Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 April 19

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 19

Leaders of republics who proclaimed themselves emperor

Some leaders of republics forcefully dissolved the republic and proclaimed themselves emperor. Examples include Napoleon and Yuan Shikai. Are there any more people like this? 99.245.35.136 (talk) 00:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

See Central African Empire. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 01:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Both Napoleon I and III would fit your criteria; I'm not sure which one (or both) you mean. While he didn't take an imperial title, Zog of Albania is close to what you're talking about. As well, Augustus would mostly fit your criteria; he didn't officially dissolve the Roman Republic, but he did for all practical purposes. Nyttend (talk) 01:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't familiar with Napoleon III before, so thanks for point it out. 99.245.35.136 (talk) 01:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Emperor Norton dissolved the U.S. Congress, and declared himself emperor of the United States! Joefromrandb (talk) 03:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

He wasn't the leader of the republic, so thankfully he's not on the list. 99.245.35.136 (talk) 04:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

In Haiti, both Jean-Jacques Dessalines and Faustin Soulouque. Not coincidentally, the two are contemporaries of Napoleon I and Napoleon III, respectively. --Xuxl (talk) 08:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hitler called himself Führer und Reichskanzler when he replaced the German Republic. Are you looking for people specifically called emperor, or more generally those who gained power through democratic processes and then seized absolute power? Robert Mugabe is someone else who won an election then set himself up as supreme ruler ignoring all constitutional niceties for many years. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm specifically looking for the emperor (or empresses) title. Without this restriction literally thousands of people would fit the bill. The difference between God on Earth/Supreme Ruler/Dear Leader/President for Life/Reichskanzler et cetera is subjective; the question of whether they actually wore a crown is objective.99.245.35.136 (talk) 21:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The specific use of the word "emperor" is what's confusing me. The word can mean anything from "king of multiple kingdoms" to "king of a country plus its possessions and conquests" to just a grandiose version of simply "king". It sounds to me as if you're asking about people who became head of state of a republic, then staged a coup from within to change the form of government to a declared autocratic monarchy, no matter which specific word they used to describe it. --NellieBly (talk) 04:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Agustín de Iturbide. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 01:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

why 35+

I disagree with all requirements for running for presidential. I think there shouldn't be any requirement at all. But well the most stupid of all is the age thing. I don't see what does age has to do with presidential? I know it is generally believe that the older = wiser = smarter but well there are always exceptions. These days, younger people become wiser than older people are not that rare anymore. We should know not judge people base on their age. I think the 1 year old should be able to run for president if he/she wants to. It doesn't matter who runs for president. What matter is are they going to win? Are people going to vote for them? Let say if an one year old kid ran for presidential and somehow he/she would have magically gotten enough people to vote for him/her to become president so why not let him/her ran in the first place? (i just made up an extreme example to depict the stupidity of the law) I think this is pretty stupid law. I think this is law is equivalent to agism (discriminate base on age, i just made that word up by the way lol). This is no difference than racism, sexism, other discriminations...65.128.159.201 (talk) 03:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

One of the requirement i think contradict the idea of democracy. One must be native-born to run for president. I'm sure those people who made this law, afraid that someone that was not a native-born would run for president and would have won. If the people want that person to be leader so let it be so! That's the main principal idea of democracy. There are still a lot of hypocrites around. Well actually i think all the requirements for presidential running are contradicted with the principal of democracy. The only reason government existed in the first place was to serve the people. It turned out to be the people are serving the government. The function of the government has been badly abused by the small group of people, they made it become tradition and people started to forget what the government was for. Monarchy was the result and lasted for thousands of years until modern time or one could say until 20th century... (i'm little off topic now) What were the reasons for the requirements in the first place anyway? 65.128.159.201 (talk) 03:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The founding fathers envisioned a nation run by rich, old, white men, so you have to at least let them have their way on "old". StuRat (talk) 03:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The age requirements are there to insure that the person who is President has a certain level of experience in life. One thing that has not changed since the age of the "founding fathers" (indeed, since probably history began) is young people thinking that there shouldn't be any advantage given to older people. I know, because when I was 21, I was full of piss and vinegar and thought like that. And like every 21 year old that later becomes a 35 year old, I realize I was wrong. There is something that experience and time provides people that cannot be gotten without experience and time. And the deal with racism is that no black person is going to become a white person. No woman is going to become a man. But every single 35 year old used to be a 21 year old. So there is no contradiction or discrimination against you as a person at all because you have to wait to a certain age to do it. Is the specific age somewhat arbitrary? A bit. There are certainly some 34 year olds who I'd better trust with a major political office than some 36 year olds. But that's irrelevent to this point: You don't stay one age your whole life, and as you become new ages, you tend to change as a person. That isn't a bad thing. It happens. --Jayron32 03:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

While your analogues about racism and sexism are good but well i think this is lesser form of discriminate. It is like i tell you i won't be your friend until you got smarter. Why does someone need to wait when they can become president and got support from the citizens of the US? Let me tell you something. People used to think the longer you live the more experience you have but it is not always the case. There are always exception. I'm sure there are people who are 20 but yet wiser than someone at 70. Even there is a connection between the age and experience but it is not always true. I think all the voters have the right to judge whether the candidate is wise enough or deserve to be the president or not. This is just solely a small group of people consisted of hundreds of congressmen's opinions. It is biased and wrong! Answer me this question: Why stopped someone from running for president in the first place if he/she would have gotten enough votes to become president? It is like not allow someone to become president of the majority of people want that person to be the president. This is against democracy!65.128.159.201 (talk) 04:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have a very naive view of how the U.S. system actually works. One thing age and experience will teach you is the difference between what is written on the paper and realpolitik. We say things like "The U.S. is supposed to be a democracy." at least, when you look at the instruction manual it is. Well, like many things, the U.S. government doesn't exactly run like the instruction manual. Suspend from you mind for a bit what you think the idealized image of the United States should be, and try to spend some time understanding it for what it is. Who writes the legislation that the Congress votes on and the President signs? (hint: it isn't anyone elected by you or me!) Who funds the campaigns of political candidates? (hint: it's the same answer as the first question). Who gets appointed to all those apointed positions like Cabinet secretaries and undersecretaries, high positions in agencies, etc. etc. (hint: this is still the same group of people we are talking about). The point is, you're spending a lot of energy questioning whether the "instruction manual" is completely correct and just, and in reality lots of what goes on in government happens outside of the framework of that manual. --Jayron32 04:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I simplified it on purpose. I would shut my mouth up if i didn't know what i'm talking about. This is the sad fact, but true, that we are still having many flaws in the government today. Even though the US is generally considered as the first and most democratic in modern time but it still has A LOT to improve. Unfortunately that a perfect world is impossible (we can't please everyone at the same) but what we can do it keep improving it and keep making it better and better. We never reach perfection but we can get closer and closer to it without reaching it. This is same idea as limit, mathematic idea. 65.128.159.201 (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Just to make a little correction to what you just said. The U.S. is generally considered by the U.S. to be the first and most democratic nation. Actual data and history indicate otherwise. See American exceptionalism. --Jayron32 21:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

They thought a President should be mature. Don't you ? StuRat (talk) 03:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Does it matter? What is mature by the way? It is just a term we used to say if someone is old enough or simply smart enough to take care of themself in life without anyone else. Mature can be measure as the experiences you got throughout your childhood to adulthood. I think a lot of people have misconstrued that you need to be at certain age to be considered as mature. It is not true. There is always exception. It is also largely depend on the environment. In some really poor countries, kids at the age of around 10, who either have parents or not, are more mature than any typical American kid at the age of 18. Those kids are basically adults, in terms of what they are doing everyday. Anyway it is everyone's choice to determine that candidate is mature enough for president or not. If majority people think he/she is mature enough and voted for him/her then let it be so! Why stopped he/she run for president in the first place? Like i said before it doesn't matter who runs! The people choose their leader regardless of whatever. Can you see my point?65.128.159.201 (talk) 03:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

How can an 18 year old have 17 years of experience as an adult? --Jayron32 04:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

What make you think a 18 years old will be dumper than someone who is 35? I can ask you the same question: "how can a black guy can be as smart as a white girl?" and "how can a women be as good as men"? Seriously? This is no different than sexism, racism. You are comparing two people base on their ages. Tell me what is the different between judging someone by their ages or skin or sex? Those things don't matter! What matter is the content of that person is regardless of whatever physically descriptions (i considered age is physical thing too). I would agree that generally speaking, adults are wiser than kids since they live longer but it is not always the case. I have said many times above there are always exceptions. Let me do an extreme example (I love using extreme example for some reasons). There is a year old kid that could have won presidential if he/she ran for it. So that's mean majority people would vote for him/her. Why shouldn't he/she become president? Because he is 1 year old? See? People automatically disregard someone because of the age. This is indeed discrimination, in my opinion. I can tell that currently there are some geniuses that under 18 and i can tell you that those kids are a lot smarter and wiser than most of people above 35 years old around the world. I can always say those geniuses kids can make wiser choices than most 35+ people around the world! I know it is debatable "what" determined someone is smarter and wiser than the other! And "how" can we know for sure? But well let keep things simple. Let it open and if majority want that person to be president then let it be so! Long live democracy!65.128.159.201 (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

If this rule didn't exist, what are the odds that a 21 year-old would be elected President? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Who cares about the odds? Let say a dozen of 21 years old ran for president and failed. So what? What is the big deal? What if one succeeded? Like i said, it is up to the people to decide who will become their leader. If that person would have become president if he/she ran for presidential then why stopped it in the first place? Isn't it the main principal of democracy?65.128.159.201 (talk) 04:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The OP seems to be under the impression that the U.S. is a democracy. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm pointing out that the rule - with or without - is meaningless in practical application. The youngest President in US history was Theodore Roosevelt (42 years, 10 months, 18 days). According to history, anyone younger is unelectable so the point is moot. They could change the rule to 36 years old and it wouldn't make a difference: history has shown that 36 years olds aren't electable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Just because someone hasn't not done it doesn't mean it can't be done. Plus you know what? The main reason why nobody lower than the age of 35 has ever been elected is because they, who are lower than 35, "can't" run for presidential even if they want to. I'm sure if there is no age limit then eventually there would be someone like 10 years old won presidential or even 1 year old. It sounds crazy right? I know, i clearly exaggerated it! But tell you what? Nothing is infinite. I have a strong believe that a 1 year old can become president one day. It could be 1 year, a decade, a century, a million or even a billion years from now. Who knows? But well eventually it will happen. Some of you may say: what is the point of changing it since no one can do it in a long time? You don't know that! No one can predict what will happen in the future. And remember i'm using the extreme example. After all you can't guarantee that no one under 35 can win presidential soon if they are allowed to. I see no problem with no requirement for presidential. Whoever deserves to be president ought to be president. Those stupid requirements "only" are blocking those who, under 35, can possibly winning presidential if they ran. This is the 2 ways arguments. Both are no harm and not much of a different but one is better than the other. Why not choose the better one?65.128.159.201 (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

By that analogy, 4 years ago anyone black would have been "unelectable". The fact that no one younger than 42 has been elected certainly doesn't rule out the possibility, so I don't see how the point is moot. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

William Jennings Bryan came reasonably close at age 36 in 1896.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

You guys are looking at it from the completely wrong perspective. The U.S. has a population well in excess of 300 million people. If there isn't one person over the age of 35 who will do a decent job of leading us for 4 years, we're basically fooked anyways. The goal isn't to "be fair" (why is it that the young are so concerned with fairness anyways) to young people, the goal is to find someone who will lead the country. If a particular 21 year old would do a good job today, then why wouldn't the do a better job in 14 years. "But what if that 21 year old is literally the best person in the entire country for the job?" Seriously? In what world do you live that there exists some one person who is that uniquely qualified out of a group of 300,000,000? There are probably thousands of people who could do a decent job of being President. We even sometimes get the opportunity to vote for one of them. --Jayron32 04:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

"why is it that the young are so concerned with fairness anyways"? <--- i would consider this statement is being ageism, discriminated base solely on age. I can argue the same ways as you do: "why is it that black people and women are so concerned with fairness anyways?" You argued around and all i'm seeing is your way of talking isn't much different from sexists and racists people. (no offend intended, let just be frank on this so it is easier to talk) People seriously need to change their perspective on young people, while it is true that young people are more likely to make bad choices but it is not true to judge "ALL" like that. This is no different from stereotype, prejudiced. Let say person A is 18 years old right now and he could won presidential if he ran. You may say what is the big deal? He can wait 17 more years. I will make an analogue to this. Let say you want to buy a house ok? Great! Too bad, i will tell you to go home and wait another 10 years. What is the big deal? Sooner or later you will get the house right? Tell you what, most people would be pissed in that situation! The reason that not many care about the age restriction for presidential simply because not many people can run and win it! It is the principal of freedom. We, humans, don't like restrictions and limit! Nothing is more valuable than freedom. Humans have dropped countless of blood to fight for freedom throughout human history yet... guess we are not there yet. And I KNOW it is more complicated than this. Freedom came with responsibility. You can't just simply kill someone else. Alright, don't get too far on this, let keep it simple and narrow it down to this case. I can argue with you that no age restriction is better and won't cause any harm. Can you give me any legit reasonable reasons why the restriction 35+ is a good law?65.128.159.201 (talk) 21:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I need to split my conversation into two sections for the purpose of clearer. "If a particular 21 year old would do a good job today, then why wouldn't the do a better job in 14 years." You're right but "don't forget" there are a lot of factors to this. In 14 years, things can change. That person may die before reaching 35, who knows? And remember each time period is different! Each period has its own issue and problems. So that person was the best during that period but may not be so in 14 years. In 14 years that person may not interested in politic anymore. There are so many other factors that i think you're smart enough to figure out. It would be too long for me to point it all out. Plus let me tell you something, NO ONE likes to wait, especially if it is no necessary to wait. Oh yea and in 14 years, there is no guarantee that that person will become better. He/she could be better or the same or worse. We don't know and nobody does! Humans CAN change. You can argue with me that there is no harm in waiting! While it is most likely to be true, but not always! I have to admit too that difference between restriction 35+ or no restriction at all wouldn't make a big difference but you can't deny that the no restriction are better or at least little better. It opened to anyone and increased our chance of getting to choose the BEST person to lead the nation. As far as i can tell you best always better than decent. It follows the principal of democracy and only make things better! Why not? I don't see any reasons to not do so! Sometimes, being too conservative may cause unnecessary unfairness. You haven't pointed out anything that convincing me that necessary of 35+ restriction.65.128.159.201 (talk) 22:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Your missing the point. You are not a young person forever. You don't stay in a state of suspended animation, you'll be 35 some day. You'll probably be 55 some day. I fathom you'll also likely be 75 some day. Any argument over "fairness" that ignores that simple fact is missing a very real and important reality. If you want to prove your ability, spend some time proving your ability. If you haven't done anything, how can you establish yourself as qualified for any job, much less a major management and leadership position. --Jayron32 22:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

This is just going circle. I got your point, bro. What does this issue has to do with "If you want to prove your ability, spend some time proving your ability. If you haven't done anything, how can you establish yourself as qualified for any job, much less a major management and leadership position." People wouldn't vote for you if you haven't proven your ability. If someone can run for presidential and win it but the only reason they can't is because they are under 35 is JUST WRONG! It is funny how you keep coming back to compare ages. I KNOW that anyone, or almost all, will eventually reach 35! But why should they have to wait if they could have won? Why wait? Give me the valid reason, can you? Like i said no one wants to wait. Just don't keep answering me that waiting doesn't make a big deal. Plus there are chances that during the lifespan of waiting, other things happened! It may not be the same when you're reached 35. "Any argument over "fairness" that ignores that simple fact is missing a very real and important reality." I don't ignore that fact at all. In included it in my arguments. Let say if you don't want to wait and someone FORCED you to wait. This is no different than slavery when you were forced to do something. WHERE IS THE FREEDOM? I suggest you reread all my arguments above. Somehow i feel like that you only read part of them. Your argument started to make no sense to me. I know you don't see the big deal about waiting but i do and some people do! But can you see that if there is no restriction, it would be better? Even though 35+ restriction would most likely (but there is always chance that it will cause something even if it is little) won't do any harm. I'm done lol. I have repeated countless the same principal of my arguments, i see no reason to keep repeating in them. This is probably not going anywhere. I know you are not discriminating against ages but you are too conservative for better change. You can as well call me radical since my idea isn't that popular. Remember i'm not trying to make things perfect but as close to perfect and fairness as it can be! Guess humanity still has a long way to go then haaa. Long live democracy!65.128.159.201 (talk) 22:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I've never heard this "they will do a better job in 14 years" argument before, but I like it, alot. Thanks to the term limits this can stop any accusation of ageism, since everyone has their equal chance at those 8 years over their entire lifetime.99.245.35.136 (talk) 04:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

@Jayron: I agree with you that there are plenty of people that can do the decent job at presidential. But why not choose the best one? My motto is always go for the better one. Between 2 choices that are exact the same in everything (in term of effects, consequences...) except one is better than the other? Most people would choose the better one, wouldn't they?65.128.159.201 (talk) 21:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no best one. There are not a purely unique set of skills that only a very young person will have that someone of age would also not have. That's a mythological hypothetical. People are not rank-ordered from first to threehundredmillionth in terms of qualification to be President. The world doesn't work that way. --Jayron32 22:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

There is the best! Since we already disagree in the concept of "best" then there is no point in arguing about it. Give me the valid reason why should someone has to wait if he/she could have won presidential if he/she ran for it!65.128.159.201 (talk) 22:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

@Joefromrandb: That's an interesting point. It also applies to gender as well as race. But in the course of the last two hundred years or so, attitudes towards race and gender have changed significantly. Blacks and women weren't allowed to vote or hold office (whether officially or unofficially) and now they are. But in the case of age, little has changed. The voting age only went from 21 to 18 while the drinking age went from 18 to 21. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Now I'm curious whether any founding father made any effort to explain this requirement. Is there not some passage in the Federalist Papers about it? I mean, the question asked was What were the reasons for the requirements in the first place anyway? Obviously we can come up with various reasons now, but was a reason given back then, when the constitution was written and being debated? Also, the OP wrote I think this is law is equivalent to agism (discriminate base on age, i just made that word up by the way lol). I didn't see anyone mention it, but ageism is already a word! (although it is usually meant as discrimination against older people rather than younger) Pfly (talk) 08:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps answering my own question here, but The Federalist Paper No. 62, [1], by James Madison, addresses the age requirement for senators as being older than for representatives (30 years instead of 25): "...is explained by the nature of the senatorial trust, which, requiring greater extent of information and stability of character, requires at the same time that the senator should have reached a period of life most likely to supply these advantages..." I'd guess that the age requirement for the president would have been for similar reasons, at least according to Madison. Pfly (talk) 08:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, my quick search turned up this book, Too Young to Run?:A Proposal for an Age Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The author says, on p. 30, "The age qualifications [in the constitution] did not attract much attention, let alone controversy, during the ratification period." He also points out, on pg. 2, that the age requirements have been strictly enforced, apart from three early cases in Congress: Henry Clay (1806), Armistead Thomson Mason (1816), and John Eaton (1818). Makes me curious as to why the requirement was not strictly enforced in those earlier times. I also found this table interesting, [2], age requirements in other democracies, for lower and upper house and executive office. Apparently the age requirement for the executive in Germany is 40, in Italy 50. Mostly the ages are younger, especially for lower houses, where the requirements are mostly 18 or 21. Anyway, this book (pub. Penn State Press) looks interesting. The author argues that the age requirement in the US, for Congress and the President, should be lowered to 18. Pfly (talk) 09:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

There's a more recent example, sort-of, where the age requirements were massaged a bit: Joe Biden was elected to the Senate when he was 29 years old; he luckily passed his 30th birthday between the election and the swearing-in date. Then there was Rush D. Holt, Sr. who wouldn't have been 30 by the time of the standard swearing-in date, so he just waited until his 30th birthday to take his seat in the Senate.--Jayron32 13:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

That book mentions those two as well (Holt and Biden), pointing out that Senator Holt was not sworn in for six months or so after being elected, until he "came of age", and Biden "had to explain to his constituents that he would be old enough in plenty of time to take office". Those early three examples, in contrast, took office before coming of age. Our Henry Clay article says he was more than three years too young, and "His age did not appear to have been noticed by any other Senator, and perhaps not by Clay." That would never happen today! He was elected by the Kentucky legislature, not the general public, but still...no one noticed? This book says that while the natural-born citizen clause has generated discussion and controversy for a long time, the age requirements have largely been accepted without question. I know I never gave them much thought. He also explores the arguments that have been made for the age requirements over time. I've only skimmed parts of the book but it does appear that the arguments have been rather lame. Even Madison's explanation is not particularly compelling, and is really only explaining why the age requirement for senators is higher than for representatives. Pfly (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow, what a concept. We could then just skip the normal election process and have the President be whoever wins some special edition of American Idol. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It's been claimed that Super Star (Arabic TV series) was the first experience that many Arabs had of their votes actually determining the outcome of something... AnonMoos (talk) 12:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

You say the age requirement isn't democratic, but the position of US president was never intended to be a democratically elected one. The president is elected by an electoral college. The age requirement long pre-dates electors being bound by popular votes. So, when the requirements were written, the goal wasn't to make the US as democratic as possible. Therefore, it isn't at all surprising that the result isn't as democratic as it could be. --Tango (talk) 12:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I see no major different in electoral college and democratically elected. Electoral college is simply an indirect way of voting. People still can vote for whoever they want to be their leaders. I'm completely OK with electoral college and i think it is fair enough! But the age restriction (same thing with all the requirements for presidential) is clearly biased and discriminate against age. I guess we ought to change that one day, i DK when but all i know is one day... Long live the fairness!65.128.159.201 (talk) 22:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually it discriminates against youth. And age does not guarantee maturity and wisdom (look at Sarah Palin, for example), but it does improve the level of experience. The age restrictions could be changed via democratic process, namely a constitutional amendment. You could start that process yourself, if you're so inclined. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

As for the natural-born-citizen clause, there are a lot of people these days who think it is an outdated fear and should be removed. This came up quite a bit when Arnold Schwarzenegger was still politically non-toxic. But changing the Constitution is purposefully difficult so without a really strong reason to do it, there isn't much effort made along those lines. In any case, as the article makes out, there has been a lot of discussion of this over the years — apparently over two dozen amendments have been proposed to change this requirements — but none have made it very far in the process. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that would ever be possible. The power right now in the US is in the hands of natural-born citizens, who would not have much interest in opening the door for non-natural born citizens, not matter how well integrated they are, and specially, there will be no interest to open the door to a specific potential candidate of the opposite party who believes he would have good chances if he were natural-born. 88.9.107.123 (talk) 06:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I occasionally find it quite amusing that despite living in the US for as long as I can remember and having two American parents, I cannot be a President of the US because my biological parents were Canadian and I was adopted in Canada (my father was stationed there in the Air Force at the time). It's as if I'm some sort of "sleeper agent" from Canada sent to infiltrate the US as a baby, and this part of the Constitution is the only thing preventing me from... I dunno... making the US national sport be hockey? -- HiEv 18:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Jesus

Why is it that you would insult Jesus by saying the Muslim religion believes Him to be a important prophet. There is a huge difference in Son God and important prophet. We followers of Christ do not insult or discriminate the believes of others but incourage believe in Christ who was sent by God to save us from His wrath which is to come. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.34.249.130 (talk) 05:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see how saying Jesus is an important prophet to Muslims is the least bit insulting. And, even if it were, it's the purpose of an encyclopedia to tell the truth, no matter who is insulted by it. If your goal in life is to never see anything from any perspective other than your own, then this isn't the place for you. StuRat (talk) 05:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

As you can see in the article Jesus in Islam, Jesus (or Isa) is in fact a very important prophet in Islam. Believing in him, along with the other prophets like Adam, Noah, Abraham, Muhammad etc. is a requirement in Islam. In fact, many Muslims believe that Jesus predicted Muhammad's coming, and some even believe that he is second only to Muhammad. In fact, he is mentioned more often (by name at least) than Muhammad in the Quran. In Muhammad's tomb, there is an empty tomb which is reserved for Jesus after he returns to fight the anti-Christ. Sure there are some differences: Muslims don't believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and they don't believe that he died on the cross and instead made it appear that way, but they still believe he is the Jewish Messiah. So basically, Jesus was among the most important (but not the most important) prophets in Islam. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, well-informed Christians may not be too greatly impressed with Muslim reverence for Jesus, once they understand that Muslims only reverence the Muslim version of Jesus who denounced the doctrine of the Trinity etc., that Muhammad completely confused and conflated Mary the mother of Jesus with Miriam the sister of Moses (even though the two women lived over 1,000 years apart by any chronological reckoning), and that for some reason Muhammad chose to resurrect an old tired Gnostic-Docetic heresy that Jesus was not on the cross, but only appeared to be on the cross by means of a Helen-of-Troy type eidolon. And of course, any difference between the Bible and the Qur'an always automatically means that the Bible is ipso facto "corrupted"! As a linguist, I find the Islamic version of the name of Jesus, عيسى ʕisa to be slightly bizarre in itself, since the voiced pharyngeal `ayn consonant ع/ע of the Hebrew name ישוע yešuʕ has been inexplicably moved around from the end of the name to the beginning (Arabic-speaking Christians usually use يسوع yasuʕ, which has the pharyngeal consonant in the right place)... AnonMoos (talk) 08:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The RD is not the place to try to refute Islam's view of Jesus, not for the OP or for you. Staecker (talk) 16:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

That's nice --- Narutolovehinata5 stressed certain commonalities between Christianity and Islam, and I pointed out that some of these alleged commonalities do not really amount to much, or become differences, when more closely examined in detail. This has little to do with proselytization or religious truth (or to do with the 196.34.249.130's naïve offense at the idea that other people may hold different opinions than he does...). AnonMoos (talk) 19:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry- I think I see what you mean better now. I saw you saying Muhammad "confused" and I guess I missed the point of what you were getting at. I do agree that Muslims and Christians have much less "common ground" regarding Jesus than is often suggested. Staecker (talk) 23:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

What is supposed to be more important to these "well-informed Christians" — the person of Jesus, or the theology describing him? I thought it was supposed to be the person of Jesus. Do Christians expect Jesus to say to Muslims who revere him, "sorry, you got the Christology wrong, so it doesn't count"? --Trovatore (talk) 01:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Some of the things I mentioned were biographical details, not really theological. In any case, saying that you admire or respect Jesus as a man can often generate a modicum of vague generalized hazy good-will, but it's never been enough to ensure that someone's views have significant commonality with Christianity. A number of atheists have said that they respect Jesus as a moral teacher, without showing the slightest tendency to adopt any beliefs of Christianity (or any other religion). It's my opinion that when it comes to Islam, even the initial modicum of vague good-will arises under somewhat false pretenses, since when Christians come to understand the details of Muslim claims about Jesus, many of them would no longer feel all that warm and fuzzy about the matter... AnonMoos (talk) 05:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

None of the things you mention are 'biographical details', because there is no 'biography' of Jesus of Nazareth other than that contained in the various systems of belief of which he plays a part. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't want to quibble over terminological details, but if you're saying that every tiniest detail about Jesus is purely theological, and nothing is factual/historical, then your views are not consonant with mainstream scholarship. There are many things we don't know about Jesus' life, but it's quite uncontroversial that the Hebrew/Aramaic form of his name was ישוע and that within the scheme of Biblical chronology (which can be partially synchronized with external chronologies at certain points), Mary mother of Jesus and Miriam sister of Aaron lived over 1,000 years apart. AnonMoos (talk) 06:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

But isn't the important thing supposed to be not whether your views are consonant with Christian theory, but whether you have a relationship with Jesus the person? Referring to that relationship as a "warm and fuzzy feeling" seems reductive, almost what might be expected from a speaker who didn't really think Jesus the person was genuinely on the other end of it. --Trovatore (talk) 06:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

What is the point of having a relationship, if you either, choose to not follow Him in His ways, or don't care enough to know what they are? A relationship like that is like trying to fix a rotting ceiling by slapping on a layer of paint. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Groups like the Campus Crusade for Christ may ask people things such as "Do you want to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ?", but that's not all of Christianity, and has never been all of Christianity. AnonMoos (talk) 06:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

My stock answer to a question like that is, "No, thanks - I'm straight", and that pretty well puts an end to it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Now why do we need to know how obnoxious you can be toward a non-atheist? Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Plasma Physics, was that post directed at Trovatore (it's at the same indent level as your earlier reply to Trovatore), or was it directed at the previous poster, Baseball Bugs? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 10:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

At Bugs. I try to always post at the same indent level within a thread to avoid an avalanche of increasing indentation. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the personal attack - and for your obnoxious approach to indention. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

It was not an attack, I simply asked why you deemed it necessary to post an inflammatory comment directed towards a group of people with differing beliefs. It is also ironic, since you placard your user-page with antitrolling templates, and then post a trolling comment like this. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Why do you keep beating up on Trovatore? What did he do or say to offend you? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

If you really want to troll the Campus Crusade for Christ in real life, tell them you're Catholic. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

My favourite example: a conversation at the Christian Union stall at a university Fresher's Fair. "I'm Catholic. Is that going to be a problem?" "Of course not! I don't know where people get the idea we're anti-Catholic. Here's our programme for the term." *Hands over pamphlet with planned timetable, including "What would God say to Catholics?"* What are the odds their answer was "Keep up the good work"? 86.140.54.3 (talk) 13:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Plasmic Physics -- When the Campus Crusade for Christ asked me the question, I claimed to be some kind of goddess-worshipping neo-pagan (at a time when neopaganism was much more obscure and less mainstream in the United States than it is today). I did this not because I was anti-Christian, but because I really wasn't too overall impressed with the CCC and their approach. I wasn't obnoxious about it, but I judged that this would be a way to cut short the encounter (which had already lasted several minutes) cleanly and quickly (which it was). AnonMoos (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

You need to move your comment farther toward the left margin, so that Plasmic will know you're talking to him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

What obnoxious act someone does on their own time is none of my business, however there was no purpose behind the posting that, other than to illicit a response of praise or condemnation. Posting a comment with the intention of inflamming other users is obnoxious. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Moreover, posting it with the intension of receiving praise is just sad. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Then stop doing it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

United Nations

Is the United Nations a world government?

Bowei Huang 2 (talk) 05:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

No. →Στc. 05:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

From our article on World government:"As of 2012, there is no functioning global international military, executive, legislature, judiciary, or constitution, with jurisdiction over the entire planet.". I personally love the "as of 2012" part. 99.245.35.136 (talk) 05:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's good to keep an open mind about these things. I have a friend who has been happily married to the same woman since time immemorial, but whenever he refers to her, it's not "my wife" but "the person to whom I am currently married".  :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 12:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Didn't Clement Freud always say that "I refer to her as 'my first wife' to keep her on her toes"? 130.88.172.34 (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

European Union

Is the European Union a European government?

Bowei Huang 2 (talk) 05:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

...Sort of? More so than the UN is a world government (as in your question above), but it's not much like a sovereign country. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The EU doesn't have an army or police force or any way of enforcing its diktats; holding the monopoly on violence is one of the usual criteria for a sovereign state. Its laws can in theory override national laws, but some countries like Germany are quite sure that EU law can't override the German Constitution (the Basic Law). And although nobody's left it yet, it's generally assumed that any state can leave at any time. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Greenland left 82.33.230.34 (talk) 10:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Greenland left after they achieved home rule from Denmark, before that they were regarded as part of Denmark, so this was not a case of joining then leaving. Mikenorton (talk) 11:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

No, the European Union is not a European government, anymore than the United Nations is a terrestrial government, or NATO a transcontinental government. --80.99.254.208 (talk) 09:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

No. Test this by rephrasing your question - "Is the United Kingdom a UK government?" "Is The United States an American government?" The EU is a democratic body of 27 member states who have chosen to pool sovereignty in certain areas. The European Commission disposes of some quasi-executive power, but even that is not a government in the sense of a state (more like a secretariat of a club) 82.33.230.34 (talk) 10:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The OP has a point in the question, namely that a large part of Europe is outside/excluded from the EU. In mainstream media and public debate, there is a tendency to equate 'Europe' with the 'European Union', which is quite problematic. There is a similar, but somewhat different, debate (that sometimes surges in Wikipedia) on the differences between 'America' and the 'United States'. --Soman (talk) 11:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Which large part of Europe is outside/excluded? Of the countries currently not in the EU, Iceland, Macedonia, Serbia, Montenegro and Turkey are in negotiations, Albania and Bosnia & Herzegovina are potential candidates and Croatia will join in just over a year. Norway stays separate but signs up to virtually all European legislation ('membership without the benefits' I've heard it referred to there). Switzerland does its own thing. Perhaps you're referring to opposition to Turkey joining from the certain EU members? Mikenorton (talk) 11:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Cis-Uralic Russia, about 40% of Europe's land area, is not in the EU. Neither are Belarus, Ukraine, and Moldova. — Kpalion^(talk) 15:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair point, although Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova may eventually join I would imagine - harder to see a country that also constitutes a large part of Asia joining the EU. Mikenorton (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

"a country that also constitutes a large part of Asia" - like Turkey perhaps? Alansplodge (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

No, that would be Russia, which is about 20 times larger than Turkey. Mikenorton (talk) 22:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I think you have that the wrong way round, Mr Splodge. Turkey is 3.6% by area in Europe, and 96.4% by area in Asia. So it's geographically vastly more Asian than European. However, Asian Turkey accounts for less than 2% of Asia, while the Asian part of Russia (about 75% of Russia) makes up almost 29% of Asia.

So it would be true to say that Asia constitutes a large part of Turkey, but not that Turkey constitutes a large part of Asia.

On the other hand, it is true both that Asia constitutes a large part of Russia AND that Russia constitutes a large part of Asia. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

While both Russia and Turkey are moslty Asian in terms of territory, it must be noted that Russia is mostly European in terms of population: 78 percent of Russia's population lives in west of the Urals. Turkey, from the demographic point of view, is still Asian, but less so than by territory, with 12 percent of Turkey's inhabitants living in East Thrace (there are more people living in European Turkey alone than in Bulgaria and Macedonia combined). — Kpalion^(talk) 17:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

But then, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. As of now, Europe and the European Union are certainly not synonymous. — Kpalion^(talk) 16:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I think everyone would agree that the EU is European, and it would be hard to argue that it is wrong to describe it as a 'government' - it certainly seems to meet the first definition given by Wiktionary. Could you make your question a bit more specific? 81.98.43.107 (talk) 11:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Was Frank Glasgow Tinker a member of the Yankee Squadron ?

Hello learned ones ! Tinker is not listed in the article Yankee Squadron (he is mentioned only in the "See also : " chapter); do we have to infer that he was not on the same foot as the others US airmen fighting for the Spanish Republicans ? It seems he went back home earlier, after more brillant exploits...Thanks a lot beforehand for your answers Arapaima (talk) 06:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the Yankee Squadron quit on or before January 5, 1937, while Tinker started on January 7.[3] So it doesn't look like Tinker ever had a chance to join. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks C.Fiend Arapaima (talk) 10:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Surname Hanna

The surname Hanna is one of the most common in Northern Ireland, yet is relatively rare in the United States which received many immigrants from Ulster. There are far more people in the US with Ulster-derived suenames such as Wilson, Thompson, Jackson, McDowell, Gibson, Anderson, White, Andrews, etc. Can anyone please shed some light onto this? Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that he's usually included in high-school textbooks today, but Mark Hanna was once extremely well-known as the Republican-party money-man of the late 19th century... AnonMoos (talk) 08:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Probably better known nowadays would be William Hanna of the Hanna-Barbera organization. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I imagine Jack Hanna is better-known than him. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you mean by "Ulster-derived" surnames. As far as I'm aware none of the surnames on your list originate in Ulster. And as all of them are far more common throughout the UK than Hanna, wouldn't we expect that to also be the case overseas? Zedeeyen (talk) 09:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I meant to say that the surnames listed are common ones borne by many Americans whose ancestors immigrated to the US from Ulster. And Hanna is one of the most common surnames in Northern Ireland today.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

If the premise is true, it could because Scots-Irish immigration predated Irish immmigration and so they have had more time to have descendant generations in the U.S. Rmhermen (talk) 11:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Why do you think most Americans called Wilson, Thompson, Jackson, Anderson, White, Andrews have Northern Irish ancestors? These names are all common throughout the UK[4][5] (since Protestant Ulster people would typically have Scottish or English ancestors, this isn't surprising). Many Scots and English people emigrated to the USA. Additionally, since the Irish were often victims of discrimination in the USA in the 19th C and after, there would be an incentive not to have an Irish-sounding name in the USA. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

For the record, Hanna was the 889th most common U.S. surname in 2000, according to the Census Bureau. (On that page, see "File A: Top 1000 names.") If the OP is asking why that is, any answer short of statistical theory would be pure speculation. Textorus (talk) 12:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It's possible many Hanna's in Ulster were Church of Ireland, thereby not subject to the harsh penal laws affecting dissenters such as Presbyterians. It was for this reason that most Scots-Irish left Ulster for the US colonies.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, Vincent Hanna was a Catholic. Not sure what that proves but it may prove that the name "Hanna" relates more to the indigenous population, not the population of Protestants that came over with the Plantations. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Most Hanna's in Northern Ireland are Protestant. Billy Hanna, John Hanna (prison officer), Jim Hanna (loyalist), Roaring Hugh Hanna are a few of the more notable examples.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

During the 18th and 19th centuries (the era when there was extensive immigration to North America from the British Isles) the surnames Wilson, Thompson, Jackson, Gibson, Anderson, White, Andrews, etc were not exclusive to Ulster... there were many people with those surnames throughout the rest of Ireland, and England and Scotland as well. This meant that in addition to the Wilsons, Thompsons, Jacksons, etc who emigrated to North America from Ulster, there were also numerous Wilsons, Thompsons, Jacksons, etc who emigrated from other parts of the British Isles. Hanna on the other hand, was (more) exclusive to Ulster (or at least significantly less common in other parts of the British Isles)... which meant that, overall, there was a larger "pool" of Wilsons, Thompsons, Jacksons, etc who could emigrate to North America than there were Hannas. Blueboar (talk) 14:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Complicating the issue is Hannas who aren't from the British Isles at all — I've known of many Syrians (completely unrelated to each other) with the name. Nyttend (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Another potential factor is that Hanna may not have been as common a name in Ulster during the late 18th and early 19th centuries when emigration to North America was at its peak. Let's say that a few Hanna families in Ulster started a tradition of larger-than-average families in the mid-1800s and continued that tradition until birthrates dropped in the 1930s or so. That would have led to a larger proportion of Hannas in the Ulster population when factored exponentially over 3 or 4 generations. Marco polo (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Another possibility: "Hanna" is similar to "Hannah", a Hebrew proper name. It's possible that emigrants with the name changed it to avoid others assuming they were Jewish, in the same way that a family I used to know changed their surname from Cohan to Keohane. --NellieBly (talk) 04:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Why isn't there an article on Privilege (Sociology) in general? Or am I not finding it?

I see articles on White privilege and Christian privilege and Male privilege, but I would like to read about the concept in general. Where can I find this?--99.179.20.157 (talk) 11:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Dominant privilege? Perhaps that article should have a redirect from your suggested title, Privilege (Sociology). There is also a Category (not an article) called Category:Privilege (social inequality). Bus stop (talk) 12:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It could be that the editors who work in this subject area have been focused on what interests them... various sub-topics... and no one has thought to write a general overview article on the topic. This isn't uncommon. If you think we need an article on this, go ahead and write one. Blueboar (talk) 14:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC) Um... not only do we have that category... we actually have an article... See: Privilege (social inequality). Not sure if this is what the OP is looking for. Blueboar (talk) 14:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I've created Privilege (Sociology) as a redirect to Privilege (social inequality). Nyttend (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

See also: kyriarchy. 86.140.54.3 (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Term: "for example"

When is it correct to use "e.g." for the term "for example? When is it correct to use the term "i.e." for the term "for example"? What do these letters mean?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 12:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

"E.g." = Latin exempli gratia, "for the sake of (an) example, for instance". "I.e." = Latin id est, "it is, that is". AnonMoos (talk) 12:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Check this out. Or this. Bus stop (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

[Edit conflict]:To clarify: I.e. does not mean "for example," but rather, "that is" or "namely";

e.g. means "for example." It's important not to confuse the two. Textorus (talk) 12:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

And then there's cf. and viz. I think it is common for people to mistakenly use i.e., e.g., viz. and cf. as the same thing, but they are not. All these terms are used to intoduce a continuation of thought previously expressed, though all have their nuance as to when each is appropriate to use, and they are not strictly interchangable. --Jayron32 12:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

To give a quick and dirty (and less technical) explanation... "e.g." is used when giving examples ... "i.e." is used when restating a point using different language. Blueboar (talk) 13:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

And to give some examples and comparison:

Abbreviation	Meaning	Usage	Example
e.g.	Exempli gratia, for example	Giving examples	The Solar System contains eight planets, e.g., Mercury, Jupiter, and Neptune.
viz.	Videlicet, namely	Enumerating	The Solar System contains eight planets, viz., Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune.
i.e.	Id est, that is	Rephrasing	The Solar System contains eight planets, i.e., celestial bodies orbiting a star that are massive enough to be rounded by their own gravity, not massive enough to cause thermonuclear fusion, and which have cleared their neighbourhoods of planetesimals.
cf.	Confer, compare	Comparing	The Solar System contains eight planets; cf. dwarf planets.

— Kpalion^(talk) 16:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Along these lines there is also N.B., nota bene. The example in its case might be "The Solar System contains eight planets; N.B. Pluto is now considered a dwarf planet." Pfly (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It helps me to remember it as meaning "example given": "The movie 12 Angry Men contained many fine actors, e.g., E. G. Marshall." StuRat (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a Capital crime to write "Solar system" like that. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Oops, you're obviously right. Corrected! — Kpalion^(talk) 17:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks gentlemen for helping out a dumb blond.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 18:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I didnt know you were blond, Christie. :) Benyoch 12:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Billion-Dollar Congress

How is it that the 51st United States Congress was the first to spend over a billion dollars? Union Army says that there were 2,213,363 men who served in it at various points, and while they weren't all in at the same time, I would guess that there were enough that soldiers' pay would have approached a billion dollars at the height of the Civil War, not to mention other military expenditures and the cost of maintaining other things, such as the Post Office and the customs houses. Nyttend (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Our article doesn't actually say either way whether this was the first time that a congress spent $1bn, although that claim is made elsewhere. However, the White House says " For the first time except in war, Congress appropriated a billion dollars" (emphasis mine). So I would say that you are correct, and that Congress did indeed spend over $1bn in wartime. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

According to this site, total Federal spending in 1865 was $1.3 billion. Marco polo (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I think we're comparing apples an oranges here. That $1.3 billion was the entire budget of the federal government, more or less, while the $1 billion they spend now is only a small portion of it, perhaps what the Congressmen themselves spend directly on their salaries, benefits, staff, etc. A billion dollars may sound like a lot, but that's only about $3.33 per person in the US, which obviously spends far more, as a nation, than that. StuRat (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Huh? I'm not discussing current spending; my only interests are the 1890 fiscal year and fiscal years before that. Nyttend (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Oops, misread the Q (I think the "is" as the 2nd word started me thinking about the current Congress). StuRat (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, okay; sorry for misleading you. Nyttend (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

You weren't misleading and there's nothing you should be apologising for, Nyttend (sorry, Stu). "How is it that ..." simply means "How is it the case that ..." or "How is it possible that ...". Your question was no different, in form, from "How is it that nobody conquered Everest till 1953, when the locals had been climbing the mountain since time immemorial?". Nobody would read that to have anything to do with current activities, just because of the word "is". -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, I was explaining why I misread the question, not attempting to blame Nyttend for my mistake. StuRat (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

What architectural style

Some external links [6], File:Hull_Beverley_Road_Station_site_of_1795751_c810fec9.jpg, File:Little Weighton Railway Station - geograph.org.uk - 23791.jpg

All these were built at the same time for the Hull and Barnsley Railway. (1880s). Some are not really decorated at all. Is there any architectural style - one book stated "queen anne revival" but I am not convinced.

Also is there a term for the decorative horizontal banding in the brickwork that can just be seen in this image http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/Hull_And_Barnsley_Beverley_Road_Bridge.jpg ? (see the walls underneath the bridge) Oranjblud (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, Queen Anne style architecture was a popular choice for public and municipal buildings at the end of the 19th Century. All London County Council schools of that era were built in that style, apparently because they wanted something that wasn't too fussy (unlike Gothic) and was distinctly British (unlike Neo-Classical). It was associated with the Arts and Crafts movement. For a source, there's a wonderful old book about London schools in the Bishopsgate Institute reference library (you'll probably have to take my word for it). I'm not a student of architecture, but I suppose the big gables and the decoration above the windows look a bit Queen Anne-ish. Alansplodge (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't really get a grasp on what "Queen Anne" style is - it seems a halfway hybrid somewhere between gothic and georgian.

Just about right, although substitute Jacobean for Gothic. This page says "Based on some of the Classical principles, the style is mixture of a few genuine Queen Anne details, with some Dutch, a bit of Flemish, a touch of Robert Adam, some Wren, and a little Francois 1st. It includes picturesque details, intricate gables, multi-paned windows, and Jacobean and Japanese elements. It is informal, irregular and asymmetric." Alansplodge (talk) 01:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Polychrome seems to be a name given to certain sorts of decorative brickwork, fwiw. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, you just answered another question I hadn't even asked yet - ... I was looking for that word. with reference to St. Pancras station.Oranjblud (talk) 22:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

With regard to the horizontal banding, if you're referring to the dark, thin horizontal band below the second-storey windows, I believe string course is the term. Deor (talk) 21:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The bands (you need to zoom on the image to see them), are about 3-4 bricks high, and stick out about half a brick. - I wouldn't really call them a string course as they are much more substantial - they remind me (vaguely) of the heavily decorative brickwork found in some tudor building (hampton court) - I tried to find another example - it seems to be imitating a similar effect seen in stone buildings (eg banks) - this is a less pronouced example http://www.gransdens.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/orangery_ani01.jpg - does it have a name?Oranjblud (talk) 22:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Stupid me—I thought you were still talking about the building pictured in this thread, so I didn't even notice your link to an image of another building. We had a similar thread on the ref desk several months ago; and as I said then, I think the term for that is banded rustication. Click on the first link in my post there (the last one in the thread) for a pictured example, in stone rather than brick. The blogger's text there also discusses the Queen Anne style—you may find it interesting. Deor (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, every question and more has been answered.

Resolved

Multi-millionaire authors

Please mention the names of some authors who have made millions only from writing books. I know J. K. Rowling is a billionaire. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 17:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Our list of best-selling fiction authors starts at the low end of 100 million books sold which, if sold during the author's lifetime (important caveat for one Will Shakespeare, among others) should put an author firmly into $1m+ directly from books. Note, though, that none of these authors will have made their money "only from writing books"; a substantial portion of Rowling's net worth is due to the film franchise derived from her books, and most if not all other bestselling authors will have similar diversification. — Lomn 18:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Googling "rich authors" helps a lot too [7] [8] [9] Other search combinations of words representing money or wealth and the term "author" may also work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.78.88.114 (talk) 18:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Many Zimbabwean authors made millions or billions just before the Zimbabwean dollar was scrapped. --Soman (talk)

US Pledge of Allegiance

I have twice now received postings from Facebook friends which are reposts from a Republican Facebook page which show kids dressed in clothes from the 50s or 60s reciting the US Pledge of Allegiance. The caption says, "We can't do this any more for fear of offending SOMEBODY. All true patriotic Americans should pass this on." Ignoring the specious "true patriotic Americans" stuff, is there any truth that the Pledge of Allegiance has been banned ANYWHERE in the US for fear of offending somebody? I haven't been able to find any evidence that it has been banned, only challenged, and that kids are allowed to refrain from saying it, but it isn't banned. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Rote memorization and recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance is not as widespread as it once was, that is some school districts no longer make recitation of the Pledge part of the daily routine; many have not done so for decades. That doesn't mean it was banned in these places, which would imply that the schools were forced to stop doing it. For whatever reason, the administrators of that district chose to not include it as part of the instructional day. --Jayron32 19:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The article describes a controversy during the 50s when "under God" was added to the text. I think, but see no mention in the article, that this was actually in response to the protests in the 1940s by Jehovah's Witnesses who refused to put the flag before God. Of course, the very mention of God offends others. The whole idea of compulsory displays of patriotism is, of course, as offensive to true patriotism as pledges and oaths should be to Christianity,^[10] and for much the same reason. Wnt (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

From what I understand it had far more to do with fear of being seen as "one of those dirty atheist commies," since that was the era of McCarthyism. The phrase "In God We Trust" was added to US currency just two years later (1956) for that same reason. I note that there were pushes for both of those things to be done which predate McCarthyism, however McCarthyism played a large part in what caused them to get enacted formally. -- HiEv 17:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

(EC) At a random guess, the listing is probably conflating/confusing a bunch of things including the fact it's likely less comment (as mentioned by Jayron) as well as stuff mentioned in our Criticism of the Pledge of Allegiance, particularly the 2002 Appeals court ruling, which as mentioned here [11] [12] would have prevented in certain US states, school-led or teacher-led recitations of the version of the pledge which included the 'under god' phrasing. I'm not an American though, so perhaps there is more, I found these with a simple search for 'Pledge of Allegiance illegal'. If the Facebook people are thinking of this, what's funny beyond the fact the ruling is long dead and was never implemented (pending appeal), evidentally the additional wording of 'under god' was only added in 1954 so it was only part of the 50s that it was even done. Interesting enough, this doesn't seem to be something the Supreme Court have considered recently, so it's possible something akin to the 2002 Appeals court ruling may come back. Perhaps given the makeup, people are reluctant to try. The 2002 case was overturned because the parent bringing the case was non-custodial and the 2005 case which came out in favour of the pledge was never appealed to the Supreme Court. Nil Einne (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Soapboxing...

This is standard fare for the US right. Pretend to be persecuted by imaginary others, identify those others as militant atheist elitists, and then launch a crusade to stop the fictional persecution. The crusade usually involves trampling the rights of anyone who isn't white, heterosexual, Christian, wealthy, and/or male. Marco polo (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC) No soapboxing please. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC) Watch Bill O'Reilly for a few evenings and you'll get the point. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC) Nothing like responding to a polite "no soapboxing" request with more soapboxing. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC) Had you said nothing, I in turn would have said nothing. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC) And it's not necessarily soapboxing if it's true. And I hasten to add that the right-wing has no monopoly on creating enemies. It's part of politics, from any direction. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC) I don't think whether something is soapboxing has anything to do with whether it's true. You can stand on a soapbox and say lots of things. They might be true or they might not, but either way, you're still standing on a soapbox. --Trovatore (talk) 01:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC) Yes, and if someone lectures others on what to say or not say here, they're being a nanny. So they shouldn't feign shock when they get called on it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC) Baseball Bugs calling someone else a "nanny". Now that made my day! Joefromrandb (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC) Always glad to be of service. Now, you stay off your soapbox, and I'll stay off mine. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)