too bad". How elections are run is a state-by-state affair. You can bet there will be no support in congress for making any changes or allowances. New York may hold off on certifying its results for about a month as did Florida in 2000, but the votes have to be cast by election day. As said above, all voters of every party affiliation are equally inconvenienced in a district. And there is the time honored solution of cheating. μηδείς (talk) 16:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

"all voters of every party affiliation are equally inconvenienced in a district"- that's not true at all. Transportation and power are the issues. People with their own transportation and power generators (i.e. rich people) are much less inconvenienced. Poor people are more inconvenienced, and this affects one party more than the other. Staecker (talk) 17:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

See also [40] , which in particular says

Federal law says that if a state fails to conduct an election for federal races on the day Congress chooses, the state legislature can pick a later date. But state and federal laws don't always jive perfectly. Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell has said his state's laws don't grant him authority to reschedule the presidential election.

and

changing the date would wreak havoc for state and local elections also scheduled for Nov. 6. States might have to hold two separate days of voting, which could bust state budgets. Duoduoduo (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

can the same person be chairman and president with a different ceo?

can the same person be chairman and president with a different ceo? Meaning, that this person actually operationally runs the show, answering to the CEO.

But the CEO, quarterly or once a year, actually answers to this person. Can this be done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.120.48.242 (talk) 11:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely The chief executive officer and chairman of the board and company president (often "chief operating officer") are separate positions within the usual corporate governance structure, though in many companies they are held by the same person. The board of directors is technically the group elected by the shareholders of the company to run the company in their interest, while the so-called "C-suite" (CEO, COO/President, CAO, CIO, etc.) is the group hired by the board of directors to actually manage the day-to-day operations of the company. So it works like this: The shareholders elect a board of directors, who hire the CEO and President and other C-level executives, and THOSE people then handle the operation of the company. There's nothing to prevent the board from hiring themselves into the management positions of a company (and many do so), but there's also usually nothing requiring it. Indeed, this is one of the difference between American-style corporate governance and that found in other parts of the world: In America, there is often considerable overlap between the board of directors and the C-level management of a company, in other places there are two distinct groups of people with non-overlapping membership: the supervisory board (which represents the shareholders) has a distinct membership from the executive board (which manages the operations of the company). In the U.S. it is usual (though not universal) that the same people serve both roles (The same person is both CEO and Chairman and sometimes President/COO as well). But they don't have to be. --Jayron32 11:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I missed it, but I don't think that really answers the OP's question: The question presumes the rank ordering chairperson (1) > CEO (2) > president (3), and asks whether positions 1 and 3 can be held by one person (A) while position 2 is held by another person (B), so that B reports to A (CEO reports to chairperson) and yet A reports to B (president reports to CEO). Duoduoduo (talk) 17:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The current Chairman and CEO of Coca-Cola, Muhtar Kent previously served as Chairman and President simultaneously, with a different CEO. So for at least a time, Coca Cola had the "1 and 3" positions held by the same person, with the "2" being a different person. See [41]. I have no idea what this meant for the practical aspect of corporate governance, but it has happened. --Jayron32 20:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Questions about Ted Bundy

Is it true that he was a psychologist? and my second question is whether or not would it be possible for another Ted Bundy to exist now with all the technology in the criminal field. Thank you. Iowafromiowa (talk) 13:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Marc Dutroux existed in the mid-1990s... -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Robert Pickton's case is even more recent. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The answer to your first question can be found from a careful reading of the early part of our Ted Bundy article; psychology was the only one of his several university courses he completed. He graduated in the subject from the University of Washington. But he never worked in the field - his work was as a political activist, and his continuing studies were in Law. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Journal Officiel des Établissement Français de l'Océanie

Where can I find "Journal Officiel des Établissement Français de l'Océanie" of August 30 to September 6, 1900? "Journal Officiel des Établissement Français de l'Océanie" of September 5, 1901? Besides this and this? Can somebody ask this question on the fr:Wikipédia:Oracle in French? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 13:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to ask a question in English at the Oracle. Just say hello first and apologize for not being able to post in French. Lots of regulars there speak English. --Xuxl (talk) 15:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Not easy to acess. For Journal Officiel des Établissement Français de l'Océanie of September 5, 1901, here is the link to the first page: http://www.archives.gov.pf/afficher_pdf.php?id_doc=/srv/www/htdocs/etatcivil/donnes/jopf//1901/JOPF_1901_page_00315.pdf, you have to change the URL for the next pages: JOPF_1901_page_00316.pdf, JOPF_1901_page_00317.pdf, etc. — AldoSyrt (talk) 18:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Better, try (and retry if necessary) this link http://www.archives.gov.pf/jopf_liste_repertoire.php?dir=%2Fsrv%2Fwww%2Fhtdocs%2Fetatcivil%2Fdonnes%2Fjopf%2F%2F1901&order=name&asc=a. — AldoSyrt (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunatly year 1900 is not archived on line on this site. — AldoSyrt (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow that is amazing! Thanks. I will look over them.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Where else could you find this? Is it in libraries in the US?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Austro-Hungarian newspapers

As a RefDesk regular, I feel a bit weird being the one to ask the question. However, my historical researches have led me to Austria-Hungary, and in particular to Mureck, in Styria. I am interested in tracking down online versions of any Styrian, Imperial Austrian or (post-1867) cis-Leithanian newspapers. At one stage Google Books offered me what seemed to be a large bound collection of the Grätzer Zeitung, but now I can't find them again. Searchable resources would be especially valuable. Can anyone help, please? Many thanks. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Here you can select Austrian newspapers online by name or by date, e.g. Klagenfurter Zeitung or 1-Jan-1867. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 23:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Work week in Hong Kong

Which of these two unsourced versions is correct? Paum89 (talk) 14:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The pre-revision version talks about when the typical person (not everyone) works, and about what is open on weekends. This coincides with the section on the US, which says The standard workweek in the United States begins on Monday and ends on Friday, 40 hours per week, with Saturday and Sunday being weekend days. Most stores are open for business on Saturday, and may be open a full or half-day on Sunday as well (except where prohibited by law, which is called the Blue law). In contrast, the new version retains some of this information, but muddies the issue by starting out with In Hong Kong, the working week begins on Monday and ends on Sunday even though presumably few people actually work all seven days. It also says Normally, the Chinese consider the week beginning with Monday and ending with Sunday, which is irrelevant in that it refers to the week and when it starts and ends, not the the workweek which is what the article is about. So I suggest you revert the edit, although you may want to retain the bits about telecomunications and manufacturing. Duoduoduo (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Structure of Petition

Does anybody know how the structure of this petition from rulers of Rimatara and Rurutu to the British government would have been like? It is all jumbled up in the sources: [42], [43], [44]

November 27, 1888: Petition from the King of Rurutu and the Queen of Rimatara and their nobles to Her Most Gracious Majesty Queen Victoria, and to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. May you have good health. We, Teuruarii, King of Rurutu and Te Maere, Queen of Rimatara and our nobles, ask for the Prime Minister to place our islands and our ships under the protection of the British flag. These are the islands, namely, Rurutu, Rimatara, and Marià, and there are the names of the ships: Faaito and Ronui, and the masters of the same are natives. This is our word to you: Do not forsake us; we are your children; you taught us the word of God, and that has led us in the path of civilisation; therefore we know that you are a good parent to us. The thoughts of the children cling fondly to their good parent; they do not wish to be separated from their good parent. If the parent forsake the children, the children will seek the parent; so do we; we are like those children, and we ask that you will give us your flag to protect us. We have heard that you have taken Rarotonga and the neighbouring islands under your protection, but we remain without anyone to protect us. When we received the news that Rarotonga and the neighbouring islands were placed under your protection, we wept aloud because we were forsaken by you; we were afraid lest we should be adopted by another paretn. The strange parent we mean is the French. They did not feed us with the milk of the gospel, but you did. O Great Britain; you fed us with that milk which has given life to us. This is our last word to you; we do no wish for French annexation or protection, not al all, but we wish you to be our parent, O Great Britain. We pray you now to accede to this our request. This letter was written in the house of Queen Pa. -TEURUARII, TE MAERE ARII.

It seems to be quoted in full in the first source you gave (and you seem to have posted the full petition here). It looks like it is already properly structured. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

A petition or any formal diplomatic paper does not look like. I am talking about structure not content. It is there a break after the date? After the title? Is there an indent in the body paragraph? Are the sentences broken into different paragraphs? Is the last part about Queen Pa's house aligned to the left like a letter or is there a break from the last part. Are the names at the end signature? All these question can't be answered by the sources because it is all jumbled up. Even with content each source differ a little on the wording, like one says "a Prime Minister" vs. "the Prime Minister", one uses neighbouring and the other use "neighboring", one uses a semicolon where the other a new sentence is used, etc.

signature.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Have you read many 19th-century British formal legal documents? I've seen a ca. 1830s apprenticeship indenture which was also not very well-endowed with paragraph breaks or sentence-internal punctuation. AnonMoos (talk) 06:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Where would the British government even keep the original or did they discard it?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 14:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried the National Archives? --TammyMoet (talk) 14:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Can't find anything searching for Rimatara or Ruturu?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

You may need to approach them directly for help. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I've done a bit of a search and it looks like they may be kept at the Institute of Historical Research, University of London. Try and contact them to see (a) whether they do indeed have this document, and if so, how to go about viewing it. I suspect it will have to be done in person. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Of Mice and Men lonliness

Can anyone give me 3 examples of lonliness in the novel "Of Mice and Men"? Exx8 (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see the If your question is homework requirement at the top of this page. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

No, it isn't. thank you.Exx8 (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Then why do you need to find three examples? And why can't you go find those yourself? - Lindert (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, ditto. Also, if it is homework, we can certainly guide you with references and suggestions and the like, we just can't answer the question. We are like a library ref. desk, which will certainly help you with your homework, it just won't do it for you. Show us you've attempted to answer the question, and we can give general advice (eg. clarify x/y/z) or offer reading suggestions (eg. Cliff's notes, although I'm sure someone can do better). IBE (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

It really isn't a long book. If you've read it, what's the problem with picking three situations in which people are lonely? AlexTiefling (talk) 17:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe that only George's and Lennie's position is isolated, so I would like to get some help without being attacked.

Exx8 (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

A quick search online for "loneliness in of mice and men" on google hits you with a first result of the BBCs Bitesize website. This page is their section of the bitesize website in relation to the book of Mice and Men http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/english_literature/prosemicemen/3prose_mice_men_themerev1.shtml ny156uk (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Russian law about computer crimes

Hi,
does anybody have the Russian law about comptuer crimes?
If you have the translation too, I'll be greatful.
Thank you. Exx8 (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• See Chapter 28 of the Criminal Code of Russia --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

CREATING A MEDIEVAL BARONY

I'm creating a barony for fiction and I could need some feedback. Both positive and negative feedback is welcome. I'm far from finished creating the barony, but here's what I have got so far.

It's the 1100's and a small barony 4000 acres/4x4 square km large consists of:

• 640 people, included the baron's family
• 40 men-at-arms (1/16 of the entire population)
• 2 villages in which the peasant-families live
• 1 church, a dairy, a tannery, a cartwright's workshop and a smithy in each of the 2 villages
• one of the villages have a watermill and a fresh-water river running through it, as well as a lumber-mill/sawmill which can use the river for transportation of timber. The other have a horsemill and a nearby quarry.
• the land is rich and arable, well-suited for agriculture, and it largely conists of fields and pastures. As such, the barony is hugely self-sufficient when it comes to covering their own need for food. Surplus food is a major source of income from the local market in the city.
• the barony lies at the coast, and have been granted permanent fishing rights in the rich coastal waters, providing even more food.
• the barony lies close to the nearest city, allowing them to frequently bring fresh, surplus wares (fish, grain and stone) into the city-market.
• it holds 1000 acres of forest for timber.
• Due to barony's smallness, hunting is limited. Hunting can be done in the nearby king's forest however, with a hunting licence.
• the barony have to import metal and cloth. It does produce some wool of its own from their sheep but linen and a very limited amount of silk must be imported.
• the hides from slaughtered cattle and other livestock animals is obviously sent to the tannery for making leather.

Do these numbers and facts seem realistic?? If anything seem out place or outright wrong/unlikely to you I would appreciate to read your opinions, which hopefully also comes with reasons for why you think the things you do. Do you see anything that needs altering? Then please say so :) F.ex. do you think a barony this size could hold either more or less people than the 320 people I have? Or do you think there are too many men-at-arms in such a small barony? I'd also appreciate any tips or ideas for things to add, even small things that I might not have thought of.

Krikkert7 (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I was going to refer you to a previous thread; Several questions about how things worked in a medieval barony, but I see that you wrote that question too! Alansplodge (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

So was I! For this list, 1/8 of the population seems like a lot for men-at-arms, but does that mean anyone capable of being conscripted? That is, all the people the local baron would call up to bring with him - all the teenage/adult men, anyway (no one too old or too infirm). In a population this small, the baron himself would probably be the only knight, who could afford armour and a horse and proper weapons and all that (or maybe one or two others in his family). I'm sure there are lots of academic works about small villages like this, especially in England, we'll have to see if we can find some. I know a list of villages in crusader Jerusalem that also says how many knights each village owed to the king, but that doesn't quite match what we're looking for here. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Economy of England in the Middle Ages Fifelfoo (talk) 21:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

"...does not have much forest, and thus it lacks hunting and access to timber." This is a bit of a problem, since woodland was a fundamental element of a medieval manor. A wood, managed as a coppice or sometimes pollard was an essential. You need; firewood (cooking and heating), charcoal (for the blacksmith's forge), fencing, building materiel (sticks for wattle and daub as well as large timber for joists and planks), wood for tool handles, furniture and crafts, acorns and beech mast to feed pigs. If you have to buy all this in, it not only costs you a lot of money but gives you a huge transport problem. You need to start planting trees now. Alansplodge (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Is this supposed to be in England? Looie496 (talk) 23:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

A permanent fighting unit of 40 men at arms? You might need that many if you're a robber baron, I suppose, but you'd need to be pulling in a lot of loot to justify the expense. Don't forget, your call-upon fighting force is most of your adult men (and some of what we'd consider adolescents these days, too). You could add a small castle to your list, and one of the villages (the larger one) would be nearby, with the main market, too. Given it's twelfth century, and I too assume you're talking about England, you could have one of those newfangled shell keeps sitting around your ageing motte. Checking out genuine entries in Domesday book, which doesn't precede this period by much, might help with other ideas. --Dweller (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

NB our article on Shell keep is appalling. This site is pretty reliable, although it looks awful. Click the numbered links near the top for more info. Sorry, I'm too knackered to look at it properly now myself - off to bed, methinks. --Dweller (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Why not obtain a copy of Ken Folloett's excellent and well-researched novel set in a 12th-century English village. Although it's a work of fiction you could get some ideas as to what a medieval barony comprised.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

You could check out Michael Wood's The Story of England , which traces the story by examining one village (Kibworth Beauchamp) from prehistoric times to today. The BBC TV series had at least 2 episodes on the medieval period and I suspect the book will cover it too. It also gives sources for you to follow. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. Metal, stone and timber are all expensive things to import, and as for the high amount of men-at-arms, I need the barony to have just that, many men-at-arms, and most, if not all need to be well-trained and well-equipped. I can also see the problem with having no timber of their own as Alansplodge says. The barony needs to be relatively small, but there is nothing in the way for me to double the size of the barony to 4000 acres (4x4 square km). 4000 acres is still relatively small I'd think. With double the size of the barony I could have twice as many inhabitants and thus the high number (40+) of men-at-arms would make more sense. With 4000 acres I would also be able to include, say 1000 acres of forest? I am however unclear on how much timber can be gained from 1000 acres of forest and how long it takes for a forest to regrow once cut down for timber. I've also been considering adding a quarry which would be another source of income. I need enough income to be able to equip my many men-at-arms. Horses, armour, weapons and maintenance are expensive. With double the size of the land I'd also like to have two churches, one in each village. I'd also like to have two dairies. And yes, the manor-house will be a mini-castle with walls up on a small height. I'd also need a large stable (or possibly more than one) for all the horses, for as I said, I need my men-at-arms to be well-equipped and have horses, at least most of them. And yes, a local market in the largest of the two villages is important to have. Of course :)

At the end of the day, the barony need not be rich, but obviously it needs to be in econimical balance, and to be able to defend itself. It is one of several baronies that lies on the border of the kingdom, with the enemy just across the sea to the north - this is the reason for its many men-at-arms.

So the barony can feed itself due its agriculture, and it has 1000 acres of forest, but looking at income vs. expenses I am currently at this:

INCOME:

• Surplus fish
• Surplus grain
• Stone from quarry

EXPENSES:

• Cloth
• Men-at-arms (maintenance, weapons & armor)
• Metal for tools and other small things

It really helps with a quarry for income, as well as for personal use.

Once again, both positive and negative feedback is very welcome

Krikkert7 (talk) 10:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

It would be really useful if you could tell us where in the world this is supposed to be. Looie496 already asked if this is supposed to be England. The climate and the geography make a big difference to the economic and political situation. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Maintaining enough horses, weapons, and armour for 40 men out of a population of 320 would be incredibly expensive, probably enough to totally impoverish the rest of the barony. A horse is like a luxury car, or in this context like a tank. Most importantly it's a status symbol for a knight, the ability to maintain one is part of their higher social status. In Romance languages and German, for example, the word for "knight" is basically "a guy on a horse". They might even have two or three horses if they could afford it. Forty knights with armour, weapons, and horses in a little barony would be very unusual. Forty foot-soldiers in the retinue of the baron would make sense...at least in real life. For the purposes of your story it's not impossible, but I can imagine that situation raising the suspicions of whoever is in charge of the nearby big city! Maybe they're trying to start a rebellion out there...I wonder, though, when exactly in the 1100s this is? Perhaps the barony is centred around the priory of a military order, like the Hospitallers or Templars? They would have access to more horses. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, 16 sq km (that's what 4kmx4km comes to) seems very small for a whole barony. I'd expect a baron's domain to run to between 1/4 and 1/2 of a county, and thus to be several hundred square kilometres. 16 sq km is the size of the Isles of Scilly, the smallest rural local authority in England. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

To answer ur question whether this is England, no. It is a fictional world and a fictional kingdom which have been long in the making. This allows for a little bit of freedom. However, the kingdom in question is supposed to be very similar to France. The kingdoms are based on real-world kingdoms and the economical and cultural similiraties are definitely there. My version of France is known for its heavy cavalries, its knights, its nobility and as being a leading agricultural kingdom. My version of England is known for their longbownmen and for being leading in the wool-trade, my version of Flanders is a centre of trade and it's weavers are heavy importers of wool from England etc etc. There are many similarites, so you might say the kingdom in question is France. Krikkert7 (talk) 12:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that twelfth century kings of England and France would have had standing forces of men at arms as large as your very small barony. Look, several of us have said the same thing and we can't make you listen to us, but it does seem odd that you'll ask for advice but not take it. --Dweller (talk) 12:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Dweller..? I'm taking advice aplenty (!) and thinking all the feedback of great help ! It helps me to work my way towards my goal - in this case to make a barony that both is what I want it to be and at the same time a realistic one. I knew even before I made my initial post here yesterday that I would have to alter things to succeed in that, being well aware that I had far from all angles covered, but its not done in the blink of an eye. Changing one thing leads to me having to change 1 and 2 and 3 other things and so on, and I'm taking feedback to heart all along. Once I have bled this forum dry of suggestions and feedback (from those willing and able to give any) I will read it over several times and go from there. Not sure why you believe I don't listen. Krikkert7 (talk) 13:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

You're right, I apologise - there was no call for me to speak like that. I'll strike the words. --Dweller (talk) 13:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Some further help for you: from our Longbow article: "Yew is the only widespread European timber that will make good self longbows, and has been the main wood used in European bows since Neolithic times.", so make sure you have a decent Yew forest to hand, if you're a warlike baron. --Dweller (talk) 13:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

(after ec) Dweller, our Man-at-arms article suggests that in 1363, France was supposed to have a standing army of 6,000 men-at-arms, but that the real number was probably about half that. I think it's unrealistic to suggest that an entire kingdom would have as few as 40 men-at-arms even 200 years earlier. Our examples of feudalism article mentions that in 12th century England, a barony might consist of as many as 60 knights' fees - each of which should be able to furnish a knight-bachelor, his esquires, their mounts, steeds, armour and equipment. So a barony might in principle have able 3-400 men under arms if needed. However, those were not permanent, but only for 40 days each year. It's doubtful whether anyone was equipped for war 24/7/365, unless the baron or one of his leading tenants paid for a bodyguard out of their own purse. It's not unlikely that a 16 sq km territory like the one you're describing might be contained in just one or two manors, and be a single knight's fee. If you want to describe a single manor, that's one thing; if you want a functioning barony, you're looking at a larger scale - not just two villages with their churches, but market towns, abbeys, highways, game forests, and so on. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

That's my very point. It's entirely reasonable that a baron would be able to call on 40 armed men if he needed them, but for the vast majority their day jobs would not be military. --Dweller (talk) 13:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

A few thoughts on this:

• This is a rather small domain for a baron. I would expect an area this small would have only a baronet.
• It's also a rather densely populated area, considering that it's a rural agricultural district, although the doubling of the size makes it somewhat less implausible.
• You're not going to be able to have any significant number of sheep; they require too much land. There would probably be a few cows for milk purposes, but not enough to export milk or beef unless the local people go without.
• How important are the fishing rights? If they're important enough that you export fish, as you suggest, then you must have full-time fishermen, and you've given no indication of them. If you don't have full-time fishermen, fishing could still be an important source of protein for locals based upon part-time fishing, but it would not be a significant source of exports.
• I echo the thoughts of others on fighting men. You essentially have every able-bodied man a fighter. This is realistic for militia defense, but it is not realistic as their full-time occupation.
• One of your settlements will be smaller than the other. I would characterize the smaller settlement as a hamlet, rather than a village.
• An area this small would probably not have a proper castle. People would probably go to the church for refuge. There might conceivably be a fortification if it's on the border, as you indicate.
• This is going to be a poor area, though not unsustainably so. People who are able to work will have food to eat, but no luxuries. People who are not strong enough to work in the fields will be dependent on the charity of others. The family of the baron(et) will have some luxuries, but will long for the greater luxuries that they see in other landed families.
• There will be very few horses. Horses need a lot of food, and you don't have space for pasturage for them. Other than a small number of horses owned by the family of the baron(et), all of the horses will be needed for farmwork, although they will be multifunctional and also available for other uses. John M Baker (talk) 14:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Baronets were only invented by James I and VI in the early 17th century - do you mean banneret? A baron was and is the lowest level of peerage; baronets were introduced as a way to raise money (by selling titles) to pay for the hired troops that were needed after the collapse of bastard feudalism.

If you're interested in the use of fortified churches for refuge, there are some good examples in the French Theirache region. But I agree that 16 sq km is much too small for a real castle. A properly-sized barony (say 600 sq km) might have one decently-sized castle, a handful of free-standing keeps, and a number of tower houses, fortified churches and other fortifications. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Alex and Dweller - surely you agree that even well-trained men-at-arms needed a place to live (on the baron's land) and likely even fields etc to work on. So no, they wouldn't be running around armed to their teeth 24/7, but they would be expected to answer their baron's call when called upon. And they would need to stay fit and ready for military service - the rest of the time they would be working the land or whatever needed be worked on much like peasants and serfs. They would also have families of their own, being fathers and husbands. Some of them might even be 'freemen' who wasn't directly tied to their landlord's land like a villein or serf, instead renting a very small patch of land from the baron for only personal use. And a way of paying that rent could f.ex. be military service rather than paying with coin, or maybe both. At least that makes sense to me. If they were free to work only their own patch of land and did not owe the baron labour-time like serfs they would also find it easier to train and stay sharp. Krikkert7 (talk) 14:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

With "surely you agree...", it sounds like you're trying to convince me that your existing plan works. I'd earnestly encourage you to look again at what I've said about just how big a barony is, and recalculate on those grounds. If you get answers that are on the same order of magnitude as real-life manors (or real-life kingdoms), then your calculations just aren't feasible. Please read our articles on manor, knight's fee, barony, hundred examples of feudalism, and so on. There's a lot there about how the various feudal levels fit together. Your knights are generally going to be lords of the manor, and if you have a knight banneret, he may well also be a tenant-in-chief. All of these people will have their own peasants (eg villeins) to farm their estates. Our modern idea of rent for land post-dates Quia Emptores; the receipt of land for service was the norm before that, and lesser landowners held their land from more senior ones through subinfeudation. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

hehe, I was merely talking about men-at-arms and their role outside military tasks ;) But your words are noted, Alex. I eventually have to sit down and really look over everything - more than once too. Krikkert7 (talk) 14:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

John M. Baker. you make many good points and I'll be sure to delve into these matters and do even more research. Krikkert7 (talk) 14:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

October 31

Mizrahi president of Israel

Is Moshe Katsav the only president of Israel to be from a Mizrahi background? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.149.143 (talk) 00:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article titled List of Presidents of Israel. There are only 9 in history, so it shouldn't take you too long to read each article and find out. --Jayron32 00:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Yitzhak Navon was born in Israel but came from a Sephardi/Mizrahi family. --Jethro B 03:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

According to the WP entry, Yitzhak Navon's paternal ancestry is solidly Sephardic, having settled in Turkey after the Spanish Expulsion and arriving in Jerusalem in 1670 [!]. His maternal ancestors arrived in Jerusalem from Morocco in 1884; their earlier origins aren't indicated but certainly not among the Mizrachi of the mid/late 20th C. mass immigration waves from North Africa and the Arab Middle East. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

1912 franc

Was one franc worth a lot in 1912? Was it extremely rare for the non-French natives of the colonies? In this, it gives people from Tahiti donating 5 to half a franc to the French army. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

According to the Stella_(United_States_coin) article, $4 = 20 francs before WW1, so it can't have been extremely valuable. Have no idea what it meant to an inhabitant of Tahiti at that time... AnonMoos (talk) 02:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

"On the Reasons of Jewish Noxiousness"

Both the Polish and English Wikipedia entries on Stanisław Staszic list O przyczynach szkodliwości Żydów (1818) among his best-known works. Neither page provides any information on what this highly regarded philosopher, a "leading figure in the Polish Enlightenment" - albeit a Catholic priest - had to say on the subject, and how influential his position may have been in shaping the hearts and minds of his fellow Polish gentiles and perhaps public policy as well. I'd appreciate help in finding reputable content in English before I turn to Polish sources (and WP:PL editors). -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

This book contains a description of his views on the Jews, which I would presume is taken from that work. Another (short) description here. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Why were Indira Gandhi and her son Rajiv so unpopular among the Sikhs?

Both assassinated by them. Iowafromiowa (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Freemasonry and youth

I'm 77 and wanting to enter the Iowa Grand Lodge, once inside, can I invite my 20-year-old nephew to enter Freemasonry too? Iowafromiowa (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)