Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

April 18

Famous equal lonely?

I wonder the children of famous people, extremely rich people (like Billionaires), powerful people (like the presidents). For the convenient talking, let just called those who are either one of the three types i mentioned above "special people". I assumed that those children will probably go to private school. Are they going to have friends, classmates? Who are their classmates? Are their classmates the same kind as them? Can their classmates be from middle class or even lower class? How are those people going to make real friends? I wonder how marriages work for those kinds of people? My guess is, in term of marriage, most of them will end up be engaged with someone else probably either famous or rich or powerful. How often does cross marriage happen? I mean like "special people" married someone in middle or lower classes. How can they know if their friends or their spouses actually love and care about them? Their friends, spouses may be just pretend their best to get close to them so in the end they can exploit those "special people". They surely don't meet as many people as ordinary people meet. They live in the exclusive style, not many people can meet them in person. What am i trying to get at is can "special people" get true love and true friendship or they are simply just a bunch of lonely people or are they the victims of fake love, fake friendship?65.128.159.201 (talk) 01:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

By and large, the classes don't mix, because there isn't a lot of common worldview between them, and there aren't many options to meet socially. A great book to read if you are interested in how social class affects worldview, and why social classes don't mix, is Ruby K. Payne's book A Framework for Understanding Poverty, which explains very well why the social classes don't mix well. It has an education focus, but the principles involved are fairly well applicable to any situation. Now, does that mean that it never happens? No, nothing never happens, but it happens quite rarely. However, your other presumption, that the upper classes aren't likely to find real, lasting relationships, sounds unlikely. They have friends and lovers, they just have friends and lovers like them. --Jayron32 02:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

One case is where somebody grows up "normal" and then becomes "special". Jim Carrey is an example. He got married before he was rich and famous, to someone in his social class, at the time. After he got rich and famous, he divorced here. StuRat (talk) 02:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Another factor to consider is that travel is easier for these "special" people, so, while there are less of them, they can gather from all around the world. The jetsetters may not even have are permanent home. StuRat (talk) 02:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

And another factor: in European societies, the middle class is actually an "open" class, meaning that both the poor and the wealthy can socialize within it, provided they have the money or the interest, respectively. At many cultural events you'll find people from all classes: maybe less poor on the theater and little middle class at posh hotels. 88.8.77.221 (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

@Jayron: My assumption is not for upper class! I think everyone misunderstand me. I'm not talking about simply just upper class! I'm talking about those at the extreme! Like i have mentioned before president of the US, billionaires (like Bill Gate), very famous people (like Michael Jordan, Micheal Jackson). Those are just the examples! Something close to the level of extreme i'm talking about is good. But most of the upper class is not rich enough to be in a group i'm talking about. Most of the famous people is not famous enough to be in a group i'm talking about either. Those "special people" are in a group of very small number! Let me just assume that there are about 10,000 people in a group (called "special people") that i'm talking about. Well I think 10,000 seems about right to me. There aren't that many presidents or very high officers or extremely rich people like Bill Gate around... 10,000 out of 7 billions. "friends and lovers like them?" It is all fake friendship and fake love. What they like about each others is because of the power, money, famous. SO basically those people don't like the special people, they just like "what" the special people have! US is the richest country in the world and it has the highest divorce rate! Divorce rate is a lot lower in poor country! Same thing if you compare poor class to upper class. I'm not saying it is not possible for special people to have true love and friendship but chances are they probably won't. Chances are their friends and spouses like them simply just because of what they have. This is especial true for the extreme group. And if possible answer as many questions as possible. I asked a lot of questions above. My most concerned question still the last one i asked yesterday. "friends and lovers like them?" is not clear enough. Is it fake or not? If you say it is real then how do you know it is real? Humans are by far the best species at faking! In case of lower class, it is easy to tell if someone actually loves someone else or not. True love is someone who loves the special people "unconditionally" not because of their power, money, celebrity. So even if somehow those special people become poor suddenly the there is still someone else love them. Last point but the most important point. It is true love only when you can sacrifice, die for that person.65.128.159.201 (talk) 21:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Let split this into several parts because i felt like you guys have lost track some of my original questions. Let come back back to the children of "special people" (remember those are the "extreme"). How those children make friends? Do they have classmates? If so who are their classmates? Do they have ordinary classmates from upper class and middle class and lower class? Do those children actually get to meet and make friends with ordinary people? Or they are just simply trapped in the world of illusion. Where are they only hang out with their friends? In their houses all the time? I don't understand and can't imagine what the lives of those children look like. It seems terrible and seems like a prison to me.65.128.159.201 (talk) 21:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Why rich and affluent lives have made humans become so fake. Why poor people and people who have nothing usually, a lot more likely than special people, will get TRUE LOVE. They have nothing to offer their friends or spouses yet they are the one who get the true not fake one.65.128.159.201 (talk) 21:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

A couple of ideas: children of "special people" are not automatically "special". Fame cannot be inherited. Some wealthy people, and family, live pretty common lives (e.g. Buffett). Some children of high profile politicians (e.g. Tony Blair) go to normal schools, mixed with children of other social strata. "Special" people also have a "normal" "human" side. You could pretend you like Bill Gates for his fortune, or you could appreciate his philanthropic activities. 88.8.77.221 (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Fame can be inherited but not always. Let say if you are a child of the president of the US, that will automatically make you famous. Are you sure Buffett lives a common live? How common is common? Can ordinary people meet him? Does he eat at the regular restaurants that anyone can go in? "Special" people also have a "normal" "human" side. How much normal human side do special people have? It is true that many people admire Bill Gate for his kindness but about his friends, spouse? They acted the way they are maybe just because of his fortune. How do we know for sure his friends care about him and his wife actually loves him?65.128.159.201 (talk) 22:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure Buffett lives a common life (excepting the private plane), defining common in a rather broad sense. He's kind of upper middle class. And most children of famous people are not famous themselves, and won't be. Actually, Bill Gates cannot not know whether some people like him or just pretend to like him right away. No one can. But his BS detector will ring at some moment, in the same way that the BS detector of anyone. 88.8.77.221 (talk) 23:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

You haven't answered my question! Can ordinary people meet him? Does he eat at the regular restaurants that anyone can go in? If not then he indeed does not live a common life. Before i start on continue to discuss, what is the BS detector? I totally disagree with this statement "No one can." Like i said before the poor and people who have nothing can easily tell if someone actually loves them or not. Let put it this way. How can you tell if someone loves you or not? By their actions right? For special people case, what probably happen is most people would pretend to act nice to get close to them (the special people) and exploit them when they have chances. What they, anyone, love is not the special people, they love "what the special people have". This can't happen for the poor. Why would someone pretend to love the poor? Did you get my point at all? The poor indeed will a lot more likely to find true love. Plus they won't have to encounter well-fake people like the rich has to. Don't forget the divorce rate I mentioned above, it is a good measure to see if there is true love. 65.128.159.201 (talk) 02:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The "BS" detector referred to I would guess is the Bullshit detector. But I have to object to some of what you're saying. Even if I am eating in Howard Johnson's—do I want someone walking up to my table and introducing themselves? They'd better have some good "chemistry" before they reach out to shake my hand. Supposing one of these "special" people had and interest in some field of study and developed their expertise to a high degree in that field. Wouldn't they then have created their own special realm in which their competency broke down all walls separating them from the "common" people and built up in their place "walls" that only related to proficiency in that field? The problem is not as intractable as you are presenting it. It may be no more of a "problem" than anyone faces in life. Finding a place for oneself in life can possibly involve finding an interest and pursuing it. This is an area of education—broadly defined. In that area the distinctions that were once seen as problematic become reduced in importance and are to some degree replaced by distinctions based on competency and proficiency in a certain field of endeavor. Bus stop (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I interpret the nub of the question to be about growing up as the child of extremely wealthy or famous (or both) parents. Such children do indeed face challenges unique to their position in society, and one of them is an increased difficulty in knowing if others like them for themselves, or for what they offer access to. The children of these ten thousand are, overwhelmingly, not educated in state schools, where the vast majority of their compatriots go. Some will be sent to fee-paying independent schools, some will be sent away from home (perhaps to another country) to boarding schools, and some will be educated at home by a governess or tutor. The latter two provide more physical security, but one gives a child a grounded circle of peers, whereas the other may be so peripatetic that no firm friendships with other children are possible. This last situation may well lead to the sort of isolation you mention. BrainyBabe (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Even poor people have to trust that another person likes them for who they are rather than for the advantages that access to them can bestow on a potential friend or similarly mutually beneficial relationship, at least ostensibly so. I don't think the class distinction identified is as stark as it is characterized to be. We all—rich and poor—have intuition about the motives of others with whom we enter into relationships. All people of normal intelligence are armed with the same abilities to probe others for the compatibility that we may be seeking in another person. There are no guarantees that under the best of circumstances one's choices will be right. The premise of "special" people is problematic because it implies another category of people who are "not special". I think these distinctions are not real—to a great extent—and are based on cliches. Bus stop (talk) 14:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Deism and the Devil

Deists believe that there is a god. But what about a devil? Do deists believe that there is a devil?

Bowei Huang 2 (talk) 02:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a hard question to answer, because deism is not a well-formed, coherant religion in the way that christianity or buddhism is. Deism is a broad religious philosophy which describes a lot of different belief systems. By its nature, deism is not an "organized" group, but instead describes an outlook on the world held by many diverse people, some of who may indeed believe in a Deist-devil with similar properties as the Deist perspective on God; while others may not. The only answer is "Some deists might, and others might not". --Jayron32 02:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know that there's a strict logical incompatibility between Deism and belief in a devil, but the two concepts do not seem to be very congenial -- since the basic tenet of Deism is that God created the universe to unfold within a system of natural laws, but does not directly intervene in the universe after its creation. This would seem to leave little place for significant devils (if they play no role in the creation of the universe, and can't intervene in it after it's been created). If you have the combination of a remote Deist-style high god who does not directly intervene in the universe, together with a malevolent lower god who does intervene, then you get ancient Gnostic type "demiurge" theology... AnonMoos (talk) 08:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Photo of Bill Clinton walks in on Obama

What's the story behind this [1] photo? It's not photoshopped, is it? Googling "bill clinton walks in on obama" turn up nothing related. 99.245.35.136 (talk) 03:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It was taken Dec. 10, 2010 at the White House by Drew Angerer of the New York Times. Here's the White House video of the event. It looks like the point the photo was taken is at about 0:03 of the video. To me it looks like the President's hand-to-face gesture is a sort of mock casualness acted out for comedic value, but you be the judge.--Cam (talk) 04:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Best caption I've seen for this one: "Did someone say Columbian prostitutes?" 71.212.237.94 (talk) 05:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

First aid kit color/graphic and the Geneva Conventions

The Wikipedia article on first aid kit has a picture of a first aid kit with a non-standard logo. The accompanying caption says

A small first aid kit, but in a non-recognised colour and bearing an equal white cross on a red background, illegal under the Geneva conventions

The white-on-red equal cross is, incidentally, the Swiss flag, not the Red Cross symbol. Is it really against the Geneva Conventions? If so, why? The words "non-recognized colour" in the caption suggests some kind of legal requirements for particular color and/or graphic for a first aid kit. The existence of such requirements seems to depend on the jurisdiction and setting. Outside of workplaces and industrial environments, are there regulations requiring first aid kits to have a particular look? --173.49.12.20 (talk) 06:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The word "illegal" seems a bit strong, as nobody is going to jail. I'd say "not in accordance with the Geneva conventions". (They want uniformity, so everyone will recognize aid workers, ambulances, aid supplies, etc., and hopefully not target them during a war.) StuRat (talk) 07:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, it really does seem to be illegal to misuse the Red Cross symbol. I found this on an American Red Cross website: "Each government that is a party to the treaties enacts laws to protect the Red Cross name and emblem within its boundaries. The rules in this country were set by the U.S. Congress when it first granted the American Red Cross its charter on June 6, 1900, and they are now set forth in Sections 706 and 917 of the U.S. Criminal Code... which reads as follows: "Whoever, whether a corporation, association or person, other than the American National Red Cross and its duly authorized employees and agents and the sanitary and hospital authorities of the armed forces of the United States, uses the emblem of the Greek red cross on a white ground, or any sign or insignia made or colored in imitation thereof or the words ‘Red Cross’ or ‘Geneva Cross’ or any combination of these words- 'Shall be fined'" " Whether it's illegal to misuse the Swiss flag is a seperate issue. Alansplodge (talk) 08:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

That makes it illegal in American law, which most people are not subject to. --Dweller (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes but it says: "Each government that is a party to the treaties enacts laws to protect the Red Cross name and emblem within its boundaries." In the UK, it's the Geneva Conventions Act 1957. Alansplodge (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm very dubious about that claim about the white cross, and would delete it as unsourced. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Unless it had been tested in court (a reversal of colour could be construed as "imitation thereof"), in which case, you would need a reliable reference. In the UK, if an employer fails to mark their first aid kit with the standard ISO symbol of a white cross on a green ground, they are probably in breach of the Health and Safety (First Aid) Regulations 1981. But let's not get into legal advice, eh? Alansplodge (talk) 09:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

§ 125 OWiG. --84.61.181.19 (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The misuse of a white cross on a red background IS ILLEGAL in the UK - see the Geneva Conventions Act 1957

"Section 6: (2)Subject to the provisions of this section, it shall not be lawful for any person, without the authority of the Secretary of State, to use for any purpose whatsoever— .

(a)any design consisting of a white or silver cross with vertical and horizontal arms of the same length on, and completely surrounded by, a red ground, being the heraldic emblem of the Swiss Confederation, or any other design so nearly resembling that design as to be capable of being mistaken for that heraldic emblem..."

As the link above says, all signatories were required to adopt protective legislation, so it's probably not just a British thing. Alansplodge (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know and as far as I can make out from the American Red Cross site the Geneva conventions only prohibits using the red cross on a white background, not the other way around. The UK chooses to go further than that but that doesn't make the white cross on a red background illegal in other countries.Sjö (talk) 05:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The site linked by 84.61 above says: "(2)The order acts adversely also, who uses unauthorized the coat of arms of the Swiss Confederation." (apologies for the machine translation).

See also Canada: Geneva Conventions Act, RSC 1985"Article 53... By reason of the tribute paid to Switzerland by the adoption of the reversed Federal colours, and of the confusion which may arise between the arms of Switzerland and the distinctive emblem of the Convention, the use by private individuals, societies or firms, of the arms of the Swiss Confederation, or of marks constituting an imitation thereof, whether as trade-marks or commercial marks, or as parts of such marks, or for a purpose contrary to commercial honesty, or in circumstances capable of wounding Swiss national sentiment, shall be prohibited at all times." Alansplodge (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

See also Australia: Geneva Conventions Act 1957 "Part IV—Abuse of the Red Cross and other emblems, signs, signals, identity cards, insignia and uniforms.... Subject to this section, a person shall not, without the consent in writing of the Minister or of a person authorized in writing by the Minister to give consents under this section, use for any purpose whatsoever any of the following: ... (d) the emblem of a white or silver cross with vertical and horizontal arms of the same length on, and completely surrounded by, a red ground, being the heraldic emblem of the Swiss Confederation.." Alansplodge (talk) 22:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

And finally - Section 708 US Criminal Code - Swiss Confederation coat of arms "Whoever, whether a corporation, partnership, unincorporated company, association, or person within the United States, willfully uses as a trade mark, commercial label, or portion thereof, or as an advertisement or insignia for any business or organization or for any trade or commercial purpose, the coat of arms of the Swiss Confederation, consisting of an upright white cross with equal arms and lines on a red ground, or any simulation thereof, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both." The first-aid kit in the photo seems to be commercially produced, so in America, the company's boss could be facing six months in clink. Alansplodge (talk) 22:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected. The First Geneva Convention, article 53, prohibits the use of emblems that look like the Swiss flag. (Article 44 mentions who can use the Red Cross emblem, by the way.)Sjö (talk) 09:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

use of the word BHATTINI to address a goddess or a princess in the ancient himalayan kingdoms such as kashmir,Bhutan,Nepal etc.this is with reference to the Pattini festival of Kerala

I have read on wikipedia the details about the Pattini festival celebrated in Kerala long time ago.I have also read about various theories about the origin of this festival.In this context I remember to have read about a noble lady called BHATTINI in a Hindi novel written by Sri Hazariprasad Dwivedi.Inthis novel a Kashmiri princess was addressed as Bhattini.Since it is reported in wikipedia that a great Chera king of Kerala brought some idols of gods and goddesses from the Himalayas I want to know whether there is some connection betweenBhattini and Pattini. BK.Satyanarayana --Bksatyanarayana (talk) 06:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)K--Bksatyanarayana (talk) 06:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)Satyanarayana

Norrey

This page about the Taplow burial for children makes the claim, surprising to me, that:

Tappa may have ruled a lost kingdom called 'Norrey' (meaning North Kingdom). This would have covered Buckinghamshire and possibly Middlesex. It had a sister-kingdom across the River Thames called 'Surrey' (meaning South Kingdom).

Was there ever really a counterpart to Surrey called Norrey? Marnanel (talk) 10:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know the direct answer to your question, but it may be relevant that there was once a Norroy north of the Trent, which the name of the surviving heraldic office of Norroy and Ulster King of Arms references. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.234 (talk) 10:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The Early British Kingdoms site to which the OP linked (and its linked site www.britannia.com) is generally regarded as highly unreliable, and based on a great deal of unsourced (or, at least, unreliably sourced) wishful thinking. So is this self-published book. However, that is not to say that such a place did not exist, and it is mentioned in passing in some antiquarian sources such as this. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Note that the name Surrey (Sūþrige) is usually thought to have referred to a district of a possible Middle Saxon kingdom (whose name would have been the origin of the name Middlesex), perhaps centered in or near London, rather than to an independent kingdom. If that's true, then it seems very plausible that the district north of the Thames could have been Norþrige, which would have become Norrey in modern English. However, this would have been a district rather than an independent kingdom with a king and a capital. Marco polo (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Reminds of this one: Everyone knows that Essex was the East Saxons, while Wessex was the West Saxons and Sussex was the South Saxons. Apparently, there were North Saxons, but they died out after one generation... hint: its a joke, and not a good one. --Jayron32 19:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

No. Sax. because they were actually British? Clarityfiend (talk) 20:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, Google searches bring up plenty of references for the "Norrey King of Arms", but this seems to be unrelated and either a variant or mis-spelling of the Norroy King of Arms. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

TV Licence after the Digital Switchover ?

My question is: after the digital switchover has completed for the whole of Britain & for whatever reason I chose not to upgrade to digital (no digi' TV, set-top box, etc) but I still had my old TV & VCR (lets say for just watching DVDs, videos, etc), will I still need to get/have a TV licence ?
The reason that I am asking is because I know & have heard that the TV licence does not cover the TV but the receiver inside the TV, VCR, etc so would this still apply afterwards ?
80.254.146.140 (talk) 11:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like you don't need a licence then. Full information available here.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing on that page, or indeed that entire website, that covers analogue tvs as far as I can see. The specific issue doesn't seem to be covered anywhere as they assume everyone has a digital tv. The if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast line seems to imply analogue tvs don't need a license, since they will be as able to receive live tv as potted plant. 82.45.62.107 (talk) 11:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, no licence needed if you are unable to receive live TV signals (by any means). The same applies at present to analogue signals. If you have the equipment to receive live TV (including a computer to watch streamed TV over broadband as it is being broadcast), then you might need to prove that you never use it (for that purpose). There's a concession in the regulations in that don't need a licence to watch recorded programmes or those streamed from the broadcasting company after they have been broadcast. There's no difference in the regulations between analogue and digital signals. Dbfirs 11:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

How exactly would someone go about proving they don't watch live tv over internet? 82.45.62.107 (talk) 11:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. This "anomaly" in the regulations has always puzzled me. I suppose the internet provider could verify the claim. I know of public computers that have a warning that it is illegal to use them to watch live TV. Dbfirs 13:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

You can still use an analogue television to watch digital broadcasts, either through a desk top box or a VCR so it may be hard to prove that you dont watch live TV to a licence inspector. MilborneOne (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I've never seen a VCR with a digital decoder, but they may exist -- are VCRs still manufactured? If you own a "desk top box" (digital signal decoder) or a modern digital recorder then you need a licence. I think the licensing authorities regard recording live TV to be the equivalent of watching live TV. Dbfirs 22:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I was refering to a DVD player/recorder with a hard drive which have a digital receiver and can playback on an analogue TV. MilborneOne (talk) 18:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

In Germany, there will be an eight-month gap between the closure of analogue satellite television and the introduction of the Rundfunkbeitrag. --84.61.181.19 (talk) 12:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

What will Germans watch during that eight-month gap? Dbfirs 13:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Soccer. Those 8 months will just fly by. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

What about the story I keep getting told by friends & family when we talk about this ?
The story being about an eldery couple that were taken to court because they the have a black & white TV (with a B&W TV licence) & the TV Licencing people (I think) stated that even though the TV is B&W the reciever inside it is picking up color TV signals. My friends & family then go on to say that a similar thing will happen if I do what I suggested in this question, that is even though can't pick up digi signals on my old analogue TV I can pick up TV signals (even though there might not be any analogue signals in Britain after the switchover) Would that happen ?
80.254.146.140 (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

This sounds like it's veering into the area of legal advice. Regardless, it's such an odd situation, I doubt anyone here could give you a definitive answer. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The site Shantavira linked to does say "Please let us know if you believe that a TV Licence is not needed", with a link explaining how to do this. I'm sure they will be able to advise you if you get in touch. 130.88.99.231 (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that your story is apocryphal. Black and white licences are sufficient for B & W TVs. I know someone who has one. Perhaps the elderly couple had a colour TV but turned down the colour and watched in B & W and thought that this would save them some money, but in that case, a colour licence was needed. If you genuinely never watch live TV and have no equipment for receiving a currently transmitted signal, then you do not need a licence. Dbfirs 22:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

From what I can remember of the story, it was stated that the TV was a B&W TV 80.254.146.140 (talk) 11:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I am perfectly certain you wouldn't have to prove you don't receive tv signals; they would have to prove you do. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The story is clearly apocryphal, as why would B&W TV licences be on sale, if not for B&W TVs? In my experience, the TV licence people will not really believe you or leave you alone unless you can prove that you don't have the means to watch TV, as the assumption is that everyone watches TV. I knew someone without a TV licence who resorted to squirting glue in the aerial socket of their TV, which they used to watch videos only, because it was the only way to convince the licence authorities that they really didn't watch TV. 86.140.54.3 (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The Sheep and the Goats criteria in the Book of Revelation?

I am trying to determine whether Jesus' description of the specific judgement criteria described in the Sheep and the Goats are reflected at all in the Book of Revelation. Given that the latter purports to be a more thorough description of the "end times" than Jesus took the opportunity to relay in the gospels, is there any recapitulation of the specific judgement criteria specified in the Sheep and the Goats in Revelation? If so, at what chapter(s) and verse(s)? If not, where would it most likely fit chronologically in the Revelation story (Rev. 20:11-12?) and, why might the details not have been included? 71.212.237.94 (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The parable of the Sheep and the Goats appears in Matthew, while Revelation was written by John. Two different authors, so it doesn't seem likely that the former was intended in any way to fit into the chronology of the latter. --Jayron32 17:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Last Judgement#Christian sources says that they overlap. The particular passages I am most interested in are Matthew 25, verses 40 and 45, "....as you did (not do) for the least ... you did (not do) for Me," which that article suggests corresponds to Revelation 20:11-15 ("each person was judged according to what they had done.") That seems congruent to me now.

Why do you suppose that John didn't include Jesus' words indicating that judging "what they had done" will involve actions towards "the least" of their brethren, or omissions of such acts? 71.212.237.94 (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Does the Book of Revelation purport to be a more thorough description of the 'end times'? It is certainly purported by many to be so, but I don't recall the book itself making any such claim. As our article on the book reflects, people have projected onto and read into Revelation all sorts of situations, only some of which are the 'end times'. 86.140.54.3 (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Its article says that it contains apocalyptic prophesy, and the text itself says so from Chapter 4 through Chapter 22. Revelation 22:12 also very briefly summarizes the theme of The Sheep and The Goats, which I didn't notice until just now, along with the fact that verses 5 through the end of Chapter 22 are very redundant. What are the alternative interpretations? 71.212.237.94 (talk) 20:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Our article is not the book, and apocalyptic prophecy does not necessarily mean endtimes prophecy. Apocalyptic literature isn't necessarily concerned with the end times (although it will often include this, among other things), just that righteous suffering will end and be rewarded, and the evil-doers punished. Our article summarises some of the alternative interpretations, and has links to articles with more detail. 86.140.54.3 (talk) 08:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

On rereading your post: the Book of Revelation purports to be the vision of St John, in which an angel speaks to him giving him messages from Jesus, and also shows him things. It purports to contain prophecy: but not all prophecy is telling of what is to come. Consider Jonah warning people, such that the great punishment from God never came. Consider long chunks of Isaiah which purport to be God berating the Israelites through Isaiah. These are prophecy, as they are God speaking through a prophet, but they are not predictions. Some sections of Revelation specifically say that they tell "what is to come", which is indeed the future. But it doesn't follow that these are the end times. For example, chaoter 12 is typically taken to be about Jesus's first coming, when he was born of the virgin Mary and the devil was defeated. It's certainly apocalyptic, it's certainly prophecy, but is it the end times? Of course, given the nature of apocalyptic literature, you can easily read all sorts of things into it.

My point is that very little of the Book of Revelation actually claims to be describing the very end of things, although it is possible to read much of it as being so. Combine this with the apocalyptic style, in whch everything is symbolism, and it cannot be said to purport to be a detailed account of the end times. Unless you're taking the view that the last 2000 years have been the end times for the purposes of Revelation, and the early Christians did think they were in the end times. 86.140.54.3 (talk) 08:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, that's good, but what I am trying to get at is this: Jesus said the Last Judgement would be by whether or not we performed very specific actions, those being towards "the least amongst" us, and by our omissions of such actions. On what I believe is the very reasonable Christian assumption that the word of Jesus is more authoritative than that of angels or men, who are both known to be subject to and frequently succumbed to temptation, doesn't it stand to reason that this particular omission, potentially affecting the ultimate fate of everyone is a very serious mistake? 71.212.237.94 (talk) 20:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but the Sheep and the Goats was not the only time Jesus spoke about Heaven and Hell, and entrance into them. He gave many other conditions, not just how we treat the least of our brothers. As I said, the Book of Revelation does not purport to be a more detailed account of the final judgement: it purports to be a letter to some churches, and an apocalyptic vision. A large part of the apocalyptic vision is involved in martyrs going to Heaven and seeking justice/vengance, while the wicked are judged and punished. Another large part of the book is a letter to 7 churches, berating those who are not charitable enough and praising those who are.

It is a letter written to an audience that already had heard the Gospel, and had received Apostolic letters before. This is an audience that already knew the contents of a basic synoptic Gospel, just as the Gospel of John is written for an audience that was already familiar with the synoptics. Why would it need to include everything that's in the Gospel? It's only a potential problem if you're expecting it to be a complete account of the end times. 86.140.54.3 (talk) 08:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Getting into heaven is one thing, and staying there past the Last Judgement is another, right? It just seems to me that the criterion for the latter is infinitely more important. 71.212.228.14 (talk) 08:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I am terribly curious as to whether you know of any religious group that actually considers getting into Heaven but being kicked out at the Last Judgement even possible, let alone a real cause of concern. 86.140.54.3 (talk) 09:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

What is the point of a Last Judgement if it just reiterates earlier decisions? Should we trust what is written in scripture, or "religious groups"? 71.212.237.20 (talk) 21:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Because not everyone will have died by that point, and the final judgement involves the resurrection of the body for those who are already dead. If you're trusting Scripture, don't you have to trust whoever preserved, copied, translated, chose Scripture? That would be religious groups. If you're going to trust what is written in Scripture, does that include 2 Peter 1:20, and 2 Thessalonian 2:15? Nonetheless, I remain interested to know if any group agrees with you. 86.140.54.3 (talk) 07:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

So lets see, everyone still alive, plus everyone dead. That's everyone. Apparently those groups who preserved Jesus's words thought they were important enough to do so. I'm sorry if your peer group thinks it's fine to disregard them. 71.212.237.20 (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

That was extremely rude, 71. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

See http://mlbible.com/revelation/1-1.htm and http://mlbible.com/revelation/13-8.htm.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I read the verses. Please elaborate. Are you saying this explains why John omitted the specific judgement criteria relayed to Matthew? 71.212.237.94 (talk) 00:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Revelation 1:1 says that the Revelation (also called the Apocalypse) was transmitted from God to Jesus Christ, and then to an angel, and then to John. That verse says that the Revelation was conveyed by signs (Greek ἐσήμανεν) (http://biblelexicon.org/revelation/1-1.htm), that is, by using figures of speech. You might wish to see how the same Greek lemma is used in other verses (http://concordances.org/greek/4591.htm).

Revelation 13:8 makes a distinction between humans who are counted as faithful ("written … in the book of life …") and humans who worship the beast (http://mlbible.com/revelation/13-1.htm), whose power and authority are given to him by the dragon (http://mlbible.com/revelation/13-2.htm). The dragon signifies Satan (http://mlbible.com/revelation/12-9.htm), who spoke through a serpent (http://mlbible.com/genesis/3-1.htm). (Compare http://mlbible.com/numbers/22-28.htm.)

The beast empowered by Satan represents a political entity, like the beasts prophesied by Daniel (http://mlbible.com/daniel/8-20.htm; http://mlbible.com/daniel/8-21.htm; http://mlbible.com/daniel/8-22.htm). (Compare http://mlbible.com/proverbs/28-15.htm.) However, Jesus Christ taught his followers to worship only God (http://mlbible.com/matthew/22-21.htm).

—Wavelength (talk) 01:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

What does any of this have to do with why John or the angel decided to omit the criterion for judgement which Jesus specified as involving actions toward "the least amongst you," and omissions of such actions? 71.212.237.94 (talk) 03:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't have anything to do with anything, and furthermore, as always, it seems obligatory to point out that Wavelength is a Jehovah's Witness. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I have not disclosed my religious status on Wikipedia.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

If you have spent several years swimming in the duck pond in the manner of a duck, quacking, and showing us your beautiful duck-like feathers, then you don't need to have told us that you are a duck to have disclosed your ducky nature. It is always possible that you are, in fact, a moorhen with a consuming interest in duck culture, but you would probably have noted this in some way when showing us your duck feathers.

Don't worry about it. I respect that, when you have linked to the Watchtower website, you have labelled those links as being the official website of Jehovah's Witnesses. I could wish that you'd label links to the New World Translation as being a Jehovah's Witness translation, and that you would explain your angle when you bombard people with Bible quotes, but there's usually someone to add that caveat for you, just as there is when anyone else starts getting on their hobby horse :) 86.140.54.3 (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Vice president

I wonder since when the running mate of the winner in presidential election automatically became vice president? And what is the 12th amendment really saying? I don't really get it. Can someone explain to me in words that someone with no politic knowledge will understand. Thanks!Pendragon5 (talk) 19:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Assuming you are speaking about the President of the United States, for the first few elections, all candidates appeared on one list, and the person who received the most votes in the electoral college was declared the President, while the person who received the second most votes was declared the Vice President. This created major problems for these early elections. In the 1796 election the two offices went to bitter rivals from opposite ends ot the political spectrum: Federalist John Adams won the Presidency, while Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson got second place and the vice presidency. For the 1800 election, the electors and parties tried to prevent that from happening, but they did it too well, and ended up with both Democratic-Republican candidates with the exact same number of electoral college votes. This threw the contested election to the House of Representatives, created a messy political quagmire. To rectify this, the 12th Amendment was passed. This assured that there were two votes each Elector made: one for President and one for Vice President, and they clearly indicated who was running for which office. This reduced a lot of the problems with the prior system. In other words, the twelfth amendment seperated the elections for President and Vice President, so that each elector selects one person for President and another person for Vice President. Does that work?--Jayron32 19:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Could a presidential candidate run with different vice presidential candidates in different states? Has that ever happened? --Soman (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The could, I suppose, but it has never happened. The whole "who must be from different states thing" is a bit of an anachronism, when people were concerned about certain states monopolizing the political process, when the country had less than half the number of states it does now. With 50 states, and a much different political system in place, it is the sort of thing which would never appear had the law been written today, but which still exists because there has been no real reason to go through the trouble to revert it. --Jayron32 20:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it has happened in the other direction (same veep, different prez). Róger Calero ran on the Socialist Workers' Party ticket with Arrin Hawkins as the VP candidate. But Calero was not a natural-born citizen and therefore not actually eligible to be elected, which in some states kept him off the ballot entirely. In those states James Harris headed up the ticket, presumably still with Hawkins as VP. --Trovatore (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

... ah, maybe not — Hawkins' article says she was ineligible too (too young), and Margaret Trowe stood in for her in some states. So I don't know. Depending on the details of the laws, it could be that there were as many as four different combinations of the four candidates on different states' ballots. --Trovatore (talk) 23:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The closest example would be 1896, when the Democrats nominated William Jennings Bryan for President, but the Populist Party, which was big enough to matter, didn't like his VP candidate, Arthur Sewall (and for other reasons), and so nominated Bryan along with Thomas Watson. They came to all sorts of weird arrangements so that the Bryan vote wouldn't be split. Watson wasn't even on the ballot in his home state of Georgia, which enraged him. If Bryan had been elected, there is no guarantee Sewall would have been elected VP, it could have been thrown into the Senate, it would have been Sewall vs. the Republican, Garret Hobart. The Populists would have held the balance of power, but there's no guarantee party lines would have held, Gold Democrats might have voted for Hobart and Silver Republicans for Sewall ...--Wehwalt (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

And, as a practical matter, I doubt if a VP is likely to be chosen from the same state, anyway. The VP is often chosen from a swing state, in the hopes that they can deliver this state in the general election. Presumably, the Presidential candidate already has his own state in the bag (if they can't win their own state, winning the election is rather doubtful). StuRat (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Dick Cheney and George W. Bush were both Texans. Cheney claimed Wyoming residency for 12th Amendment purposes but it was sort of iffy. No one seems to have bothered to challenge it, though, or at least I haven't heard of it.

It did raise an interesting scenario if the Wyoming dodge had been shot down, and Bush had needed all the Texas electors to win. That could have thrown the VP election into the Senate, and in an unlikely but maybe not impossible outcome, have resulted in Bush as president and Lieberman as veep. --Trovatore (talk) 22:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

As noted in the Dick Cheney article, he was primarily a Wyomingite, and had moved to Texas when he worked for Halliburton. He moved back to Wyoming after Dubya asked him to be his VP running mate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think previous residency is particularly relevant. Most states define your residency as where you plan to live "permanently", which of course is not particularly well-defined, but Cheney does not appear to have made Wyoming his genuine primary residence at any point after moving to Texas. (His intent, of course, we can't really know.) --Trovatore (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, someone called it a "dodge" and that's unfair. The Constitution doesn't define what qualifies as residency of a state. That's left up to the Congress or the states or whoever. If the laws say he was a proper resident of Wyoming when he was elected, then he was; end of story. If someone thinks it was a "dodge", they should petition to get the laws changed. But to what? How long should you have to live someplace before you're considered a resident? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

That's the thing — the laws are less than clear on this. A legal challenge would presumably have been a longshot (otherwise someone would have done it) but I don't see how it could be ruled out a priori. I do think it was a dodge. I don't have any particular interest in closing that loophole, though, because I'm not particularly interested in expanding ways that states can claim you're a resident when you say you're not (thereby subjecting you to their jurisdiction).

The word "dodge" is not particularly a criticism here. I don't really care that much that they found a way around that provision. But I think it's clear that it was a way around it, not a genuine intention to move back to Wyoming. --Trovatore (talk) 00:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, it sounds like implying that someone pulled a "fast one". If you want an even more blatant "dodge", there was Bobby Kennedy moving to New York and winning for Senator. That led satirist Tom Lehrer to say in 1965 that his state of Massachusetts "is the only state with three Senators." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

This question hasn't been answered yet: "when the running mate of the winner in presidential election automatically became vice president?" Like in modern days now. Whoever is the running mate of a presidential candidate will become VP if that candidate became president.65.128.159.201 (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It has been answered. Jayron mentioned the Twelfth Amendment, which came into effect in 1804. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, actually, it isn't true. The constitution doesn't say anything about "running mates", and as far as I know there is no such legal concept at the federal level, though there may be for the purpose of state ballots (but this would vary state-by-state). --Trovatore (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused on the answers now. The 12th amendment says the elections for President and VP are separately. It doesn't say the running mate will become VP automatically if the candidate became the president. I'm not sure if there is even a VP election. There is only presidential election. Whoever was the running mate of the winner of the presidential election, will become VP.Pendragon5 (talk) 23:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's the thing — your last sentence is simply wrong as a statement of the law, though it does seem to be a solid prediction in practice. --Trovatore (talk) 23:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

As the 12th Amendment says, the electors choose both. And since the electors for the President are going to be of the same party as the Vice President, they would be extremely unlikely to try to force a different VP on the guy they've just voted for, for President. So it's not legally "automatic" at all, but as a practical matter it is - and has been since the 1804 election. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

See Wehwalt's remarks above on the 1896 election. --Trovatore (talk) 23:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Distinct presidential/vice presidential tickets came with the 1828 election, basically.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I think Pendragon (like many) is being confused from the difference between the popular election and the electoral college. The only legally mandated body which elects the President and Vice President is the Electoral College. That's it. They select the president and vice president, and when they do, they pick one person to be President and a different person to be Vice President. "But Jayron32," you say, "When I go to vote, I don't get to select them seperately. I get a ballot with both names listed together, and I only get to select the pairing." Astute observation, but here's the dilly: That vote you make isn't an actual vote. Think of it more like an 'opinion poll'. They states aren't even required by the Constitution to ask you who you want to be President. They just have to send a number of electors to Washington every four years to select a president. The states are allowed to come up with any procedure they want to select those electors. If a state wanted to, it could just pass a law that says the Governor by decree gets to decide how that state's electors vote. Nothing stops them from doing so. For some time, all 50 states have used the general election to guage the "popular vote" and based on that, pledge its electors to vote for whatever candidate won the popular vote in that state. Since, however, there is no nationally defined procedure, there is no requirement that the ballot you get matches what the electors do. So, wheras the electoral college simply select a President and a Vice President from seperate lists, you get handed a ballot which all-but requires you to vote for each parties "Pair" of candidates together. You vote for a President and his/her running mate together. That essentially assures that the electoral college will do so as well, however that isn't a product of the 12th amendment. The electoral college votes how it always has voted. What has changed is the way that the states organize the ballot to encourage a certain type of voting by you (i.e. you can't "split the ticket" and vote for a Republican President and Democrat VP). Why can they constrain your vote this way? Because it isn't a legally binding vote. They don't even have to ask your opinion, at least, by the Constitution. --Jayron32 02:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't so automatic in 1836. See Faithless elector and United States presidential election, 1836#Results. There are separate elections for president and vice president in the electoral college. In 1836 the running mate didn't get enough votes but was later elected by the Senate. The constitution has no concept of running mate and in 1840 the sitting President ran unsuccessfully for reelection without a designated running mate. See Richard Mentor Johnson#Election of 1840. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

All true, except the OP isn't voting in 1836. The OP wants to know why, under the twelfth amendement, the electors are required to vote for the Pres. and VP on different ballots, but when the OP goes to the voting booth, a President and his running mate are listed as a single option together. That's because you are not an elector. Your vote isn't mandated by the constitution, so there needs be no expectation that your vote is done by any procedure at all, least of which the procedure required by the constitution that applies to a group of 538 people who actually elect the Pres. and VP. In fact, the parties have vested interest in not letting you vote for the President and VP seperately for exactly the historical reasons you note. They want to prevent you from doing so, lest you screw up and select a President and a VP from different parties, which may, in a close election, result in that being the final result. Since the parties don't want that to happen, they don't let you do that. They are allowed to set those constraints on your voting, even in light of all of the procedures noted in the Constitution and its amendments, because you are not an elector and your vote isn't constitutionally mandated. Only those 538 are. --Jayron32 02:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Communist manifesto

What did Karl Marx mean by "combination of education with industrial production"? To what extent as this been implemented in the united states? \ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.152.20.216 (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC) Does anyone have any ideas on this topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.152.20.216 (talk) 20:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Please do your own homework.

Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. --Jayron32 19:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

this isnt a homework question, it is a reserch question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.152.20.216 (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Marx just means that education is designed to prepare people for their jobs: schools which make good workers (as opposed to good thinkers). To answer the second question, start with Horace Mann and work forwards. --Jayron32 20:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd call that type of training vocational education, and it's quite widespread in the US. Education for education's sake (like music, art, and the humanities for most), to become a better citizen (government classes), and to improve your health (physical education) are often cut first during a budget crunch. StuRat (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, but Stu, it is deeper than that. This isn't about merely vocational schools. The idea is that the public education system in America isn't necessarily designed and organized to make a bunch of independent thinking and well-rounded students who can think critically about the world. One of the major objections to it, especially historically, is that its designed to train people to be good, obedient workers. Sit in your chair. Do what your told. Don't question the authority. Do repetitive work over and over. You know, the exact same kind of thing you'll be expected to do in the workforce. It's not that general education is training you for a specific job, it is indoctrinating you to be a good worker in whatever job you do. That, at least, is the criticism of the type that the OP is looking for. --Jayron32 02:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a criticism I've heard about China. The US does seem to teach critical thinking skills far better. But, those are also important for working, at least for good jobs. Doing things with mindless repetition only works for bad jobs. StuRat (talk) 03:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with StuRat here, inculcating "labour discipline" means much more than forcing mindless compliance. Mindful compliance is far more productive. Again, I'd point to Adler (below), where he explores the different readings of teleology of the "deskilling" (Harry Braverman) debate. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Marx has a double meaning here, just let me refer to the paper I'm reading on the topic: Paul S. Adler "Marx, Machines, and Skill" Technology and Culture 31:4 1990:780-812, jstor. Adler notes that Marx views history as a progress within a social form, leading to a crisis, and then a revolutionary progress. Ie: the system of industrial production under capitalism is more humanising than previous systems of production (feudal agriculture); but, that this system of production also produces anti-human contradictions, and that these contradictions can only be resolved through a social revolution (ie: a vast change in underlying conditions and relations; not necessarily armed dudes storming the Winter Palace). In the case of skill, eduction and production, Marx is talking about a two fold process: firstly, the factory acts are replacing apprentice systems (7+ years), with limited apprenticeships (3+ years). A dehumanising process is occurring as old systems of education in production are broken down. But at the same time as decomposition of feudal relationships is occurring, a recomposition of these relationships occurs as a new system of apprenticeship is being created. Similarly, the replacement of factory child labour with a combination of factory child labour and forced elementary school education is a recomposition of education into a new capitalist form that is (arguably) more human than the feudal elements of the manufactory (manual labour, not machine labour, factory). But is this enough for Marx? No. Marx wants an end to labour all together, including child labour, and its replacement with a combination of pleasure and leisure. So when Marx is claiming that mixed vocational/work education is the way of the future, Marx is suggesting that in capitalism workers will be educated at work, and after capitalism this will continue on a new and liberated basis. Oh the joy of working and studying at the same time, as we produce widgets and produce diplomates!... On the other hand consider the role of the reader in the cigar factory, isn't that education at work?

So on one hand, this already happened in the United States, with the reconfiguration of traditional apprenticeships in the 19th century. In addition it occurred in manufacturing industry under Taylorism, where work processes included a limited educative function. But then this process stopped as education was divided from employment—Marx was quite frankly wrong regarding this social trend. White collar work (Mills) primarily has education as an "externality" to the employment process. I'm undecided about this myself, I'm going to be presenting a paper on skill in historical materialism in Australia, and its economic function. My suspicion is that capitalism has politicised skill-formation (as a use-value) into an externality borne as a cost by workers, which means that there are some interesting things happening with exchange value in terms of complex labour—"primary accumulation" perhaps is a way to describe the unpaid proportions of skill. (For a case study, look at unrepaid female university debt—society is not paying the input cost on these women's skills, but they still exert them during their working life). Or consider the recent social work case, where Australian social workers won pay increases based on the systematic gendered under payment of their skills, compared to equivalent male skilled occupations. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to know how Marx thought that somehow we could all be just sitting around having fun and not doing any work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Marx discusses relief from work in capitalism in two forms: pleasure and leisure. These are respectively associated with Young Marx and Mature Marx in that schema. The first is more heavily idealist, it constitutes pleasure as self-actualisation through doing things, the classic fishing in the morning, poetry in the afternoon. Leisure is more heavily materialist, it constitutes relief from alienated labour as time free for use. There are problems with these: Marx's category of work in capitalism is social, the worker is the collective worker, exerted labour is socially necessary labour—both of these are collective. Whereas I've normally heard of relief from work phrased individualistically. Both conceptions involve people still making and doing useful things for other people. While you can see aspects of these developing: in terms of pleasure work design is an important area, particularly work design in worker owned cooperatives; in terms of leisure as a demand, see EP Thompson on "Time, Work Discipline and Industrial Capitalism." Similarly the discussion of leisure versus industrial democracy in the 1970s due to "automation." Fifelfoo (talk) 01:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

ah yes: how we'd all be working 20 hour weeks because automation would take the boring jobs out of the system, leaving people with the pleasurable, meaningful stuff. That didn't happen either. Pity. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

And a shockingly large number of people suggesting capitalism would tolerate a 20 hour week were members of so-called "Communist" parties………yet on the other hand the issue is still cogent. When the Spanish or Hungarians seized the means and tools of production, they sought to implement work processes under workers control, they didn't seek to abolish Dunapentele, but to control it. And sure, they replaced management functions with managers democratically elected—but they didn't design away unpleasant human activity during their six weeks to sixteen months of power. I suspect Marx's idealism needs a kick in the cods: workers, even militants, don't believe it in practice, whereas they're willing to accept a "hard yards" analysis of production structuring if they control production. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Even in ostensibly Communist states, there is no worker control of production: A group of elites (the "Communist Party") simply replaced the old group of elite with themselves. They oppressed the workers in equally as bad, or in worse ways, themselves, but told the lie that they were doing it "for the worker's own good". On paper, Marxism looks really good, but in practice Marxism is a convenient excuse for a power elite to seize and maintain power and prevent anyone from the rest of the populace from threatening their stranglehold on power. The greater issue for "worker rights" is how a particular political system concentrates or diffuses power. Traditional Communist states which lasted tended to be "power concentrators" in totalitarian regimes. It is far more informative to look at the results a political system produces than it is to look at the so-called ideals it purports to represent. Systems which produce high standards of living for the working classes are inevitibly those which diffuse power to a greater extent rather than concentrate it into the hands of an elite class. --Jayron32 13:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Jayron, this is an area I spend most of my life thinking about, largely from the position of self-interest in working class autonomy.. We can compare using industrial sociology the relative freedom inside the production process in given societies at various times. One of the things emphasised in our featured article on Wage reform in the Soviet Union, 1956–1962 is the levels of relative worker autonomy in production design required in economy of the soviet style societies due to the chaotic production system—this level of demanded worker autonomy is much higher than in US Fordism, for example. Compare and contrast with Braverman on the evolution of skill in non-soviet industrial production. Similarly, we can examine workplace mobility and observe a relative level of autonomy in the ability to move between workplaces—labour was in more or less continuous short supply in this period—and workplace movement was used as an industrial weapon in soviet societies. Of course, this doesn't mitigate both the inherently anti-working class (see Pirani on the windback of workplace democracy during war communism) attitude of Leninism; nor does it mitigate deliberate decisions to crush working class autonomy with force (56, so many times Poland). Your last piece of analysis is a bit dodgy: soviet-style societies had much flatter income and wealth distributions than non-soviet style equivalent societies; this is a diffusion of power. (Per GDP soviet-style societies are more effective at converting social production into living standard, and until the 1970s the contradictions of the soviet economy at maintaining growth weren't widely known. A growth problem that amusingly comes down to a working class refusal of industrial education and skill as these were viewed as repressive apparatus!) In addition to being a "cheaper" ruling class, the nomenklatura was and from the last time I checked Vietnam and China is much more directly involved in the production process, much like the 19th century bourgeoisie in England or the United States. I think its more valid to construct the brutality of the soviet-style ruling class as a result of its inherent weakness, its fundamental lack of control over the working class and fear of an immanence of independent working class power, than due to a concentration of power in the nomenklatura as such. Weakness instead of strength makes a bully. Fifelfoo (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but your thinking misses the forest for the trees here: Cavemen dodging being eaten by smilodons had a "flatter income and wealth distribution" and it doesn't mean they had a higher quality of life, across the board. The only metric that counts is quality of life, when you use other metrics as a substitute for that; such as income or income disparity or whatnot, you're missing the entire point. Why is having a "flat income and wealth distribution" an automatic indication of quality of life? The two can be unrelated, and yet you seem to take it as canonical that because there was a flat distribution of wealth, that somehow poor people led higher quality lives. Did all the people starving at the time of the forced collectivization of agriculture in the Soviet Union feel better about starving knowing that their neighbors were all starving too, since there was a "flat income and wealth distribution" that made sure they all starved together? How egalitarian and wonderful... --Jayron32 19:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Gini coefficient is that way. If you've found a way to determine by metrics what is the quality of life, I think you're up for a Swedish gong. Personal consumption is a commonly used proxy for access to material satisfactions, and personal consumption was higher in soviet-style societies when comparing like GDPs. Now obviously proxying personal consumption for actual human satisfactions isn't demonstrative of actual human satisfactions; but economists and political economists are reasonably pleased with this proxy due to the impossibility of reconciling individual desires themselves. I'm not sure what your point is in relation to famines, non-soviet industrial societies have regularly forced famines while food is available. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Because the focus on the rationale for totalitarianism is moot. Sure, you can find non-Communist totalitarian states who had similar famines to what the Soviets had. That's not the point... --Jayron32 21:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

In response to the original question, Marx is nodding here to Robert Owen's provision of schooling to child factory workers. Industriousness among schoolchildren was much valued in Victorian England. 19:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)Itsmejudith (talk)

Ellen Johnson Sirleaf's hat

What does one call the type of headgear that Ellen Johnson Sirleaf is fond of wearing? Nyttend (talk) 21:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

A head tie? Mikenorton (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd call it a turban. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Described as a 'head tie' in this Liberian report of the start of her second term [2], also here [3], I've also seen it called a 'head wrap' [4] and a 'turban', even a 'turban headwrap'. Mikenorton (talk) 09:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

President term

I wonder can someone run for the president of the US for 2 non consecutive terms now?65.128.159.201 (talk) 22:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

No. Read the text of the Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution. "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice". Some states allow governors and others to serve nonconsequtive terms, but that's not true for the Presidency. Shadowjams (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

They didn't ask about more than 2, they asked about exactly 2. StuRat (talk) 22:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec) In which case the answer is surely "Yes", not "No". The law prohibits a person from being elected more than twice, but twice is perfectly OK. It doesn't matter whether it's consecutive or non-consecutive. There's an issue when a VP accedes to the presidency on the detah or resignation of the president, and serves more than 2 years of the original term. They can't be elected in their own right more than once after that. But rhe OP made no mention of that special case. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The canonical case being Grover Cleveland, as all American schoolboys know (he's the oddball on all Presidential lists). Also, if we wanted to be strict about parsing the OP's question, they don't actually say that they are elected. You can run for President as many times as you wish (as Eugene Debs knew), as long as you do not have a chance of serving more than two terms. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Cleveland served well before enactment of the 22nd Amendment. The only thing preventing him from running again was adherence to tradition. D Monack (talk) 01:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The question isn't whether he could have been President three times (he could have, Constitutionally, there is no doubt, ergo FDR), but whether the could have been President for two single terms out of sequence. There is no reason to suspect he couldn't do that today, just as he did then. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Also that he was wildly unpopular with a large part of his own party. See generally Cross of Gold speech and William Jennings Bryan presidential campaign, 1896.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Cleveland, by the way, is an excellent name to have handy when you're trying to explain to someone the notion of a multiset. (Another good example is when ten men bat in an inning of baseball, even though there are only nine playing.) --Trovatore (talk) 01:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Alright so let say President A ran for president and became president. After 1 term he stopped. Many years later, he wants to run for presidential again. Can he?Pendragon5 (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes. A person may not be elected more than twice to a four year term, but the two times they can be elected can be sequential, can be a half-century apart, and can be anything between - so long as they're a natural-born citizen, aged 35+, who's lived 14 years in the US. (And they can also serve up to two years of a term to which someone else was elected, making the maximum term of a Presidency 10 years, rather than the more normal 8) --Saalstin (talk) 23:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

In effect, that's what Teddy Roosevelt did, i.e. he decided not to run for a third term, and then changed his mind and ran again, in 1912. Had the GOP been smart and nominated him, he probably would have won - and probably again in 1916. However, there was no term limit then. Supposing Bush Sr. were to run again, forgetting issues like his age, who would vote for a guy who's going to be an automatic lame duck? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, the wording of the Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution would not seem to preclude an an individual who was ineligible to be elected President (due to term limits) from assuming the office of President by other means. For example, if Barack Obama had selected Bill Clinton as his running mate, and Obama later resigned, would their be anything to bar Clinton from serving the remainder of the term? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The wording of the Amendment does not seem to preclude that specific scenario, although in that example Clinton would be ineligible to run on his own, so he would be an automatic lame duck; besides which, such a shenanigan could come at an enormous political cost. It could well result in yet another impeachment trial and/or the need for a Supreme Court interpretation. It could also result in widespread revolt of one kind or another. Maybe technically constitutional, maybe not, but it won't happen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

An example of what's permissible would be George H. W. Bush; there's nothing in the Constitution that prohibits him from running. The same is true of Jimmy Carter. Nyttend (talk) 00:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they could - knowing that they would be automatic lame ducks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Both George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter were single-term Presidents. If they won again, they would have another four-year term as President. They would not be lame ducks at all (only having one the possibility of one term is not a "lame duck"). Bill Clinton could not be elected President without it being unconstitutional; that is a different situation, and he too would not be a lame duck, strictly speaking (since you'd actually have to be President to be a lame duck, and he couldn't legally be President). --Mr.98 (talk) 00:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Right, it's bizarre to extend the term lameduck to a president's whole second term. Why then run for re-election at all? (And then you get to the unexpected hanging paradox.)

You're a lameduck when your replacement has already been elected. But not if your replacement is loyal to you (Reagan surely was never a lameduck — no one could ignore Reagan just because GHW Bush was coming in). So maybe by extension you're a lameduck once it becomes clear that the next person to take the oath is of a different party or at least is not your personal ally. --Trovatore (talk) 03:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Twelfth amendment: "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States", combined with twenty-second amendment: "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice". Bill Clinton is ineligible to be elected president, so he's ineligible to be elected vice-president. --Carnildo (talk) 00:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Your logic does not work. 12th amendment explicit says you can't be elected as the president more than twice but it says nothing about vice president. I have heard this statement from one of our founding father:"if it doesn't say you can't do it then you can do it." Something like that.65.128.159.201 (talk) 03:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

22 says Clinton is ineligible to be elected president, not that he's ineligible to be president, which is the trigger for 12. There are scenarios under the 25th amendment where he could become president, or at least "acting president", after having assumed some other office first. --Trovatore (talk) 01:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose that he could be elected to the House of Representatives (and he'd not be the first; John Quincy Adams served in the House for nearly twenty years after the presidency) and become the Speaker, only to have both President and Vice-President die or otherwise become incapable of serving. Nyttend (talk) 01:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Ah, gotcha. The loophole seemed too good to be true. Does that provision also apply to succession by officials below the Vice Presidency? Suppose, for example, that the Secretary of State were Bill Clinton instead of Hillary. If a group photo disaster were to kill off the President, VP, Speaker of the House, and President pro tem of the Senate, would the Presidency fall to Bill as the next official in the United States presidential line of succession? (Our article mentions the usual eligibility requirements of age and citizenship, but doesn't explicitly rule out individuals who are past their term limit.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Notwithstanding my misreading of the OPs question... the 12th and 22nd amendment issue is very much unsettled. It's hardly a foregone conclusion that the "loophole" is permitted. Shadowjams (talk) 02:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

This is one cool thing about US constitution. This is one of the thing I respect the most about the US found fathers. For their genius in inventing the best constitution in the world. Unlike most constitutions, are "solid constitution", in the world. Most of the time, the wording is very vague so it is up to the Congress, Supreme Court, powerful politicians... to discuss and decide what to do. The constitution can be interpret in so many different ways, possibly each different way can contradict each others. Our constitution is not a rock, it is like a paper that we can bend it whatever way we think it serves Americans the best. The funny thing is the US's constitution is probably the shortest by far. 65.128.159.201 (talk) 03:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Sturat and baseball bugs don't need to comment on every question asked here. Usually their comments are bad (opinion) jokes or speculation, not information. Not only doesn't that help, it often derails the conversation. Thedoorhinge (talk) 07:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Not sure where that comment came from. Are you thinking that the comment immediately before yours came from me ? It did not (and I would never write anything like that). My only contribution to this thread has been to note that the OP asked about 2 non-consecutive US Presidential terms, not more than 2. StuRat (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The short answer is: we don't know and it is rare that a Constitutional amendment is passed just to clear up loopholes, the 25th is the only one I can think of. If it happened, say Bill was next in line as the result of a multiple vacancy, it would probably be determined by a pragmatic decision, not by the courts (see Political question doctrine). Probably it would be whether the people and Congress were willing to accept the situation, which probably they would be.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The 25th amendment was designed to do exactly that... clear up some issues with the order of succession. But given the 17 amendments since the bill of rights, I suppose it would be correct to call that amendment rare. Shadowjams (talk) 08:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I said to clear up loopholes. Most constitutional amendments passed since the Bill of Rights advance a policy agenda (16, 17, 18 for example), reverse a Supreme Court decision (11, 26) or clear up a constitutional problem after a "train wreck" situation (12th, 13-15, arguably 21 and 22). The 25th does not.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

There are numerous law reviews written on this subject. I don't have access to a free service I could use to answer this question, nor could I do more than provide the basic citations, which only others with access to lexis/westlaw could check. Point being, this is an open question. There's some question about whether or not this would be open to judicial review, or if it's something Congress would decide. Shadowjams (talk) 08:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Suppose something happens to Joe Biden. Could Barack Obama appoint Bill Clinton as vice president under the 12th and 25th amendments?    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 20:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes he could, but obviously both houses will shoot it down so it's entirely a moot point. 99.245.35.136 (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

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, [5], 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, [6], 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.[7] 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[8][9] (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 [10], 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 [11] [12] [13] 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,^[14] 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 [15] [16] 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)

April 20

Not social and yet successful

How many famous people like scientists, writers, politicians were not very social but they were successful to have a career? When I mean not social, I mean did not attend dinner parties, have social times with relatives and family and go to places that involved talking with strangers and no, I don't mean the term anti-social that does criminal activities. I asked this question because I heard some famous people were anti-social and yet were successful to get a job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.17.36 (talk) 00:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Paul Dirac has been described as once "suffering agonies if forced into any kind of socialising or small talk". I also remember reading a book that said something along the lines of that he considered declining the Nobel Prize for fear that he would gain attention. →Στc. 00:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The one time I saw him, was at a lecture by John Archibald Wheeler. Wheeler said we are honored by Professor Dirac's presence here, so Dirac stood up, and bowed and said nothing. But his head didn't explode, so I don't think he was sooo terribly antisocial by anti-social nerd standards.John Z (talk) 00:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

See list of recluses. I seriously doubt a politician could be successful without being sociable. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Not nowadays, anyway. But supposedly Jefferson was so averse to public speaking that he would actully mail his state of the union report, to be read into the congressional record. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe many successful bloggers are not social by OP's definition. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 01:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I had the impression that the oral SOTU was a late innovation, though not so late as television. —Tamfang (talk) 22:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is an interesting article. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 01:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Glenn Gould was a very successful classical pianist who performed on stage in his early years, but latterly would only make recordings. He was notoriously anti-social and could not bear to be touched. Bielle (talk) 02:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Except by Cornelia Foss, with whom he had a long-running and, by her own testimony, very sexual relationship, putting the lie to rumours he was gay. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 05:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The most prolific and active Wikipedians are also probably not social. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 02:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

. --Jayron32 02:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

→Στc. 03:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The two that spring immediately to my mind are J. D. Salinger and Thomas Pynchon. Dismas|^(talk) 04:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I received a most active wikiaward and I'm not social. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Think about it this way: if I were social, where would I find the time to accomplish such a feat? Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I would draw a distinction between socialising with what we might call the outside world and being comfortable in the presence of one's family. Charles Darwin, for example, spent most of his time at Down House, with his wife and their many children. She handled the entertaining, and he travelled as little as possible, only visiting London when he had to. Was he a recluse? No doubt many scientists of the day thought him such. BrainyBabe (talk) 13:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Calvin Coolidge was often known as "Silent Cal" and there is an apocryphal story about a dinner party he attended at which a woman made a bet that she could get more than two words out of him, to which he responded "You lose." 24.92.85.35 (talk) 03:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

"Hey Giorgy! These Uzbeks bet me twenty kopeks I couldn't get three words out of you!" "You lose...comrade." Adam Bishop (talk) 10:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

This presumably in a language in which "you lose" is one word, such as Russian. —Tamfang (talk) 08:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

No, it's having a go at the stupidity of Russians, which has always been a rich mine of humour in Russia. This particular Russian is extremely dumb in that, having been apparently smart enough to limit himself to "You lose" (which is 2 words in Russian), he immediately forgets that he cannot say one more word, not even the canonical "Comrade". -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 13:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's meant to mean anything, except maybe a slight against Uzbeks. It's from SCTV, see here if we're allowed to link to YouTube. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah. In that scene, Giorgy adds "comrade" as a favor to his friend, after pausing to tease him. —Tamfang (talk) 07:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Carl Jung wrote: Talking is often a torment to me. I need days of silence to recover from the futility of words. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 05:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Why IRBMs are not used anymore?

From the article Intermediate-range ballistic missile, it can be seen India, Pakistan and Israel are the only present-day users of IRBMs. The US, France, Russia and China operated IRBMs once, but they no longer use it. Why IRBMs are not used anymore by the major military powers? --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 00:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Because they agreed not to, see Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. India, Pakistan and Israel were not parties to those treaties. --Jayron32 01:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 01:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

So why IRBMs? Surely ICBMs and SLBMs are more of a threat than IRBMs would be... Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The shear destructive power of ICBMs and SLBMs (especially MIRVed) may have been greater than IRBMs, but that isn't the only thing that factors into threat. ICBMs take about 30 minutes to reach their targets. Pershing II IRBMs took 10-15 minutes to reach their targets. In the former case, there is enough time after detecting an enemy launch to fire your own missiles back before the warheads hit you. In the latter, you may not have enough time to react. This is a destabilizing factor. A nation possessing IRBMs has less reason to shy away from an attack as they may succeed without reprisal, while a nation threatened by IRBMs is in a position of "shoot it or lose it," fearing at any moment of tension that the enemy has already fired their missiles. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 03:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

An additional problem with IRBMs is that they have to be placed in intermediate range. ICBMs can be shot from the U.S. and reach Russia, and visa-versa. IRBMs need to be placed in places like Turkey or Cuba to be effective, and that tends to destabilize things more than just a bit. --Jayron32 03:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

IRBMs also make states nervous because they look a lot like first strike weapons — the sort of thing you might be tempted to use for a surprise, decapitating attack ("nuclear Pearl Harbor" was the phrase tossed around a lot), as opposed to just a deterrent. Some SLBM systems also run into this issue but the superpowers love them because they have fairly guaranteed second strike retaliation ability. The other issue of the decreasing time is that you also decrease your ability to screen out false alarms, of which there were quite a few during the Cold War. If you have 20 minutes to figure out if it is a computer bug or not (which happened a few times!), then you're more likely to avoid accidental armageddon than if you have, say, 30 seconds to make that call. Slowing things down makes deterrence more rigorous, less accidental, so the thinking goes. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Surely this is a case of "we agree to not carry knives, but keep the guns".Oranjblud (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It's more like, "we agree not to carry handguns, but will still drive tanks." --Mr.98 (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Emperor Muzong of Tang

Did any of Emperor Muzong of Tang's sons or grandsons leave any descendants to the present day? His line was replaced by his brother's in 846, but he still had descendants living at the time. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Germany in 1970-1990

Was there a shift towards conservatism during this time in Germany? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.124.35 (talk) 02:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Which Germany? There were two for most of that time period. --Jayron32 03:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

No, do you have any leads? See Elections in Germany or, for an inside view of German feelings in 1981, see Marianne and Juliane. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 08:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

This is anecdotal, but during that period, I spent some time in West Germany, had friends there, and followed culture and politics. There was an alarmed reaction to leftwing terrorism (and terrorism in general) during that time, which led to public support for tighter security. That could be said to be a conservative shift, I suppose, but otherwise, I don't think that there was a general shift to the right. The recession of the early 80s led to dissatisfaction with the (left of center) SPD and an electoral gain on the part of the CDU/CSU, but this was more voters expressing dissatisfaction with the economy than an ideological shift. As the economy improved during the later 80s, the political pendulum began to swing back to the left. Also, this period saw the rise of the German Green Party, which was anything but conservative, and a very strong left-wing protest movement against the NATO Double-Track Decision to deploy nuclear cruise missiles in Germany. This movement included demonstrations involving hundreds of thousands of Germans and opinion polls showing majority support for the protesters. Lastly, this period saw a number of political and cultural gains by feminists and gay activists. So, no, I don't think that there was a clear conservative shift during this period. As for East Germany, the 70s were a conservative period (if we define conservative as defense of the status quo and existing power structures) of communist retrenchment, but the 80s began with the Solidarity movement in neighboring Poland, which inspired liberal dissenters in East Germany, followed by Soviet glasnost and perestroika, which encouraged the liberal Peaceful Revolution that led to the downfall of the communist government. Marco polo (talk) 15:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

religious teachings against contraception

It is well known that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that artificial contraception is sinful, but are there other Christian denominations which do the same? In particular, is this an issue with the Christian Right? I looked at Protestant views on birth control but it wasn't too helpful. --Halcatalyst (talk) 04:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

According to our article on the beliefs and practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, In most instances, the church strongly discourages surgical sterilization as an elective form of birth control among married couples. It's sourced if you want to go look it up. Dismas|^(talk) 04:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The protestant view is going to be confusing because there is no "Protestant View" on anything. The term "Protestant" in many contexts can mean "Any Western Christian tradition which isn't Catholicism, with a few exceptions". There are mainline Protestant denominations, but even they aren't going to agree on much of anything. You're literally going to have to go denomination-by-denomination to find what each teaches on the matter; and in some denominations, there may be considerable room for individual conscience. As a devout evangelical Christian myself, I will leave out my opinions on the Christian Right, except to say that those opinions are not very charitible towards them. --Jayron32 05:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Have you seen Christian views on contraception? The Orthodox churches seem to have some variation, according to that page; most oppose abortifacient means of contraception (that's a bit vague; e.g. people argue whether the morning after pill is an abortifacient), some go further, some are more liberal. The Greek Orthodox church seems to oppose all contraception[17]. This page suggests the Coptic Orthodox church isn't opposed in principle, but recommends the rhythm method (calculating fertile periods). The Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Canada allows except for abortifacients, but again prefers natural methods.[18] --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

And some will argue for a distinction between contraception (under this narrow definition, that which prevents the union of sperm and egg) and contragestion (that which prevents the fertilised egg from implanting in the uterine lining). You might be interested in the quiverfull movement, Protestant Christians who oppose all limitations on their family size. As far as I know, they only exist in English-speaking countries. BrainyBabe (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Scientists and mental disorders

Is it true that most if not all exceptional scientists, in can credit their success to some form of mental disorder, such as Asperger's syndrome? Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I doubt it. Since Asperger's wasn't recognized until the 1940s we might never really know. As times change, the way people interact with each other changes too, sometimes profoundly. Many if not most of us these days have most of our social interaction staring at glowing rectangles so who's to say that those with a predilection towards that sort of interaction aren't more mentally ordered rather than disordered? The sorts of mental skills necessary to succeed in industry and academia depend on such vagaries of progress and are constantly changing. 71.212.228.14 (talk) 10:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Assuming you are trying to point to this article, it's from The Onion, so it's just a joke. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Hm, at the moment neither of those URLs are working for me, but I suggest there is more than just a grain of truth in the premise. As for the original question, PMID 11439754 says, "we report on a new instrument ... the Autism-Spectrum Quotient (AQ).... scientists (including mathematicians) scored significantly higher than both humanities and social sciences students, confirming an earlier study that autistic conditions are associated with scientific skills. Within the sciences, mathematicians scored highest...." 71.212.228.14 (talk) 11:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I had a hunch: the outcasts are leading the world. If it weren't for us, were would the world be? Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

There's a saying: "To be a genius is to be misunderstood." This addendum is often added "The converse is not necessarily true". Think on it a bit. --Jayron32 14:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

What exactly are you infering? Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

If that's a question to Jayron's post (in which case it should have been indented under it), it means that just because someone is misunderstood, does not mean they're necessarily a genius (they might have a habit of explaining themselves very unclearly, for example). If it's not a question to Jayron's post, then I have no idea what the question is about or to whom it's addressed. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 11:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

It means that it's rather amusing for some guy on the Internet to arrogantly assume he is one of the genius outcasts leading the world. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I did not imply that I was a genius, simply that I am an outcast. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, that appears to be a reply to Adam Bishop, but it's not indented under it so at first glance it might be seen as unrelated to anything Adam has written. Please indent your posts where necessary, by use of the appropriate number of colons (:). For example, if you reply to my post, you'd start with 2 colons. For more information about this, see WP:Indentation. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I will try to follow these rules, but as a note: this type of comment belongs on my talk page, not on the reference desk. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

As you did:[19] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Evaporative cooler

How common are evaporative coolers nowadays in households? The article does not have the information. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 13:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Common in desert climates with a good, cheap supply of water (piped in from dams elsewhere), but rare otherwise. StuRat (talk) 13:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

In our household, despite the need for a cheap and portable cooling method we dont use evap coolers because of the moister they put into the air, especially because of the books in the house too. Benyoch ^{Don't panic! Don't panic!} 06:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benyoch (talk • contribs)

We have one, which resides on the roof of the house, with water pumped through it. We have to turn the pump on for several minutes before actually turning the cooler on, in order to get the water flowing. Unfortunately, with the temperature floating at around 90 degrees today, our cooler isn't working, as it needs a new pump and someone to install it.  :( I live in Central California. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 01:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Why are the Olympic Games such a nationalistic display?

Flags, anthems, biased coverage by the media... Where did all that come from? --Broadside Perceptor (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Your "question" is ambiguous. You could be saying any one, or more, of the following:

1. Why it is that nationalistic?
2. What are the origins of it being nationalistic?
3. A rhetorical question, formed as a way of saying you find it nationalistic and [implied] distasteful

Answering them in order:

1. Because it lends itself to being a nationalistic display.
2. Good question. I wonder how focused the original Olympics/early modern Olympics were on state of origin.
3. The ref desk is for questions that can be answered, but I'll note that apart from biased coverage, the other elements you mention are neutral, it's just your [implied] perception that they're bad

Now I'll look into Q2 because it intrigues me, even if it wasn't your question. --Dweller (talk) 13:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Nationalism is a bit of an anachronistic term to use for Ancient times, even for the well-developed Greek city states, but it seems from our article on the ancient Olympics that you can trace the origins back to those days. --Dweller (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Basically, it is because the teams are, and have been, organized by National Olympic Committees, and so the athletes, loosely speaking, represent nations. Look at the early history of the IOC. There have been attempts to make it less so; Avery Brundage, for example wanted to replace the anthem of the winning competitor(s) replaced with a fanfare of trumpets, but he was not successful in selling it to the IOC.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Broadside Perceptor -- It's possible that without the national competition element, the broad public would be a lot less interested in the Olympics than they are now... AnonMoos (talk) 14:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

First, the modern Olympic Games began during the heyday of nationalism, so it was natural to organize them according to national teams. Second, I think AnonMoos is on target as to why the national structure persists. It attracts people who are interested in rooting for or supporting "their" team. That is in the interest of the athletes and organizers, who receive more funding as a result, and in the interest of broadcasters, who gain advertising revenue. Marco polo (talk) 14:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

And as the athletes are still entered by their NOCs, it would be almost impossible to change today. Too much of an organized power structure, and what would be the alternative anyway?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The "Modern Olympic Games" were clearly started based on a premise that nations could fight for prestige and pride in the sports arena as opposed to the battlefield. Remember that in the pre-World I era, wars were still viewed by some naive folks as having some kind of almost moral quality, as tests of courage and manhood rather than as merely brutal slaughter and murder. Cf. Games Without Frontiers (song). Wnt (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's say that you live in Bolivia and have television access; you're more likely to care about Bolivian athletes than about Mongolian ones, so if you're informed about which players are from where, it might make you more interested. Granted, you should be able to see which of two people is a typical Bolivian and which is a typical Mongolian; however, without national identifiers you'd have a hard time distinguishing the Bolivian from the Peruvian. Nyttend (talk) 04:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Pride in one's nation's achievements cf. those of other nations is a very alluring idea, and sporting achievements are right up there alongside scientific, artistic and humanitarian achievements. De Coubertin etc knew this. So did Walter Scott: Breathes there a man with soul so dead, Who never to himself has said, "This is my own, my native land"?. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 05:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not just the Olympics that the media shows bias to. All sporting events will cause certain sections of the media to display this. If you watch a report on a game between teams in two different cities that is broadcast on a channel available to a large section of the country it will tend to be more neutral. On the other hand if the broadcast is from a station in one of the cities then a bias for the home team will be present. The media knows their audience and it isn't the people living in other countries it's the people in the home nation. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 11:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

April 21

Italian Pope

Why there haven't been any other Pope rather than Italian Pope since 16 century until Pope John Paul II? What made Italians so powerful in Christianity?Pendragon5 (talk) 02:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, the obvious answer is that of proximity: Rome / the Holy See is in Italy (or rather on the Italian peninsula as the state of Italy was not united until Garibaldi in 1871, but that is neither here nor there) and was the capital of the old catholicized Roman Empire. You have to remember that it took a long time to get to the other countries back then and moreover in the 16th century the Protestant Reformation was going on which undoubtedly made the (mostly Italian) cardinals wary of any non-Italians as possible heretics. 24.92.85.35 (talk) 03:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

To expand a bit: the Pope is the Bishop of Rome, and for most of history, he was also the secular leader of the Papal States which occupied most of what is now central Italy. The fact that the Pope was almost always Italian did upset other parts of Western Christendom, which is why the Avignon Papacy and the Western Schism occured. Once that matter was settled, the Pope went back to being Italian, for the most part. --Jayron32 03:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

If you look at our List of Popes, you also notice that from the beginning of the 15th century to the end of the 19th, only one Pope is recognised as a saint, and only two are beatified. Compare that to earlier centuries (although the 10th is also without canonised Popes), and with the 20th century. That gives some idea of the quality of person chosen for the Papacy in those years, and how they were generally viewed by the Church. There's a whole load of Catholic saints from the period who are especially remembered for their teaching to laypeople and lower ranking religious on how to handle scandalous behaviour in those above them: e.g. St Francis de Sales. 86.140.54.3 (talk) 09:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

There's a movement to canonize Pope Pius IX, and any objections to this are really not on the basis of any perceived faults of personal piety or morality, but are much more based on his actions towards the Jews, his apparent hatred of democracy and pluralism, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 12:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Canonise Pius IX? No, No!  :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 13:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a typo. What they really need to do is cannonize. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Common names of far-right

What are common names of far-right parties in Europe regardless of their nationality? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.106.245 (talk) 03:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Far-right politics should get you started on your research. --Jayron32 03:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The words "National", "Nationalist" and "Patriot" are common in the names of far-right parties. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 03:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The word "Freedom" also seems to be popular in the names of European right-wing parties. LANTZY^TALK 18:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

National Front is an especially common name, although not every group that has used it is/was far-right; but a lot of them are/were. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Flickr vs Wikimedia Commons

Wikimedia Commons is a free media hosting site, Flickr is non-free (well to get good features you have to upgrade to pro account). Commons has improved features like categorization of photos to easily find them, and other editors will assist you in improving your contribution. But still Flickr is more popular than Commons. Why? --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 05:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Because many people want to 1) upload personal photos without worrying about whether they'll be "realistically useful for an educational purpose", or 2) without releasing their control over future re-uses (which is required by all Common licenses). AnonMoos (talk) 05:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Flickr is an image hosting service while Wikimedia Commons is supposed to host files that have some potential for use on one of the Wikimedia projects. So while File:Gold Range Hotel.jpg can be on both Commons and Flickr other images such as this would really have no place at Commons. As AnonMoos points out the license requirements can be different. All the images that I uploaded to Commons have the same licence as at Flickr but the other images at Flickr, like the second example, have an "All Rights Reserved" license. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 11:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, photos on Wikimedia can be deleted if other users decide they're not of any value. If you upload photos to Flickr they won't be deleted till you say so (although they may be hidden if you have too many for a free account). --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Economic Inequality

I've heard that rich people are rich and deserve to be rich because they are hard-working and poor people are poor and deserve to be poor because they are lazy.

But then how come this? Rich people are always few. Poor people are always many. Few people were nobles. Most people were peasants. Few people are capitalists. Most people are workers. Few people live in developed countries. Most people live in developing countries. But what about this? How come this? How do you explain this?

Bowei Huang 2 (talk) 07:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• It is not clear exactly what your question is. But people who make a lot of money generally have a higher intelligence quotient, more knowledge, and obviously a willingness to make money. Some people voluntarily choose to live a poor life, but they are handful in number, quite intelligent, philosophically aware, and ideologically motivated. The avergae guy selling a newspaper in the street or working as a blue-collar worker in a factory has low intelligence quotient, restricted worldview, very limited knowledge, and lack of ambition. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 08:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC).

What a weird generalising answer, almost as nonsensical as the first sentence in the OP. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there are intelligent and hard-working people who voluntarily or involuntarily work as blue-collar worker. There are a few really intelligent people (far more intelligent than the average newspaper editor) who work as a blue-collar worker, such as Eric Hoffer, but they are handful in number. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 09:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Also circumstances can make a really intelligent, hard-working and ambitious person poor. Say, a person who is suffering from a personality disorder (such as social anxiety or schizophrenia) will find it difficult to get employment and will suffer from poverty. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 09:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The first sentence in OP's statement is an arbitrary and incorrect conclusion. The correct statement will be, "Not all poor people are lazy, but all lazy people are poor". --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 09:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed. You can e.g. have a wealthy and lazy heir or lottery winner.Sjö (talk) 09:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, in India, there are a few beggars who make a lot of money, more than an average college lecturer or grocery store owner. See this video (language not in English) where a beggar got an account in India's largest bank. A beggar in Mumbai earns INR 2000-2500 per day, making their monthly income INR 60000-80000, which is far more than the salary of a senior reader of a college. See "Rich Beggars In India-Mumbai". All they have to do is to look very poor in need of help, sure they need intelligence to do so. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 10:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Old boys network and Social Class are more relevant here than any attempt to identify poverty as a function of individual personality. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Scruples or lack of also play a big part in who cannot afford to buy a yacht or has to make do with an air mattress.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

In Cuba, there's a bizarre situation where doctors, paid by the government, are poor, while waiters, who get tips from rich tourists, are often rich in comparison. So, does this mean the doctors have low IQs and/or are lazy ? StuRat (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Haha. good example how government intervention destroys talent and knowledge. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 22:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the connection. Could you please clarify? →Στc. 23:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

If the Cuban government did not restrict private practice for doctors, they could have earned a lot more. If Cuba had a market economy, purchasing power of the people would have been much higher, enabling them to pay highers fees to doctors. But due to government restriction, the people are poor, and doctors earn a lot less. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 01:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

A doctor in Cuba earns $15/month, and a prostitute in Cuba earns $100/night. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 22:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

So if you have an anal fetish, save money and go to a proctologist, instead. :-) StuRat (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I assume the prostitutes' clients are overwhelmingly waiters. Gives a new meaning to the phrase "service with a smile"--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Yea, the doctors don't need prostitutes, since they're already getting screwed on a daily basis. StuRat (talk) 04:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's another tried and tested way of surrendering to an anal fetish. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 06:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Rich people are rich, by and large, because they were either born rich, or born with access to the avenues to get rich (i.e. access to the correct schools where they could become involved in the correct social networks to enable them access to very high-paying jobs). There are enough anecdotes of real people who were born abjectly poor and became rich to confuse people and make them think it is possible for them to do the same. Hard work has nothing to do with it. They guys spreading asphault in the hot sun for 10 hours a day work hard, but they will never get rich doing that activity. It also doesn't mean that rich people don't work hard either: a stock broker may put in as many hours, and work just as hard as the pavement spreader, for his six figure salary. But there is no correlation, positive or negative, between hard work and socioeconomic class: it is largely a function of your environment (again, with enough exceptions to give you false hope). That also doesn't mean that people in any socioeconomic class cannot be happy, satisfied, or well-balanced in their life, since those things are largely unrelated to money either. --Jayron32 23:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Last time I checked with both pay-remuneration studies, and the study of satisfaction amongst the IR/HR/Organisational Studies areas; the idea of a "sufficient" living was quite popular, justified both by Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and by factory pay structure studies in industrial sociology. This of course is an expansion on both Taylor's insight into pay motivation versus exertion, and the general idea you note that many satisfactions are external to the circulation of material commodities. I expect that similar concrete insights from workers is what leads to the class consciousness of "a fair day's wage for a fair day's work," being a grounding, but not sufficient condition for human happiness. What this means is that after a certain amount of material satisfactions in a particular society, current research indicates that further satisfactions aren't related to wealth or income's capacity for consumption of goods and services. (Though wealth or income could be elements of serving "higher needs," for example, if they're used as a "score" in self-expression). I haven't seen similar analyses of bourgeois class consciousness in relation to earnt income, but these studies hold true for 90%+ of most industrial populations on a class basis alone. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Laissez Faire

One important part of capitalism is laissez faire. Laissez faire is the lack of control or intervention by the government of the economy.

But why laissez faire? I mean, wouldn't the government help the economy and help it develop by its control or intervention of it?

Bowei Huang 2 (talk) 09:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

It depends on your worldview. If you are a Marxist, you will say government helps the capital owners and oppresses the workers, if you are a Keynesian, you will say government intervention is necessary to fix defects of the market, if you are a libertarian, you will say government disrupts the market. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 09:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

You will notice in the Laissez-faire article that "A laissez-faire state and completely free market has never existed, though the degree of government regulation varies considerably". So obviously most people do think that government intervention in the economy to some degree is a necessity. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

But it is observed countries which are more free market oriented have higher standard of living (Hong Kong, New Zealand). On the contrary, countries with dictatorship of the proletariat, such as North Korea, are absolute hell for the working class. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 09:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

See Poverty#Economic_freedoms. Government intervention generally helps the established big businesses and harms small business owners. The more free the economy, the more people are business owners. The more restricted the market, few people are business owners and most are workers or unemployed. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 09:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

My concrete experience of New Zealand is a combination of deep and utter fear, insecurity and self-loathing. This is applied like a plaster atop a lathe of precarious employment and poverty. And yes North Korea is worse; but North Korea claims to be a Juche state, and not to have implemented a "dictatorship of the proletariat," which, in Marx, is visible as a kind of executive parliament of workers themselves. New Zealand's standard of living is unacceptable, and has collapsed since the Boys from Chicago raped New Zealand society as an experiment. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, Bakunin, another critique of capitalism, said that for the Marxists, "anarchism or freedom is the aim, while the state and dictatorship is the means, and so, in order to free the masses, they have first to be enslaved." --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 10:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem with North Korea is not that they do not adhere to laissez faire economic principles. The problem is that it is a crushing, Stalinist, invasive dictatorial state that systematically and quite literally enslaves its own people. They are not a good example to use for any economic theory; they are waaay out there on the exceptional spectrum and the causes and results of their woes are far more complicated than their economic model. They are not the alternative to laissez faire policies, just as Somalian anarchy is not the alternative to regulation. More useful comparisons would be made between the standards of living of culturally similar economies, e.g. the Scandinavian countries (which have high regulation but also high standard of living), other European states (which are a mix), the United States (which is a mix), and so on. There is a lot of evidence that lack of regulation can easily lead to practices that undermine the benefits of capitalism (such as monopoly, tragedies of the commons, irresponsible externalities, etc.). There is also a lot of evidence that the organs of regulation are easily captured by industry or special interests and can be used in ways that are also undermining (many monopolies are government supported in various ways, for example). There's no simple, one answer to this, unless you believe in economic fairy tales. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if it's possible to have 100% laissez faire without also having anarchy. For example, a military causes major market distortions, by purchasing from some companies (presumable those who bribe the most Congressmen) and not from others. You would need to eliminate all purchases and have an all-volunteer army where each person brings their own clothing, food, weapons, tents, etc. This would create a rather weak military, but perhaps one strong enough for a small island that nobody else wants. You'd also need volunteer firemen and police. Education could be at alternating people's homes, using different people each day as the teachers. There could be no public building of roads, airports, ports, etc., as, again, that would tend to favor some and not others. I hate to think what network of roads would result from everybody building their own little chunk. I picture lots of dirt roads and few highways. So, you might end up with something looking like an Amish community. Lack of government regulations would mean anyone could sell water with white dye as milk. I imagine everyone would need to test everything before they buy it, then (and maybe make the seller taste it, in case it contained something toxic). StuRat (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The article's definition says it means "an environment in which transactions between private parties are free from state intervention, including regulations, taxes, tariffs and enforced monopolies." There are still such environments on a small scale. Garage sales come to mind. However, if you're running a business, you have to comply with with the public has decided are proper rules and regulations (which can change over time, obviously). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Token objection to equating legislators with "the public". —Tamfang (talk) 08:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

As in "representative democracy". As "the consent of the governed". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

As regards the OP's second question, "wouldn't the government help the economy...?" that is demonstrably true. Spending, including government spending, fuels the economy. I'm not going to argue that that approach doesn't have potential dangers - such as the outrageous size of the national debt. But it does work, for awhile at least. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

But, of course, any money the gov spends must come from somewhere, such as taxes, and detractors would argue that this means that much less money is now available for the private sector to spend. I do agree, however, that gov borrowing and spending can stimulate the economy, and taxing and paying down the debt can cool down an overheated economy, but, unfortunately, they never seem to get around to that last part. StuRat (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Ernest Mandel argues quite cogently in the introduction to Volume II of the Penguin Edition of Capital that state spending on waste, luxury goods, or war items (perceived as an equivalent set of "departments" of production, in a multi-department model) can alleviate the tendency to over production for extended periods of time. Mandel's argument is that state expenditure emerges primarily as access to surplus labour in terms of taxes placed on proletarian consumption. In Mandel's schema, this forced capitalisation to produce certain goods can stave off both crisis and declining rates of profit, by rationally aligning capitalist expenditure on production with goals of longer term stability. So one issue regarding the extent of laissez faire versus regulated capitalist production—if your aim is near-optimum maintenance of capitalism itself—is the extent to which private capital is currently in crisis, or unable to effectively circulate capital. A similar view emerges in Keynsianism, though it aims to ameliorate the business cycle, rather than resolve contradictions in a crisis. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Hair colour eye colour germanic people

What are main hair colours and eyes colours of Germanic people: English, Scottish German, Dutch, Swedish, Norwegian, Danish and Icelandic peoples? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.40.61 (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you trying to resurrect obsolete "race science"? There are the standard half-true stereotyped clichés (such as Celtic=red-haired and Scandinavian=blond); if you want to go beyond them, then you can try to find rigorous quantitative studies (because I don't think anything else would be very useful)... AnonMoos (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Why would you assume the OP was trying to do that?! The question is just asking about common eye and hair colors. You do realize that, despite migration, different people around the world do, on average, look different? Why on earth would you leap to "race science" from that question? Shadowjams (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Because there's no real useful or valid answer in between the well-known half-true stereotyped clichés and rigorous data-driven comprehensive quantitative studies, but the way that the question was phrased seemed to imply that the questioner thought there was... AnonMoos (talk) 02:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You're projecting a lot into this. Are you claiming the graphics bellow are made up; or the peer reviewed studies in our article on human skin color? Are you actually asserting that 1) the idea people from northern latitudes have fairer complexions on average is incorrect, and 2) that acknowledging that fact is a hair's breadth away from genocide? Maybe you read a different question than me. Comparing a question about what's the predominate hair and eye color in a country to a disgusting ideology (and others below to genocide, apparently) is downright offensive to the OP, but also a crazy projection. Maybe he could have worded it more eloquently, but your attack against the OP is absurd. Shadowjams (talk) 07:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Whatever -- the questioner did not ask about skin color, and the conversation was not about skin color until you chose to irrelevantly intrude the subject. "Race science" (which is really not the same as Nazism, by the way) often consisted of armchair yahoos making a very few (completely statistically inadequate) measurements of "dolichocephaly" and "brachycephaly", combining this with vague subjectivistic impressions of hair and eye color, and correlating this with selectively chosen snippets of history to arrive at broad sweeping categorical conclusions about national and/or racial differences. ("Race science" was often associated with pre-WW2 studies of "national character", for some reason not mentioned in our National character article, though the two were not the same.) Concerning the subjects which the original questioner actually asked about (as opposed to things which 174.89.40.61 DIDN'T ask about), I really don't think that there's any useful medium or valid intermediate stage between the standard half-true stereotyped clichés and rigorous data-driven comprehensive quantitative studies, and I said so. For reasons best known to yourself, you have chosen to attack me to a significantly greater degree than I could be said to have attacked the original questioner... AnonMoos (talk) 12:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

This reference desk has a storied history of people answering the question, or topic they want to hear, and not the one that's asked. The fact that you wanted to talk about "race science" but then say I'm off topic when I link to skin and hair color (as though they have zero link to pigmentation) speaks volumes. You implied the OP wanted to talk about "race science" because they asked about geographical differences in hair and eye pigmentation. I cannot fathom how that is not "irrelevantly intrud[ing] [on] the subject." Shadowjams (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I always found it odd that the Nazi's stated that blue eyes, blond hair, and tall stature were the ideal "Aryan" features, since those are more Nordic features than Germanic. Germans, being smack dab in the center of Europe, have a wide range of features. Hitler, for example, wasn't any of those "ideals". StuRat (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

In terms of actual facts, the Nazis held the Aryans to be more or less identical with the idealized "Nordic race". But neither Hitler nor the pseudo-anthropologists he took this characterization from thought the Germans were a 100% Nordic people (most Germans were part of the "Alpine race" under this form of European racialism). You might think this was a disadvantage to adopting such a theory, but it works perfectly for the Nazi agenda: it sets up a situation in which you need to constantly be sifting through people's pasts, constantly working to increase purity, and so on, which was the basis of many of the Nazis' social policies (and inhumanities). --Mr.98 (talk) 11:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

We've managed to break Godwin's law in less than 3 responses. New record? Shadowjams (talk) 02:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I sort of doubt that, but this thread would hardly count anyway, as it's virtually crying out for a nazi/Hitler reference. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 02:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

All discussions of Germans or hair color automatically lead to facism? Grow up. Shadowjams (talk) 08:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me? That wasn't what I said. And speaking of fuzzy thinking and misquoting things, you're actually talking about this thread confirming Godwin's law, not breaking it. To break it would be to have an extremely long thread that had zero reference to Hitler or the Nazis. What we have here is the polar opposite of that. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 13:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Well you got me on a technicality there. Shadowjams (talk) 16:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeh, the same sort of "technicality" as Barack Obama is technically the President of the USA.  :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 23:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

As they said, the ideal Nazi was blond as Hitler, tall as Goebbels, and slim as Göring! (and presumably as straight as Röhm). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Heh. The German (Berlin) anti-nazi folk wit could be quite spot on. Another one was the description of the Volkssturm, saved for posterity courtesy of Victor Klemperer: "The Volkssturm: Silver in their hair, gold in their teeth and lead in their limbs.". --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Blond and ginger, blue and green.

• 
  Hair colour distribution
• 
  Eye colour distribution

These might be useful (click on the images for the legend - note that confusingly the colours don't correspond to the most common eye colours but to the number of people with light hair/eyes), but even within countries, there's quite a bit of variation in hair colour (for instance, see the map at the bottom of this page, showing the distribution of red hair across Great Britain). Smurrayinchester 21:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. I've never noticed that folk in the north of England were blonder than in the south; however across the sea in the Netherlands, there seem to me to be a striking number of blond-haired people. But what do I know? Alansplodge (talk) 23:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Interesting if those two maps weren't the most obvious bollocks on the Internet. --Broadside Perceptor (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

To answer the original question: The eye and hair colors run the gamut. Hair: Black, brown, blond, red. Eyes: Brown, green, hazel, blue. Putting any finer discussion on it panders to the profiling. 68.32.251.73 (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

So, the English and Scots have red, black, blonde and brown hair and blue, green, brown and hazel eyes but to the rest of the Germanic people they only have blonde and brown hair and brown, blue and green and hazel eyes. Okay, I get it. 174.89.40.61|174.89.40.61 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.106.179 (talk) 15:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Great Wall of China in Korea

Did the Qin Dynasty or Han Dynasty have the Great Wall extend into their territories in North Korea? This map seems to show that they did but I can't find anything on wikipedia that mentions anything about it or if any ruins still stand.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

John 4:38

Can you explain further the meaning of this in the King James Bible: I sent you to reap that whereon ye bestowed no labour: other men laboured, and ye are entered into their labours. Is there other verses with similar meaning to look at? Is this idea ONLY in the New Testament?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's some commentary on it, which might or might not help.[20] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The labour spoken of is the work done by God to prepare a person for conversion, the reaping is the act conversion done by disciples such as the 12. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's a position held by any theologians or Christian thinkers I can think of. It certainly doesn't match any of the commentary that Bugs has cited. Most of the commentary notes that Jesus was probably refering to the all of the prophets that came before him. He's reminding the disciples to be humble in their work as Christians, and that they are but one in a long line of God's workers. --Jayron32 01:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I also tried to give a message of humility, those prophets did God's work did they not? Jesus reminded them that it is not entirely their achievement, that they fullfill only a part of a bigger plan. Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I think Jayron32 hits the mark for these verses. The verse is clear that 'other men' laboured, while it is the 'you' that reap. Two different 'men' with two different roles are clearly delineated. Plasmic is correct to say that God prepares a person for conversion. However, God achieves that work through speaking through the mouths of his messengers as they articulate the message of God. It is wrong to say, though, that 'the reaping is the act conversion (sic) done by disciples', because disciples cannot 'act' to convert anybody -- that act is the work of Holy Spirit alone as he acts on the person's heart. What the disciples do, by way of the act of reaping, is preach a message of repentance and faith to hearts prepared by the 'law, prophets and writings'. They are the harvest, those who respond and believe by God's grace. Benyoch ^{Don't panic! Don't panic!} 06:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benyoch (talk • contribs)

Random thought -- I wonder if any Roman Catholic theologians have tried to apply this to the concept of the Treasury of Merit. Beyond that I have no input, other than to suggest you check out a better translation than the KJV. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 06:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The Holy Spirit can, but does not work alone, but through the disciples, which is what I meant; they are medium for the reaping of the Holy Spirit. The master of the field provides the sowers with the means to sow - a fertile plot of land, seeds, etc., without which the sowers could do nothing; likewise, the master provides for the reapers - a blade such as a sickle to reap with, or as the Bible calls it - a sharp two edged sword, without which the reapers cannot reap. All that remains after the harvest, is to collect the grain, and separate the wheat from the chaff. Plasmic Physics (talk) 07:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is the commentary from St. Augustine of Hippo

“Say ye not, that there are yet four months, and then comes harvest?” He was aglow for the work, and was arranging to send forth laborers. You count four months to the harvest; I show you another harvest, white and ready. Behold, I say unto you, “Lift up your eyes, and see that the fields are already white for the harvest.” Therefore He is going to send forth the reapers. “For in this is the saying true, that one reaps, another sows: that both he that sows and he that reaps may rejoice together. I have sent you to reap that on which you have not labored: others have labored, and you are entered into their labor.” What then? He sent reapers; sent He not the sowers? Whither the reapers? Where others labored already. For where labor had already been bestowed, surely there had been sowing; and what had been sown had now become ripe, and required the sickle and the threshing. Whither, then, were the reapers to be sent? Where the prophets had already preached before; for they were the sowers. For had they not been the sowers, whence had this come to the woman, “I know that Messias will come”? That woman was now ripened fruit, and the harvest fields were white, and sought the sickle. “I sent you,” then. Whither? “To reap what you have not sown: others sowed, and you are entered into their labors.” Who labored? Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Read their labors; in all their labors there is a prophecy of Christ, and for that reason they were sowers. Moses, and all the other patriarchs, and all the prophets, how much they suffered in that cold season when they sowed! Therefore was the harvest now ready in Judea. Justly was the grain there said to be as it were ripe, when so many thousands of men brought the price of their goods, and, laying them at the apostles' feet, having eased their shoulders of this worldly baggage, began to follow the Lord Christ. Verily the harvest was ripe. What was made of it? Of that harvest a few grains were thrown out, and sowed the whole world; and another harvest is rising which is to be reaped in the end of the world. Of that harvest it is said, “They that sow in tears shall reap with joy.” But to that harvest not apostles, but angels, shall be sent forth. “The reapers,” says He, “are the angels.” Matthew 13:39 That harvest, then, is growing among tares, and is awaiting to be purged in the end of the world. But that harvest to which the disciples were sent first, where the prophets labored, was already ripe. But yet, brethren, observe what was said: “may rejoice together, both he that sows and he that reaps.” They had dissimilar labors in time, but the rejoicing they shall enjoy alike equally; they shall receive for their wages together eternal life.

[21] 24.38.31.81 (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

April 22

Proposed titles for Prince Harry

Is it likely that Prince Harry will be granted a Royal Ducal title upon marrying? Traditionally, the title of Duke of York is given to the younger brother of the monarch, but since the Duke of Cambridge is neither the monarch nor the Prince of Wales, and since Prince Andrew currently holds that title, what other Royal Ducal titles are available, or likely? Has this been discussed by the royals or in the British press? Duke of Kent and Duke of Gloucester are also currently occupied, but Duke of Clarence is available. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 01:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

A quick glance at some of the Dukedoms listed in Category:Dukedoms of England suggests there are quite several that are extinct and could be revived, or that an entirely new one could be created (as they all were at some time). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.219 (talk) 02:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Royal dukedoms in the United Kingdom is a much smaller list. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 02:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that one of the few remaining actual powers the monarch has is the granting of honors and titles, per Royal prerogative in the United Kingdom; for most people granted such honors and titles the PM or government makes the request first, and the Monarch assents and grants it, but I'm pretty sure she still has the power to create any Ducal title she wants and can grant it to her son as she sees fit. She could revive a suspended or extinct title, or create a new one out of whole cloth if she chose. --Jayron32 02:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Barring situations in which a title was in dispute, has there ever been a situation in which the same English duchy had multiple dukes? I'm envisioning a situation in which a duke already exists and the monarch creates a second one without de-duke-ing the first one. Nyttend (talk) 05:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I doubt it. They're waiting for Prince Philip to kick off before Edward gets the Dukedom of Edinburgh. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 05:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Definitely not. Having 2 people entitled to be known as Duke of Wherever would create vast problems. Peerage titles are always distinct. If necessary, a person made a life peer or whatever and wants to keep his current name in the title, would have to disambiguate it (in much the same spirit as we employ for our WP articles) if such a title already exists. For example, a Michael Jarvis who is made a life peer and wants to be known as Baron Jarvis with the territorial designation "of Jarrow", and a Baron Jarvis already exists, may have to settle for Baron Jarvis of Stonehenge, of Jarrow, or something like that. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 06:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Duke of Oz, perhaps, but only if Jack would surrender the title. :) Benyoch ^{Don't panic! Don't panic!} 11:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benyoch (talk • contribs)

Never. After my sad demise it passes to my elder son, who's currently in Guatemala, with no immediate plans to come home, so we could have a Latin Oz dynasty. Ay, caramba. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 13:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

So I figured, but there's plenty of precedent for multiple (nominally) coëval monarchs in Europe, and if I remember rightly this was the case with William and Mary; I figured that if it could be done on a national level, it might be doable on a subnational level. Nyttend (talk) 06:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the system should be updated, to reflect the actual influence of such individuals, which has little to do with geography, and instead relates to cultural significance: Name him the Duke of Tabloid Page-Filling on a Day When Nothing Much Happens. AndyTheGrump (talk)

WIll be made duke of a place that exists but currently has no duke. In Scotland most likely since both the queen and prime minister know they need to put in an effort to hold onto Scotland. Ergo, Glasgow. Cue pomp and ceremony in Glasgow. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Not so long as there is an Earl of Glasgow. The list mentioned above mentions Ross, which I believe is available; as well as St Andrews and Strathearn, which are not (earldoms of those names being attached to the dukedoms of Kent and Cambridge respectively). —Tamfang (talk) 08:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

In Scotland it was once usual, when a woman with a peerage married someone of lower rank, to give the husband the same title for life (i.e. not heritably); thus two Dukedoms of Glenwhatsit would technically coexist, one of which would vanish on the death of the husband. — The earldom of Devon was believed extinct from 1556 to 1831, and unrelated earldoms of Devon were created in 1603 (extinct 1606) and 1618; the latter survives but is called Devonshire for clarity. — There may be cases, though I can't summon one to mind, where two peerages with the same style were held originally by the same person but, being created separately, had different provisions for inheritance, and so eventually became separated. —Tamfang (talk) 08:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any discussions about Prince Harry's likely future title, but in discussions about Prince Edward's and Prince William's, the two most speculated titles were Duke of Sussex and Duke of Cambridge. Since William got Cambridge, that suggests Harry will get Sussex (Edward got the Earldom of Wessex and is expected to get the Dukedom of Edinburgh after his father's death). We can only speculate at this point, though - it's up to the Queen and should could choose anything she likes. --Tango (talk) 09:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

And who would want to be Duke of Essex, given all the Essex Girl jokes? -- Arwel Parry (talk) 12:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I said "Sussex" not "Essex". Duke of Essex is a red link, so I guess there has never been a Duke of Essex. The royal family are keen on tradition, so I doubt the Queen would create a title that had never been held before. --Tango (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

How about Earl of Oxford? Or if this is seen as confusing because of the Earl of Oxford and Asquith, just make it the Duke of Oxford? [22]. Nil Einne (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Industrial Democracy

One form of business has its employees collectively owning its shares and democratically electing its leaders. Why aren't most businesses this way? How many percent of businesses are this way? How many percent of businesses in Australia are this way?

Bowei Huang 2 (talk) 05:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Most businesses are not organised as worker owned cooperatives because of capitalism, in particular the accumulation of capital in the hands of existing owners in an expanded form (see Volume 1 of Capital). In Australia ~=0% of businesses are organised as worker owned cooperatives. The few previous agricultural cooperatives, which were more "petits-bourgeois" cooperatives than worker cooperatives have been thoroughly corporatised. "The Store" has tended to go out of business. For research into the very few Australian businesses that operate as worker owned cooperatives see research by Nikola Balnave and Greg Patmore. Internationally you may be interested in reading about the Mondragon Corporation. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Umm, the ~ doesn't work well with a zero; hard to have less than 0% of businesses doing anything :-) Nyttend (talk) 06:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

See Participatory economics and Workers' self-management. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 05:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

A business needs capital to start up (and sometimes to expand). The business is owned by whoever provided that capital (or whoever the previous owner sold their shares to). It isn't normally practical for the workers to provide start up capital, so something unusual has to happen to create a worked-owned business. The biggest such business in the UK is the John Lewis Partnership and that became such because John Spedan Lewis (the son of the founder, who inherited the business on his father's death) decided to simply give a large share of the business to the employees. There aren't many business owners that would choose to do that. --Tango (talk) 10:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

One potential problem with worker-owned companies is that they will put the needs of their workers ahead of their customers, lose customers, and go bankrupt. One fix for this risk is if the customers and employees are the same, as in a food coop (however, if the coop becomes too large, it tends to develop anti-democratic tendencies, like expecting members to give blind proxy votes). Balancing this is potentially that workers may feel enfranchised, since they own a piece of the company, and work harder to make it profitable. You might also avoid overpaid executives making foolish decisions and moving on to wreck the next company before their bad decisions become apparent. StuRat (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Green Parties

Do green parties support or oppose the following things:

1. government ownership of businesses

2. welfare

3. progressive income tax

4. compulsory membership of trade unions

Bowei Huang 2 (talk) 05:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Greens parties are not organised in a strictly bound hierarchy in relation to policy initiatives. For examples of policies supported by a Green international, see this charter. For Australian Greens policy, the answers are: yes, but depending on market capabilities to meet perceived social needs in practice; yes, generally more so than other parties in parliament; yes, but to a limited extent. Australian Greens policy is available relatively clearly on their website. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Green parties support welfare and progressive income tax. See US Green Party platform. The US Green Party position is that "Federal and state taxes must be strongly progressive." [23] --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 05:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Green parties tend to be liberal, and the first two items are generally considered to be liberal concepts, while the third is supported by both liberals and moderates. So, there is a strong correlation, yes. StuRat (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Wah? Government ownership of businesses is a liberal concept? Can I assume you are using some version of 'liberal' unknown outside your borders? 86.140.54.3 (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't think of any Liberals inside these borders who believe in government ownership of businesses. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

In Australia the Liberals hate, despise and fear The Greens. And can this troll, Bowei Huang 2, please try going to the real sources (party websites in this case) to find real answers? HiLo48 (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

According to that article: "In Australia, the term Liberalism refers to centre-right economic liberalism, rather than centre-left social liberalism as in other English-speaking countries." So, the Aussies appear to be the ones using the term to mean something different. StuRat (talk) 03:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The Australians are using the word correctly, in its more general sense. --Trovatore (talk) 04:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Socially liberal doesn't mean []socialist]], and nationalising businesses is typically socialist (although it can be fascist too). No doubt some Green parties are socialist, but those won't be the liberal ones. And always be careful of descriptions on Wikipedia that claim a word is used one way in one country, and another way in all other English-speaking countries. My experience has been that one article will say this, while another article about the word will list more countries to show the divisions, and yet another will claim the usage which the first article claimed was used in "all other English-speaking countries" is only the American or British English equivalent. It seems to be quite common for editors just to assume their own usage is used by the majority, and that the 'foreign' usage is just used by whichever group they most associate with foreign-sounding English. 86.140.54.3 (talk) 09:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Will no-one rid us of this turbulent troll? (Should we at least consider returning to WP:ANI?) AlexTiefling (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Be careful with such questions. They can have surprising results. :-) Looie496 (talk) 03:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

TechWeek archives?

Where would the archives of TechWeek be located? TechWeek is a defunct magazine that ran from 1998 to 2000. The company controlling it was Metro States Media. I do not know if the company folded after the magazine stopped publication - it was publishing one other magazine WhisperToMe (talk) 05:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Abu Qatada

There is a lot of talk regarding Abu Qatada and the efforts of our government to remove form him from the UK. Can anyone tell me who let him into the UK in the first palce? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.172.247 (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

He arrived in the UK in September 1993 and was granted political asylum in June 1994, when Michael Howard was Home Secretary, so he's to blame. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 12:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Does the Home Secretary have the power to decide immigration policy ? Or is there a law saying asylum must be granted to anyone, like Abu Qatada, in danger of being killed (even if they are in danger of being killed because they are a terrorist supporter) ? StuRat (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The issue with Abu Qatada is not so much his asylum status, but his Article 3 rights (prohibition of torture) under the ECHR. That being said, the relevant instrument regarding asylum is the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, to which the UK is a signatory. Article 33(1) absolutely prohibits the _deportation_ (refoulement) of an asylum-seeker if their life is at risk on the grounds of "race, religion, nationality, [or] membership of a particular social or political opinion" - however, the Convention doesn't create an absolute right to _admission_ on these grounds, so the answer to your question is "No". Tevildo (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Veteran Memorial Days

The 'cousin' countries of Australia and New Zealand celebrate our past veterans and present service personnel on the 25th April each year. It's called ANZAC DAY, from (Australian and New Zealand Army Corps). I am curious to know whether any other non-Commonwealth countries together share a common veteran's day. Benyoch 12:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benyoch (talk • contribs)

Remembrance Day is November 11 throughout the Commonwealth. Does that count? Deor (talk) 13:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes it does, and I should have mentioned it.

So let's say I am looking for non=commonwealth countries (I'll edit the Q to reflect this). Thanks Deor. Benyoch (talk) 13:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) Remembrance Sunday in the UK is always on the second Sunday in November (AIUI, it was moved shortly after WWII to avoid disruption to industrial production). It is sometimes called "Poppy Day" because of the paper Remembrance poppies that are worn in the preceding weeks as a mark of respect. In the last decade or so, Armistice Day on 11 November has begun to be observed as well, although the official events (eg at the The Cenotaph, Whitehall in London), are all still on the Sunday. Alansplodge (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Nov. 11th is Veterans Day in the US. Blueboar (talk) 15:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

November 11 is celebrated in France too. The ceremony I saw was basically the same as any Remembrance Day ceremony I have seen in Canada, remembering veternas in general, not just World War I. They also celebrate the end of World War II on May 8, which is a public holiday, unlike November 11. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The French flower of remembrance is the cornflower.[24] Alansplodge (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Anzac Day is NOT a celebration. It's a remembrance and commemoration. I would like to think that nobody celebrates war. HiLo48 (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe only in a loose sense of the term "celebrate".[25] That holiday, as well as Memorial Day and Veterans Day, are supposed to be about honoring those who died for us in combat. Hence they are "remembrance" days, not really "celebration" days. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Strictly speaking the U.S. has two different purposes for Veteran's Day and Memorial Day. Memorial Day (last monday in May) is to commemorate the war dead, while Veterans' Day (November 11, or nearest Monday to that) is to commemorate living war Veterans. Most people don't recognize the difference, indeed they tend to lump those two with the 4th of July as "Flag waving parade days" and don't give it much thought beyond "I get a day off of work". --Jayron32 22:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

HiLo, I agree that the celebration of war is a nonesense. However, in the vein of what I clearly said (not what you thought/implied I said), I take the opportunity, as do many others, to celebrate our past veterans and present service personnel who serve/d and even gave their lives for our country; my father and great-uncle respectively at least. Celebration has multiple meanings and is not limited to any narrow definition that excludes remembrances and commemorations, e.g. a wake, where the life of the deceased is celebrated and honoured through remembrance and commemoration in a variety of forms, such as a party or light meal. It can be true to say that we can celebrate a life by remembering the person and being thankful for their existence, and do so without condoning the unfortunate context (of war) in which they lived, and even died. Benyoch^{Don't panic! Don't panic!} (talk) 01:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Elsewhere, Adam Bishop says. 'November 11 is celebrated in France too' which goes to the heart of my question. On reading Remembrance Day I notice Belgium also on 11 Nov. Thanks Adam, and thanks to others for your contributions. Benyoch^{Don't panic! Don't panic!} (talk) 01:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It may not be morally right to celebrate war, but it seems fair to celebrate the end of a war, as November 11 was originally intended to do (i.e. Armistice Day in WWI). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that 11th November can be a celebration. It certainly would have been in 1918. And yes, one can celebrate the life of someone. But my response was to the OP's description of Anzac Day as a celebration. It's not. It certainly wasn't a victory. HiLo48 (talk) 02:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Some may not see ANZAC DAY as a celebration while others might--each to his own--so we cant just cant push a subjective view on an objective matter. Yet, by all means dont take my description as authoriative and I have not meant it to be so. Yet, it is worth noting the views of three authorities on this matter, over a period of 60 years.

First, the Honourable Kevin Rudd MP, Prime Minister of Australia, spoke of ANZAC ceremonies as a something to 'celebrate'. He said, 'But as we approach the century of the Gallipoli landings just five years from now, perhaps it is also time for a further national conversation as to how we commemorate and celebrate ANZAC in 2015.' (ANZAC Day 2010 Commemorative address delivered at the National ANZAC Day ceremony by the Honourable Kevin Rudd MP, Prime Minister of Australia). [26].

Furthermore, the iconic institution of the Australian War Memorial (AWM), which I reasonably presume is a leading authority on the matter of Anzac Day, has captioned one of its photos of 1948 thus: 'Part of the crowd watching the parade by members of BCOF to celebrate Anzac Day.' . [27]

Last, the idea of celebrating ANZAC DAY is recorded in AWM52, being 'The formation and unit diaries of the Australian Military forces, 1939-1945'. Under item 4. Ceremonial Parades, part (b), the official position of Col H.M. Foster, Comd Brit Com Sub Area TOKYO states, 'On 25 Apr 1948 C-in-C BCOF Lt-Gen H.C.H. Robertson, CBE, DSO, ... accompanied by Brig L. Potter, DSO, Comd 2 NZEF ... a reception to celebrate ANZAC DAY was later held at the C-in-C's residence where the Heads of all Allied services and missions were entertained.' [28]

I dont think I need to say anymore except that it's important to understand a broad range of people have a broad range views over different time periods, and that the term celebrate has a broad range of meaning and use. Let's not get hung up on semantics--it can be very unproductive--let's stick with the sources, which is good practice at any time.

Benyoch^{Don't panic! Don't panic!} (talk) 04:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Arabic into Somali names

Is there a website that shows an Arabic name being converted into Somali name or way? like in Arabic it is Abdul but in Somali they say Abdi; Abdul Ghani is Abdi Qani and Aisha is Caisha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.150.12 (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Based on article Somali alphabet, several correspondences seem likely: C=ع X=ح Q=غ etc. It could depend on the pronunciations of the particular Arabic dialect from which the word was borrowed into Somali... AnonMoos (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Struictly Original Research, but a few years back, there were three boys from the same Somali family in my London Scout Troop - they were cousins I think. One was called Abdirahman, one was Abdirashid and one was Abdul. Both boys with the "Abdi" pre-fix names (which they said means "messemger of") liked to be called "Abdi" - so we had Abdi, Abdi and Abdul, which was a little confusing. If there were Somali language versions of their names, they didn't use them. Alansplodge (talk) 17:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It is Rasul that means messenger. Abd means slave, and abdul means "slave of the..." For example Abdul Rahman.--99.179.20.157 (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I can understand why you wouldn't broadcast that fact! (See Abd (Arabic) which I think you meant to link to) Alansplodge (talk) 01:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Just to point out that the second part of Arabic names starting in Abd (Abd al-malik, Abd al-rahman etc) is one of the 99 names of God. So they all are equivalent to "Slave of God", or more conventionally "He who serves God". --Xuxl (talk) 10:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Largest Muslim population in Europe

Which Euro nation has the second largest Muslim population after France? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.150.12 (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You can have a look at List of countries by Muslim population. The answer depends on what you mean by a 'Euro nation' (I presume you aren't counting Turkey), and whether you are talking about the absolute population, or the proportion of the total population. If we are going by the total population, Germany comes after France, though Russia is far higher. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

However, Russia suffers from the same situation as Turkey in that it straddles two continents, moreso because most Muslims in Russia are likely in Central Asia. I suspect that if we just take the European parts of Russia and Turkey into consideration along with the rest of Europe, that Turkey would still have the most Muslims who were living in Europe. East Thrace (basically Turkey-in-Europe) has a population of about 10 million. Depending on how you classify the Alawite/Alevi, Turkey is considered to be as much as 96-97% Muslim, which would give is roughly 9.6 million Muslims in European Turkey. Looking through various "Demographics of..." articles for major European countries, the majority muslim countries like Bosnia and Herzegovina and Albania are significantly smaller than that in Population and the biggest population countries (UK, France, Germany, Italy) have less than half of that many Muslims. France and Germany have the most, with 4-5 million Muslims each. However, there is a distinct possibility that European Russia may still have more than any of these, given that European Russia is still more populous by 20,000,000 than the next most populous European nation. I still think most Muslims in Russia live in Asian Russia, however. --Jayron32 22:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't find a solid source for this, but browsing around various sources it looks like the Muslim population of European Russia is likely higher than Asian Russia. Our List of countries by Muslim population says the total Muslim population in Russia is about 16 million (although online sources vary from below 10 million to over 20 million). A number of sources, like [29], say this population "is concentrated into two main areas": The North Caucasus (about 4.5 million) and the Volga-Urals region (whose Muslim population I'm not as clear on, but it seems to be at least several million). Apparently the Moscow area has about 1,500,000, and St. Petersburg region about 250,000. All of these areas are in European Russia. Assuming the Volga-Ural region has as many as the North Caucasus this already adds up in total to over 10 million. In short, although I'm far from certain, it seems likely that European Russia has about half of Russia's total Muslim population, if not a good deal more. Pfly (talk) 00:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, on the Volga-Ural region, it sounds like there are lots of Muslims in Bashkortostan and Tatarstan. Our Islam in Tatarstan article says there are about 2 million Muslims in Tartarstan alone. Pfly (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Asian Russia doesn't have any sizable Muslim ethnic groups. It borders on Central Asian countries that are predominantly Muslim, but very few migrants from those countries have settled in Asian Russia, which is relatively depressed economically. Instead, migrants from Central Asia have tended to settle in more prosperous European Russia. European Russia is probably home to a large majority of Russian Muslims, and it likely has a larger Muslim population than European Turkey. Marco polo (talk) 01:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

April 23

"ST"

[30]

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

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

Hmm, what about [31],[32],[33]?Curb Chain (talk) 05:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

"Greatest country in the world"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was about to say that claiming to be "the greatest nation" was a particularly un-British piece of boastfulness, when I found that our former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, had said exactly that in his 2007 resignation speech: "This country is a blessed nation. The British are special, the world knows it, in our innermost thoughts, we know it. This is the greatest nation on Earth."[34] He was a master of blowing-one's-own-trumpet.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

George S. Messersmith and William Phillips

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

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

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

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

Unimpeachable source - yea or nay?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patron "saints" of England?

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

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

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

French legislative election, June 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rivals in Europe politics

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some law questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Repsol

Why does Repsol have an OTC price and a non-OTC price? See here: [[35]] and here [[36]]. And why are both prices not the same? Can't you buy in one market and sell in the other? 88.9.107.123 (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Anarchism

Is anarchism left-wing or right-wing?

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

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

Feminism and Sexism

Is feminism left-wing or right-wing? Is sexism left-wing or right-wing?

Bowei Huang 2 (talk) 23:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

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