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.
I have been searching high and low to find the population of the Diyala Provence
in Iraq, and of Baqubah, which you have on your page here,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diyala_Governorate. However, this is not a
satisfactory citation for an academic paper, but it seems to be the only place
that has it. I have checked the State Department, CIA fact sheets, DOD, nothing. I
have even gone as far as emailing the Iraqi embassy, but their mailbox is full and
I can't even email them. So I was wondering where you got your numbers from, or
where I might be able to find some numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.218.224 (talk) 04:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1. What benefits would United Nations recognition of Palestine as a non-member state give Palestine other than becoming able to sue Israel in international courts? Also, would UN recognition of Palestine as a non-member state make Palestine a recognized state under international law?
2. How much is Iran's economy suffering right now relative to the economies of other countries right before their dictatorships collapsed?
For a specific answer to #2, you'll need to specify — which countries and which dictatorships? Note that Iran is partially democratic; power isn't completely concentrated in the hands of the Supreme Leader of Iran and the Guardian Council, and the elections of the president and the parliament have some effect on national politics. It's not like Iraq, where pretty much everything was under Saddam's thumb. Nyttend (talk) 13:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Emphasis on the "partial" -- numerous opposition candidates have been arbitrarily disqualified, and after the last presidential election, numerically implausible results were brazenly announced as if Khamenei not only wanted to commit fraud, but wanted to rub people's noses in the fact that he was committing fraud. Not much quasi-democratic legitimacy is left to the current Iranian regime, except among those who are easily credulously swayed by superficial election-day hoopla... AnonMoos (talk) 15:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As AnonMoos said, Iran's elections don't really mean much. If my knowledge is correct, it's the mullahs that make all the final decisions. Even if the President or Iranian Parliament does something, the mullahs can overrule it if they wanted to. Also, does anyone have an answer to my question 1? Futurist110 (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, it's only as democratic as the real rulers permit. If elections aren't going their way, they can just disqualify all candidates but their own, or provide fraudulent results to the public, or maybe both. It's not much different from nations with "elections" where there is only one candidate, who get's 99.8% of the vote, with 0.2% of the population disappearing soon after. The electorate can always protest, but then they'll get shot, too. StuRat (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you're statement doesn't make sense if we accept what AnonMoos said. If the elections themselves don't 'mean much' because the mullahs make the final decisions and can overrule anything they want to, then there is no reason why there would be any need for fraud. Note that both AnonMoos's claim (electoral fraud) and your claim of the ability to overule any decision be true, it just means the elections do mean something (e.g. because continually overuling a candidate may risk annoying the populance more, because it's easier to run the country when you don't have someone always trying to do stuff you don't want but is instead actually helping you run the country etc etc). In any case, note you have to consider that the effects of the economy of vary from person to person. I came across an article with a perhaps controversial thesis a few weeks ago during the discussion of inflation in Iran (which I didn't link but I think later someone else did) which suggested things weren't actually that bad at all for the lower class. It was bad for the middle class, but the leadership didn't care, if anything it was beneficial for them. Nil Einne (talk) 01:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There could still be a point in rigging the elections, in that you could hope to make it look like the will of the people support the candidate you chose, rather than making it quite obvious they don't, if you just disqualify the winner. If you're hoping to prevent an Arab Spring style revolution, then this perception can make a critical difference. Of course, in reality, rigged elections are rarely done without making it obvious to all. StuRat (talk) 15:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What numerically impossible results? I presume you're not referring to the higher then 100% turnout which as our article Iranian presidential election, 2009 mentions, wasn't numerically impossible given the way they count and report turnout in Iran and isn't even evidentally uncommon in Iran, and didn't even always favour the candidate apparenly supported by Khamenei. (There are some reports suggesting some of the results are improbable, but that's a fairly different thing particularly since it depends greatly on the assumptions involved.) Nil Einne (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that I'm asking about the Iranian economy is because I'm wondering what the odds are of their regime collapsing or becoming near collapse before they are able to build nukes (if they want to build nukes). Futurist110 (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which dictatorships do you think collapsed because of economic factors? North Korea's economy has been much worse than Iran's is, or is likely to be, and the political system did not collapse. AnonMoos (talk) 05:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that economic factors were at least partially responsible for the collapse of the Egyptian, Yemeni, Libyan, and Tunisian dictatorships in the Arab Spring in 2011-2012 as well as for the collapse of the USSR and its Eastern European satellite state dictatorships in 1989-1991. If you want to go far back, you can also probably add the French monarchy collapsing in the French Revolution to this list. Futurist110 (talk) 06:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to the economic causes of the French revolution, it seems to be fairly well established that absolute economic deprivation does not cause revolutions if the people being deprived have no real conception that things could be different than they are. Rather, it's when the situation of ordinary people has recently improved at least a little bit, and people have the expectation of yet further improvements, but it then seems that things are worsening again, and that the upper classes are trying to roll back the modest improvements which have previously occurred -- that's the real moment of revolutionary danger. AnonMoos (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Diplomatic recognition is a political act of individual states with legal consequences. So no state is bound by another's recognition of a third state. This is true even if the UN accepted Palestine as a full member state. It is true that this does not entirely make sense, as the UN Charter is a peace treaty, and the signing of a peace treaty traditionally implied recognition. But although some respected theorists of international law talk as if there were such an obligation to recognize, states still maintain their position that it is an individual choice, even in the modern era of the UN Charter.John Z (talk) 08:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. Wouldn't it be rather hard to reject a state with UN recognition, though? However, borders would still need to be determined in negotiations afterwards in cases of non-member states. Also, luckily due to U.S. opposition there is no chance of Palestine becoming a full UN member state before a final peace treaty with Israel. Did the U.S. ever outright and clearly reject a U.N. decision on state recognition or state borders or something like that? Futurist110 (talk) 03:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Revolutionary War Descendants Question
Are there any living grandchildren of U.S. Revolutionary War veterans right now? A U.S. Revolutionary War veteran could have theoretically be 20 when the Revolutionary War ended (thus being born in 1763) and have had a son at age 80, in 1843. This son could have also had a child at age 80, in 1923. This grandchild would have been 88 or 89 right now if he or she would have still been alive today. My question is, even though such cases are theoretically possible, are there any such cases in actuality with a grandchild of a U.S. Revolutionary War veteran still living today? Futurist110 (talk) 08:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've heard about them. Tyler was born in 1790, which is quite impressive, but I'm looking for someone born 25-30 years before that who fought in the U.S. Revolutionary War (1775-1783) with grandchildren still living. Futurist110 (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Highly doubt it. Your scenario is even rare for modern times. Even if a man in the 1800s could live to such an advance age why would they have a child at that advance of an age? It would be a great scandal. And even if there is a grandchild of a Revolutionary War veteran running around what difference does that make in regard to who they are. Its not like a baby of an 80 year old man, who was the baby of another 80 year man, would have heard stories of the Revolutionary War from their grandfather. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some men in the 1700s and 1800s did live to age 80 or more. Maybe they'd have wanted to have a child at that age to pass their genes on more or something like that, or maybe they just wanted to experience fatherhood again. Why would it be a great scandal if an 80 year old man married a 25, 35, or 45 year old woman and then had a son with her? If there is such a grandchild around, it would be extremely impressive due to the huge generational difference between them. They would have received 1/4 of their genes from a person who fought in a war which ended 230 years ago, which would have been extremely impressive, even though they obviously would not have known their grandfather personally. And actually, some men do have kids when they are in their 80s and 90s, so it's not entirely implausible. Also, I just need to find Revolutionary War veterans that lived to the mid or late 1840s, not necessarily to the late 1860s. In the 1860s these last surviving veterans would have been close to 100 or over 100, which would have made their odds of having a child at that age much smaller than if they were, say, age 80. Futurist110 (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no difference between being a grandchild of a veteran and a great-grandchild of a veteran. Ancestral fame doesn't dilute over time.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can go search in a veterans archives or look through newspaper from the 1840s to the 1860s searching for articles about the death of a veterans and see if they left any young widows with babies and study each of the person listed and see who their grandchildren were.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference on how much of your DNA/genes you inherited from the person. Great-grandchildren would inherit only half of the DNA/genes from a particular U.S. Revolutionary War veteran as grandchildren would. Is there a good free way to search for newspapers from the 1840s to 1860s? Futurist110 (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is the UN anti-Israel?
Closed (again)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Unfortunately, a question like this will be nothing more than a fierce debate, since we can't provide a 100% ironclad answer. Closing this to preserve peace. Nyttend (talk) 13:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that this has to be the case, but virtually everyone has a strong opinion on the subject (including me), and you're not likely to get anything but opinion. Please come back and ask a question that can be answered objectively; for example, UN General Assembly voting patterns on the Israel/Palestine question. Nyttend (talk) 14:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This question could be considered a matter of opinion but from what I've heard UN resolutions do disproportionally criticize Israel relative to other countries with human rights abuses. You can look at the number of resolutions condemning Israel vs. other countries and see what I mean. Futurist110 (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the other side Israel disproportionally ignores UN resolutions as compared to other countries, with zero reactions from the UN Security Council. The UNSC implicitly gives Israel carte blanche to attack other countries with impunity (no action taken against Israel for the recent attack on Sudan, for example). Thus I'd say that the UN as an institution is hardly "anti-Israel" (whatever that means). --Soman (talk) 07:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you get UN resolutions disproprtionally criticizing you relative to other countries with human rights abuses, it would make sense for this country to disproportionally ignore the UN resolutions that condemn it. Futurist110 (talk) 07:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When does the term for Stephen Harper end?
I was chatting with a Canadian friend and he thinks that Harper's government is a far right government who blindly follows the American foreign policy. When does his term end? Kennuser (talk) 13:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have term limits in Canada, so theoretically, never. But the next election has to take place within five years of the last one, so 2016 at the latest. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In Canada, is "term" typically used to mean "time until he leaves office", or did you misunderstand something, or did I? As an American, I'd take your information and from it say "Harper's term ends no later than 2016", because he's been elected an MP for a period of time that cannot last past 2016. Our federal representatives have terms of two years, although like the Commons in Canada, they may serve however many they want as long as they keep winning elections. Nyttend (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In a Parliamentary system, MP's don't really have set "terms" of office the way members of the US Congress do. Their "term" lasts until the next election (which must take place within five years of the last election, but can be called sooner than that). Therefor, Harper's current "term" of office as an MP is: until the next election, which must be held no later than 2016.
As for his "term" as Prime Minister... again there is no set "term" of office. According to our article Prime Minister of Canada: "The Governor General must select as Prime Minister the person most likely to command the confidence of the elected House of Commons; this individual is typically the leader of the political party that holds the largest number of seats in that chamber". What this means is: Harper's "term" as Prime Minister lasts until he no longer has "the confidence of the House of Commons"... no more, no less. Harper will serve as PM until someone else can command a majority in the House of Commons (which can occur because a) another party wins an election AND/OR b) another Conservative gains leadership of the Conservative Party. This could happen tomorrow, or years from now. So... the PM's "Term" is closer in concept to that of the US's Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader than it is to the "term" of the US President. Blueboar (talk) 15:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And until I believe 1939, acceptance of office vacated one's parliamentary seat, meaning that the PM would not be a member of the Commons until he was re-elected in his riding, which was generally routine. They waited to call Parliament until this was done.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
and he isn't disposed as leader at a party conference (convention in US-speak) before then,
then he will be the PM at the second-next general election. Having said that, in the UK at least, parties only last for about 4 general elections before the electorate get sicked with them, and replace them with the other party.
Actually the PM is not necessarily the leader of the party with the most MPs. A PM needs to be able to command a majority in confidence vote (this doesn't mean they need greater then 50% of MPs to vote in favour of them as parties could agree to abstain). If two parties with very similar views have 40% and 15% of MPs respectively and another with very dissimilar views has 45%, it's entirely resonable that the PM will come from the party with 40% of MPs (with the support of the party with 15% of MPs whether in a coalition or with just some sort of confidence and supply agreement) rather then the party of 45%. While this seems rare in Canada for whatever reason and in a number of Westminster countries there does seem to be a pressure towards the party with a plurality of MPs having the PMship, there is generally nothing which demands it either by law or by convention.
Also note that in reference to Blueboar's point, since from what I can tell Canada has no legislation stopping party switching Stephen Harper could lose the PMship before the election even if he remains leader of his party if enough MPs from his party switch to some other party and oppose him in a vote of confidence (or support a motion of no confidence) and so does every other party. While it's likely in such a situation an early election will be called (and perhaps Stephen Harper will ask for parliament to be dissolved so people can vote given the switching), this isn't guaranteed as it's possible a coalition of the other parties include the MPs who switched could win a vote of confidence and the governor general may not dissolve parliament even if asked. While this is a lot of ifs and seems very unlikely given the size of the majority, such possibilities shouldn't be ignored if you want to properly understand parliamentary democracies. (This is a far more important consideration in a country with only two parties and where the majority is wafer thin. Of course when a party doesn't even have a majority in parliament but is relying on other parties to keep them in, they can lose confidence without anyone switching parties. )
Why do some tiny island nations blindly support Israel at the UN? Read Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands, which along with the U.S. and Canada have voted in favor of Israel. Where does this alliance come from? Kennuser (talk) 14:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that all three of these republics were functionally US colonies for decades after the Second World War, and even now they've entered into Compacts of Free Association with the US. The connection is far simpler than it would be if other Pacific republics, like Kiribati or Tuvalu, were to vote the same way. Presumably they don't have any special connection with Canada. Nyttend (talk) 14:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The question of why any nation would blindly (or staunchly) support Israel is certainly curious. Such blind support must have factual reasons. I would suggest an avenue for further inquiry: The Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs has an English-language website that's searchable by topic, as well as specific information on its missions in Oceania. It might be revealing to explore Israel's history of advising and training less developed countries in such fields of agriculture, aquaculture, industry, commerce, civil engineering, tourism, etc. -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about those tiny states supporting Israel, but about they supporting the US blindly, since the US is responsible for their defense against foreign aggression. OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't directly answer the question, but since many of the Pacific nations have such tiny and fragile economies, and often have little interest in diplomatic affairs outside their region, it can be relatively easy for larger countries to influence their foreign policy. This is particularly attractive when a government wants to demonstrate international support for an otherwise unpopular policy, so these countries often take unusual stances on foreign affairs. For example, the vast majority of the countries that formally recognise Taiwan are very small Pacific, Caribbean, and African nations - Taiwan and the PRC have often offered aid in return for switching recognition. The six countries that formally recognise the independence of either Abkhazia or South Ossetia are Russia, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Nauru, Vanuatu, and Tuvalu, and Russia and the USA were both accused of trying to influence small Pacific nations on this issue. In the International Whaling Commission, small nations from the Pacific and the Caribbean, which have very little interest in whaling but still get to vote, have been accused of selling their votes to governments with strong views on whaling, like Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. Some of these countries have repeatedly reversed their position on whaling. 130.88.99.231 (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
British monarch exercising ceremonial power in other realms
I understand that the Australian Parliament had to amend the Constitution shortly before Elizabeth II visited the country some decades ago, because she wanted personally to grant Royal Assent and exercise other ceremonial powers that were constitutionally given only to the Governor-General. Are there any Commonwealth realms in which such a status yet prevails, i.e. the monarch may not personally do anything except appointing governors-general, even on the advice of the government? I'm getting the impression from Governor General of Canada that the Queen of Canada may grant Royal Assent etc. when in Canada, but unless I'm overlooking something, the article doesn't outright say that, unlike Governor-General of New Zealand does, "If the monarch is present in New Zealand, however, he or she may exercise such powers personally". What's more, other articles (e.g. Governor-General of Belize) don't seem to address the issue at all. Nyttend (talk) 14:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that your understanding is correct. The Australian Parliament may only propose amendments, the people must approve them. There have been very few amendments, see here and this does not seem to be one of them. The Queen opened the Canadian Parliament in 1957, and as far as I know no special legislation was required to have her do that.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
She was present to grant royal assent to the Constitution Act, 1982? I'm not sure about he technicalities of what she was doing, but there is a famous picture of her and Pierre Trudeau sitting there signing the document, at least. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Royal assent mentions that King George VI personally assented to nine bills in Canada in 1939, but says that the procedure was changed there in 2002, so perhaps it wouldn't happen any more? The New Zealand Parliament website says that the monarch personally grants assent when she is in the country, but I can't find any specific examples of this happening. Oddly enough, the monarch hasn't personally granted assent to a law in the UK since 1854 (nowadays, it is done on her behalf by the Speakers of the Houses of Parliament), and assent has not been withheld since 1708, when the country was less than a year old - even then, Queen Anne did so on the advice of her ministers. 130.88.99.231 (talk) 17:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The royal assent article says that the Lords Commissioners grant assent once per year, at the end of the parliamentary session, but the usual method is the one introduced by the Royal Assent Act 1967, in which the two Speakers simply announce that assent has been granted (they are empowered to do this by letters patent signed by the monarch). Apparently, the ceremony for granting assent by commission was causing problems, as MPs would refuse to attend it (it takes place in the House of Lords) and continue debating. This document goes into more detail than anyone could possibly want. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 00:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So. Royal Assent has become not even a rubber stamp. I seems a bit silly to continue calling it that, when (a) the monarch now has zero involvement in the process and has become totally irrelevant, (b) the Speakers "saying" that Assent has been granted is an outright lie, and (c) there is no possibility the Speakers would ever decline to utter this lie, because it would mean the swift end of their jobs. It's really now "The Queen would have assented to this bill if we'd asked her, but we don't think it's worth anyone's time to actually bother, so let's just cut to the chase and pretend we've asked her and pretend she's agreed". In the Commonwealth realms, all bills still actually go the governor-general for vice-regal assent in the queen's name. Some are very occasionally reserved for the queen's personal assent. Does this ever happen in the UK? -- Jack of Oz[Talk]19:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that ever happens in the UK. In principle, the other two methods for granting assent (the commissioners, and personally by the monarch) can still be used, and presumably the procedure would be changed again if there was a good reason to do so. As I understand it, there is no real consensus on what would happen if assent were withheld today. The main precedent is the series of constitutional crises over the 1909 People's Budget (which the House of Lords rejected against longstanding convention), the Parliament Act 1911 (which allowed the Commons to overrule the Lords, and only passed after Herbert Asquith persuaded George V to threaten to create hundreds of new Liberal Peers), and the Government of Ireland Act 1914 (which George V considered trying to veto, but decided not to after discussing it with his advisors). A freedom of information request asking for any documents discussing what the government would do in this situation was refused (because it would cost more than £600 to fulfil...). Recently, several organisations petitioned the Queen to reject the Health and Social Care Bill, but I think that was more of a publicity stunt. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 20:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If assent were withheld today, it would not be the monarch doing so, as they're completely out of the loop (which, as I said, makes a mockery of the term "Royal Assent"). It would be one or both of the presiding officers of the Houses of Parliament withholding assent, for whatever personal or political reasons they may have. And since they are elected by their fellow parliamentarians who caused the bills to be passed in the first place, they would not survive. I think a Speaker who found him/herself unable in conscience to grant assent to a bill would simply resign the speakership, making room for an MP who was willing to grant it. -- Jack of Oz[Talk]19:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I am misunderstanding the document that 81.98.43.107 provided, but it seems that the Queen must indeed sign a document containing the list of bills being assented to. The speakers merely announce the assent when notified that the Queen has done so. But she never reads or sees the bills, she only sees the short titles. And the clerks commonly modify the list after she signed it, if necessary. On a side note, I really like that if the Queen were to refuse assent, the commissioners would say "The Queen will consider". That's sort of funny.--216.239.45.130 (talk) 05:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to tradition Jesus was Jewish. The term Christian was actually introduced after the conversion of the Apostle Paul (Acts 11:26). Before this time followers of Jesus were called "followers of the Way" (Acts 24:14). 99.156.168.30 (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus was Jewish and not Christian. Some of his followers later considered himself Christian, but the evidence from the Christian scriptures suggests that Jesus considered himself a Jewish spiritual teacher. Marco polo (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Bible itself unambiguously states that the term "Christian" was first used to describe Saul of Tarsus (Paul) and Barnabas and their entourage at Antioch. See Acts 11:25-26: "Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch." Thus, the term "Christian" was first applied some time after Jesus's death. Also, as Christian means "follower of (Jesus) Christ", it would be a bit odd to say that Jesus followed himself. But regardless of the logical problems that would cause, from the Bible, the term was invented after Christ had died. --Jayron3201:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If we can call Marx' views "Marxian", why couldn't we call Christ's views "Christian"? And if so, what is then the distinction between a person whose views are Christian and one who is Christian? Gabbe (talk) 08:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We could, and we can call Christ's views "Christian". By definition, the adjective "Christian", means of Christ, so a Christian view must be in agreement with Christ's views. Technically, someone is a Christian when they actively seek out and apply the way of Christ. According to this definition, one can have Christian views, but without unreserved commitment to pursuit of the way, one cannot rightfully claim the title Christian. For example, solely going to church does not make one a Christian, as much as a single plank does not make a boat. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More relevently from the bible: "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder." , James 2:19. Belief in the abstract also doesn't make one a Christian, at least according to Christian scripture. --Jayron3223:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think everyone here is in agreement that Jesus did not label himself a "Christian", nor did anyone else in his lifetime, since that term was evidently coined after his death. The question is whether Jesus was a Christian. Gabbe (talk) 11:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sketch of J. Piikoi's Life
Sketch of J. Piikoi's Life, written by himself.
About twenty days before his death, the late Hon. J. Piikoi dictated the following sketch of his life, which we translate from the Hae Hawaii.
"I was born in the month of Ikuwa (January) 1804, at Waimea, Kauai. I continued to live there until Liholiho came to Kauai, on the 22nd of July 1822. There was a great feasting on the arrival of Liholiho and the chiefs in his company, on board the vessel called the "Okikowali." The feasting took place in a house known as "Puilihale." After eating, the King called to Kaumualii, - "Oh, Kaumualii, there is plenty of poi and fish at Kauai - one thing only is lacking—tobacco" The chief answered - "The tobacco also is ready." He then called me, saying Piikoi, "go and do as I bid you." I consented, and a pipe having been lighted, was given to me, together with a tobacco box and a pipe-lighter, and I was directed to take them to Liholiho. The chief called out, - "Oh, the Heavens, here is the tobacco, and a servant with it." Then it was that I became a pipe-lighter; that was the first commencement of my going with Liholiho to live. My relations and friends made a great lamentation, but some said, "We have no business to wail, for he is given entirely to the King." I then went round the island of Kauai with the King and afterwards came to Oahu with him. At Waianae, I ran away in order to go with Kaumualii at Waialea. He ordered me to go back, saying that I must look to the King for my subsistence hereafter, nor desert him on any account. I accordingly returned, and continued to live with Liholiho until he went to England, and never wanted for anything to eat, drink or wear.
After the King went to England I lived with Kahalaia, and on his appointment as governor of Kauai, I accompanied him thither. After the rebellion of Humehume in 1824, we returned to Oahu, and on the death of Kahalaia, in 1826, the late King sent for me, saying "You belonged to Liholiho; why do you not come to live with me?" I said "I have come." The late King was considerate in regard to his servants. Sever years later, the King gave me the charge of lands on Oahu. This duty I executed both to the satisfaction of the King and somewhat to my own profit. Subsequently, when Haalilio went to England, I received his duties to perform. About this time I was made a Member of the House of Nobles, and soon after, a Member of the King's Privy Council. I also received from the King a very important duty- that of superintending the division of lands between the King and the chiefs at Haliimaile. When I undertook this duty, some of the chiefs said that they did not wish for me to divide the lands for them. I made reply to them that if they would not take my division, they must lose all their lands, from Hawaii to Kauai. These were strong words, but I spoke confidently, well knowing that I had ample authority from the King. I continued to live pleasantly and happily under the late King until he left us on the 15 December, 1854.
Under His present Majesty, Kamehameha IV, who God has graciously placed over us, I have enjoyed all my former rights of nobility, and my family and myself have enjoyed the fullest protection. May God preserve the King, and grant him a long and prosperous reign.
I have written the foregoing in my great weakness, for the purpose of showing my countrymen how I rose to my present rank and position, under the protection of the King, from the humble station of a pipe-lighter.
Love to all, J. Piikoi"
Honolulu, April 7, 1850.
Can someone help me make out the missing words and verify what I have here base on the extremely poor original found here and here? An extremely good eye would be helpful.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. Fifty "Kings and Princes" attended, including "the King of Denmark" (Christian IX) and his son "Willy of Greece" (as Victoria called George I of the Hellenes), who sat on either side of Victoria at the state banquet ; it would be surprising if none of the Kings brought a wife with him. The New York Times coverage concentrates on the men, but does specifically mention the Queen of the Belgians as present in the royal procession. (It also writes "In the gallery overlooking the dais [in Westminster Abbey] Queen Kapiolani and Princess Lilieokalani, in rich golden robes, were seated in the sacrarium, just under the stream of crimson rays falling through the windows. Among the royal persons who awaited the Queen's arrival were the blind King of Saxony, who was led to a seat in the choir near the dais, beside whom sat the Queen of the Belgians and Crown Prince Rudolph of Austria.") - Nunh-huh 00:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC) P.S. In 1887, the Queen of the Belgians would have been the wife of the genocidal Leopold II, born Marie Henriette of Austria (1836-1902). - Nunh-huh00:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really. I was reading something that talked about an incident during the Jubilee involving an event (something like a dress rehearsal or something, I can remember for sure) in which Princess Liliuokalani and Queen Kapiolani were late to and every royal ladies in the room were standing because they were waiting for the only Queen in the room to be seated.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that could well be true. Kapiolani could still be the only queen in a specific room at a specific time, without being the only queen to attend the jubilee events. - Nunh-huh03:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is etiquette to wait for the most senior person to arrive and sit down before taking one's seat for dinner, and on British soil that would be Queen Victoria, regardless of whoever else was styled "Queen". --TammyMoet (talk) 10:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And even if she were a queen regnant, I'm not sure she would outrank all queens consort. I suppose a queen consort would share her husband's rank as much as his title. Surtsicna (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rank and precedence are slightly different matters. A queen consort would hold the same rank as her husband, but she would cede precedence to a queen regnant. Precedence is a common way to sort people of the same nominal rank. --NellieBly (talk) 06:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Eli Yishai ever speak Arabic?
According to Eli Yishai Knesset page, it says that he speaks Arabic. When was the last time or when did he ever spoke Arabic in front of the media? I am just curious. I never seen Mizrahi and Sephardi Jews speak Arabic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmust90 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an answer to your question, but what would be the incentive for him to speak Arabic in public when he can simply speak Hebrew? Arabs aren't going to vote regardless of whether or not he spoke Arabic. Also, he can simply speak Arabic at home, like I do with Russian. Futurist110 (talk) 01:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible he spoke Arabic here [2], but it isn't clearly specified. You could try contacting them or see if you can get a transcript of the entire briefing. On Futurist110's point, I presume he could be interested in reaching out to Arabic speakers even if they aren't likely to vote for him and speaking Arabic is one way which is likely to help. I'm not sure what level of 'spoke in Arabic in front of the media' you're referring to, but it isn't uncommon for politicians and similar who have some command of a language to speak at least a few words when meeting speakers of that language, for example it's easy to find videos of Barack Obama speaking in Indonesian. (Although IIRC it was mentioned on the RD before that George H.W. Bush was told to avoid speaking in French because of possible negative ramifications from some Americans.) Nil Einne (talk) 03:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also curious as to why he wouldn't speak Arabic. There are many bilingual (and more) people in the world, it certainly isn't beyond the realm of possibility that someone living in a country would learn a language spoken by many of that country's neighbors. There's certainly no law against it, and I would imagine it would come in useful in a place where there are many other people who speak Arabic. --Jayron3220:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly don't know many Mizrahi Jews. I only know a handful of Mizrahi Jews and about half of them speak Arabic to some degree of proficiency. In Yishai's case, he was born in Israel to parents who immigrated from Tunisia, an Arabic-speaking country. Children of migrants often grow up speaking their parents' language, as it's used in the home by the parents and usually, when there's a migrant community (like there was/is in Israel) from a similar background, many visitors to the home. It's a very odd thing to wish to dispute. --Dweller (talk) 11:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this is somewhat what I expected but didn't want to say since I wasn't sure. If he speaks it at home at least on occasion, then there would likely be people with a similar background he may speak it to even assuming he isn't going to speak to Arabs or other Arabic speakers with a different background from him in Arabic (which as I already mentioned, doesn't actually seem that likely). Depending on various factors, he may not do it that often, but for him to never do it in public is only likely if there's a reason he would want to avoid it which as you and Jayron32 have said doesn't seem likely. Nil Einne (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
November 18
Other than Cubans and Colombians, which Latino nationalities in the U.S tend to vote more for Republicans?
I know that Republicans don’t tend to do well with the Latino community in the U.S and it was clearly evident in the 2012 presidential elections, but I know that Cubans (first) and Colombians (second) tend to the better with Republicans than with other Latino groups. Other than Cubans and Colombians respectively, what other Latino nationalities do Republicans do better than the average percentage of Latinos who vote for the Republican Party in every election (about 25% to 35% in general)?
Also, do Republicans tend to do better on average in getting the vote of non-Mexican Latinos than they do with Mexican Latinos in general or do Republicans do as bad on average in getting the vote of non-Mexican Latinos as they do with Mexican Latinos in general? Mexicans make up about two-thirds of the Latino community in the U.S. Willminator (talk) 01:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear that Cubans are pro-Republican, since Republicans are anti-Fidel. But why would Colombians be pro-Republican, been the Republicans tough on crime and all? Comploose (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, but on the Political Trends section of the Hispanic and Latino Americans article, it says that Colombians also tend to have more conservative views than other Latino Americans. Willminator (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
American merchant/missionary families in the 1800s
In the 1800s, were the children born to American missionaries and merchants in other countries considered citizens of the United States? If not were they given citizenship once they decide to return to live back in the US.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure of the 1800s, but the current law is here and here at Wikipedia. Repeatedly throughout U.S. history, the law of jus soli, or citizenship by "right of soil", has been reaffirmed: that is, anyone born within the U.S. is a U.S. citizen. The U.S. has had varying laws regarding the law of jus sanguinis, or citizenship "by right of blood"; that is U.S. laws regarding acquiring citizenship through one's parents has varied throughout history. Since the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, affirmed by United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the principle of jus soli has been enshrined in the U.S. constitution. Laws regarding jus sanguinis are, however, left up to the whims of Congress. --Jayron3212:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a lot of time, you may want to look through the downloads that are available at http://www.rparchives.org/refprescov.html; this is the denominational magazine of a US church that maintained a mission in Syria throughout the period of the magazine's publication, so it may discuss the subject. However, looking through one volume for "citiz" produced lots of irrelevant points, since the denomination's big talking point was its refusal to accept most of the rights of citizenship in the USA. Nyttend (talk) 15:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Witches' sabbaths
Our article lacks solid information about when and how the term came into use. Is there really a connection with medieval antisemitism? Or is that a coincidence? Itsmejudith (talk) 09:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some have claimed that it came from an Old French word Esbat, and didn't originally have a connection with the Jewish day of rest. The OED does not agree... AnonMoos (talk) 13:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or indeed the article on Witches' Sabbath? It is probably not a connection to the Jewish sabbath - but more an inversion of the Christian sabbath. Witches were often accused of inverting Christian rituals, after all, related to the sabbath is the black mass, which has a more explicit link to Christian worship. Alternatively, you may be being paranoid.90.212.157.32 (talk) 16:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
None of the existing articles are very helpful on this question. The inversion of the Christian sabbath, and the "black mass" parallel seem plausible to me, but it would be good to have a reference. I am asking because of our Wheel of the Year article, which needs better referencing. (I may be paranoid but that doesn't mean they're not out to get me.) Itsmejudith (talk) 11:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some references got by searching for “etymology” and “witches’ Sabbath”.
* The Witch Figure: Folklore Essays By A Group Of Scholars In England p. 115 says: “The Oxford English Dictionary cites the Hebrew word Sabbath as the origin of the witches’ Sabbath, and witches’ synagogues are referred to be the inquisitor Bouget.” The context is the association of Jewish people with the Evil Eye and other witch-like characteristics in medieval Europe, so the implication is that a Hebrew word is used to associate witches with Jewish people.
* Ecstasies: Deciphering the Witches' Sabbath p. 1 says “Local variations, especially in the name given to the gatherings, were frequent. Alongside the term sabbat, of obscure etymology and late diffusion, we find scholarly expressions such as sagarum synagoga or strigiarum conventus, which translated a myriad of popular terms such as striaz, barlott, akelarre, and so on.”
* http://pi.library.yorku.ca/dspace/bitstream/handle/10315/3966/icos23_356.pdf?sequence=1 On the Name of the Weekly Day of Rest] (scholarly conference paper) says “In most European languages we find words derived from the Hebrew Shabbat, with a wide variety of meanings. ... witches’ sabbath, a term used in all European languages, e.g., German and Dutch Hexensabbat, Russian shabash vyed’m, Slovene sabat čarovnic, French sabbat de sorcières, or Italian sabba di streghe. ... The expression witches’ sabbath has its roots in the European Middle Ages, which were permeated by the general belief in the evil power of witches and in the malevolence of Jews and heretics. … Referring to such imagined gatherings as ‘Sabbaths’ stems from the intermingling of witches and Jews in the popular mind.”
The General Assembly has not considered the matter since the recent upturn in violence - see [3]. The Security Council held a closed meeting at 9p.m. on 14th November but no vote was taken. [4] -- Arwel Parry(talk)15:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I question that site's reliability since his fellow classmate William Kanui also died in 1864 and there might be a confusion. No sources on google book mentions Hopu's death on 1864. And Hopu was the more famous one, so it make no sense.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Harper's administration and foreign policy
I am amazed to read the news and find how much the current Canadian Prime MinisterStephen Harper tries to make Canada look scary and strong to the World. From supporting the Syrian rebels to supporting Israel and its airstrikes against Hamas targets. Is it the party or just Harper the one who has decided to take Canada to the top issues in international relations? My question comes about from an earlier question that I read. Keeiither (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I can reword Keeither's question: "Canada has a foreign policy? Why?". OK, maybe not quite that strong, but that's the gist of what I think he/she is asking, and I have to admit the thought crosses my mind too. --Trovatore (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They both mention Keaweamahi. But they are not typeset the same; in the English edition, it's on page 343; in the Boston edition it's on page 374, and it's split between lines, so it's hyphenated (which is why your search didn't find it.) --jpgordon::==( o )19:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One thing that's always puzzled me regarding the Jacobite succession - would there have been any problems with Henry Benedict Stuart becoming King of the United Kingdom (or whatever name a restored House of Stuart would choose for the kingdom) due to his being a cardinal? Would he have to resign his office as cardinal? And, on a more general point, has there ever been a European king who has been an ordained priest of the Roman Catholic church? (I think it's safe to say there haven't been any European queens in that category). Tevildo (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It came very close to happening in France. See Treaty of Nemours, Treaty of Joinville, and Charles, Cardinal de Bourbon. For about 9 months in 1589-1590, much of France (the Catholic League) considered him the legitimate king after the assassination of Henry III. After he died under house arrest, his claim passed to his distant cousin nephew (and chief rival) Henry, King of Navarre, who had been considered the legitimate King by the rest of France; since Henry IV held the true power even during the 9-month dispute, modern counting of the Kings of France tends to ignore Charles. --Jayron3219:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Charles was not really King Henry III of Navarre's distant cousin. He was no less than his uncle, the next surviving brother of Henry's father. Tevildo, your best example is indeed King Henry of Portugal. As for cardinals reigning as kings, here would be no constitutional issues that I'm aware of; however, succession might be tricky, as ordained priests of the Roman Catholic Church normally cannot produce legitimate children. Interestingly, though, every anointed and crowned king was regarded as a priest of some sort, as the coronation was seen as conferring spiritual power to the monarch. Surtsicna (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating, thanks very much. There was more to the French Wars of Religion than the St Bartholomew's Day massacre, then? I'll have to do some reading. :) I note also that Henry (Portugal) tried to renounce his position but the Pope prevented him - perhaps Henry (Scotland) might have had to do something similar to stop the Hanoverians getting the throne back anyway. But my question is answered. Tevildo (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The French Wars of Religion is a fascinating time; especially interesting is the War of the Three Henrys, the last of the wars and one of the few times in history where there was a genuine tripartite war: Henry III fought both Henry, Duc de Guise (for control of the Catholic League) and Henry, King of Navarre (the Protestant claimant to the throne); while Guise and Henry of Navarre fought for control of the succession. Henry III tried to play both sides, at various times in opposition to, and in alliance with, Henry of Navarre. The sequence of the war is filled with assassination plots, double crosses, and interference from the Spanish. Both Henry of Guise and Henry III were assassinated by each other's supporters, Henry of Navarre would thus assume the throne after converting to Catholicism to bring peace to the country. --Jayron3220:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What rank is applied to the Popes in dignity compared to kings, princes, emperors, etc.? Given cardinals are titled princes of the church, one would expect the Pope to have a regal rank at least. μηδείς (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In modern diplomatic ranking, the Pope is accorded the dignity given to any Head of State (due to the fact that he is head of state of Vatican City). ie he would rank with Monarchs and Presidents. Note: this is different from his "rank" in ecclesiastical terms. He ranks very highly as Bishop of Rome, but where the Bishop of Rome ranks in comparison to certain other Bishoprics (ie the Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Constantinople, Antioch etc.) depends on who you ask. Blueboar (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand it was very common for younger sons of monarchs (and other aristocrats) to seek a career in the church. They weren't going to inherit much, so they had to do something and that was one of the few options. If that would then create a problem were their older brother to die without issue (which wasn't uncommon), I doubt it would have been allowed. --Tango (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How do you mean "wouldn't have been allowed". We have at least one positive example of a King-Cardinal, Henry, King of Portugal who tried to renounce his vows to produce an heir: he was not allowed and this led to the eventual Union of Portuguese and Spanish crowns. But he was allowed to be king, just not allowed to renounce his vows and cease being a priest. We also have another near miss, also already mentioned, being Charles, Cardinal de Bourbon, which had the French Wars of Religion gone differently, would have resulted in him actually being King, at least for a short while before his nephew inherited from him (said nephew became king anyways, so it wouldn't have changed much). Priests were allowed to become kings. They just didn't happen to often inherit via primogeniture. --Jayron3214:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose Tango wanted to say that younger sons would not have been allowed to become priests if that would make them ineligible to succeed. I'm not sure what you meant by your last sentence, though. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only actual king-priest, Henry of Portugal, did succeed his grandnephew according to primogeniture. If you wanted to say that primogeniture diminished their chances of succeeding, I agree, as only younger sons were chosen for priesthood. Surtsicna (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But a) being priests didn't make them ineligible to succeed (i.e. Henry), and b) Once is not often. That is, the only major European kingdom do be inherited via primogeniture by a priest was Portugal under Henry, and that gives us 1/n times, where n is the total number of kings in European history. I would call that "didn't happen often". --Jayron3217:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It also bears mentioning in this discussion that many priests, bishops, and cardinals did act as monarchs for territories. There was, of course, the Papal States, which were ruled by the "Bishop of Rome". There were Prince-abbots and Prince-Bishops who ruled feudal territories of the Holy Roman Empire and who, after the decentralization of the Empire following the Thirty Years War were functionally independent rulers. There were also the ecclesiastically-ruled crusader states, such as the Knights of St. John and the Teutonic Knights who's Grand Masters were functionally Princes of their own independent territories. And finally, there were many clerics who had real power behind figurehead kings, aka Éminence grise. --Jayron3214:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
John Casimir Vasa never received any of the sacred orders, but was created cardinal in the consistory of 1646. He didn't go to Rome to receive the red hat and the title, though; instead, he resigned the cardinalate in a letter written to the pope in 1647. He went on to become king of Poland in 1649, abdicated in 1672, and died as an abbot of Saint-Germain-des-Prés near Paris. — Kpalion(talk)18:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Philippines and total plastic bag bans (again) (moved from Science Refdesk)
I've taken the liberty of moving this from the Science Refdesk. Hint: you'll get a better answer about laws on the desk that answers questions about law.Wnt (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I asked this question about total plastic bag bans in the Philippines three weeks ago but only got a single response, which was a link to a website. Reading the link, it did not answer my original question. So here I am, asking it again. For reference, there's already the link to my original question, but basically, in a nutshell, does the Philippines have a large number of total plastic bag bans compared to the rest of Southeast Asia? I'm aware that there are other places such as Yangon that have totally banned them as well, while a few places have plastic bag taxes, but is the Philippines leading the way in total bans? Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew10:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your original question was about Asia not just South East Asia. While the answers could be the same, Asia is a lot wider area then SEA so is a lot harder to answer. Particularly since your questions is fairly unclear. For example, per your own original question, clearly the Philippines is behind Bangladesh in terms of an actual ban (ignoring enforcement issues) so you could say it is less of a pioneer then Bangladesh in Asia. But of course this doesn't in itself necessarily mean they shouldn't be regarded as a pioneer in Asia. In terms of your new question, it seems fairly easy to answer based on the information you provided in your original question and the link. Particular since only you know what you mean by pioneer so you could answer it far more easily then us. For example you've already commented on Vietnam, Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia. The reference mentions Myanmar. You just have to check Singapore, Laos, Timor-Leste, Cambodia and Brunei. Depending on your definition of pioneer you may not even have to check them all. Nil Einne (talk) 12:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To make things clearer, let me try to rephrase the question: Compared to other Southeast Asian countries, does the Philippines have a particularly high number of local-level plastic bag bans? The reason why my first question was phrased like that was because it was intended to be an introduction to the topic, to give potential respondents some background on the topic. It appears that I failed miserably to make the question clear. I am also asking this because there may have been information about bans in other SEA countries which I have missed. The original question was about the Philippines being a "pioneer," but I guess "trendsetter" should have been the appropriate term. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew12:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nine Years' War/Rhineland and the Empire
Can the contributors to Section 3.1 Rhineland and the Empire of the Nine Years' War article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_Years'_War expand on the French workers used in the Rhineland during the war?
Several of my ancestors came up the Village of Büchelberg in the Bienwald forest in the Rhineland. The village was supposedly founded by French workers from the province of Picardy in 1692 to build forts during the war.
Here's a bit of a start (hopefully more people will chime in). I’m guessing this source in French is where the Picardy info came from – however it also doesn’t specify where in Picardy. If you would like more details about the town, its official page in German offers interesting tidbits, especially about the salt trade route, though also not directly answering your question. Settlement in the area certainly seems much older than 1692, with references in records back to the 12th century at least.
A cursory examination of the index of that book (whose contents are in French and German as well as Latin) suggests that it doesn't mention Büchelberg, and I suspect that it doesn't go that far forward in history, either. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a collection of Imperial edicts, apparently mostly, if not entirely, from the medieval period. No worries - there could easily have been a town charter or something in there - I just don't think there is. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above links to Büchlberg in Bavaria and to Schöpflin's book are interesting but misleading. You might want to visit the homepage of Büchelberg in the Bienwald forest here. It has a link to a 6-pages-extract from the town chronicle (cover page plus pages 55 thru 59 with the founding of Büchelberg in the late 1680's and early 1690's) PDF, 6,9 MB. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have exchanged emails with the Town Adminstrator of Büchelberg (a very distant relative) who is familiar with the town chronicle. It does not indicate the place(s) in Picardy. I also exchanged emails with a French history professor who suggested that the best place to search is at the French Military Library outside Paris.Johann Raab (talk) 00:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is used to denote an area where people in the territory of Oklahoma voted for Cleveland. If you look at the maps for the election before and after, the border of Texas and Oklahoma are the same as present day.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 01:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that U.S. territories cannot vote for U.S. President--only U.S. states can. I think this law was the same in 1892 as it is now. Futurist110 (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Tom Cruise character in Rain Man has to display an unusual intellectual rigor to be believable as the character in relation to his intellectually compromised brother. I think the top button closed on his shirts conveys staunchly independent thinking. Visually the head is set off from the body by the absence of the skin of the neck that would otherwise be exposed. It is also simply odd because the majority of the time, in the absence of a tie, that top button is left open. The character Tom Cruse plays requires the viewer to believe that they are looking at an unusual individual because we are called upon to believe that a socially fluent person is interacting with a dysfunctional brother and doing so without missing a beat. That is the passionate thing about the brotherly relationship depicted. Whether or not the button contributed to accentuating that relationship I cannot say. But my guess would be that would be the reason for that attire choice. Bus stop (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't mean anything, per se... It means whatever it means in the context of the situation which gives it its meaning. The top button buttoned could mean that he was being cool, or dorky, or gangsta, or whatever. Fashion does have "meaning", but it does not have universal, contextless "meaning" devoid of connection to the social situation that creates that "meaning". --Jayron3217:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "meaning" is the significance that a costume designer had in mind at this time. The clothing is not randomly chosen. And the actor doesn't choose his own wardrobe. These are choices made by a filmmaking crew. Their aim is to create distinct character. Bus stop (talk) 17:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doing the top button up could simply mean that the wearer of the shirt doesn't give a damn about fashion, finds a button, and does it up. A perfectly rational question is "Why do shirts have buttons that followers of fashion never do up?" HiLo48 (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that one thing that buttoning the top button up conveys is a sense of artlessness. The message created is that the individual saw a button plus a buttonhole and made the quite obvious conclusion that it gets buttoned, without exercising any degree of sophisticated evaluation from a fashion point of view. OK, I am repeating what HiLo48 said above. Bus stop (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Therefore we can conclude that the purpose of a top button is to give a wearer an opportunity not to use that button. If that top button and buttonhole were not there, one could not make the personal fashion statement of leaving it unbuttoned. Bus stop (talk) 17:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It has been a while since I saw the movie, but if I remember correctly Cruise's character starts off with the button undone... and starts to button it as he "bonds" with Hoffman's character. In this context, the buttoning would be a visual cue of that bonding. It also makes a visual statement about the growth of the two characters... Hoffman's character starts off as being portrayed as a dysfunctional "geek" while Cruise's character is portrayed as being a functional "cool" guy. As the movie progresses, these distinctions become blurred... "geek" becomes "cool" and "cool" becomes "geek". This blurring of personalities is reflected in the clothing the two characters wear (by the climactic scene in the casino, both are wearing identical outfits... a "cool" suit and sunglasses... but with the a "geek" touch of no tie and top button done up.) Blueboar (talk) 18:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the question requires universal meaning. The context of the movie Rain Man and specifically the Tom Cruise character provide the setting in which any possible meaning can be found. Also, this question also indicates that there is a significance, at least among Wikipedia Reference Desk participants, to the top button being buttoned. Bus stop (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"But Mr. Tite Barnacle was a buttoned-up man, and consequently a weighty one. All buttoned-up men are weighty. All buttoned-up men are believed in. Whether or no the reserved and never-exercised power of unbuttoning, fascinates mankind; whether or no wisdom is supposed to condense and augment when buttoned up, and to evaporate when unbuttoned; it is certain that the man to whom importance is accorded is the buttoned-up man. Mr. Tite Barnacle never would have passed for half his current value, unless his coat had been always buttoned-up to his white cravat." -- Charles Dickens
I think that the need for an open top button probably is one of those weird neurotypical compulsions that people on the autistic spectrum have a hard time relating to, e.g. [5][6]Wnt (talk) 05:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, your response (like the one by Alansplodge above) belies a confusion of the characters played by the main actors. Dustin Hoffman plays the autistic individual while Tom Cruise plays the normal individual.
My point was merely this: I was 7 years old in 1988 and can't appreciate what normal was at the time. The other male adult characters are either wearing ties (the doctors) or have their top buttons open (the black attendant at Raymond's institution, the court-appointed physician towards the end) -- so I just don't understand why Cruise would have been instructed to button his top button all throughout the film; I think it makes him look ridiculous, awkward and stands out from what normal people do. DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs)14:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It connects him to his autistic brother. I am pretty sure it was not normal then, since male fashion does not change that much. Anyway, also remember that someone like Tom Cruise is a trend-setter, not a trend-follower. I remember that many people copied his wearing of a tie stuck in the shirt, which was even more ridiculous . OsmanRF34 (talk) 16:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Male fashion, unlike female fashion, pivots on smaller indications, and there is an inherently greater component of practicality in male fashion. I think that the notion of the impractical implies feminine. It is not necessarily ridiculous to tuck the tie into the shirt as it serves the similar purpose of a tie clip or tie pin. Examples: [7][8][9]. These of course serve practical purposes. Don't forget we are discussing minute changes. When one buttons the top button one has not committed a faux pas. The filmmakers were merely trying to cast their characters as they saw fit. We are all just hazarding a guess as to what the filmmakers had in mind. Bus stop (talk) 20:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason the mainstream media is not reporting on deaths from the Israeli bombing, which I find suspicious because they love to go on and on about any civilian deaths in Syria from bombing. There is pretty heavy bombing going on right now in Gaza and presumably people are dying, is there any info on the number of people or civilians who have died so far? --Wrk678 (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Saturday night (there) it was 45 [10] - check Google and it'll probably be higher now. :( Note this kind of question is better submitted to the Humanities desk - for example, if there's something tricky in how the statistics are counted I might not know about it. Wnt (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not share your perception that casualties in Gaza are underreported, but it would not be surprising, since the scale of the conflict and the number of casualties is on a totally different level. At least 40.000 people are reported to have died in the Syrian_civil_war#Deaths, and hundreds of thousands have fled their homes. 40.000 dead in 20 months is 2000/month, so about 67 every day. - Lindert (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's amazing how many one purpose accounts we have asking questions like this. There is a suggestion on the talk page that we start a new Palestinian vs. Jew ref desk page where questions like this could be moved, which could almost be taken seriously. In a better world I'd hat the question myself or plain out delete it, what with its offensively debate fomenting soapbox intro. But that's just me, and everyone knows what a mad hatter I am. So someone else please do it. μηδείς (talk) 04:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have an updated source for how many have died on the Israeli side of the border? (the article currently says 3, but that may have risen since the source was written). Blueboar (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier this evening the score was at 106 to 3, but I won't even cite because I'm sure it's out of date by now. The Wikipedia article really doesn't have to be right minute-to-minute (it just needs to say when the count was done), though sometimes people get gung-ho and try to stay that on top of things. Wnt (talk) 05:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Freud's Civilization and its Discontents
Some years back I read Civilization and its Discontents and I seem to recall that somewhere in the book Freud stated something along the lines that the human capacity for happiness was finite but the human capacity for misery was endless — that nobody can feel joy all of the time, but you could feel sadness all of the time. I am trying to track down the exact quote if indeed my memory is correct (it may very well not be). Searching a Google Books copy has not turned it up when looking for words like "happiness" or "misery." Does anyone recognize this? --Mr.98 (talk) 07:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Schopenhauer (as you might expect) has a similar point: "happiness and satisfaction always imply some desire fulfilled, some state of pain brought to an end. This explains the fact that we generally find pleasure to be not nearly so pleasant as we expected, and pain very much more painful. The pleasure in this world, it has been said, outweighs the pain; or, at any rate, there is an even balance between the two. If the reader wishes to see shortly whether this statement is true, let him compare the respective feelings of two animals, one of which is engaged in eating the other." (Studies in Pessimism). HenryFlower02:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, a guy I know has started getting into listening to conspiracy theorists on YouTube. His hobby it seems is to sit at home watching these YouTube clips about why he doesn't have to pay his mortgage while his wife works to pay their mortgage. But I digress... The latest link that he's sent to me is this one which is nearly an hour long. I'm not asking you to listen to it. I'm just providing it for reference. I'm about 18 (painful) minutes through it so far. At somewhere around the 15 minute mark, the guest on this radio show starts explaining a few things. I'll try to list them:
The bank that lends you the money for your mortgage is essentially creating the money out of thin air.
Your mortgage isn't a contract, it's an agreement. How this makes a real difference in whether you need to pay your mortgage, I'm not clear.
Since the bank has likely sold your mortgage on to another institution and had it bundled into another security, you don't owe the bank. (16:30)
14 people went to a judge and said that they didn't owe the bank for their mortgages because the bank couldn't produce the paperwork with the homeowners signatures on them. The judge declared that since the bank couldn't produce the paperwork, the homes belonged to the people and they didn't have to pay the bank any more money. (16:45)
What I'm looking for is some links to articles that explains these things from a non-conspiracy theorist POV. The more specific the better since I could start with mortgage and eventually find what I'm looking for but I'd like to save some time by getting to the heart of things and working outwards from there. By the way, my buddy and I are both US Americans. So I'm looking for things that deal with this from an American perspective, if it matters. Thanks! Dismas|(talk)10:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably you meant "owe" the bank. This premise sounds like it's written by the same guys who write about how you don't have to pay income taxes. They usually write this stuff in their spare time between prison gigs. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 13:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will address your points in order and then make a general comment.
It is true that banks create money out of thin air, though with some limits, as our article on fractional reserve banking hopefully explains.
In the United States, at least in most states, a mortgage is indeed a type of contract.
These days, few U.S. banks hold the mortgages they issue, but many service the mortgages that they have sold on. In this case, the new owners of the mortgage have signed an agreement with the bank that issued the mortgage to collect mortgage payments as their agent. The owners of your mortgage have the right to do this, and in this case you are obliged to pay their designated agent, which may be the bank that sold you the mortgage but no longer owns it.
During the housing bubble of the O's or aughts or whatever we're calling the last decade, many banks bundled mortgages into packages and then sold off shares in those packages without keeping adequate records of who ended up owning what or without adhering to laws on documenting ownership titles. In some cases, banks or agencies collecting mortgage payments were doing so without clear authorization from parties with clear titles to those mortgages. When those banks or agencies try to foreclose on homeowners who failed to make scheduled mortgage payments, the law says that the people claiming a right to mortgage payments have to produce proof that they indeed have a clear title to the mortgage before they can enforce the provisions of that mortgage that allow them to foreclose on property. In many cases, the bundling and reselling of pieces of mortgages was done without adequate documentation or adherence to the law, such that plaintiffs suing for foreclosure could not prove their right to do so, or even to collect mortgage payments from the purchasers of the property. When these purchasers have valid title to the property, whereas the mortgagees lack a valid title to the mortgage, the mortgagees are unable to foreclose on the property or, in some cases, to demand mortgage payments until the status of the mortgage is clarified. Of course, parties owning mortgages have put lawyers to work to untangle the mess that the banks created, and the owners of the mortgage may eventually end up with a valid claim to mortgage payments, including back payments, and a right to foreclose if those claims are not met. So homeowners' relief from mortgage payments in these cases may be temporary.
Finally, you may want to read our article Criticism of the Federal Reserve. Your title refers to conspiracy theorists, and some critics of the federal reserve system, which is at the center of fractional reserve banking in the United States, see the Federal Reserve as a conspiracy by financial interests to control the U.S. economy for their own benefit. Marco polo (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This "creating money" or fiat currency is not at will. Commercial banks have a limitation on its amount and central banks have target like inflation and growth to fulfill.
it also sounds mysterious to me
Indeed, you don't owe the bank if it sold your debt to another institution. You owe this other institution, which is the same in terms of having to pay.
Sounds like an irregular foreclosure with insufficient documents.18:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OsmanRF34 (talk • contribs)
RE: Indeed, you don't owe the bank if it sold your debt to another institution. You owe this other institution, which is the same in terms of having to pay. A lot depends on how the specific motgage contracts are worded... in some cases you might legally still owe the bank (and the Bank owes the other institution) In other cases you legally owe the other institution (but pay it through the bank). In yet others, the bank acts as nothing but a broker... selling you a mortgage owned by another institution from the get go (in which case you owe and pay the other institution directly). None of which make any difference in terms of you being legally obligated to pay someone... its just a question of who to write the check to. Blueboar (talk) 18:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
November 20
Barack Obama in Southeast Asia
President Obama is currently on a visit to several Southeast Asian countries. Today he was in either Myanmar or Burma. Which name did he use when discussing his visit? I did notice that he said Rangoon, not Yangon. He also said that the US Ambassador is in Rangoon. Why is the US Embassy not in Naypyidaw? 216.93.234.239 (talk) 05:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
About the ambassador part, Naypyidaw only became the capital in 2005, and construction only started around 2006 or so, so it's still a fairly new city. Perhaps it's for convenience, since the center of business is still Yangon, although I'm not an expert on Myanmar/Burma so I can't be so sure. I also read that some countries don't recognize Naypyidaw as the capital, although I don't know the reason, but that may be a factor as to why they haven't moved the embassy yet. It's also interesting to note that most embassies of countries which have diplomatic relations with North Korea are in Beijing rather than Pyongyang, although the reasons for that are far more obvious. Also, several Libyan embassies are in Benghazi or elsewhere rather than in Tripoli, although again I don't know the reason. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew09:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Part of that is historical. Libya formed from the union of three seperate territories, Tripolitania, Cyrenaica and the Fezzan. Two of these, Tripolitania and Cyrenaica are ancient in origin, dating back to Roman Empire times or earlier. For a significant time period, Libya had two official capital cities, Tripoli (in Tripolitania) and Benghazi (in Cyrenaica). Though Benghazi's "official" capital status has since been dropped, it has continued to be an unofficial "secondary capital", with many national government functions; so it hosts embassies as well as Tripoli does. Similar situations, where a country maintains its embassy in a city other than the official capital, happens often enough. The US Embassy in Israel is in Tel Aviv, and its Embassy in the Netherlands is in The Hague. The former because Jerusalem has been a disputed city; Tel Aviv is seen as safer from a security and political stance. The latter because The Hague is the Netherlands seat of government and de facto real capital: Amsterdam is its "official" constitutional capital, but doesn't host any national government functions. The same thing happens in Bolivia; Sucre is the "official" capital, but the government and most ambassadors work out of La Paz. I can find another half dozen cases of U.S. embassies alone which are not resident in the Capital cities, and they all have reasons similar to the reasons noted here. --Jayron3214:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to this news report [15], Obama used "Myanmar" as "a courtesy" to the country's leaders even though the official US position continues to be to refer to the country as "Burma". Dragons flight (talk) 11:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think Hillary had also referred to it as "Myanmar" during her visit there some months ago. This is a country that appears to be voluntarily trying to expand its civil liberties after decades of repression, so calling them what they want to be called seems like a fair thing to do. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 14:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Set of line drawings all titled 'The Beaujolais Sset'
Each of the drawings is of a 'madam' or 'madamoiselle' plus a name, each in a different costume with a printed decription of their character below. I am just curious to know what their origin or purpose might be. They are just print onto an sheet of card or paper about twice A4, and in the bottom rh corner have a 'c' in a circle and FWFF 88.
Caveat - this is original research and a long shot, but I suspect you may have some promotional materials produced by the international marketing group SOPEXA, or more probably by one of its subsidiaries called FWFF which doesn't seem to be operating now, not under that name anyway, but did so back in the lates 80s/early 90s according to a number of LinkedIn career profiles of marketing professionals. FWFF appears to have focused on promoting wine and food from French regions including Beaujolais. Perhaps the various madames and mademoiselles are images representing different towns, grapes, vineyards or similar - posh giveaways for an upmarket promo campaign? - Karenjc11:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably no one here knows what is going to happen in Gaza, but I'm wondering how likely it is that someone in Israel does know? Specifically, would it be likely that the Israelis have drawn up a battle plan covering the entire outline of their offensive from beginning to end, including such items as lists of bombing targets and the use of ground forces (if any). Or is it more likely that they got into this conflict without having decided on a particular battle plan and exit strategy?
Since we are unlikely to know any specific details about the current operation, I'm curious what is known about past operations by the Israelis (e.g. the 2009 Gaza War), as well as similar conflicts that might have occurred elsewhere? Do historians know whether it is generally the case, in a conflict like this, that the whole course of the conflict has been roughly mapped out before it begins? Or is it more often the case that the military / political leaders make most of their decisions about the course of the conflict only after having begun hostilities? For a larger scale example, when the allies invaded Iraq during the first Gulf War, was it already decided that no direct attempt would be made to depose Saddam? Dragons flight (talk) 11:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Like Publilius Syrus said 'It is a bad plan that cannot be changed', and the Israelis know this. Of course they have a plan (or several), but they will not follow it blindly, and they will adapt the details, or even their entire strategy if the situation requires it. - Lindert (talk) 13:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note: this is a bad translation of Publilius Syrus, but that can be changed. A better one: "A plan that cannot be changed is a bad plan" or "It is a bad plan if it cannot be changed." Original: "Malum consilium quod mutari non potest " OsmanRF34 (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Lindert's version was any worse than your two, Osman. It's in the same vein as "It's an ill wind that blows nobody any good". That could be rendered as "A wind that blows nobody any good is an ill wind" or "It is an ill wind if it blows nobody any good", but where's the value added? -- Jack of Oz[Talk]18:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because (to me) the first quote read as if it was in reference to a specific plan. I only understood the intended meaning after reading Osman's versions. --Iae (talk) 18:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, I maintain that my translation has a different meaning. In the case of Lindert's translation it implies that you just have one plan, and this one plan cannot be changed. In the original and in mine two versions it implies that good plans are those that can be changed if needed. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't necessarily have a different meaning. It depends on how you read it. It has the potential for a different meaning but it can still have exactly the same meaning as the other two versions. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It took me a bit even to see Osman's objection. He thinks Lindert's translation amounts to "It is a bad plan (and one) that can't be changed." But I would have translated it exactly as Lindert gave, or even more poetically and less ambiguous: Bad the plan that can't be changed.μηδείς (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To me, there is no question that an umambiguous translation, such as Osman's, is better than an ambiguous one. Before Osman clarified, I read and understood the unintended meaning of the first (poor) translation. Marco polo (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a well-known idiom in British (and Australian) English, following the Latin structure, not a poor translation, but if it is not universally understood by competent speakers of English world-wide, then it's poor communication. Dbfirs08:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Once a translation is canonized into a "standard form" (whatever that be), there is not way of changing it? Why does the Bible has alternative translations then? It is a bad translation that cannot be changed? Philoknow (talk) 17:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone here has argued that there is just one acceptable translation or that there's anything wrong with suggesting new translations. - Lindert (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... with a quick look, I have not found an article that lays out the history and development of various divorce laws in England. Divorces were indeed much harder to obtain during the Edwardian Era (the setting for Downton Abbey)... I assume that the 1857 statute that Rojomoke points us to was still in effect, but it would be helpful to have one article that summarizes the various changes over time. Blueboar (talk) 13:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the "mental instability" was present at the time of the marriage, then presumably a case could have been made that the spouse was not able to enter into the contract properly, and an annulment would have been possible. Rojomoke (talk) 20:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So if you wanted to divorce your spouse who has mental instabilitty, all you had to do was commit adultery? Sounds easy enough. What's the catch? – b_jonas20:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the common people, it was easier to commit said family member into an asylum and pretend they didn't exist. (OK so this is OR, I have a great great aunt to whom this happened. Her grandson was under the impression she died 6 months after being commited: she actually died 30 years later.) --TammyMoet (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was only the aggrieved spouse who could sue for divorce on grounds of adultery. I don't think a husband could go into a court and say, "Here is my mistress. Here is my servant who can testify to what he saw us doing. Now grant me a divorce from my insane wife." I think it would have to be the insane wife who requested the divorce, though of course she might have been induced to sign a document asking for divorce. Marco polo (talk) 21:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes [18][19] and Matrimonial Causes Act 1937 seem to confirm the husband needed to prove his wife commited adultery. While they don't specifically say the husband couldn't petition for a divorce based on his adultery, I would say it's implied. (They do mention the wife had to show more then just plain adultery from her husband.) My understanding is this was the norm for most such laws in various countries. Note that if the husband was rich and well connected, her likely still had the option available before the act existed i.e. convincing parliament to pass a Private bill (Local and Personal Acts of Parliament in the United Kingdom) to grant him a divorce. I'm not sure whether it was normal for parliament to pass a bill in such a case but my assumption is if the husband did have the necessary wealth and connections, unless the wife had someone to fight for her, he would be able to get a divorce. Nil Einne (talk) 13:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the existance of an established church would make any difference. Nevertheless, the concept of annulments exists in both British secular law and Church of England law, so I don't see there being a problem. --Tango (talk) 12:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Annulment is legally meaningless in the US, since it's purely a church matter, and churches have no legal status. You just implied that there is secular law regarding annulment in Britain, as I suspected there might be, given you have an established church. So, the question remains, would annulment have been a legal alternative to divorce in any sorts of cases where separation was sought but there was no adultery involved? μηδείς (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That harks back to a question I asked here a few months ago. A lot of American celebrities these days seem to talk about getting annulments rather than divorces. I've always suspected it's loose language because, as you say, annulment is solely a church matter in the USA, not a civil matter. Even if you do procure a church annulment, the law of the land still considers you to be married, and if you want to remarry (a third party), you're first required to kill or divorce your legal spouse. -- Jack of Oz[Talk]19:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They will almost certainly be practicing Catholics, who pursue annulment as a religious work-around given the prohibition on a church remarriage even after a civil law divorce. Remarry without an annulment and you are in effect excommunicated as willfully living in sin. μηδείς (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1854 engraving of Waimea
Base on this illustration and the names "Lossing=Barritt." written on the side can someone tell me if the person is the engraver or artist and when this may have been originally made. It must predate 1854.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "Lossing" is Benson John Lossing, who according to his article "joined William Barritt in a wood engraving business that became one of the largest of such firms in New York" in 1846. It may be difficult to determine who executed the drawing or painting from which the engraving was made, since I don't see any indication on the cut itself. Publishers of the time often inserted illustrations (the 19th-century equivalent of clip art) that had nothing to do with the authorship of the work in which they appeared, so it's probably unlikely that the G. W. Bates who wrote Sandwich Island Notes made the drawing or had anything to do with the illustration's appearance in the book. Deor (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lyndon B. Johnson corruption
This Bloomberg [20] article accuses Lyndon B. Johnson of bribery to the tune of millions. Is there any truth to this? I can't find any reliable source to corroborate this claim and Google is no help thanks to all the JFK conspiracy theory nuts. His own biography contain claims of fraud and ballot stuffing, but nothing about bribery. A8875 (talk) 22:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That article says nothing about Johnson and bribery. It states that he was wealthy by the time he became President, but doesn't speculate about how he got there. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, nothing explicit was said, but it's still strongly implied: "After 27 years of service in modestly paid public offices, he has managed to become one of the richest Presidents in U.S. history.". In any case, I'm looking for references to these alleged corrupt dealings implied by the pseudo-accusations.A8875 (talk) 23:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you're referring to this article, not the Bloomberg piece. But I still don't see even a pseudo-accusation. You mentioned The Years of Lyndon Johnson; have you read it? It goes into astonishingly extensive detail regarding his business dealings. If you want a solid reference regarding his finances in the absence of anything more specific to go on, I suggest you start there. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest this is just a minute curiosity so I probably won't spend the time to go through the 4 volume biography. I just skimmed through the WP article on said biography and it didn't mention any corruption so I'll just assume none was mentioned in the biography. A8875 (talk) 01:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of drawing this out too much, I wouldn't say that corruption isn't mentioned, since corruption has a much broader definition than bribery. Quite the opposite, in fact, particularly considering his very special relationship with Brown & Root. The first volume of Years alone covers many things on the corruption checklist including election fraud, cronyism, and patronage. It's just that Johnson's goal was to become President for reasons other than money, so building a personal fortune was a side benefit of his considerable political connections rather than a direct result of envelopes of cash. In fact, the very first paragraph of The Path to Power relates an incident where Johnson turned down a very lucrative sweetheart deal because accepting it may have negatively impacted his political career. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 01:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From the article: The shoal was named after the East India Company tea-trade ship Scarborough which was wrecked on one of its rocks on 12 September 1784 with all lives lost. How did contemporaneous people determine that that ship was wrecked in that location if all lives were lost, thus leading to the name assignment? The Masked Booby (talk) 03:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The account in the first reference linked to from the article (whose link doesn't work but can be found in Google Books) says that "parts of the wreck had been afterwards discovered by sloops sent in search of her". I've no idea if that's true but it's a plausible explanation. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The second link appears to contain an account by the captain of the Scarborough, describing the shoal. So maybe the "all lives lost" bit should be removed. Rojomoke (talk) 05:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that as well but I couldn't actually verify it was by the captain of the Scarborough and not some other captain. The source plays pretty fast and loose with captains' testimonies. Both of the sources are a little problematic (one is a guy's diary from many decades after the incident in question, the other is a mariner's handbook — neither genres are exactly known for being spotlessly accurate when it comes to historical names of things). --Mr.98 (talk) 13:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That page was incorrect - Hanukah is eight days everywhere in the world. It's not clear why the error was there. It may have been due to a calculation: 8 days festival - 1 Saturday = 7 days off school, but Hanukah can occur in such a way that there are two Saturdays... and in any case the wording was misleading, so I've fixed it. Alternatively, the mistake could have been because on most religious Jewish festivals (Rosh Hashanah being a major, but not the sole exception), in Israel the observance is one day shorter than in the rest of the world. We don't appear to have an article about this phenomenon, so I've posted at WT:JUDAISM to see what can be done. So, two more successes for the Ref Desks in improving mainspace. --Dweller (talk) 13:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't trust some random website to give reliable info, particularly when it offers no explaination. The entire month of Ramadhan is almost definitely not a public holiday in Qatar, I say that without even looking at sources but a quick search finds [22] for example which while perhaps not up to WP:RS looks far more reliable then your one and at least has some decent explaination with sounds plausible. My guess is even the first day of Ramadhan is not a public holiday. However in a number of Muslim countries there is an official start to Ramadhan and there may be legal requirements, at least for Muslims, as well as there being changes to social and business behaviour during the month. Nil Einne (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What does "unless one of the Muslim country celebrate both Ramadan and Eid ul-Fitr" mean? First of all, as mentioned above, Ramadan is not a holiday where Muslims sit at home feasting. Life goes on as normal except for a few things like abstaining from eating/drinking/sexual relations of any kind during the day. Eid-ul-Fitr is the holiday, a celebration of the end of Ramadan lasting a day or two or three depending where you are. Second, a Muslim country would "celebrate" both or none (they all recognize both by the way). If you recognize Ramadan then you have to recognize Eid. And if you don't recognize Ramadan then how can you recognize Eid which is celebrating the end of Ramadan. Even Eid-ul-Adha in practice is three days at most. Both Eids being ten days long in the kingdom probably just means that the government shutting everything down but people move on with their private lives after a day or two, kind of like how schools shut down in the USA for the entire week of thanksgiving (as they are right now) but everyone going on with their lives except perhaps for the actual day of Thanksgiving on Thursday. Even then plenty of stores/restaurants will be open (not counting the crazy black Friday fanatics).184.96.226.214 (talk) 10:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From the same article: "In Denmark the summer holiday lasts 7–8 weeks". But I am thinking the OP meant the literal interpretation of holiday, as in religious holy days. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)][reply]
I'm not sure why people are thinking that. From the OPs original question it seems clear to me the OP is referring to official public holidays and not including those limited to schools only. The Ramadhan bit may have confused matters, but I think it's just that the OP incorrectly assumed Ramadhan is a holiday. Of course the concept of public holidays isn't always clear cut, e.g. in the US, and it's true in many countries there's nothing stopping businesses remainining open on some or all public holidays (usually with extra payment to staff) and so retail ones at least often do so and it's also true in some countries a fair amount of businesses (particularly offices) shut down longer then for the number of public holidays during certain periods, but it's not clear the OP cares about that. Nil Einne (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should've been more clear by saying public holiday, but I honestly didn't expect this confusion to arise at all. I realize people work on Ramadan, but this page led me to believe [23] it's a 29 (or 30) day long public holiday in Qatar. A8875 (talk) 15:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm withdrawing my comments above. While I do feel the original version was sufficiently clear, given the OP's unfortunate retroconning without making this clear in the modified post when so many people have responded (which included me) and some people have already clearly been confused by the original post, I'm not going to criticise anyone but the OP here. Nil Einne (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The term "holiday" originally meant "holy day", so on that basis presumably Ramadan would qualify, as a "holy month" of days. That's assuming it really is considered a "holy" month. Muslims could correct my impression, if it's false. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 12:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notice I said "originally". And in fact it is still sometimes used as an equivalent to "holy day", but often not. And Blueboar is right that the OP should clarify just how he's using the term "holiday". Brits use the term "on holiday" to mean "on vacation", and I doubt that's what the OP means, but who knows? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 15:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The entire month of Ramadan, and the time of Lent, for examples, are clearly not "public holidays". A public holiday is where most everyone gets the day off from work. So the probability of any public holiday lasting more than a day or two or three, is pretty remote. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
this page says that only the first day of Chanukah is a public holiday. the others are "Hebrew observance". In England and Wales, we get Good Friday and Easter Monday off, creating a four-day weekend. Although Easter Sunday isn't a public holiday, it's the only day of the year when big supermakets are forbidden to open. Alansplodge (talk) 01:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They've tried that in Australia too, in some states, but they figured that if a shop wants to trade that day, and enough staff are willing to turn up that day, and customers want to shop that day, a government of a secular state has no right to tell all three sets of parties that they cannot engage in this economic activity. -- Jack of Oz[Talk]06:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting point. In essence, every Sunday was once a public holiday for those American cities that had blue laws. Blue laws are pretty well gone, but they still operate in some places, by custom if nothing else. (That again harkens back to "holiday" meaning "holy day".) ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 12:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Easter Sunday closing was a compromise contained in the Sunday Trading Act 1994, which reformed the rather bizarre sunday trading laws then in force. Before then it was legal to by a pornographic magazine but illegal to buy a Bible; you could buy a Chinese take-away but not fish and chips. Large supermarkets are also restricted to six hours trading on a normal Sunday. Alansplodge (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As highlighted by the OP and explained in Public holidays in the People's Republic of China, China does have the well known Golden Weeks, formerly 3 now 2, so there arguably are public holidays lasting more then two or three days (since they normally get the entire 7 days off). However the system there is somewhat unusual, while they normally get 7 days off during the week, they only get 3 days of extra actual non working days from the week. The golden week arises from moving a weekend (possibly also with the moved day off if the holidays wall on the weekend, as is the case for other holidays and in the norm in some countries) so they work 7 days some other week. In fact while I'm not sure, I believe depending on when Mid Autumn festival falls it's possible they will have longer then 7 days during the National Day golden week. Since AFAIK, the golden week (7 days) is supposed to begin with the first day of the event, I'm also not sure what happens if it falls on a Monday (do they normally move the weekend before the Monday or some other weekend meaning they have 9 days off?) In any case, as I understand it, there is or was some degree of government involvement in the process. (This compares to in some other countries like NZ where it's common for people working in offices and some other jobs to have about 1-2 weeks off during the Christmas - New Year period as a result of four holidays, Chrismas, Boxing Day, New Year's Day, day after New Years combined with the weekends meaning people only have to take a few days of work off for a long holiday. While the companies or businesses themselves may semi force this by shutting down during the period, there's no real government involvement.) Nil Einne (talk) 18:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like each logo is just an 'E' overlapped with the initial of the place where the college is located. I'm not sure why Brugge gets a lower-case 'b', but it does. See Monogram. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The symbol on the left, under which is written "Brugge", is a "b" with a crown standing for the city (it exists on the city's coat of arms) with an "E" behind, which is obviously standing for "Europe" and the college. In this light, the symbol of the right is clearly an "N" with a crown standing for Natolin, with the same E behind it, but I'm not sure what usage this symbol has otherwise. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 11:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Me again. This page says "The crest shows a Gothic letter B with a crown. This logo was first used by the city in the 14th century and was later placed in the crest." So the reason it's written like that, is that it's been done that way for 700 years. Alansplodge (talk) 01:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some more research indicates it may have been a kamilavka: [24]. I'm not sure the hat is universal among Mizrahi Haredi men more than one of many styles worn by such men. Just as the last time a question like this was asked, there isn't a universal hat worn by all such men, rather there are a wide variety of hats so worn. --Jayron3217:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yet more: This webpage is from "The Philippi Collection" which claims to be the largest collection of clerical headwear in the world, and the collector appears to be an expert on the topic. You could contact him for his opinion; there is a contact link on his webpage, and he could give you an answer. --Jayron3217:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That I know. I think it is an archaic spelling of some Hawaiian name for an extinct volcano in Kauai, but I don't know what is the modern name.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is the King's Staff or the Queen's Staff in Hawaii? Members in it were titled Col. and they were not politicians, distinct from the cabinet and privy council, yet they weren't ordinary royal guards. Hawaii modeled its monarchy after Britain so maybe something similar existed there too.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was forgetting the Master of the Household who is also a former military officer, currently Air Marshal Sir David Allan Walker. He also has a deputy, currently Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Richards; they look after the running of the official residences, a bit like a hotel manager. The Keeper of the Privy Purse who is the Queen's official accountant, used to be an ex-military officer, but since 1996 they have had a background in commercial accountancy (probably a good thing really). Alansplodge (talk) 13:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How segregated is Iraq and Israel?
When someone carries out a terror attack, how can he be assured that he's not killing his own people? AFAIK, in Israel there's a significant Arab-Israeli population, are they fair game for the Hamas? And in Baghdad there are different Arab sects, are they so divided that a terrorist won't end up killing people from his side? Comploose (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are assuming that a terrorist bent on destruction will think very clearly and logically. You are also assuming that a terrorist will have severe qualms about hurting any of his own people and will avoid so at all costs. I disagree with both assumptions. While for some people it may be true, there are plenty of maniacs for whom killing the enemy must be done at all costs even it means the lives of their own compatriots or even their own life (hence the suicide bombers). There is also a question of self-identity and who a terrorist would consider "his own". I think you are confusing ethnicity with religion. Yes, there are Arab Muslims, Arab Jews, and even Arab Christians. But the tensions are along religious lines. A Palestinian Arab Muslim suicide bomber wouldn't care if you are Arab or not. He wants to blow up a Jew with him.128.138.138.122 (talk) 21:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The terrorist might even reason that there's no "real" harm to the faithful among the collateral damage, because they should instantly into the arms of God. Or, they might reason that they are actually infidels and thus they don't matter. Either way, he bombs. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are assuming that the guy who blows himself to pieces is the same guy who leads a terror organization. They are not. The former is the mad one, but that doesn't imply that the latter is not rationally planning and manipulating this mad guy for his own purposes. So, how does it fit these purposes, if the terror act ends up killing people who are not considered fair targets? It's clear that the enemy of Hamas might include Israeli Arabs (although I am not sure about it). But what if a bomb kills a group of Muslims that are not considered enemies? I have specially in mind attacks in the center of Baghdad or on the market. Comploose (talk) 23:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They don't care from a human perspective, that's clear. But what about from a "bad marketing" perspective? Terrorists need to draw attention to their cause. If they start blowing people that are not perceived as the enemy, helpers of the enemy or somehow inferior, that would erode the support that they need to hide, buy weapons, get apprentice terrorists. Comploose (talk) 15:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re Israel, the UN released a report last March condemning the systematic segregation in the country. news report, UN report itself. Relevant Wikipedia articles may include Israeli settlement and Israeli West Bank barrier. I’ve found it hard to locate interviews with Hamas that address your question; perhaps because I don’t speak the languages. In this one, Mahmoud Zahar says he would disarm any splinter groups that seemed to pose a risk of Palestinians shooting Palestinians. 184.147.123.169 (talk) 13:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That might help with determining the segregation between Palestinian Arabs and Israeli Jews, but it won't help with the issue of Israeli Arabs, who in 2006, made up 20% of Israel's population. They have the same rights as any Israeli Jew, including, it would seem, the right to be blown up on a bus. --Dweller (talk) 13:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no. The communities do tend to live separately, on the whole, although without this being enforced, and there are some places of greater or lesser integration. But even in a town with easily understood "Arab" and "Jewish" neighbourhoods, on a bus with (say) 40 passengers going through a "Jewish" neighbourhood, while you might expect fewer than the average number of Arabs (8) the bomber couldn't be sure that there'd be no Arabs on board because people pass through places on their way to town, or visit other neighbourhoods to work. Bringing together both my points, while Tel Aviv may be mostly Jewish, it includes the ancient port city of Jaffa, whose population is roughly a third Arab (Muslim and Christian). --Dweller (talk) 14:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that an Arab in Israel carrying a backpack and entering a bus that no Arabs ever takes would raise some red flags. Probably they will have to take a less than perfectly segregated bus. Comploose (talk) 16:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on how unfriendly the dominant culture behaves towards the minority culture... "Self-segregation" is often "imposed through means other than laws." --Jayron3215:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Barriers to entry in the mining machine maintenance industry in Australia
What are the barriers to entry in the mining machine maintenance industry in Australia? Not so high that an electrician who makes A$400 a week can't make a toehold and be successful enough to be able to secure an A$500,000 loan to buy your first mine? It would seem that when you're just starting, having been an electrician making A$400 per week yesterday, before you could take any mining machine maintenance jobs, you would first need equipment, employees, at least some sales and accounting staff, legal and tax, and probably more, none of which is cheap. 67.163.109.173 (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, suppose there are three: 1) How did he get the necessary equipment to start a mining equipment repair company with the amount of capital he had at the very beginning of his business, 2) How did he get people to work for him with the amount of capital he had at the very beginning of his business, and 3) How did he get access to the big money decision makers to hire him and his little (I'm assuming it was little) band of repairmen at the capacity he was capable of at the time? 67.163.109.173 (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given that being a sub-contractor is basically a dispensation or stipend—the owners of real capital control the access to capital, machinery, contracts and labour; leaving the petits-bourgeois sub-contractor as fundamentally dependent—the chief barrier to entry is suck holing the bosses' arsehole. After that you face the barrier to entry that subcontracting is a useful way of grinding safety and profit out of a dangerous and non-profitable sector, much like the pastoral lease managers who were allowed to "buy-in" in the 19th century to deliberately send them bankrupt and soak up their capital. So chief barriers to entry are being an arselicker and being clever enough to be stupid enough to bankrupt yourself for a mining conglomerate. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like Nathan Tinkler bankrupted himself thanks to horse racing, auto racing, and other games more than mining, which, with luck it seems, made him the money to lose. 67.163.109.173 (talk) 23:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Barriers to entry, which curiosity of mine is motivated by his (as a concrete instance) apparently being able to overcome them while making A$400 a week, which is why I mentioned him. 67.163.109.173 (talk) 14:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the MBTI called that?
The Meyers-Brigg Type Indicator test was invented by a mother and daughter team with the surnames Briggs and Briggs-Meyers. How did that become Meyers-Briggs in the name of the test? It should be BMTI surely? 81.159.114.101 (talk) 23:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator was devised by Isabel Briggs Myers (note: no hyphen) and Katherine Cook Briggs. They used their surnames, in that order. It was fairly common for women of that time not to hyphenate their maiden and married surnames. --NellieBly (talk) 23:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's also a somewhat common practice for women to change their middle name to their maiden name after marriage and eliminate their birth middle name entirely. I don't know when this practice started though, so I don't know if it is relevant here. Dismas|(talk)06:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the hyphenated or double-barrelled use of maiden name + husband's surname dates only back to the 1970's, the era when Ms. was invented. The use without a hyphen long antedates that, and was the norm for my mother and other female relatives of her generation in everyday matters. See, for example, Emily Post, Etiquette, 1922, p. 458. Textorus (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the exact original source above. I'd like to include a similar, but more detailed graph on the wiki for several articles and if there's enough info, write an article on the topic. Thanks for trying though.Smallman12q (talk) 22:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Her role was limited to a very minor battle between British and American forces, in the middle of nowhere. It's not clear that had the Americans taken over the small fort that was their objective, it would have changed anything in the bigger scheme of things. The only thing that could have changed the outcome of the War of 1812 was if, in Europe, Napoleon had managed to defeat or isolate England, making England incapable of defending its North American possessions. --Xuxl (talk) 14:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, her actions did influence Canadian views of the war. She became a symbol that boosted a Canadian sense of patriotism. That patriotism might not have influenced the outcome of the War in military terms... but it did influence how Canadians felt about the war... and subsequent relations between Canada, the US, and Great Britain. Blueboar (talk) 14:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
However, Laura Secord did not become a symbol until much later, when the war had been over for years (the article on her makes that clear). So, her actions were not used for patriotic purposes and had no effect on the further conduct of the War of 1812. --Xuxl (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That would depend on whether Sandy Island (New Caledonia) was deliberately created as a fictitious place on a map, or done in good faith but in error. The people mentioned in the article don't know themselves how it came about, so we await the results of their research. -- Jack of Oz[Talk]05:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds a bit like the village of Quare that existed for more than a century on maps of Wiltshire, UK, when unable to identify a village the map maker, Christopher Saxton put 'quare', possibly 'query', meaning to come back and fix it. He never did and it appeared for 145 years before being discovered to be an abandoned North Burcombe. Richard Avery (talk) 14:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Google Earth views are made from a complicated montage of different sources. For open sea they use wide, undetailed Blue Marble-type images. Where the map says there should be land, they splice in more detailed stuff, first from Landsat and then from more detailed commercial sources. The black blob looks like an artefact of this process - their workflow says there should be an island there, and so a more detailed (at least Landsat) image of that area should be used. But there isn't, so the system is stuck. I expect somewhere in a giant list of queries the system has generated for human attention is a task about this (one that'll surely get human attention now, given the publicity). -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk15:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And indeed if one looks at the "island" with Google Earth, it renders a shoreline vector (from its defective shoreline database) that matches the black blob. So their map says there's an island, one the photo processor can't find. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk15:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks heaps, all. So does the black blob predate the idea of there being an island there, I wonder? Adambrowne666 (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC) (PS I'd like it if someone went there to discover indeed an island made of black jaggy pixels and illfitting collage-bits...)[reply]
Watchful eyes
In a very similar case to Sandy Island, above, we also have Argleton. A few months ago someone added a see-also there to the (non existent) Watchful Eyes, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Google does report some addresses with that location, but again it's not at all clear that it's in any way a "real" place. Is Watchful Eyes another only-exists-in-Google place? -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk16:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is the man on the right of the photo Ignacy Loga-Sowiński ?
"Ludwig Renn (left) and Sowinski in october 1954" says the Bundesarchiv caption
Hello Learned Ones ! "Mam opracować pewne zagadnienie" : I had prepared the question in polish , but never could get into their Reference Desk, so I ask you : Is the man on the right of the photo Ignacy Loga-Sowiński ? In 1954, he was (says the Polish article about him) a 40 years old "aparatchik". Thanks a lot beforehands for your answers ! T;y. Arapaima (talk) 16:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The more human-like an anthropomorphic rendition is, the more attractive it's likely to be. One example is that the early renderings of Bugs Bunny are considered "rat-like" and less attractive than the later renderings. And predatory birds and animals tend to be more attractive to us because they have binocular vision like we do, and don't look "beady-eyed" like their prey do. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lawyering in Texas
I wonder if any ref desk brainiacs can help me find out when Texas began requiring a law degree to practice law. I know that from early days in Texas, as in other states of the Union, it was originally the case that an aspiring lawyer could simply start working for and studying with an already accepted lawyer, and eventually learn enough to be admitted to practice in the courts of the state - no college degree or law degree required. My research so far via Google Books and other sources suggests that perhaps as late as the 1960's this was still posssible in Texas, but an exact answer seems to be locked away behind paywalls or in subscription journals. I'm not interested in other states, only in Texas - can anyone help with this question? Textorus (talk) 21:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't give you a date, but maybe this is some clue to help you chase it down. Legal self-help publisher Nolo.com was prosecuted in Texas for unlicenced practice of law - Nolo's own side of that is here. That committee's page is here and the applicable (current) law here. So if you can figure out when the Texas legislature passed that law, that at least gives you an upper bound. Looking at the law briefly, they don't seem to write it in a way saying "this law succeeds section X of law Y", which would have been a useful feature. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk21:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These cases don't really bear on my question - the statutes cited all apparently were last revised by the Legislature in 1987 - but by following some of the links, I ended up at the Texas Board of Law Examiners and this time discovered their online archive of past rulebooks for admission to the State Bar, dating all the way back to 1919. So I suppose I will eventually find the answer somewhere in one of those, unless anyone knows a specific date when legal apprenticeship was no longer an option in TX. Textorus (talk) 22:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update, for what it's worth: After paging thru the rulebooks, it seems that the rules changed on January 1, 1972, and only candidates who had already begun a legal apprenticeship before that date could be admitted to take the bar exam, except for certain hardship cases. Rulebooks after 1979 make no mention of such provisions, so that pretty much answers my question. Thanks for the lead. Textorus (talk) 23:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why was Africa the dark continent?
Why is it that nobody bothered to explore Africa until the 19th century? Egypt was one of the world's oldest and richest civilizations. Large parts (sometimes all) of North Africa was occupied by Assyria, Babylon, Rome, Greece, and the Abbasids. I think Arab traders frequently visited the Swahili coast. Yet somehow, there was never an adventurous king who got bored of life and decided to conquer the interior of Africa? --140.180.246.185 (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, Europeans became more ignorant about Africa, and the idea of 'darkest Africa' supplanted the classical idea 'Ex Africa semper aliquid novi' - 'there is always something new coming from Africa'. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the impassability of the Sahara Desert cannot be underestimated here. Navagation beyond the Canary Islands is very unfriendly to ships, there wasn't a good place to resupply, and overland routes were heavily guarded by the Subsaharan empires that grew rich by monopolizing the trade. There was certainly contact and awareness of those empires, but like other distant places (India, China), knowledge of them came third and fourth hand. Prior to the 16th century or so, there was also very little direct contact between Europe and China. Even into the 19th century, there was also the problem of disease; many African peoples had become resistant to native diseases (malaria, yellow fever, dengue fever, etc.) that decimated any European expeditions into the interior. --Jayron3200:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
140.180.246.185 -- The Arabs knew of the Kenya-Tanzania coastal area as "Zanj" and it was prime slaving territory for harvesting unskilled hard-labor slaves to be sent to the Middle East; also, there was some sporadic influence from northwest Africa across the Sahara to the Sahel. However, it's unclear what motive ancient Romans or medieval Arabs would have had for mounting systematic long-range exploring efforts in Africa, when they had no expectation of finding anything there too much different from what existed in closer and more familiar regions. 15th-century Europeans had the highly-specific goal of finding a direct route (not controlled by Muslims) to India and the spice Islands, and they had ships built to stand North Atlantic waves and weather. So Europeans started sailing around Africa, but only the Cape region was at all promising for European settlement, and for most of the rest of the sub-Saharan coast there seemed to be little evidence of things to be found in the interior that would justify expensive or dangerous exploring efforts... AnonMoos (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I want to know difference between metropolitan and megapolitan cities. I heard abt this site. It has too much knowledge and always ready to help new users and students. Plz help me for this question. my contact no phone number redacted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.229.79.190 (talk) 06:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any 4 year campuses in the U.S. or Canada that don't--or are not allowed by specific state or province law to--have armed "campus police" officers? Is there any data or information available on years that these forces started forming, data on the last few states or universities to enact such forces? Thanks. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way10:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at the Campus police article - it's got answers to many of the questions you ask. In particular:
"Campus Police in Canada do not carry firearms, but are generally given other law enforcement's tools of trade - namely handcuffs, body armor, batons and pepper spray.
Campus police do not exist in the Provinces of British Columbia and Québec. Instead, colleges and universities employ civilian security guards.
Campus police at public institutions in the state of Rhode Island are sworn police officers, but state law prohibits them from carrying firearms."
Itsmejudith -- why not? Many campuses are dispersed over several large areas and/or embedded inside cities. The range of problems that campus police deal with is often not too different from those that regular police deal with... AnonMoos (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reason is that a college campus isn't a separate police jurisdiction, it falls under the police jurisdictions of the city, county, state, etc. So, one could rely on the regular police where an armed response is needed, and let the campus police focus on things the real cops would ignore, like the theft of iPhones, keeping in mind that arming campus police creates additional risks of it's own. StuRat (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's one approach, but the police associated with major universities in the U.S. often try to be a "full-service" police department for ordinary situations in their area of authority (though obviously the idea of a campus police SWAT team would be ridiculous). AnonMoos (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous or not, the article Campus police says Many departments operate some of the same units as municipal agencies such as detective units, special response teams (SWAT or SRT), canine units, bicycle patrol units, motorcycle patrol units, and community policing units. [bolding added] Duoduoduo (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article 21 of the Declaration of Human Rights says the following:
"Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures."
How can this be reconciled with the existence of a minimum voting age in most jurisdictions? Are we not depriving children of a fundamental human rights? For the record, I don't support abolishing the voting age, but I'd like to know what legal explanation is given for not allowing children to exercise their human rights. Thanks! Leptictidium (mt) 15:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Children will, in a short time, be able to vote. SO they are part of "everyone". This is different from women, who will not magically become men at a later date, or people of ethnic minorities, who will magically become part of a different ethnic group. Children do magically turn into adults. So they do get to take part in their government. --Jayron3215:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The dead cannot vote under normal circumstances, so I don't take your exception here. Adults with terminal diseases who expire before the next election lose their right to vote as well. --Jayron3217:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And what about mentally handicapped people, who can also be denied the right to vote, and they don't magically turn into mentally healthy people either. And then there are convicted criminals who have lost voting rights. In short, these rights are just not absolute and are subject to (reasonable) conditions imposed by the state. - Lindert (talk) 15:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where are mentally handicapped denied the right to vote? This is not an uncontentious issue and pressure groups are successfully defending the right to vote of them. OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In many places, but usually a court order is required to revoke someone's voting rights. According to this article 44 out of the 50 United States "contain constitutional laws and statutes that bar individuals with emotional or cognitive impairment from voting". Here is an overview per state. There are similar laws in many European countries, including the Netherlands where I live. - Lindert (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And why does it say "his" instead or his/her country? Seriously. Human rights are implemented by national laws, which have different perspectives on how to interpret the basis principles. 83.60.249.187 (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because it was drafted in 1948 and gender-neutral language didn't start to become a significant issue until the end of the 1960s (and wasn't taken seriously by many until well into the 1970s). AnonMoos (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From the (humorous) wisdom of Terry Pratchett: "Ankh-Morpork had dallied with many forms of government and had ended up with that form of democracy known as One Man, One Vote. The Patrician was the Man; he had the Vote." and "He’d tried to introduce Ephebian democracy to Lancre, giving the vote to everyone, or at least everyone 'who be of good report and who be male and hath forty years and owneth a house worth more than three and a half goats a year,' because there’s no sense in being stupid about things and giving the vote to people who were poor or criminal or insane or female, who’d only use it irresponsibly."Blueboar (talk) 16:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MOOC search
This is it! I tried a poetry course and I'd like to try some more, maybe economics, programming ? Now I'm looking for a list of massive open online courses. Not Coursera's or MIT's or Upenn's, just every mooc available now or in the coming months in the world. I might not find that list in Wikipedia : but do you have an idea if (or why) it's (not) already on the Internet ? Thank you! --82.227.17.30 (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
![[7]](http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&safe=images&client=firefox-a&hs=MQa&sa=X&tbo=d&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&biw=1299&bih=757&tbm=isch&tbnid=sfuGYTSxZMdm7M:&imgrefurl=http://socialcrayon.blogspot.com/2008_11_01_archive.html&docid=jlfO_erHbaLGzM&imgurl=http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_5XJzY8jGSrA/STGQaK6bxrI/AAAAAAAAAcI/87nG3wQPlsI/s400/60607813_8ee2ce393c.jpg&w=400&h=300&ei=Et6rUOT7Fc6u0AHHtIHgBw&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=1498&sig=110978356495761617625&page=1&tbnh=153&tbnw=204&start=0&ndsp=35&ved=1t:429,r:7,s:0,i:109&tx=79&ty=98){kind=link}
![[8]](http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&safe=images&client=firefox-a&hs=MQa&sa=X&tbo=d&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&biw=1299&bih=757&tbm=isch&tbnid=mKXqjGh-b3p0LM:&imgrefurl=http://www.abcneckties.com/blog/2010/07/14/the-tie-tuck-yes-or-no/&docid=nUjqxpoOh81rTM&imgurl=https://cdn.abcneckties.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/tumblr_l581gunZc11qa2j8co1_400.jpg&w=300&h=455&ei=Et6rUOT7Fc6u0AHHtIHgBw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=4&vpy=117&dur=4&hovh=277&hovw=182&tx=69&ty=106&sig=110978356495761617625&page=1&tbnh=153&tbnw=100&start=0&ndsp=35&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0,i:88){kind=link}
![[9]](http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&safe=images&client=firefox-a&hs=MQa&sa=X&tbo=d&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&biw=1299&bih=757&tbm=isch&tbnid=XpBdsM2uad6mUM:&imgrefurl=http://stylesilove.blogspot.com/2010_09_01_archive.html&docid=ncWTngh2MN438M&imgurl=http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_yRgeuPSiBgg/TJCZ-KktewI/AAAAAAAADqA/5RQk5WliwgM/s1600/tie%252Bweek%252Bday%252B3.png&w=1510&h=1127&ei=Et6rUOT7Fc6u0AHHtIHgBw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=688&vpy=323&dur=1320&hovh=194&hovw=260&tx=97&ty=129&sig=110978356495761617625&page=1&tbnh=152&tbnw=202&start=0&ndsp=35&ved=1t:429,r:14,s:0,i:130){kind=link}
