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

July 24

superoldest living black peoples

Generally, on average old black women lives longer or old black womens live longer? One black women have live until 108. Bettie Wilson, one of the oldest black women live till 115. One old black man who was a golf player live until 111, the first national leader on Malawi live until 100.--69.228.145.50 (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

A few not randomly selected data points do not make a good basis for such determinations. You need a large sample to get reliable numbers. The U.S. CDC has a good graph on page four of this report: [1] They use a very large data set and find that black women on average live several years longer than black men (and about the same average lifespan as white men, but trailing white women by several years). Rmhermen (talk) 07:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Mexican and Iranian skin colors

What is the general color of Mexicans. Is Mexians usually tan, white, or brown in skin color. What about Indian and Arabian skin colors. Aren;t they orange or yellow in skin color. Is Asians white?--69.228.145.50 (talk) 00:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Mexicans and Iranians and Indians and Arabians and Asians all have a wide range of skin colors. Usually, skin colors of people range are various shades of tans and browns, though some people have pinkish tones mixed in as well. --Jayron32 00:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

All of these groups vary quite a bit. There are Asians with very light, white-like skin tone, and there are those with very dark skin tone. Different regions of India have very, very different skin and facial apperances. Arab is a language and cultural group and corresponds with a hugely varied geographical range. Mexicans have as varied skin tones as you can find anywhere else. None of these skin colorations line up with crude color categories like "orange" or "yellow". --98.217.14.211 (talk) 03:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

See Human skin color and Race (classification of human beings) for related topics. Tempshill (talk) 06:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

And for the record, most Iranians are not arab. Googlemeister (talk) 15:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Nil Ellien

@Nil: Actually there is a difference between language and dialect. Many languages have mutually intelligible dialects, as well as language isolates.174.3.103.39 (talk) 00:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

If you want to continue that discussion, post to that discussion. If you want to talk to Nil, post to his talk page. It'll help if you spell his name approximately correctly. Algebraist 01:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

lol in the archive? He'd be having a discussion with himself because no one watches any of those pages

If you feel there's an important point to be made, there's nothing wrong with responding, part of the point of archives is for future reference. You're probably right that no one would notice, if you've contradicted someone's point and what to give him/her the chance to respond it's probably best to mention it on the talk page Nil Einne (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion is over. This was for the desk, not for his talk page.174.3.103.39 (talk) 02:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a question then? -Elmer Clark (talk) 08:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. There is no clearcut line between a language and a dialect because they are part of the same continuum. You can't clearly say A is a dialect while B is a language since there's no way you can draw a clear line between a two, even if you can say English and Malay are languages and clearly not dialects of each other. I can't think of a better example at this time so this will have to do; you can say there's clearly a difference between light and dark but you can't somehow magically divide all shades into either light or dark. The same could be said of green and blue probably. We humans like to neatly categorise things, but anything which is continous or a continuum (which is many things) rather then quantum or discrete can't actually fit into neat categories except in an artifical way. If you have a way of accurately and consistently measuring you can perhapsput everything into a category even if it's a bit artificial but otherwise there's always likely to be things which are closer to one extreme then the other yet go into the other category. Also, while I'm not a linguist, I think you can resonable divide mutually intelligable dialects into further dialects. For example, American English is a dialect of English but there are many dialects of British English. You might argue you should only consider these dialects of English rather then dialects of American English but that ignores the fact these dialects arose largely together and share many simularities with each other that they don't share with any other dialect. P.S. I came across this which may be of some relevance Dialect continuum Nil Einne (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Visigothic languages

Did the Visigoths who lived in the Visigothic Kingdom speak a Germanic language? If so, how is it that those who succeeded them following the Reconquista spoke a Romance language? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The original conquerors certainly spoke an East Germanic language, but the Visigoths in Spain seem to have formed a small and somewhat inward-looking ruling elite, while the majority of the population went on speaking their previous languages. There's some discussion of the almost completely negligeable linguistic effects of Visigothic rule in Spain in the book Empires of the Word: A Language History of the World by Nicholas Ostler.. AnonMoos (talk) 02:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The elite Visigothic language was Gothic. Changes must have occured during the two centuries of Visigothic rule in Hispania.--Wetman (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Depression?

Are we currently in a depression? If not, how much worse do things have to get before we start calling this recession a depression? Also, what would make it another "great" depression? Cousert (talk)

I'm not sure whom you mean by "we", but in the US, we're not in a depression because the government refuses to say we are. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no agreed-upon definition of a depression, other than that it is an economic downturn more severe than a recession. One rule of thumb is that a depression reflects a reduction of at least 10% in gross domestic product. In most countries, the current downturn, although the most severe since the Great Depression, falls well short of that standard. In the United States, the Great Depression resulted in a 33% reduction in GDP, so that's the kind of downturn that would be needed for this to be called the Second Great Depression. John M Baker (talk) 02:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The definition I heard (which is apparently incorrect; hey, I heard it in a tabloid newspaper) is that the GDP falls for four quarters in succession. Recession is two quarters. Vimescarrot (talk) 09:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The formal definition of a recession is a two consecutive quarter decline in real GDP. There is no formal definition of a depression. Wikiant (talk) 11:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

That appears to be correct. This Google search might give you a few ideas to play with, though. One of the hits returns a "definition" from the respected journal The Economist giving the rather vague "a bad, depressingly prolonged recession in economic activity." --bodnotbod (talk) 13:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no 'we'. Are you depressed? Then you're in a depression.

Seriously though, when all joy and spontaneity has disappeared from a person's life, they will seek wealth as a sign that all is well in the world. In an economic downturn like what happened last September, all these joyless automatons have their worldview challenged. They call it depression. The reality is that their souls are in anguish. Their economic reality is largely unchanged. So long as people get enough to eat (they do) and have a warm bed to sleep in (they usually do), everything else is trivial and inconsequential. Vranak (talk) 16:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The Republicans perceive correctly that their only hopes of gaining in the next round of elections are through a public sense of worsening economic slump and other fear-driven voting patterns: it is with this sense that their leaders express "concerns" that Obama's administration will "fail".--Wetman (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no set definition, either of recession or (economic) depression. Back in the 1970s, a newspaper journalist came up with the "two consecutive quarters of economic decline” rule of thumb (but, unhelpfully failed to say whether that would be quarter-to-quarter annualized decline, or year-on-year; or whether it would be nominal or real terms, but that’s journalists for you). Prior to the 1950s, the term “economic recession” didn’t exist. It was coined during the Truman Administration because officials didn’t want to alarm people by using the more common term “depression.”

The chief differences between recessions and depressions are (a) duration; (b) depth; and (c) deflation. Recessions are short, sharp and do not necessarily involve falling prices. Depressions, on the other hand, are longer, deeper and must be characterized by a general fall in prices and output.DOR (HK) (talk) 01:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

what troops were at the battle of the wilderness

does anyone know??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvgofishband (talk • contribs) 03:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

See Battle of the Wilderness. Algebraist 03:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Also Wilderness Confederate order of battle and Wilderness Union order of battle --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

That's if the question is about the Battle of the Wilderness in the American Civil War. For the French and Indian War battle sometimes known as the Battle of the Wilderness, see Battle of the Monongahela. —Kevin Myers 15:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Maoist opposition within the Soviet bloc

Are there any examples of parties or individuals within the Soviet bloc who sided with the Maoists in the Sino-soviet split? --Gary123 (talk) 05:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Enver Hoxha, I believe. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there were several (although not all could necessarily be identified as Maoist). There were pro-Maoist/anti-Revisionist groups amongst Soviet students, but it seems they didn't make any formal organization. There's an article on Soviet Revolutionary Communists (Bolsheviks), but its possible that that group was an Albanian propaganda hoax. It was rumoured that Molotov worked behind the scenes for the anti-revisionist opposition. In Poland, there was Kazimierz Mijal and Communist Party of Poland (Mijal). In East Germany there was the Communist Party of Germany/Marxists-Leninists, German wikipedia writes "Als einzige K-Gruppe verfügte die KPD/ML seit Mitte der 1970er Jahre auch über einen Ableger in der DDR, dieser wurde größtenteils Anfang der 1980er Jahre vom MfS zerschlagen. Das Organ der DDR-Sektion hieß Roter Blitz. Vorläufer Anfang der 80er Jahre war der "Rote Morgen - Ausgabe der Sektion DDR". Die Magdeburger Ortsgruppe reorganisierte sich nach der Wende 1989." At one point the KPD/ML was the sole organized opposition parties in the GDR. --Soman (talk)

See [2], [3], [4], [5], etc. on KPD/ML in GDR. --Soman (talk)

I bit separate from the query perhaps, but the People's Republic of Kampuchea was part of the Soviet bloc in the 1980s, and the Party of Democratic Kampuchea (i.e. Khmer Rouge) was a pro-China opposition group. Both the Korean and Vietnamese communist parties had ambivalent positions at the time of the Sino-Soviet split, but both ended up remaining in the Soviet bloc. --Soman (talk)

Another incident, preceding the Sino-Soviet split, but related to the political changes after the 20th CPSU congress, were the conflicts amongst Greek communists exiled in Tashkent. see http://anasintaxi-en.blogspot.com/2007/08/50-years-since-massive-rebellion-of.html and http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv14n2/greek.htm . --Soman (talk)

AFAIK Romania was tilted more towards China as towards the USSR. 80.123.210.172 (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Romania is a bit of a complicated case. Romania did pronounce a certain degree of independence against USSR, and did borrow some inspiration from Asian socialist countries. For example, Romania did not send troops to crush the Prague spring. But its also important to state that Romania never broke with the Soviet bloc. --Soman (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

US states :geographical oddities..?

Once, early in my use of WK, I think I stumbled on a page that listed certain "trivia" statistics about the US States' relationship to each other, eg " State that borders most other states" etc. But after many attempts to find again, I remain defeated ! I have seen "US border anomalies" but this was something else..Can anyone pont me in the right direction ? Feroshki (talk) 08:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Such a list of trivia does not seem that encyclopedic, so it might have been gone AFD. Googlemeister (talk) 14:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikianswers says that Tennessee and Missouri both border eight states. Tennessee: Kentucky, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Missouri. Missouri: Iowa, Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Nebraska. See also Four Corners.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

There's the Twelve Mile Circle and The Wedge (border) in the north of Delaware. --- OtherDave (talk) 04:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

And those are listed in Category:Border irregularities of the United States. Some other such things at the parent cat, Category:Boundaries of U.S. states. Pfly (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The Pope

Is there any mechanism of removing the pope from office besides his death? Can he be voted out by the cardinals? Can he voluntarily resign? Googlemeister (talk) 14:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

We have an article papal resignation. Algebraist 14:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

OK thanks. So it appears he can resign, but no one else can force him out of the papacy without actually killing him. Googlemeister (talk) 14:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

How many times in history have a group of Cardinals or some King or Emperor and some cardinals just gone ahead and elected a replacement Pope, without killing the incumbent or getting a resignation? Regardless of whether later historians considered the rump Pope the "real" one, didn't he have temporal power and weren't rites he performed recognized as legitimate, such as marriages, ordinations as priest or as bishop? In the 11th century there were three "Popes" at the same time and all three were deposed by an Emperor,Henry III, Holy Roman Emperor for instance. Did he technically get resignations, by making them an offer they couldn't refuse (either your signature or your brains will be on that resignation document in one minute) or did he just issue an "Edict of Papal Deposition?" Some irregularity in the selection of a Pope (purchasing the office, in the 11th century) might have been used to argue that he was "never legitimately Pope." But then wouldn't someone have to follw up and re-make the bishops he made, so that the priests they made would be recognized? Edison (talk) 15:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a complete list at Antipope. TomorrowTime (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Were their edits and such considered legitimate? Often the Popes would excommunicate each other and such. Very confusing how to deal with that if you were a (honest) bishop I am sure. Googlemeister (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The last time there was any significant popular support for a rival pope was a long time ago. I think it's safe to say it's just not going to happen these days, and the Pulvermachers of the world can go hell for leather but they are simply never going to be recognised. And without that recognition, nothing they do or say will ever be considered legitimate. (Btw, popes probably don't make "edits"; they're too busy reading our articles to get around to improving them. :)

I remember during the last couple of years of John Paul II's reign, when he was infirm (to put it mildly), people saying "He can't function any more; they'll obviously get rid of him". But who were "they"? I can imagine cardinals bringing pressure to bear on a pope to abdicate, but they can't force him to do so. Short of murder (papicide I now discover the word is "papacide"), it's not possible to get rid of a pope. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

There are certainly Pope John Paul I conspiracy theories regarding the death of John Paul II's immediate predecessor, who died unexpectedly after only a month or so in office. We also have a List of murdered Popes. 70.90.174.101 (talk) 04:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

While it may not answer the question, the Cadaver Synod article may be of interest to the OP. Dismas|^(talk) 20:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a little something extra in the nighty-night cocoa, as in one movie? Edison (talk) 04:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Architectural style of house

What is the architectural style of the Hugh T. Rinehart House (built in 1861 in Auglaize County, Ohio), pictured here? I'm really not good at identifying styles, and (unlike many houses on the NRHP) this one doesn't have a style indicated in the NRHP database. Other images are available at Commons:Category:Hugh T. Rinehart House. Nyttend (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The seeming problem is the result of our American habit of inflating all buildings to the status of "architecture". "Bungalow" was not yet a term used in Ohio. Why is this not simply a vernacular cottage? BtW, the NRHP database, followed blindly at Wikipedia as it must be, credits as "Greek Revival" all houses built c. 1820-1840, it seems, whether or not they have perceptibly "Grecian" details. This cottage shows that not everything built in 1861 was "Victorian architecture".--Wetman (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I would call that style Haitian Shanty, but to each his own. Googlemeister (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Greek revival seems fair. The column capitals appear to be of the Doric order. The house has likely been altered over the years, and an early drawing or photo would be useful in determining what it started as.

Another photo is available at this Ohio Historical Society webpage. Don't know the date for it, however. Nyttend (talk) 20:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Eclecticism or historicism? --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Despite the materials being all wrong, it has a bit of a (probably unintentional) Japanese look to it. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I read this last comment and laughed: not because it was silly, but because it's something I never would have thought of :-) Rather ironic, one of the reasons that this house is recognised as historic is its architecture, but no style is defined. "Vernacular architecture" seems quite appropriate; I'm going to categorise the images that way. Nyttend (talk) 03:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I got the same impression when I first saw the photo :) I guess it's the way the roof curves that seems vaguely Japanese. TomorrowTime (talk) 06:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Accidental deaths in the US military

I've been reading a US book which says that over a thousand US military personnel get killed every year in military accidents (not during combat) and that at least 200 commit suicide every year. Is that true? 78.147.128.100 (talk) 22:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a source, but that sound very credible. It's a big military, they do a lot of stuff, and health-and-safety guys with clipboards are much less prevalent in military settings than ordinary civilian life. A remarkable number of deaths in warzones like Afghanistan are due to car accidents and helicopter crashes. Planes crash, humvees don't have crumple-zones (heck, do they even have seatbelts?), and much time is spent firing live ammo. People die of heatstroke or exposure, or are run over by landrovers or fall off cliffs. Worse, if you shoot yourself in the brain with M-16 you thought was empty but wasn't, you don't get a purple heart, even if you were trying to unjam it when under fire in Helmand. -- Finlay McWalter Talk 22:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

This where "not during combat" means "not as a result of enemy action", not "not in a combat zone". -- Finlay McWalter Talk 22:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The official US Army site says that "accidental, non-combat deaths" peaked in 2005 at 299. MSNBC reported (in 2006) that suicides rose in 2005 to 83. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Those numbers (cited by Clarityfiend) are just for the active duty US Army, and not the US military overall.

Unless my math is off, about 1,000 accidental deaths per year in a military of about 3 million people is about the same rate as civilian accidental deaths in the US (about 100,000 deaths per 300 million people per year). And I think the military suicide rate appears to be lower than the civilian rate. —Kevin Myers 23:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

There was a news report recently about the rise in the murder rate of spouses by active duty military personal returning from the Middle East. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

July 25

Royal persons in concentration camps

Does anybody know any royalties that were sent to concentration camps during World War II? I know there was Princess Mafalda of Savoy, who died in one--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 02:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about royal persons, or about money? A human being, no matter how lofty, is not referred to as a "royalty". -- JackofOz (talk) 03:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It's obvious what they are trying to say, and there's no need for your arrogance. You could have pointed out that "royalty" is a collective term for royal people.

Dachau_concentration_camp#Royalty. You could also look through Category:Nazi concentration camps and look for any more.83.100.250.79 (talk) 17:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Jack was not being arrogant. You could say he was being pedantic. We both work on the Language Desk and tend to pick up a lot on people's misusages of words - that is our job. However, Jack was wrong, because we CAN say that Queen Elizabeth is royalty, but I think the point he was trying to make is that we can't say that Queen Elizabeth and the rest of her family are 'royalties', as this only means 'money', in English. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 03:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

No, he was being an arrogant smartass. It annoys me when we nitpick obvious mistakes (unless we do so after answering the question, in which it's OK to whale on the questioner, a la Cecil Adams.) I have been guilty of this myself at times, I hasten to add. Tempshill (talk) 05:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Arrogant? I don't believe so, but people can make up their own minds. Smartass? Maybe. But pedantic? Definitely not. Imagine a question such as "Do any schools weigh more than 100 tonnes?" - which turned out to be about the weight of individual whales. Using a collective term to refer to individual members of a group is what I'd call egregious (particularly from one who claims a close association with QEII), and drawing attention to it, in a constructive way, as I believe I did, is a service that I don't expect any kind of recognition for, but certainly not criticism. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

This is stupid. Why are you arguing about this? I don't care I just want someone to answer the question. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 07:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, including nobles & aristocrats as well as royals:

• Auchwitz

• Henriette Mendelssohn (wife of Emmanuel Simon André Marie de Crussol d’Uzes, Marquis de Crussol)

• Leau bei Bernberg

• Sumner Kirby

• Buchenwald

• Almaric Lombard de Buffières de Rambuteau
• Mafalda of Italy

• Dachau

• François de Gramont (died in transport)
• Antonia, Crown Princess of Bavaria
• Albrecht, Duke of Bavaria
• Franz, Duke of Bavaria
• Prince Max, Duke in Bavaria
• Philipp, Landgrave of Hesse
• Franz Wittelsbach, Prinz von Bayern
• Maximilian, Duke of Hohenberg
• Prince Ernst von Hohenberg
• Princess Sophie of Hohenberg
• Prince Xavier de Bourbon-Parma

• Flossenbürg

• Bernard de la Rochefoucauld

• Mauthausen

• François Marie Joseph Abel Henri Sauvage Comte de Brantes

• Neuengamme

• James van Beusekom

Oranienburg

• Pierre d’Alcantara de Querrieu

• Ravensbrück

• Anne de Bauffremont-Courtenay
• Elizabeth Pelletier de Chambure, wife of Philippe de Rothschild

• misc.

• Philip von Hessen: briefly interned after informing Hitler of Italy’s inability to continue fighting
• The wife (Antonia von Luxembourg) and children of Rupert von Wittlesbach were interned in various camps including Oranienburg, Flossenburg and Dachau in 1944.
• Michael I of Montenegro (survived)
• Liliane (Nahmias) Haflin, mother of Diane von Fürstenburg (lived)
• Prince Charles de Rohan (1894-1965) and his son Prince Charles de Rohan (1924-2005) interned in various camps (lived)
• Antal Szapáry de Muraszombath (1905-1972) interned for activities with the Hungarian Red Cross and his relief work for Polish and Jewish refugees. He was released through the intervention of King Gustav V of Sweden
• Fritz Thyssen an early Nazi sympathizer who was later interned by the Nazis (His autobiography was titled "I Paid Hitler", he is father of Anita Countess Zichy-Thyssen, and uncle of Margit Gabriella Lujza Thyssen-Bornemisza de Kászon, the "Killer Countess")
• Rupert von Wittlesbach, his wife, and his children were interned in several camps.

- Nunh-huh 08:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't find reliable sources online now, but I have a vague memory of a photograph of Janusz Kwiek, who had been crowned king of Polish Gypsies in 1937 (see picture of his enthronement), taken in a concentration camp, probably Auschwitz. I found one online mention that in 1949, King Kwiek made a pilgrimage to thank Virgin Mary for saving him and other Gypsies from death in a camp, so apparently, he survived. — Kpalion^(talk) 12:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Obama's citizenship and presidency(a "what if")

Let's say that the "birthers" are right and it can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Obama really isn't an American citizen. If this was the case(as I don't believe it to be), I assume his presidency would somehow be declared null and void. However, how might this be handled? Would Obama just have to step down, and Biden take over? Or would there be a special election called? 69.224.113.202 (talk) 03:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

He would not be the first president whose birthplace was seriously questioned, even during his presidency. See Chester A. Arthur. In fact, the Arthur situation is almost 100% identical to the Obama situation. His mother was clearly an American citizen, but his father was not (He was Irish and not a citizen); and though his official birthplace is listed as Vermont, many have speculated that he was born in Canada and his family moved to Vermont when he was a young child; the family HAD lived in Canada up until shortly before Arthur's birth. His political enemies even hired lawyers and invesitgators to research where he was born, to disqualify him from the Presidency. So we have the following parallels:

• Chester Arthur: Mother a U.S. Citizen, Father not one, family had lived in a foreign country for a time, family moved around a lot anyways. Political opponents tried to prove he was not born in the U.S. to prove he was ineligible for the presidency, even though his mother WAS a citizen, which should confer natural born rights to him.
• Barack Obama: Mother a U.S. Citizen, Father not one, family had lived in a foreign country for a time, family moved around a lot anyways. Political opponents tried to prove he was not born in the U.S. to prove he was ineligible for the presidency, even though his mother WAS a citizen, which should confer natural born rights to him.

It is quite true that those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it, and we clearly have a near perfect repeat here. Unfortunately for us, Arthur was one of our most forgetable presidents. --Jayron32 03:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Just remember to ask the "birthers" this question: which person was not born in the United States A)Barack Obama B)John McCain? Because one of them wasn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.48.124 (talk) 04:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Depending on how your perception of The Truth is, it's either B alone OR A and B. While the so-called "birthers" claim that we have no good proof that Obama WAS born in the U.S., we have definitive proof that McCain was NOT. --Jayron32 04:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression that one need not actually be born in the US to qualify, as long as at least one of one's parents was a U.S. citizen at the time. If that's the case, it doesn't seem to matter where they were born, so what's all the fuss about? -- JackofOz (talk) 05:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The fuss is that, when Obama was elected president, those that opposed him started to grasp at straws for anything at all that could somehow make his win illegitimate. There is nothing more to it than that. Indeed, the phrase "natural born" is not clear; it could mean that one is required to be born on U.S. soil OR to U.S. citizens OR some combination thereof. It is not clear in the original text of the constitution. The Chester A. Arthur article I cite above does itself cite some legal opinions over the matter. My understanding is that the prevailing legal view at the time of Arthur was that a parent who was a citizen transfered "natural born" status to their children; which would have made the actual location of his Birth moot. However, since the U.S. is a case law country, the matter is literally undecided until a court decides it, and as such, no court has ever acted on a case of this magnitude. However, since OFFICIALLY, both Obama and Arthur before him were born on U.S. soil (whether the actually were is open to debate by some) there has never been a serious legal challenge. If we ever had a case where there was a candidate who was born on foreign soil to one U.S. citizen and one non-citizen, it may make a test case for the issue. But as yet, without that, I doubt the matter will ever be resolved by a court of law. --Jayron32 05:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

George Washington wasn't born in the United States! Adam Bishop (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

As you are probably aware, the constitution has a separate clause making anyone who was a citizen of the US at the time the consitution was adopted eligible to be president. Algebraist 18:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

As noted in a thread below, 1968 Republican presidential candidate George Romney was not born in the U.S., and 1964 Republican nominee Goldwater was not born in the United States, but in Arizona Territory. McCain was not born in the United States. "Natural born" has been taken to mean, by legal scholars, a citizen without being naturalized ." If Obama were born in another country to a mother who was a citizen, he would be a U.S. citizen without needing naturalization papers, so he would qualify as "naural born." The purpose of the language in the constitution was to keep a European monarch or prince from becoming President. Edison (talk) 04:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

– To answer the acctual question here ("Would Obama just have to step down, and Biden take over? Or would there be a special election called?"): Obama would have to step down in this hypothetical situation since he would not be eligible for the presidency and Biden would become president. The US does not have any rules for extra presidential elections, which means there cannot be any. E.G. (talk) 14:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I've an American friend who was adopted as a child. She's pointed out, following the Obama presidential eligibilty debate, that for all American adoptees except those adopted in the six states with open records legislation, there is legally no way for anyone to discover their birthplace, as all their "birth" certificates are faked. Indeed, I know several "Americans" born in Ireland and adopted to the United States, who have birth certs proclaiming them to be born in America. So yeah, really brilliant laws... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Queens consort of Mann?

Lady Margaret Beaufort was married to a king of Mann; she decked herself with titles such as "The King's Mother" and "The Countess of Derby and Richmond" and demanded queenly precedence, so she would have probably enjoyed the queenly title - but she was never referred to as queen. Did the wives of the kings of Mann use the title of queen of Mann at all? Surtsicna (talk) 10:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why, but the phrase "Queen of Mann" brings up images of this guy in my head. Never mind me, I'm just an idiot. --Jayron32 13:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

If you read the article on her, you see that her titles were as a result of her marriages, and then as a result of her son becoming king of England as a result of winning the Wars of the Roses. She would not have been referred to as "queen" because she was not married to a king of England. Of course she may have been referred to as "Queen of Mann" but I have to say I haven't heard of this style before. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I read the article about her; in fact, I am expanding it since yesterday. You do not have to be married to a king of England in order to be queen. Margaret was married to a man who styled himself King of Mann. Why didn't she style herself Queen of Mann? Did such title exist at all? Surtsicna (talk) 16:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The title "King of Mann" barely existed either - by this time it was just an honour, and her husband probably had nothing to do with Mann. He didn't style himself that way, he just happened to have the title. There wouldn't be much point in calling herself "queen", and in fact the "king" title itself was dropped by her husband's successors. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

What about the wives of previous kings of Mann? Surtsicna (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Google books suggests that Queen of Man or Queen of Mann were used at various points. I'm not sure how reliable some of those books are though. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

3rd generation American

I remember hearing somewhere a few years back that iin order to be an American president one would need to be 3rd generation American or more. This would make sence, to not have a foreigner run your country. Now I am not American, but think that Obama is great but is there a discrepancy here or did I miss hear. Can some one illuminate this for me please? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.58.82 (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no such provision in the constitution, which merely requires that the president be a natural born citizen of the United States (whatever that means) as well as being at least 35 and resident in the US for 14 years. Perhaps your source meant that a person without several generations of American ancestry would have no chance of being elected, rather than actually being ineligible. Algebraist 15:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I think all constitutional experts would agree that a person born in the United States (who meets age and residency qualifications) is eligible for the presidency, no matter where that person's parents were born. The only thing unresolved about the "natural born citizen" clause is whether it would qualify a person born outside the United States to US citizens. Since Obama was born inside the United States (in Hawaii), he qualifies for the presidency under the universally accepted meaning of that clause. Whoever told you that a president has to have had ancestors or even parents who were born citizens was wrong. Obama proves that. Incidentally, most US citizens would not consider a person who was born and raised in the United States a "foreigner," so long as that person is able to speak English with an American accent. Obama speaks English with an American accent, and I think the vast majority of Americans would accept him as American, regardless of his father's origins. People in the United States are very different in this way from many Europeans. I lived in Berlin for a while, and I could not understand why a person who spoke German with a Berlin accent, who was born and raised in Berlin, and who rooted for the local football team would be considered a "foreigner" by other Germans just because his grandparents came from Turkey. Marco polo (talk) 19:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

"Natural born" has been taken to include all citizens who were not naturalized. Someone born to a citizen outside the U.S could be a "natural born " citizen. This could include those born to military personnel overseas, like 2008 Republican candidate McCain, persons born in U.S. territories which later became states, like 1964 Republican candidate Barry Goldwater, or even babies born overseas to U.S. citizens who were visiting another country, like George Romney, 1968 candidate for the Republican nomination. Thus it would likely include Obama even if he were born in Kenya to a mother who was a U.S. citizen. Edison (talk) 04:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone which was at the time US territory. Rckrone (talk) 06:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The Zone was an unincorporated territory, making it less part of the US than Goldwater's native Arizona, an organized incorporated territory of the United States. According to Panama Canal Zone#Citizenship, someone born in the Zone at the time McCain was would not have automatically been a US citizen, although they would become so retroactively when the law was changed a year later. Algebraist 11:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Babies born to military personnel in countries where birth conveys citizenship become dual citizens.(Thousands have been born this way on US bases in Germany, for instance). At age 18 they must make a choice to renounce one or the other, or may lose their US citizenship. There was some debate about Obama's status because of his having been an Indonesian citizen, through his step father, in childhood. -KoolerStill (talk) 16:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Lost time according to Joshua 10:12-14

Can it be determined by current methods if a day has been lost according to the KJV Bible, Joshua 10:12-14? Has anyone tried to prove one way or the other it's validity? Thank you, Dave —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.179.143.81 (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

See Julian Calendar - in the British Empire it went from Wednesday 2 September 1752 to Thursday 14 September 1752. Not sure if that sort of thing is what you mean? As it stands actual 'days' are a social-construct so we can 'lose' one by making changes like shown in the julian calendar article. As for a day occuring but the whole world 'losing' it in some sort of biblical style way then no, that's just bible-talk. ny156uk (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You can be guaranteed that anything in the Bible can be "proved" by someone, somewhere. Here is one for Joshua's day. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

But as a practical matter? No, you can't tell. If you had precise astronomic information that predated Joshua (if, for instance, Moses recorded a given eclipse with a precise UTC timestamp), you could extrapolate extra Joshua-era hours. However, no such data exists (no such data can exist), and so we can't. — Lomn 21:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

There was a famous hoax, in the 1960's that a NASA observatory or radio telescope had somehow determined that the exact amount of time suggested by the Joshua passage was missing from history. No explanation was given of how such a measurement could, even in theory, be made. It was just a pious lie, told in an attempt to fool people into believing the Bible was a work of history and science. Edison (talk) 03:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me ask another question: is it possible to prove that 4 billion years ago, a dinosaur flashed in and out of existence in one Planck second? No, it isn't, because I just made that up. Made-up things with no basis in theory, experiment, or observation are hard to disprove unless you use common sense. In this case, since the Bible flatly contradicts almost all of science, history, and anthropology, common sense says a day wasn't lost. --Bowlhover (talk) 16:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Russell's Teapot has not been proven or disproven, either. --Sean 13:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Flevoland

I have several questions about Flevoland that our article doesn't answer (or doesn't answer well). Flevoland appears to be in three bits Nordostpolder, Eastern flevoland and southern flevoland. Nordostpolder is the island to the top right in the map image. Presummably the other two areas form the other larger southern island. Is that the case? Why are they named separately? Where is the border between them? Then there is the history. Our pages flevoland and zuiderzee and the offical http://provincie.flevoland.nl/welcome_in_flevoland/about_flevoland/history_of/ skimp on details. In particular, when (year? or full date?) was it decided to create these islands? When did construction of the islands start (presumably building the walls and draining the middles)? When was the island construction deemd 'complete'? If that is too ambiguous to answer, when did the first dwelling get built/inhabited? And lastly how was the remains of the salt from the salt water sea managed - didn't it leave the ground 'toxic'? -- SGBailey (talk) 22:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I admit I haven't read it, but the article Zuiderzee_Works should have a lot of information regarding your questions. --Wrongfilter (talk) 13:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The Flevoland article does say that the southeast part was drained in 1957 and the southwest in 1968. For the Noordoostpolder, the linked articlde Schokland says it was completed in 1942. Page 44 of this book, The European Culture Area: A Systematic Geography[6], mentions that experiments in the Wieringer Polder (the first section of the Zuider Zee to be drained, but part of North Holland province, not Flevoland) were done in the 1930's to determine the best succession of crops to remove the salt. Rmhermen (talk) 15:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

July 26

Another American political what-if: former two-term presidents as vice-presidential candidates

Would a person who has served two terms as President be allowed to run for Vice President under the United States Constitution? If so, and that ticket got elected, what would be done if the President became unable to serve, and consequently, the former President stepped up for what was effectively a third term? 69.224.113.202 (talk) 15:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

See our article: Vice President of the United States#Eligibility. Rmhermen (talk) 15:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Chinese takeaway duck

When you order duck in a Chinese restaurant, what species of duck are you getting? One Googled source suggests Mandarin Duck but their edibility or otherwise is not mentioned in the article.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Any species of duck is okay as long as they aren't serving Rattus rattus. But to seriously reply to your question, Duck mentions "All domestic ducks are descended from the wild Mallard Anas platyrhynchos, except the Muscovy Duck [7]." It is likely that most duck served in any restaurant are domestic ducks raised for slaughter.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.32.118.182 (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

In the UK it's likely to be either Aylesbury Duck or Gressingham Duck. These are both species specially bred for their meat.--TammyMoet (talk) 09:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Question related to Satyr

What is the "'shaggy demon of the mountain-pass' (أزب الاكب) of old Arab legend" referred to in that article? I don't know how to properly transliterate the Arabic, it's something like Azb Al-Akb (missing vowels). Шизомби (talk) 18:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks like that that passage was taken from the 1911 Britannica, and a later editor replaced the transliterations in the original with Hebrew and Arabic letters. The original from the Britannica is as follows:

In the Authorized Version of Isa. xiii. 21, xxxiv. 14 the word "satyr" is used to render the Hebrew sĕ‛īrīm, "hairy ones." A kind of demon or supernatural being known to Hebrew folk-lore as inhabiting waste places is meant; a practice of sacrificing to the sĕ‛īrīm is alluded to in Lev. xvii. 7, where E. V. has "devils." They correspond to the "shaggy demon of the mountain-pass" (azabb al-‛akaba) of old Arab superstition.

I don't know about the Hebrew, but from Googling I think what is meant for the Arabic is ازب العقبة azabb al-‛aqabah. I will make some fixes to the article there. --Cam (talk) 23:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm still curious where then the EB got the "shaggy demon" from, should someone be able to determine that. Шизомби (talk) 23:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Well it seems that is exactly what it translates as, azabb meaning hairy and al-‛aqabah means mountain pass. Also hairy seems to have meant a devil, or the devil, or any kind of demon. It only corresponds to though: hairy mountain creatures, they're a little like greek satyrs, which christians depicted as devils, it's comparative mythology! meltBanana 01:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Groovy! Although I was wondering more where stories about it can be found, but it's nice to know what it literally means. Шизомби (talk) 02:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Ancestry, nationality, ethnicity, etc

This is partially about WP but not really about editing, so that's why I'm posting here instead of the help desk...

What is it with the nationalities of people from the UK who have articles here? It seems that every UK bio article has to go through some sort of thing like this:

• He's English.
  • No! He's Scottish but from England.
    • No!! He's English!!
      • You're both wrong, he's British!!!

The article for Ray Park has been going through a bit of this in the past and I really don't get it. Dismas|^(talk) 21:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

People from nations that are frequently invaded or conquered seem to be a lot more crazily nationalistic. The English/Scottish/Irish edit wars are pretty tame, I think. Try figuring out if someone was, say, Serbian or Croatian, especially if they from a time period where that whole area was owned by Hungary. And what about Albanians, Macedonians, and Greeks? Those arguments can extend into prehistory, it's pretty ridiculous. I guess people with national inferiority complexes find Wikipedia a handy outlet to voice their pride. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict: :Because the unity of the United Kingdom is a politically contentious issue. Plaid Cymru is a Welsh independence party, and the Scottish Nationalist Party dominate the coalition government there. Other parties (especially the Conservatives) are pro-British unity, and will probably oppose a referendum in Scotland on the issue. Gordon Brown found his background to be a minor issue prior to his appointment as UK Prime Minister. He has a constituency in Scotland, and degrees from Glasgow and Edinburgh. Traditionally, UK Prime Ministers have constituencies in England, and an Oxford/Cambridge education - the elite universities there. Scotland was an independent country, in personal union (shared the same monarch) with England before the Act of Union, 1708. I think. The situation can be complicated even more by the situation in Northern Ireland, where many Nationalist citizens will reject the legitimacy of the state, and the understandable confusion foreigners seem to share of the constitutional structure. One US radio presenter referred to Jacqui Smith as the "Home Secretary of England," as opposed to the UK. There is, in fact, no such devolved government of England, as there is in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. (See the West Lothian Question.) Unlike the USA, the structure of government seems to be rather more asymmetric. In the US, no major political force represents a state as its main interest.78.146.34.231 (talk) 22:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

What is clear is this: there would be quite a bit more encyclopedia here if we all just got on with the job, rather than arguing over it.78.146.34.231 (talk) 22:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Tempshill (talk) 22:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the motives described above, certainly in the case of Ray Park. If someone goes to a different country where there is citisenship it is easy to give their nationality; someone born in England working in the USA on a visa is certainly British and have a passport to prove it. If they take up US citisenship then they become an English-born American. The problem is that England, Scotland, Wales and Norther Ireland do not have individual citizenships or passports. It is not always clear if someone is an "English living in Scotland" or an English-born Scot. You would often go with the way they identify themselves, whether the move is intended to be permanent, or if they moved at a young age. None of these are clear-cut and subject to dispute. -- Q Chris (talk) 07:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen Wikipedia:LAME#Ethnic_and_national_feuds? It's by no means limited to the UK. Plus, I dare you to describe George W Bush as a Connecticuter in his article. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Although that's pretty much how Kent Hance portrayed (and defeated) Bush in his bid for the House of Representatives in 1973. I've heard, in fact, that he went so far as to call him a carpet bagger. TastyCakes (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Particular style of cross

Hello! I've seen this particular type of cross (exemplified by the crest of Perth College, Western Australia) in a number of different coats of arms and things, and was wondering if it had a particular name or association with any specific theological concept/order. It seems to be favoured by Anglican institutions? Thanks. AustralianMelodrama (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring the decoration in the centre & concentrating on the flared ends, it is a Cross moline. The cross article provides names for a whole range of fancy crosses, in its As emblems and symbols section. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

A lot of the heraldic cross variations (as opposed to cross variations associated with different religious groups) do not really have any very specific "meaning" as such. However, they do all have names (sometimes multiple alternative names). AnonMoos (talk) 07:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not a crest, dammit. —Tamfang (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

July 27

What is chattel slavery?

Searching for "chattel slavery" displays the article on slavery, but that article doesn't explain what it is (or was). Mary Moor (talk) 03:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

From iAbolish: ::"CHATTEL SLAVERY is closest to the slavery that prevailed in early American history. Chattel slaves are considered their masters’ property — exchanged for things like trucks or money and expected to perform labor and sexual favors. Once of age, their children are expected to do the same. Chattel slavery is typically racially-based; in the North African country of Mauritania, for example, black Africans serve the lighter-skinned Arab-Berber communities. Though slavery was legally abolished there in 1980, today 90,000 slaves continue to serve the Muslim Berber ruling class. Similarly, in the African country of Sudan, Arab northerners are known to raid the villages in the South — killing all the men and taking the women and children to be auctioned off and sold into slavery."

Exploding Boy (talk) 03:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that was a quick answer! Thank you! Mary Moor (talk) 04:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It's related to the word "cattle", which are likewise property. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Mary -- in many historical civilizations (including the Israelites of the Old Testament etc.), slavery often had a number of specific restrictions, such as that marriages and family relationships of slaves were officially recognized, the "owner" could be forbidden to sell slaves in many cases, etc. Chattel slavery basically means slavery without any such restrictions... AnonMoos (talk) 07:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Word for secret, hidden and/or fictional books?

Hey guys -- been kind of away for a while, what with the summer and all. Alas, my absence must come to an end, because work beckons. And speaking of which, I find myself stumped: there's a word for secret or hidden books and their study, ones that may not (and, in fact, most often don't) actually exist. Obviously, it's crypto-something, but for the life of me, I can't remember what it is, and Google is kind of useless in that the search words I can think of only spit out stuff related to cryptography, which isn't useful right now. "Cryptobibliology" comes to mind, but that's not it. It's not necessarily a real word (in the sense that such a field actually exists), or a well-established one, but it is kinda cool. And I need it. I need it like a drowning man needs air. (Does that make this a request for medical advice? Crap.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 08:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well the books themselves may be apocrypha, which is how the books which do not form part of the accepted canon of the Bible are described.--TammyMoet (talk) 09:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Good word. But not what I'm looking for, I'm afraid. =) This is the kind of a word that has been used when discussing works like the Necronomicon or De Vermis Mysteriis, but it could also be applied to other books that no one really knows about, and which typically contain all sorts of secret and/or forbidden knowledge. The Necronomicon is, of course, almost ridiculously well-known today, since it appears everywhere -- but it's not famous in the context of the stories. Generally, it's considered to be a hoax or a myth, sought after by people interested in [and here's the word I'm missing]. I mean, this would be the literary equivalent of cryptozoology. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 09:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Esoterica? 152.16.16.75 (talk) 09:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I could go with esoterica, if push comes to a shove. But it's not really what I'm looking for, either. This is a more specific term than that. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 09:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

There is the term grimoire, but that does not imply a fictive / fictional volume, it simply denotes an ancient treatise on magic. --62.47.130.62 (talk) 10:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC) Ooops, --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 10:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

After a bit of googling, the only term I found that might fit the bill is crypto-phenomenology, but that word applies more to a body of knowledge than to books, themselves. 152.16.16.75 (talk) 10:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Would they be Pseudepigraphs? So Pseudepigraphology? - KoolerStill (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope -- or rather, I guess they could be, but that wouldn't convey the degree of scarcity and mystery I'm going for. But that's a great word I wasn't aware of before, thanks! -- Captain Disdain (talk) 05:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

We actually have an article on the subject, Captain, but it's rather prosaically called Fictional book. I think you're right that there's a more learned term for it, which I'll return to add if it comes back to me in a blinding flash or I run across it serendipitously. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm aware of that article, but it's not helping me -- I'm not really looking for the information, just the term. I'm a little surprised; it's been on the tip of my tongue for a while now, but I can't seem to remember it and spit it out. I kind of expected someone to be able to do it, but since that hasn't happened, I wonder if it's much more of a made-up word than I previously thought. I guess I'll just have to work with what I have and make something up -- for this particular purpose, it's not really a problem. Unless someone comes to my rescue, of course! -- Captain Disdain (talk) 05:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Soviet ambassador to the Ivory Coast?

Anyone knows were to find names of Soviet ambassadors to Ivory Coast/Côte d'Ivoire? --Soman (talk) 11:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

There are no Soviet ambassadors anywhere, because there's no Soviet Union -- hasn't been since 1991. Do you mean the current Russian ambassador? That would be Oleg Kovalchuk Vladimirovich, I believe. (Apparently, he also serves as the ambassador to Burkina Faso.) If you are trying to find out who was the ambassador during the Soviet era, that might take quite a bit more digging. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 14:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The query was about past Soviet ambassadors to Côte d'Ivoire. I found a site now at http://whp057.narod.ru/rossi-m8.htm, not sure if its really WP:RS. --Soman (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure that if you were to contact your nearest Russian embassy or consulate, they could provide you with a list. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 05:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Mr Vladimirovich is really Mr Kovalchuk - Oleg Vladimirovich Kovalchuk. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Entirely possible! It took quite a bit of Googling to get to that name. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 11:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Extremely likely is how I'd put it. Russian names come in three parts - the given name (Oleg), the patronymic formed from the father's given name (Vladimir > Vladimirovich), and the surname (Kovalchuk). All male patronymics end with -ovich or -evich (except for rare exceptions like Foma > Fomich, and Ilya > Ilyich). All female patronymics end with -ovna or -evna (except for Ilya > Ilyinichna, Foma > Fominichna etc). There are some surnames that also end with -ovich (Dmitri Shostakovich, for example), which do not vary with the gender of the person. But in this case, the only one of the three names that could possibly be the patronymic is Vladimirovich, which leaves Kovalchuk (a reasonably common Ukrainian-origin surname) as the only possible surname. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Eligibility for President

Following the answers to 3rd generation American section I understand that to be eligible to be POTUS someone must be natural born American, over 35 years in age and have been resident in the USA for 14 years.

Does the 14 years residency need to be the 14 years before the election or could someone born in America and resident for 14 years at any time in their life be president? If it is at any time in their life, would someone born before 1955 in Rio Rico, Tamaulipas and having lived there all their life be eligible to be the president of the United States? (the aforementioned city was officially ceded to Mexico from the USA in 1970) -- Q Chris (talk) 11:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

There's no dispute that your Rio Rico native would be eligible if s/he were to move into what is currently US territory and run for president 14 years later, but I don't think it's likely that s/he would be eligible at the moment. I'm not a legal scholar, but I believe that the section means "resident for the last fourteen years". If you look at the qualifications for members of Congress, you'll see that they're required to have been U.S. citizens for a specified number of years (despite not being required to be US-born) and currently residents of the state from which they're chosen. Given the citizenship and residency requirements, I'm quite confident that this means "citizens for the last ____ years". If this is so, there's no reason to read a different meaning into the presidential qualifications. Moreover, I can't imagine the statesmen of the 1780s saying that someone who had lived all of his life abroad, aside from his childhood, would be qualified to be President. Nyttend (talk) 12:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The text in question says:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

So it's not explicit that they mean the last 14 years (which I'd assumed). --Sean 13:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It'd be pretty stupid if they did mean the last 14 years. There are all sorts of diplomatic and military jobs that would constitute very useful work experience for the president, but which require people to live abroad. I think the idea here is simply to exclude from the presidency people who may be American citizens but who have never lived in the country and therefore (presumably) have no deep ties to it. As a point of interest, George Bush ran for president in 1980, and he'd just a few years earlier spent 14 months in China, for example. He lost the primary to Reagan, but clearly there was no question of whether he would be eligible for the job -- he ended up being Reagan's vice president, and obviously could've ended up being the president at any time, if something had happened to Reagan. (I suppose it could be argued that Bush wasn't really a "resident" of China, but he was the American ambassador there in all but name -- it's not as if he commuted to work every day...) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 14:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The official annotated constitution doesn't mention this issue. Algebraist 13:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

"and been fourteen Years a Resident" isn't a sentence structure we use these days, so it is a little difficult to interpret. We need someone that is familiar with English as it was spoken at the time. Perhaps the Language Desk could help? --Tango (talk) 13:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

That sort of analysis is just what a court will do when a case about this eventually comes up, but the court will also refer to the contemporary record (including writings like the Federalist Papers) to determine what was intended; a parsing of the language will occur in the court's reasoning, but that will not be the only factor. See Scalia's dissection of the phrase "keep and bear arms" in District of Columbia v. Heller last year. To answer the OP's question, the phrase is indeed a little vague and it will be up to a court to decide, some (controversial) day. Tempshill (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Being resident and living somewhere are two different things. The person serving in diplomatic or military service overseas does not become a "resident" of that country in a legal sense; in fact often where they live and work is officially the territory of their home nation. Working and living overseas in a private capacity may be different, as many countries require foreigners to apply and pass criteria for residency to be allowed to work there; tourists are not allowed to work. Beyond this it's starting to slip into giving legal advice which I am not qualified to give. - KoolerStill (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

How long was John Adams, sometime ambassador, outside the U.S (or the former sovreign states which became the U.S.)in the 14 years before he was elected Vice President in 1789? To be VP, he had to meet the requirements to step in as President. Then he ran for President in 1796 and was elected in 1800. His article says he was absent from the U.S. from February 1778 until August 1779. He returned to Europe in November 1779 .The article mentions his presence there through 1785, but no mention of whether his stay outside the U.S. was unbroken from 1779 to 1785. Diplomatic service or military service might be excused by law, but is there such legislation? So far as the Constitution speaks, he could have been a hermit in Timbuktoo for at least 6 out of the 14 years before he was elected vice president, and there is no sign of an objection. Edison (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Seccaium

Has anyone ever heard of the "Battle of Seccaium"? This website speaks of such a conflict, which supposedly took place in southern Crawford County, Ohio, as being "technically and truly" the last battle of the American Revolution. I'm wondering if it might refer to the Crawford expedition, but searching Google yields so few results that I'm quite clueless. Nyttend (talk) 12:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

According to this (second paragraph), it's the Battle of the Olentangy that some consider the last battle of the Revolution. Perhaps the author of the page you cite confused the monument for that battle with the nearby one marking the site of the Indian village of Seccaium. (There's a photo of the inscription on the Olentangy monument near the bottom of this page.) Deor (talk) 14:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Your instincts are right: it's referring to the Crawford expedition. The monument shown in the picture is for the Battle of the Olentangy, which is near a historical marker for the old Native village of Seccaium. (Page through the markers here.) Someone combined the two and came up with the "Battle of Seccaium", which is misleading since Seccaium was apparently long gone by the time of the battle. And of course the Battle of the Olentangy was not "technically and truly" the last battle of the American Revolution, since the Battle of Blue Licks came later, among others. —Kevin Myers 14:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus

In the article it says: Tiberius Gracchus' greatest military victory came in Greece during the war with the plebians. Where in Greece? What war? What military victory?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 15:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

That was part of this edit, which I've just reverted. I'm not aware of any military service by the man in Greece. Deor (talk) 15:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Architecture with obvious references to science

I'm trying to think of any architecture that is relatively famous that has obvious references to science? My canonical example might be the Einstein Tower, where the form and function of the building were developed to evoke relativity theory. Any other examples though? I'm drawing kind of a blank. Any suggestions would be appreciated. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Wardenclyffe Tower - Pepso2 (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Atomium 87.113.158.164 (talk) 17:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

BMW Headquarters, if you'll allow technology inspired. Rmhermen (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The Skylon was kinda futuristic, but I'm not sure if it had a specific enough implication to fit your criteria. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Geodesic dome. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 07:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Trylon and Perisphere. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

What's that crazy thing in Brussels that looks like a gigantic atom? And that twisting building in Malmo Sweden? Lots of architects say their work is based on algorithms and computer generated imagery and so on. 128.223.163.109 (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The first is the Atomium, which someone has already mentioned above. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 23:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The second is the Turning Torso, which looks excellent to me. Not so famous, but I'll mention it anyway, is Newcastle Civic Centre which has an acoustic lens beneath the round meeting room you see in our article's photo, and which amplifies a handclap very nicely. It also has what is known as the whispering wall, being a curved wall which allows you to have whispered conversations at thirty or forty yards distance. Oddly, staff at the centre don't seem to know about these things; and neither does google. Not sure why it is so obscure. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Then there is Jantar Mantar and Yantra Mantra, astronomical observatories in India; with each are crazy looking structures each with being some means of measuring some observed phenomenon. And on this basis, of course, there is Stonehenge and pretty much all henges & standing stones, albeit the science may have been rudimentary. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Twisted buildings and structures may be your friend. -Tagishsimon (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The fractal patterns seen on the University of Southampton's new Mountbatten Building were inspired by research on optical nanotechnology research, we learn. This seems like a useful google search in this area. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The Washington National Cathedral in Washington, DC includes a space-travel themed stained glass window with an embedded moon rock. 65.242.96.10 (talk) 20:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

When a Chinese people living in US have Chinses name but no English name

Is this possible a Chincese people living is USA can have Chinese name but no English name? I've notice it on my past phonebooks when I used to attend Chinese school i found alot of moms/dads have Chinese name but without english name. Or this Chinese mom/dad can have multiples of english names?--69.228.145.50 (talk) 17:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

No one in the US, be they citizen or foreign national, is required to have an "English" name. — Lomn 17:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I've found, in Canada, that it is much more common for someone from Hong Kong (and perhaps Taiwan) to have an English name than someone from mainland China. It also seems that people from mainland China tend to spell their names in pin yin, which makes them harder for Westerner's to pronounced than the older (more familiar) translations (for example, Xiang vs Chang). But yes, you're "allowed" to call yourself whatever you want. TastyCakes (talk) 18:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Then how come when I got the phonebook, numerous of mother chinese name is "fill" but the english name rown is "blank". Is it the author purposely left the row blank to save time so they can type less, or is it the mom does not want the english name post?--69.228.145.50 (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

If the "phonebook" to which you refer is specific to the school, then I would ask the school. What each person above is telling you is that there is no requirement for these mothers to have an "English" name. They may only have a Chinese name and thus the "English name" area would remain blank. To be certain, you would have to ask each person. // BL \\ (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Please make at least half an attempt to type something legible. Chinses/Chincese... This indicates that you are upset with typing Chinese, which indicates a racist dislike for anything Chinese. Then, responding with "numerous of mother"... Do you mean "many mothers" or "many others"? The name is "fill"? There are very few (if any) Chinese people named "fill". Do you mean that the last name is filled in and the first name is blank? I have had phonebooks from many cities. None of them have ever had a Chinese name row and an English name row (or even columns, which I have to assume you are referring to). The author is a computer. It does not have any opinion or concept of time and will not attempt to do something that takes less time. If you are truly interested in this and not simply trying to be an ass, please try to ask a legible question and I'm certain there is a good answer. -- kainaw™ 18:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see User talk:69.228.145.50 and the user contributions and draw your own conclusions about his/her interest.Sjö (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I recognized that this anonIP was a troll, just not that particular troll. -- kainaw™ 18:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

To clarify my question is a student hand/phonebook we get from Tzu Chi every year. The Tzu Chi I went to is in orange county, California. First 48 pages is for Tzu Chi Academy's basic guidelines and policies, then leftovers is list of students, mom and dads list of phone numbers. The row is Student chinese name, then student english name, then gender a (M or F), then phone number, then father chinese name, then father american name, then mother chinese name, then mother american name. At 2000/2001 student handbook I notice 9 students have father chinese name written, but the father english name is left empty. 5 studnets have mother chinese name written, but mother english name is left empty. Every year I see this similar things like this happen.--69.228.145.50 (talk) 19:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Is too many to track this scenario. Everyyear at Tzu Chi Academic orange county the student hand/phonebook I find at least 5 up to 10 with either fathers with chinese names witout enligh name written up post or is mother with chinese name without english names post.--69.228.145.50 (talk) 19:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

What part of "there is no requirement to have an English name" are you having difficulty with? --Tango (talk) 20:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, oops* I got it.--69.228.145.50 (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

There may be no such legal requirement, but for practical purposes a name written in Latin alphabet characters is generally necessary to get by (official forms, etc). That may be what you meant by "an English name". Whether this series of characters is a strict romanisation of the actual name, or some kind of "translation", would vary. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Or, it may be simply because there is no requirement to have an English name. Ever.DOR (HK) (talk) 09:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

French Republics and titles of nobility

Our article on Duke of Valentinois claims that the title went extinct in 1949 when Louis II, Prince of Monaco, the last person eligble to hold it under the letters patent of 1715, died. The article states that the title went extinct in French law in 1949 which implies that the French Republic and law of the time recognized that title. I find it hard to believe that a republic recognized titles of nobility. It's just too good to be true :) What do you think? Surtsicna (talk) 18:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't all the European republics recognize former noble claims? They don't really mean anything, it's just a way to stroke someone's ego. According to French nobility, "Titles were abolished by the Revolutions of 1789 and 1848, and restored by decree in 1852 (and never officially abolished since) and now can only be lawfully used and given to their bearers in official acts with a decree by the Minister of Justice. Anyone who has a legitimate claim to a title can ask the Minister of Justice to confirm this claim, the bearer can then legally use the title in legal documents such as birth certificates (about 400 such confirmations were made since 1872)." Adam Bishop (talk) 01:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

"French titles ... were created until 1870, when France permanently became a Republic. The Republic did not abolish titles, however, and, based on existing laws and earlier jurisprudence, the courts have built up a legal system to deal with titles and their transmission." These are discussed further on this page on heraldica.org, a good resource on this subject. - Nunh-huh 02:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Surtsicna (talk) 10:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Medical advice boundary condition?

Suppose a researcher wanted to ask a reference desk which of two alternatives would solve a specific population-wide problem (say, tuberculosis, for example) and asked what the peer-reviewed secondary literature (e.g., MEDLINE's reviews and meta-analyses) says about two specific alternatives (e.g., universal health care vs. releasing nonviolent offenders from jail). Would it be proper to (1) remove the query, (2) explain to the questioner how to browse the peer-reviewed secondary medical literature on PubMed, or something else? 75.55.199.5 (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Asking for medical information is not a boundary condition in any way. It does not require the people here to diagnose and/or prescribe treatment for the questioner. See User:Kainaw/Kainaw's criterion for my opinion on the matter. -- kainaw™ 18:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you; I agree the distinction is between advice and information. I would generally say it's important to explain how to use PubMed to limit to Human Reviews and Meta-analyses, sort by date, and I would even go so far as to suggest correspondence with an authority listed in an example link, such as: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19519917 (which can be auto-linked in wikitext with "PMID 19519917.") 75.55.199.5 (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Twin Towers (World Trade Center)

Where are the debris of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center of New York City? --190.50.97.202 (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

See Fresh Kills Landfill. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 20:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Small parts of the debris were distributed widely as memorials throughout the U.S., some of the steel was recycled. This site shows how it was all searched, sorted and processed: [7]. Rmhermen (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't there a less bizarrely named place they could have put the debris than "Fresh Kills????" Edison (talk) 05:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If you look it up, you'll see if it's a very old name, and doesn't mean "kills" as in "dead", but instead means "riverbed" (kille, Dutch). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 14:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

SWAPO

What is SWAPO for? Is Sam Nujoma still working for politic-like stuff. Is this possible he can become a leader again? [8] They said he plan to run for 2009 election.--69.228.145.50 (talk) 21:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The two articles you link to actually answer your questions: SWAPO, created as a national liberation movement is now a political party, the largest in Namibia. Its evolution mirrors that of the African National Congress in neighbouring South Africa. There is speculation that Nujoma may run again, but it's far from certain, given his age (he was born in 1929). The constitution precluded him from running in the most recent elections, but would not do so in 2009. He remains very influential within SWAPO to this day. --Xuxl (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Western women at Unit 731?

I wonder: Were there any western women and children among the victims of Unit 731? I just saw an illustration from the film Men Behind the Sun, which showed a Western woman in a gas chamber at Unit 731. The article here on wikipedia mention this subject very briefly as : "Russian women and children". Were did they come from? Japan did not occupy Russia. Were they perhaps prisoners of war? Or Russian people living in China? I don't know much about these things. --85.226.42.246 (talk) 22:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Manchuria. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Manchuria. So they were not prisoners of war? They were civilian Russian women living in Manchuria? Is this correct? Were they the only western women used in this way? If so, then why were not, for example, other European women living in Manchuria used for this, only Russians? Was it perhaps because they were Russians who fled communist Russia and did not have any citizenship? I am only guessing, perhaps someone knows? --85.226.42.246 (talk) 12:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

July 28

The Brothers Karamazov

If Ivan Fydorovich states that "everything is permitted", why then does he 1) have a conversation with Alyosha on the subject of (unjust in the examples he uses) suffering perpetuated by people? (By his above statement, committing such acts would be permissible.), and 2) suffer from the idea that he was indirectly responsible for his father's murder? Or perhaps this is intended to be part of his faith struggle? Vltava 68 00:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this a homework assignment? DOR (HK) (talk) 09:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Democratic Factory and Business

During the Industrial Revolution, because living and working conditions were harsh and workers were exploited by capitalists, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels proposed a system called communism in which all the factories, businesses, industries, and means of production were owned by the state and the government. But why did they propose that they be owned by the state or the government? I mean, apart from that idea, here is another one.

The workers and employees own the factory and business collectively and democratically elect and vote for people to manage and administer them. The workers are employed by the business which they own collectively and they receive wages and a share of the business's profits. The factory and business is not owned and its workers are not employed by the state or the government, but it is not owned and they are not employed by a single person or a small group of few people either. In the past, countries were ruled by a single person, such as a king or a queen. Then, nowadays, countries are ruled by the people and citizens and they democratically elect and vote for a president or a prime minister to govern them. So it changes from an absolute monarchy and kingdom to a democratic republic. So if you can have a country ruled and its leaders democratically elected by it people, why can't you have a factory and business owned and its leaders democratically elected by its workers?

I have several questions to ask you:

1. Are there any such factories and businesses in the world?

2. Why hasn't this spread to become very common? Why haven't most businesses been like this?

3. Should factories and businesses be this way? If not, then why not?

4. Why did Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels propose that the state or the government own the factory or business? Why didn't they propose that the workers own it collectively and democratically elect its leaders?

5. Has anybody ever asked Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, or any communists or Marxists why should the factory be owned by the state or the government? Why not let the workers own it collectively and democratically elect its leaders? If so, then how did they respond?

Bowei Huang (talk) 02:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

To answer some of these:

• 1. See Nationalization and Government-owned corporation. It isn't even socialist or communist contries that do this. The United States Postal Service is a state-owned corporation. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are ostensibly private, but were created by the U.S. government, and were recently placed into conservatorship of the government, which is about as close to national ownership as you can get without calling it that. The Citgo gasoline (petrol) company is owned by the Venuzeulan government (via Petróleos de Venezuela S.A.), and does brisk business in the U.S.
• 2. They tried in many places. It failed miserably. See Soviet Union and Collectivization in the Soviet Union especially. Generally, some industries work well under state ownership or as heavily regulated, pseudo-private companies, like health care in many countries, or public utilities or even the BBC in the UK. However, for just about any business that produces a tangible, physical product (as opposed to a service), even life necessities like food and clothing and shelter, state ownership does a poor job of providing for the needs of the people.
• 3. Not really the purview of the ref desk. We can only say that where it has been tried, it failed miserably.
• 4. Actually, Marx and Engle only looked at the "communist state" as a temporary situation. Ultimately, the state would "wither away" (their words) and the ownership of production would be turned over to the workers. The only purpose of the communist government was to wrest the means of control away from the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie and to manage it while the proletariate got their shit together. Once the class structure had been obliterated, and all people were truly equal, then the government would become unneccessary and the means of production would be transferred to the workers themselves.
• 5 See #4. They did believe that ultimately, when ready, the workers would take actual control of the means of production. However, until economic class divisions could be eliminated, the state was necessary to manage the situation "for the good of the proletariate" until such a time as the social and economic environment was ready for true worker control of production. --Jayron32 03:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think the original poster was asking about state socialism at all, but rather about such things as Worker's cooperatives, Workplace democracy, Industrial democracy, Employee ownership, and/or Economic democracy, etc.... AnonMoos (talk) 06:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Jayron, your answer to #1 did not actually answer Bowei Huang's question — your examples are all just state-owned corporations, whereas Bowei Huang is asking about a sort of corporation where all workers own part of the corporation (in a totally egalitarian system I suppose it would be (1 / (# of workers)) of the corporation) and are paid in some "just" proportion out of the profits. The question is very interesting and I'd like to see some examples of for-profit corporations with this model, as well. The idea reminds me of a credit union, which (in the US at least) is owned by its members. I believe that a person's ownership of a credit union is proportional to his deposits rather than just being a headcount, so the guy with US$100,000 in his savings account has 100,000 times the votes of the guy with US$1 in his account. What about a classic kibbutz? Or some communes in Western countries in the 1960s and 70s? I know there are some small- to medium-sized companies in the US where every employee owns some stock in the corporation, though this is only part of what you're asking about. By the way, you asked for specific examples, but I'd note that the answer "how many of these exist" is unknowable, because, at least in the US, private companies like LLCs don't have to disclose their internal rules, and they're flexible to arrange their ownership however they want. Tempshill (talk) 06:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

1. There are many Co-operatives in the Uk and beyond, there are also Mutual companys - it's worth a look at those (though Tempshill provided more links to look at.

2. Shareholders in PLCs (assuming they hold shares with voting rights) get the opportunity to vote in and out their executives, and they also get to vote on a few other key strategic pieces put forward by the board in their desire to be 're-elected'. All workers can be share-owners and often firms will give stock to employees (theoretically as a tax-saving benefit, but also to try to 'link' them to the company more - i.e. to improve output), so they may be able to vote on the re-election.

3. I think if that's the way the business wants to operate, yes. But businesses and factories are very different to governments. Your working in the business is optional - infact it's down to it being mutually-beneficial (you work there if it provides enough value, they employ you if they can get enough value from you - well the workforce in general). The 'owners' choose how they would like the business ran, but there's no reason why a business must be owned by its workers. You could suggest it drives staff to improve efficiency, or to work harder etc. but you could just as easily argue that it creates businesses that don't want to make short-term decisions which are negative (e.g. laying off staff) in the attempt to make the business better in the long-term (similarly you may find staff want the status quo rather than to develop into something new which could transform the business.

4. In essence if the state own the company then the workers have a large say (because they elect the state). I don't know their theories deep enough but I would be surprised if Marx wasn't in favour of co-operatives and other worker-owned-business arrangement.s ny156uk (talk) 10:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to add on, what Jayron refers to, the temporary stage, is the dictatorship of the proletariat. Remember that Marx's work is not even that prescriptive as you make it out: he claims he understands how history will progress, and dictatorship of the proletariat is one of the stages and finally it will end with true Communism. So far none of that has played out and quite a few people have tried to help history along by having revolutions and the like, none of which ever looked like they were transitioning out of the dictatorship stage anytime soon... --98.217.14.211 (talk) 14:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Marx was enthusiastic about worker cooperatives of producers, and they are the best example of the arrangement which Bowei Huang describes. Our article on them describes various examples, some of which have proven highly successful; others have not. Other forms of cooperative, such as consumer cooperatives, do not usually enable the workers to democratically decide the organisation of labour.

2. Worker cooperatives can experience various difficulties. Firstly, as with any democratic organisation, there may be disputes over the best strategy, and this can lead to splits, resignations, or ineffective compromises. In particular, difficulties can arise in an economic downturn, where workers are unlikely to agree to lay some of their number off. Secondly, they are not set up to generate profit, so they can struggle to raise capital. Thirdly, in many jurisdictions, they must incorporate under legislation designed for other company structures, which may leave them vulnerable to takeover by capitalists.

3. It is, of course, a matter of opinion as to whether more business should be organised this way. Most Marxists (and anarchists, and many social democrats) would say that they should; other people might point to some of the problems I mention above, or other economic arguments that such organisations are less efficient than capitalist enterprises can be.

4. In addition to the answers previously given, Marx and Engels envisaged the co-ordination of production by the state, and that would be difficult if workers owned businesses and could veto state decisions. They also envisaged a state which was democratically controlled from below, meaning that this was a different prospect from state-owned enterprise in a capitalist state. Warofdreams talk 18:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Marx and Engels may have had all the right sentiments and wishes, but there surely can be no escape from the fact that Lenin's and Trotzki's (and all other so-called communist or "marxist" ruler's) policies were directed against all and any worker's council socialism with any real economic and political power. You must think this needs not be so, but why?--Radh (talk) 10:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

some information is missing on GEO TV page

Dear

I am graduate fellow of National University of Ireland, Galway working independently on the area of Corporate Social responisbility in pakistan. Last year i was writing a case study on GEO TV and mentioning some sources from wikipedia but now it is not available . Like in the 'Controvesries' section there were some material available that David Hseinki who provide the cooperation in the establishement of GEO TV.

I need that reference , would you please email me that material. My email is <redacted>

I'll acknowledge your cooperation.

Kind regards

Asim Jaffry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.65.163.18 (talk) 06:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't put your email here (see the top of the page) - it is very very public, and you will get spammed. Email removed. --ColinFine (talk) 07:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

(EC) I have removed your email address. Any replies will be given here on the desks, not by email, and the address might just attract spam. This reference desks is not for wikipedia questions, for those you should use the Wikipedia Help Desk. You can find previous page content in the page history of the article. There are tools there to search the history. Gwinva (talk) 07:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

(Further EC) To answer your question, if you pick the 'history' tab at the top of the GEO TV, you can go back to earlier versions of it, and you should be able to find a version which has the references you need. For future reference, you should not reference Wikipedia - or any other tertiary source - in an academic paper, but if you must do so, you should follow the instructions by picking 'Cite this page' on the page you want to cite. But it would have been better to cite the references directly. --ColinFine (talk) 07:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

anupama chopra

which school Anupama Chopra went to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.103.185 (talk) 11:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

According to the first Google response, she received an MA in journalism from the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University; and has a BA in English literature from Bombay University. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

What the hell does Natural Born Citizen even mean? (U.S.)

Reading the Wikipedia article did nothing to clear up the meaning for me.

I've lived in China for the past 2 years and will be here for the foreseeable future. My wife is Chinese and we plan to have a child in a year or two. I'm well aware of the consular procedure for gaining American citizenship for my future child, but I can find no definitive information as to whether that constitutes "natural born" or not.

For the record, I think children born to American parent(s) overseas being ineligible to be president - if that's the case - is bullshit.

Please provide sources to back your certainty, as I can't find anything concrete.

61.189.63.167 (talk) 11:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right, it may well be bullshit. Does natural-born citizen mean someone who was born an American citizen (as your child would be, since you're (presumably) an American citizen), or someone who's actually born on American soil? At a glance, there doesn't seem to be an entirely clear answer to this. That's because a lot of said bullshit was invented by people from another, more primitive era. That's kind of problematic, because back then very few people crossed the great oceans, and even fewer did so more than once in their lives. The U.S. Constitution wasn't really written with the modern mobility in mind. My point is, you're probably not going to get a definitive answer to this; it would probably require some kind of a strong legal precedent, and I don't think one exists yet. If you're concerned about this and really want to ensure that your child has a shot at the presidency, I suggest you and your wife make sure the child is born on American soil. That's probably the only way to be sure. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 11:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

In general, "natural born" means "citizen from birth" which is to be distinct from a naturalized citizen, who was born as a citizen of another country, and later became a citizen of the U.S. Since the constitution does not actually elaborate on what qualifies a person to be a citizen from birth, we have to look at a combination of legislation and common law/case law to find the answer. As far as I have ever seen, to minimum qualification a citizen from birth, a person has to either A) Be born in the U.S. to a parent who are permament residents of the U.S. (i.e. vacationing parents who happen to give birth while visiting, and then return to their home country, probably don't transfer citizenship to their children) or B) Born abroad, but to a parent who is a U.S. citizen. There are lots of examples of people who meet one or the other of these categories, but not both. For example, John McCain's parents were both U.S. citizens, but he was not born in the U.S., while Andrew Jackson was born on U.S. soil to two recent immigrants, neither of whom were U.S. citizens. Both are considered to be "natural born". There are cases where someone can be born on U.S. soil but where they don't automatically receive U.S. citizenship; for example let's say a very pregnant Canadian woman from Windsor, Ontario came to Detroit to go shopping, went into labor, and gave birth in an American hospital; but never actually lived in the U.S. She returns to Windsor after her and her child are discharged from the hospital, and aside from an occasional visit, they two never actually "live" in the U.S. as permanent residents. That child likely is not a U.S. citizen, because of the ephemeral nature of his stay in the U.S. On the other hand, lets say that the same pregnant Canadian woman illegally moves to the U.S. and becomes an illegal alien. If she gives birth, and remains in the U.S. permamently until the child grows up; i.e. thet child is raised his whole life in the U.S., even though his mother is not a legal immigrant. THAT child is likely a citizen, since he was born on U.S. soil and remained a permament resident for his whole life. None of this is actual legal advice, if you have personal concerns about your own citizenship, contact an imigration lawyer. --Jayron32 13:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the ephemeral examples there are incorrect - (IANAL) - common perception at least seems to be that anyone born within US territory, whether they are born to tourists, illegal immigrants, or fifteenth-generationers in that village, are all citizens. See Birthright citizenship in the United States of America, which claims "Under the American system, any person born within the United States (including the overseas territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands) and subject to its jurisdiction is automatically granted U.S. citizenship". The article also specifically notes that if a Canadian mother has complications and is transferred to a US hospital, that child is automatically a US citizen. Children of diplomats, however, are not, as they are vaguely outside the law (diplomatic immunity), and subject to that of other countries --Saalstin (talk) 13:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'd like to see a better source than is listed in our article. The ONLY citation for the "Canadians giving birth in the US section" which discusses dual citizenship is a throw-away sentance in a TV news website report, which is quoting the parents of the newborn, who claim that they look forward to their child enjoying dual citizenship. The opinion of two random Canadian citizens interviewed by a US television station is probably not sound jurisprudence. I'm not saying that you are wrong here, but that section is not a good one to base any opinion on the matter. --Jayron32 16:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It's true - it is even a tourist industry now: [9] Rmhermen (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If you want a real-live example of a woman who was born in the USA because her father just happened to be working there at the time but was not a permanent resident, and she has therefore been a U.S. citizen since birth, see Nicole Kidman. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered the discrimination Chinese face in the USA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.65.65 (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

What would that have to do with anything? --98.217.14.211 (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Nothing. Nyttend (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

"natural born" reminds me of how in Macbeth, Macduff was able to kill Macbeth, who was unable to be harmed by anyone of woman born, because Macduff was "from his mother's womb untimely ripp'd" — born via a Caesarean section. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

the doctrine of acquiescence when acquiescence is days/a month instead of years?

I've been researching the common law doctrine of acquiescence as I've been trying to improve its Wikipedia article. The article has had reference issues and until I spotted it, it was even missing from the List of legal doctrines.

I've been researching this subject a bit and usually acquiescence takes years. Has anyone ever heard of a case where acquiescence is considered to have happened in days or a month instead of years?

The most I've found as in http://supreme.justia.com/us/96/611/case.html where the court gives the opinion, "If the sale made by the bank was originally impeachable by him, the right to question its validity was lost by his acquiescence. He was in a condition, immediately after the sale, to enforce such rights as the law gave him, as he was fully apprised of their nature, and of all the material facts of the case." However, in the case the person did of course wait several years rather than say 3 months. Anyone know more about this acquiescence? Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

stats racism

is there any site where I can find some stats about racism such as how many Muslims were victims of Islamophobia, How many black people became victims of racism and et cetera? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.119.49 (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't trust any statistics on a subjective thing such as racism, but I suspect that UNESCO attempts to keep some sort of statistics on the matter. -- kainaw™ 13:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not the kind of thing that is straightforward enough to keep stats of. Even numbers of "hate crimes" is something of an arbitrary definition. Complicated social phenomena like this have to be divined through other statistics, e.g. comparative wages for the same job, comparative sentences for the same crimes, etc. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 14:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

An anecdote I saw on TV last night will, I think, help explain why these statistics are difficult to compile... (note: I may not have the quotes exactly correct.) Mel Brooks was being interviewed and he was told, "You haven't been persecuted for being a Jew." He responded with, "I certainly have." The interviewer asked how he was persecuted. Mel explained that when he was in the Army, another soldier called him a "Jew boy." So, how do you quantify that persecution with the Jewish people who were being confined and killed? As I stated, racism is subjective. It isn't about the action. It is about how the action makes the person feel. So, you are asking for statistics about how people feel and, somehow, attempting to normalize those feelings into something useful. -- kainaw™ 14:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

He was called "Jew boy" by a fellow soldier and that in itself is considered to be persecution? There are reasons it seems why the rest of the world thinks USAmericans to be completely and utterly mad.--Radh (talk) 14:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

...Right. One person's comment (or, rather, one person's reportage of one person's comment) shows USAmericans to be completely and utterly mad. Note: this is one way actual pernicious bigotry is propagated and perpetuated: when people take the action of one person and project it to some class of people that person is a member of. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Here, by the way, is the actual quote; he was asked about his experience with antisemitism, not with persecution:

Some of that pent-up animosity comes from his experience in the Army. "I was in the Army. 'Jewboy! Out of my way, out of my face, Jewboy,'" he recalls soldiers saying to him. Brooks, who served in World War II de-activating land mines, spent a short time in the stockade for getting even with one heckler. "I took his helmet off. I said, 'I don't want to hurt your helmet 'cause it's G.I. issue.' And I smashed him in the head with my mess kit," he says.[10]

--jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Mel Brooks would be fine with the categorization as "completely and utterly mad," in any case. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I was only using an anecdote. Mel Brooks has every right to feel persecuted, just as a black man can feel persecuted if a white man refers to him simply as "boy". Racism is about perception, not distinct action. An action that is acceptable in one place, such as one black man calling another black man "nigger" is considered racism when an identical action is used in another place, such as a white man calling a black man "nigger". The racism is created by the perception of the man being spoken to and how he feels about the person speaking. -- kainaw™ 18:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

But Mel Brooks didn't say anything about "feeling persecuted", so it's not really a relevant anecdote. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

According to a 2006 CNN poll, "About half of black respondents said they had been a victim of discrimination because of their race. A little more than a quarter of whites said they had been victims of racial discrimination." ([11]) -- Mwalcoff (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Gibson. My astonishment may be in part a question a semantics. I just don't understand how someone without any power at all over someone else (a fellow soldier of the same rank) can persecute someone. In German at least persecution (Verfolgung) is not the same as mobbing.

Re: polls. How many people in the US think they have been a) abducted by aliens, b) been taken over by the Lord and his angels?--Radh (talk) 20:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Read the actual quote above, he doesn't use the word "persecute". --Tango (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

See User:Kainaw's 2nd statement, the one I answered.--Radh (talk) 09:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No one in the program said "persecuted". The Mike Wallace interview was included in the PBS series Make 'Em Laugh. Wallace said, "You've never suffered for being Jewish." Here's the YouTube video. (Relevant quote is at the 4:00 mark.) —D. Monack ^talk 02:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, this solidifies my point that racism is subjective. What does it mean to be "persecuted"? What does it mean to "suffer"? For some, they are the same. For others, it is important to scream and yell that persecution is not suffering. How then do you compare one person who suffers as a Jew and one person who is persecuted as a Jew when compiling statistics on racism? -- kainaw™ 03:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It can only be seen as subjective in a Democracy, a progressive state based on the rule of law and somehow even on human rights most of the time. Racism in South Africa, in the South before M L King, in Germany in the 1930s was not basically a subjective thing. Also, I would never have said, xyz did not suffer, because he was "only" mobbed in the army.--Radh (talk) 10:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Duke of Leuchtenberg

Why did the title of Duke of Leuchtenberg passed from Nicolas Maximilianovitch de Leuchtenberg to his brother Eugen Maximilianovich de Leuchtenberg when Nicolas already had a son to succeed him? And also are the House of Beauharnais still claimants to Napoleon's Kingdom of Italy?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 15:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Because both Nicholas's sons were illegitimate; the purported marriage of their parents seems never to have actually happened, though others say it happened but was unrecognized; in any case, his sons were - like other male line descendants - newly created Dukes von Leuchtenberg in 1890. - Nunh-huh 08:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I did a little research and I think instead of being illegitimate, Nicholas's sons were morganatic, their mother was a Russian commoner. So it passed to his brothers and then his nephews Alexander and Sergei (their mother are royals, one being a Duchess of Oldenburg and the other a Princess of Montenegro). But, then how is Nicholas de Leuchtenberg, the great-grandson of Duke Nicholas and his unequal union, able to succeed to the pretendership of the title? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 09:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the clue is in the word "pretendership" - if you're not really entitled to something does it matter if you've been disinherited? --TammyMoet (talk) 12:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, again, are the Beauharnais dynasts claimant to the Napoleonic Kingdom of Italy?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 09:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Theories why people adore pop stars or royalty?

The adored person is much more successful than the fans will ever be - yet there seems to be no resentment or jealousy. Are there any psychological or sociological theories to explain why people get a satisfaction from being fans? Is it for example because belonging to their group gives them prestige? Or because they have an imaginary relationship with the star? 92.26.19.20 (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

See our article Fan (person). Tempshill (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, by adoring a person your powers of judgement and appreciation are exercised. The exercise of power is generally a positive experience for most people. Vranak (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Tie in voting of the House of Representatives

I know that if the Senate has a tie vote, the Vice President (the President of the Senate) has the ability to cast the tie-breaking vote. What happens if the House of Representatives has a tie? How often does this happen? Jared (t)  18:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

According to our article United States House of Representatives, a tied vote results in the motion being defeated. Algebraist 18:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

When the other 434 members come to a tie, the speaker of the House, who usually doesn't vote on the floor, casts the deciding vote. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. From our article: The presiding officer may vote, like any other member. If a vote is tied, the presiding officer does not have a casting vote (unless he has not yet cast his vote). Instead, motions are decided in the negative when ties arise. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Mwalcoff seems to be sort-of correct. The speaker has the right to vote at any time, but according to Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, "by custom ... he or she does so only in exceptional circumstances. Ordinarily, the Speaker votes only when his or her vote would be decisive, and on matters of great importance (such as constitutional amendments)". Algebraist 19:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but that does not amount to a casting vote. The speaker may participate in any vote, but normally does not do so unless they know the result will be very close and their vote is needed to ensure the measure is either passed or defeated. If they have chosen not to participate, they do not then get a casting vote if the result is a tie. They either vote along with all the other members of the house, or not at all. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

As indicated above, the Speaker of the House has the same voting rights as any other Member. By tradition, the Speaker does not vote where his or her vote would not change the result. Some Speakers have varied this pattern in recent years, voting along with the other Members to signify their strong support for a measure (recall that in the United States, unlike the U.K. and other countries, the speakership is a partisan position), but this still remains the exception rather than the rule.

Where the Speaker has not already voted, but the result of a vote is very close, specifically including a tie (where one more affirmative vote would pass the measure) or a vote where there is one more yea than nay (where one more negative vote would defeat the measure), the Speaker will vote at the end after it has become clear that his or her vote is needed. Since this will occur after the time for ordinary voting using the electronic voting device has elapsed, if the Speaker is actually presiding over the House at the time, he or she will declare, "The Clerk will call the name of the Speaker." The reading clerk then calls the name of the Speaker, who announces his or her yea or nay (or aye or no) vote. If the Speaker is not presiding, he or she can appear in the well, whereupon the reading clerk calls his or her name and the Speaker votes.

As others have noted above, if the ultimate result of a vote is a tie, whether or not including the Speaker's vote, the proposal is lost. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's an example of how it works that I saw in person in Washington. A floor vote is called, bells ring and a timer of 15 minutes begins counting down on the wall. In this case, the "nays" led the "ayes" when the 15 minutes expired. However, the vote only ends when the speaker says it ends, and in this case, he (dating myself here) wanted the measure to pass, so he didn't immediately stop the vote. Instead, he began to cajole other members of his party to change their vote. For about 15 minutes, while the members of the minority were yelling "Regular order!" and the clock stood at 00:00, the number of "ayes" slowly increased and "nays" slowly decreased. When the number of "ayes" equaled the number of "nays," the speaker walked over to his desk, pushed his "aye" button and immediately declared the measure had passed. My account contradicts Newyorkbrad a little bit in that I think the speaker pressed a button rather than announced his vote verbally, but it was a while ago and my memory might not be 100% accurate on the details. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You were dating the Speaker of the House! Have the scandal sheets gotten wind of this tidbit? Edison (talk) 22:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

What a travesty of democratic procedure. Algebraist 21:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

My student union president tried something similar once - he lost a vote by show of hands in a general meeting so demanded a secret ballot and while they were preparing it went and get a bunch of friends to come into the meeting from the bar and vote with him. He still lost. The union council then overruled the decision because it was inquorate (which meant the council had to ratify it) and then the steering committee overruled that on some technicality. The US is the epitome of a modern democracy by comparison! --Tango (talk) 21:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It's possible that a Speaker voted with his voting card rather than asked for his name to be called; it depends whether they were already in the segment of the vote when Members need to present themself at the rostrum to vote orally, rather than use the electronic device. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Why are Obama questions so popular?

The last few days I've seen loads of questions about Obama's legitimacy as President, and it even made its way onto today's Urbandictionary word of the day. Can someone fill me in as to what event caused all this? Vimescarrot (talk) 18:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

A moron tv entertainer on CNN with more airtime than honesty. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Please be specific. Who are you referring to, and what has that person said that would rekindle this question that was already done to death during the election campaign? --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Lou Dobbs has been promoting it. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It's been in the news a bit lately. The White House once again issued a statement about it. There have been other stories about it. Slow news week, I guess. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 19:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Reuters chalks it up to silly season: [12] - 128.104.112.87 (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Some claim that President Chester A. Arthur was born in Canada, so his presidency was invalid. Let's settle that issue before worrying about Obama. After all the establishment of civil service and standard time, which he signed into law, might not have been valid. The parallels are eerie:Per [13], Arthur's mother was said to be visiting her parents in Dunham, Quebec when Chester was born, and Obama's mother was Anne Dunham, claimed by the Birthers to have been visiting her inlaws in Kenya at the time of Obama's birth. Both Arthur and Obama received the oath of office twice. The country of their birth was brought up in the presidential campaigns of each. Neither produced a full original birth certificate to silence their critics. Arthur said his papers had been conveniently destroyed in a fire [14].Edison (talk) 22:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Diadem (personal wear)

Was this ever referred to as a Tiara in ancient Roman times, say BC? Would it be worn by a Roman king as a "tiara", the embroidered white silk ribbon? Was it white like the color of milk? Is there a Latin word for this and about when did such usage start?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

According to Fox-Davies' Complete Guide to Heraldry (1909):

The Roman royal diadem was originally a white ribbon, a wreath of laurel was the reward of distinguished citizens, while a circlet of golden leaves was given to successful generals. Caesar consistently refused the royal white diadem which Antony offered him, preferring to remain perpetual dictator. One of his partisans ventured to crown Caesar's bust with a coronet of laurel tied with royal white ribbon, but the tribunes quickly removed it and heavily punished the perpetrator of the offence. During the Roman Empire the prejudice against the white bandeau remained strong. The emperors dared not wear it. Caligula wished to do so, but was dissuaded on being told that such a proceeding might cost his life. Eliogabalus used to wear a diadem studded with precious stones, but it is not supposed to have indicated rank, but only to have been a rich lady's parure, this emperor being fond of dressing himself up as a woman. etc. [15] -- AnonMoos (talk) 17:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, great answer.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 19:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Authors who started young

Do we have a list anywhere of famous authors who were first published (and I want to emphasize the word "published") as teenagers, or even younger? Failing that, can anyone think of a few notable examples? The more, the merrier--I'm trying to come up with a few examples to illustrate a point, and I'm drawing a blank. Thanks (for this, and for all you do)! User:Jwrosenzweig editing as 67.160.97.186 (talk) 22:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Great books written by teens has a list of 15 or so. Then there's Catherine Banner. And a (probably repetitive) amazon list. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I recommend The Young Visiters.--Wetman (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Bonjour Tristesse (1954) by Françoise Sagan

Chocolates for Breakfast (1956) by Pamela Moore

Pepsi-Cola Addict (1982) by June Gibbons ........Pepso2 (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate all of these suggestions, although it would be great if the authors were even more notable (even if the particular book they published young turns out to be kinda crummy). 67.160.97.186 (talk) 23:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If you don't find Mary Shelley, Anne Frank or Françoise Sagan sufficiently notable then.... --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Anne Frank's diary wasn't published in her lifetime, so you've overlooked the OP's emphasis on the word "published". Malcolm XIV (talk) 23:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

No, merely interpreted in a different way than you. Until otherwise advised, I think the two cases of 1. Book published when author was a teenager and 2. Book by teenager published hold. YMMV. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Catherine Webb was published at fourteen, and has continued as a notable author. Christopher Paolini is the latest teen author wonderboy. Steewi (talk) 00:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

A lot of science fiction writers were precocious twerps, e.g. Isaac Asimov, Frederik Pohl, Cyril Kornbluth, James Blish, probably most or all of the rest of the Futurians. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Tennessee Williams was 16 when his story "The Vengeance of Nitocris" was published in Weird Tales. Pepso2 (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

John Kennedy Tooles The Neon Bible was published written when he was 16. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Charles Dickens published under a pseudonym while he was a young apprentice at a printer's shop. Wrad (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Edgar Allan Poe's first volume of poems was published anonymously when he was 18 or 19. It did not, however, establish his literary career in any great degree. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 00:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyright and Hansards

Has copyright law ever prevented a parliamentary Hansard from reprinting an MP's statements (e.g. when the MP was reading a book aloud as part of a filibuster)? NeonMerlin 22:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

In the UK, this would be exempt from copyright as Parliamentary privilege extends to Hansard under the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840. Nanonic (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not directly germane to the question, but the shenanigans that led to the passing of that act are worth reading up. Stockdate vs Hansard only has a summary, but IIRC at one point in the proceedings the Sheriff of Middlesex was imprisoned in the Westminster Clock Tower. Both of him.--ColinFine (talk)

The above apparently refers to Hansard, generally unknown except on a very special island kingdom and related governments. Edison (talk) 01:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Unknown if you discount the Parliament of Canada and the Canadian provincial legislatures, the Parliament of Australia and the Australian state parliaments, the national Parliament of South Africa and South Africa's provincial legislatures, the East African Legislative Assembly, the Parliament of New Zealand, the Legislative Council of Hong Kong, the Parliament of Malaysia, the Parliament of Singapore, the Legislative Council of Brunei, the Parliament of Sri Lanka, the Parliament of Trinidad and Tobago, the National Assembly of Kenya, the National Assembly of Tanzania, the Parliament of Ghana, the Parliament of Uganda, the Parliament of Mauritius and the Parliament of Jamaica --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

In relation to this, when John Wilkes was campaigning for free speech and the right to publish these debates, did he ever set up a Booth? Edison (talk) 01:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

July 29

Death sentence

What are the advantages of a death sentence in our morden society?. Peaseacom (talk) 07:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a homework question to me. Go read Capital punishment debate, there is a lot of food for thought there. But the point is that you should be thinking up your own answers to this question. And by the way, it's "modern". --Richardrj ^{talk email} 07:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Perhaps you should ask the good people of Morden.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You mean ask Mr. Morden of course ;). 67.117.147.249 (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

A handy source of soylent green? --Jayron32 11:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the question itself is rather biased. Something like "advantages and disadvantages" or "arguments for and against" might be a little more neutral. Whose "modern society" it actually is might be worth asking (it's a "modern society" primarily made up of China, the United States, and various Islamic-law countries). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree it's biased. Are you so insecure about the question that you will not concede that it is possible that it lends a single advantage to society? Tempshill (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the question is biased - asking only for advantages, if only for the implicit assumption in the question that such advantages certainly exist. A question asking only "What are the disadvantages" would be equally biased, in the opposite direction. Noting those biases doesn't suggest insecurity, or personal belief one way or the other --Saalstin (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

---

The main advantage of the death penalty would be if it had a significant deterrent effect against serious crimes, but research conducted in developed countries hasn't generally found much major direct deterrent effects of this kind. In a number of U.S. states, the death penalty very disproportionately affects members of ethnic/racial minorities who are too poor to hire good lawyers at the original trial, so the death penalty might have a minimal deterrent effect on anyone who doesn't fall into that category... AnonMoos (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

how many members of the upper class are there?

Approximately how many members of the Upper Class are there total worldwide? (not "upper middle class"). I don't just mean the few hundred or thousand "ultrarich" as tracked by Forbes, but all of the "upper class" (but again not the "upper middle class").

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.234.207.120 (talk) 08:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It all depends on your definition of the upper class. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

If you're talking about the rich, there were 8,600,000 millionaires according to a 2008 study [16]. Doing it on the basis of aristocracy or nobility is almost impossible: it might make some sense in western Europe (where the number of Counts, Dukes, Princes, etc, is more or less clearly defined, though counting their children and relatives might be more problematic), but would you count tribal chiefs in third-world countries as upper class, and do countries without a nobility (like the USA or as far as I know China) have no upper class? --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 11:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Counts and dukes aside, the upper class is the governing class, the privileged class who select which candidates will run for office in democracies are able to get the law made to favor their interests or bent in their favor, and do not depend on standing within a corporation for their clout. As a percentage of the population, the upper class varies culture to culture, rarely more than 5 to 10 per cent.--Wetman (talk) 18:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

That is one definition, it isn't the only one. In the UK "upper class" and "rich and powerful" are not synonymous. Class depends on background, wealth and power are personal. There is often a strong correlation between the two, of course. The upper class in the UK is far less than 10%, probably less than 1%, and I think that is the case in most cultures that have something broadly equivalent to the Western European class system. --Tango (talk) 21:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Equivalent to unparliamentary language in US

Do the US House and Senate have equivalent rules to those on unparliamentary language? (e.g. a prohibition on calling people liars). I ask because I've seen some clips of the healthcare reform debate. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 08:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

"Unparliamentary language" is forbidden in the House of Representatives. Although House rules don't spell out what constitutes unparliamentary language, this page of a GOP primer on House protocol gives some examples. I assume the Senate has a similar unwritten policy. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Humour in the Bible

Are there any examples of jokes or humour in the Bible? A passage or sentence that is intended to be amusing. Thanks, --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's what Uncle Cecil has to say on the matter. I got this through a simple google search. Feel free to check out some of these links, or alter the terms of the search to include words like "humor" (or "humour" if you have the british penchant for extraneous "u"s). --Jayron32 11:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Humour is highly dependent on culture and language. Any Biblical wit is likely to have been lost through generations of translators and editors. However, I have often seen God's treatment of Abraham and Adam and Eve interpreted in TV sketches as though they were cruel jokes. And Genesis 27:11 is sometimes quoted (Alan Bennett?) for laughs merely because it contains the words "hairy" and "smooth".--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The start of 1 Samuel 24is one such case where, if interpreted the right way, is a very funny scene that gets totally lost in trasnlation. Saul is chasing David, then goes into a cave to cover his feet, at which time David cuts off the hem of his garment. Well, one interpretation of the phrase "cover his feet" is to go to the bathroom, specifically number two. It gives a comical image when seen that way, though more so to the teenage crowd.Somebody or his brother (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Ecclesiastes is full of it with his own brand of sarcasm:

• The labour of the foolish wearieth every one of them, because he knoweth not how to go to the city. (10:15)
• If the clouds be full of rain, they empty themselves upon the earth: and if the tree fall toward the south, or toward the north, in the place where the tree falleth, there it shall be. (11:3) [17]
• If the snake should bite before it is charmed, the snake charmer is in trouble. (10:11) [18] --Olaf Simons (talk) 13:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This translation of the Ecclesiastes 10:11 is indeed hilarious, but possibly incorrect. The original
" אִם-יִשֹּׁךְ הַנָּחָשׁ, בְּלוֹא-לָחַשׁ; וְאֵין יִתְרוֹן, לְבַעַל הַלָּשׁוֹן"
may be interpreted in several different ways. What it literally says is "if the snake bites without whisper, there is no advantage for the capable-of-speech". --Dr Dima (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I envy you for being able to read the original text. --Olaf Simons (talk) 21:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

When Sarah overhears Abraham being assured that she'll have a child, she has a good laugh over the pleasure she'll get from sex with her decrepit hubby.

And there's a bitter piece of snark from Job, when confronted by his sanctimonious, know-it-all friends: "No doubt that ye are the people, and wisdom hath died with ye".

Plenty of wordplay in the Hebrew Bible. And Jesus was frequently quite witty. That 'render unto Caesar' comeback xas pretty snappy! Rhinoracer (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

In Genesis 18 Abraham's market-place haggling with God over how many righteous men it would take to save Sodom always seemed like a hoot. What if there are 50 good men? Then eventually he haggles God down to a mere 10. Perhaps the greater humor is God knowing that there are not even 10. Never haggle with the omniscient. Edison (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Some scholars think that the Book of Jonah is satire and intentionally funny, especially the last chapter. Same with the Book of Esther. Wrad (talk) 14:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd say so, but it's not exactly Richard Blackwoodesque. Proverbs and Ecclesiastes are riddled with biting irony. Many of the early biblical characters are given punning names by their parents. There's other irony too... Haman is hanged on the gallows he prepared for Mordechai or when the mocking soldier who disbelieves that the siege of Samaria will end in plenty is told he'll see it but not enjoy it. The closest I can think of to the kind of humour the OP was probably thinking of, ends rather badly, when Elisha is taunted for being bald - look it up and think twice the next time you heckle a divinely inspired person! --Dweller (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This one might be apocryphal: Moses comes down from the mountain. He says, I've got some good news and some bad news. The good news is, I got Him down to ten. The bad news is, adultery is still one of them. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not exactly humor, but I like Judges Chapter 3, in which the Israelite Ehud, supposedly bearing gifts for the ruling king of Moab, tells the king, "I have a secret message for you." The king orders everyone else to leave, and then Ehud says, "I have a message from God" and stabs the king to death. Straight out of Hollywood. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The "camel/rope through the eye of the needle" pun was probably quite groanworthy in the early AD. Steewi (talk) 01:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

At the feeding of the multitude, there were 12 baskets full of scraps. Guess who'll carry them.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Publius Cornelius Scipio Nasica Serapio

In the above article it talks of one Serapio, a dealer in sacrificial victims. Can you expand on this about a "dealer"? Is there further information on Serapio someplace? What else did he deal in? Suspect he was involved in the indigo trade in the ancient city of Thyatira. Cann't find him. Does Plutarch, Polybius, or Livy talk of him?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Since a sacrificial victim had to satisfy certain characteristics (it had to be "prefect"). of which the details are obscure to me, it makes sense that in Rome you could go to a specialist and ask for "a pig suitable to Ceres" or a cockerel for the auspex.--Wetman (talk) 22:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

When would frankincense be used? Does the name Serapio have a meaning?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 23:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

How many people live on islands, and how many people live on mainland continents (excluding islands eg Great Britain, Borneo, Cuba, Madagascar etc)?

Just asking... hope you understand my question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Immunetoboons (talk • contribs) 21:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It will depend on your cut-off of island size, but Wikipedia actually has an article List of islands by population. Taggart.BBS (talk) 05:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Associated Press flashes

Associated Press "flashes" are very rare. They put out one when Obama was elected and ones when each of the Twin Towers collapsed. Two went out on the day of JFK's assassination.

Does anyone know what other events have generated flashes from the AP? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Over what time span? Per "Breaking news"(2007) by David Halberstam and Reporters of the Associated Press and a Google Book search, the AP has issued flashes (5 bells on the Teletype or modern equivalent: advisories of ten words or less that break into other transmissions to warn that a breaking story is coming) for wins in prize fights, the resignation of baseball managers, the dynamiting of a newspaper office, Lindbergh crossing the Atlantic, any significant event in war or politics, state or or U.S. Supreme Court decisions, trial verdicts, arrests of criminals, an air raid alert in San Francisco in WW2, death of notable persons, natural disasters, even the arrest of a member of the Rolling Stones. Edison (talk) 02:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you have a flash confused with an AP NewsAlert. NewsAlerts are short advisories that let subscribers know of a breaking story. A flash is any story given an "f" priority code. (Other priority codes are "b" for bulletin, "u" for urgent, "r" for regular and so on.) All the flashes I've ever seen have been very short, like NewsAlerts. In fact, a NewsAlert can also be a flash. When Michael Jackson died, the NewsAlert was a flash, raising some eyebrows. NewsAlerts occur regularly, but according to the AP Stylebook, flashes are to be reserved for events of "transcendent importance."

The Halberstam book mentions the following flashes: WWI armistice, Lindbergh baby verdict, man on the moon, death of President Harding, bombing of Pearl Harbor, JFK shot, Korea armistice, Hindenburg explosion and some others not in the Google Books preview. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

White people by country

How do Germany and the Nordic countries compare to Canada in terms of the percentage of white people? NeonMerlin 23:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

We have articles like Demographics of Germany and Demographics of Canada which may be of use to you. It should be noted, however, that not all countries tabulate census data using such nebulous qualities as "race" and "skin color", so in countries where these are not significant social factors, the data may not exist. In the U.S., where they ARE significant social factors, that sort of information is tabulated, but there is no guarantee that a) such numbers are kept in every country and b) where they are kept, definitions such as what constitutes a "white person" may vary greatly from place to place. --Jayron32 23:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. I think I read that official ethnicity statistics are banned in Germany. Also, agreed on the point that the definition of a 'white person' can vary a lot. In one extreme form it may exclude even southern and eastern Europeans; in another extreme form it may include even Arabs and people from the Indian subcontinent.--Immunetoboons (talk) 23:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I would also tend to view the concept of 'white people' as being a social construct, but perhaps a convenient term in some instances nonetheless. I would be less likely to view the idea of the 'Caucasoid race' as being socially constructed, as genetic (see haplogroup) as well as prima facie morphological evidence (see human physical appearance) for its existence is present. For example, Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA) is probably common in many people termed 'white', but may also be found in many populations not termed 'white' for various reasons (i.e. Berbers, mulattoes, mestizos, etc with some West European ancestry) and may not be found in some other people termed white (many Finns might not have it).--Immunetoboons (talk) 00:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

For an example, Immune, the US Census Bureau (see Race and ethnicity in the United States Census) counts Indians and Arabs as Asian and White respectively. Nyttend (talk) 05:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Which is why race is so nebulous a concept. Many south-asians are closer genetically related to Lithunians than are neighboring Estonians, and yet few people would say that Lithuanians and Estonians are not both "white" while they would also not classify most Indians as "white". Yet, there it is. Still, skin-color-based "races" are real 'social' constructs (even if they have no basis in genetics) in some countries, but not all. That's why the original question would likely be impossible to answer. --Jayron32 05:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

For my purposes, a white person is someone of mostly Germanic and/or Jewish ethnicity. (Weren't the Franks, Romans and Anglo-Saxons ultimately Germanic?) NeonMerlin 05:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

That's kind of specific, and not all that great of a classification. I mean, aren't the Irish white people? They aren't in the least bit Germanic. What about Italians? And how can you lump Jews in with Germanic peoples; Jews aren't even indoeuropean; their a semitic group. Seriously, find a workable demographic category first, then decide how to research it. --Jayron32 05:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The Romans were Germanic? Mama mia! I've only ever heard that claim in Victorian literature and white supremacist sites of the Nordic flavour. Also, why exclude slavs? Fribbler (talk) 08:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Identify this salesman

Last year I remember seeing a documentary about a salesman who had mental/physical health problems such that when he went to apply for traditional employment during the mid-20th century, he was written off, so he made a living by going door to door and selling products to people in the Northwestern US. He did this until he retired sometime during the 1990s or 2000s. Who was this salesman? 128.2.247.30 (talk) 00:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Bill Porter (salesman)? Nanonic (talk) 00:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

How many countries other than Canada have taxes on existing taxes

In Soviet Canuckistan, the provincial tax is applied AFTER the federal tax. For non-Canadians, let's say something cost 100$, the federal tax is 5 %, so it ends up being 105$. However, the provincial tax is applied on the 105$ rather than the 100$. How many other countries have such a [retarded] system of goods taxation ? Rachmaninov Khan (talk) 01:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone may be making a mistake here. For all provinces except Quebec and Prince Edward Island, the PST is to be charged on the selling price of the item before GST. See here for the rule in Ontario. The GST is to be charged on the selling price of the item before PST. They are required to be two separate, independent calculations. // BL \\ (talk) 02:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's 13% (or whatever it is now) in Ontario in total, not 5% and then 8% on top of that. So something that costs $100 will be $113 with taxes. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

No mistake, I'm from Quebec. I was assuming it was the same in the other Canadian provinces. I'l have to add this to my reasons to emigrate to Switzerland. Rachmaninov Khan (talk) 03:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Well most people pay an Income tax on their earnings, they are then likely to pay Sales tax/Value added tax on their purchases, which will have already be costed to account for Corporation tax that the company pays as well as taking into account income-tax for setting wages for their employees. Tax on taxes in that regard is quite normal, but in the scenario you describe it appears to be 2 taxes charged together (rather than at different times/sources) but applied 1 after the other? That seems quite unusual, i'll rack my brain further but can't think of one that's the same off-hand. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

In Australia, the price of petrol (gasoline) is higher than it needs to be. There's an excise added to the basic price, then the GST is calculated on the (price + excise), so we're being taxed twice. The previous government, which applied both the excise and the GST, always maintained they would have liked to do something about it, but couldn't. I never understood that. The present government has been silent about it, afaik, preferring to address the price issue by attempting to stimulate competition between sellers. It's had limited if any success. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

And your point is? We get taxed on income, then taxed on gst when we buy, which also has an excise tax, and built into the price as well is company taxes, and payroll tax, and when the import the oil there are import taxes and tarriffs. Infact for every dollar an Australian earns, 49% of it goes back to the goverment. An average of 25% in income tax and 24% already built in the price of anything we buy. Fuel would be one of the highest, but everything is on average 49% tax.--58.111.132.76 (talk) 11:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Prince and Duke of Girona

Who was Pedro: 1394 - 1410, Duque de Gerona? I can't find whose son he was. Also were female heiress Princess of Girona in their own right, same as they were Princess of Asturias. Aragon didn't seem to have the same view on woman taking the throne as Castile and Leon. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 09:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

[19] The Catalan Wikipedia says he was the son of John I of Aragon yet says he died in the same year as his birth. Our article agrees:Prince of Girona. Only the Spanish language article gives him till 1410. Fribbler (talk) 14:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

if I get an idea while using a prescription drug, do the rights belong to the Pharma company?

First of all, obviously the answer should be no, however, medical companies have "patented" sequences of DNA which are in everyone, as well as simply looking at certain metrics as part of a diagnosis, so that it's illegal for a doctor to look at those to make that diagnostic without paying them. It's not beyond possibility that drugs would be "licensed" to me, and that the ideas produced as a side effect of them would belong to the pharmaceutical company. In fact, does this happen? 82.234.207.120 (talk) 09:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: I am not asking for legal advice. I am simply curious for entertainment purposes about what people's understandings of the law are.

No it doesn't happen and there is no way they could prove it until they know how the brain works exactally. If you get an idea to create something just patent it and it belongs to you.--58.111.132.76 (talk) 11:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

An analogous case would be if you designed something using a computer or software that was patented; in such a case, the computer company wouldn't own your invention. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 14:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Classical liberalism, liberalism and libertarianism

Is it right to equate classical liberalism with libertarianism? The impression I got from Classical_liberalism#.22Classical_liberalism.22_and_libertarianism is that several classical liberal philosophers supported welfare liberalism, thus they cannot be classified as libertarians. Then what is the diffenerce between classical liberalism and modern liberalism? And why some people say classical liberalism and libertarianism are same? --AquaticMonkey (talk) 09:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The reason why classical liberalists typically where less 'hardcore' is typically because in their times goverments were alot smaller - so having some welfare and tax was often thought of as almost insignificant. Even most libertarians are for some kind of minimum tax system. Classical liberalism is very close to hard-line libertarianism (or they are the same) in most cases. And both of those are very very far from modern liberalism, which really lacks the acceptance of natural laws of freedom. So classical is often tied to libertarianism but very rarely tied to modern liberalism.--58.111.132.76 (talk) 11:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Many liberals, such as Rousseau and John Locke, believed in the idea of a social contract, the idea that people could restrict their freedoms and enter into a society in order to enjoy the benefits of communal living. This is antithetical to the traditions of libertarianism (on both left and right) which oppose all rules and restrictions on human action.

Libertarians such as Ayn Rand believed that self-interest is the only way of judging if an action is right or wrong, but many of the figures of Enlightenment liberalism, such as Adam Smith, believed that human beings had a natural moral sense which would guide our judgment of what is right or wrong (see Moral sense theory).

Following from this, liberals such as Adam Smith believed in the free market because they thought it was the most efficient method of generating wealth, rather than taking an a priori view of its merits, and were willing to advocate state control in areas where this would be more useful to the population; classical liberals didn't share right-wing libertarians' fundamental belief in the sacredness of property. Classical liberalism was largely an economic theory, not an all-encompassing theory about human nature, politics, or morality. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Tiberius Gracchus, section Tiberius' death

In the version of Plutarch's Lives I have it says, Tiberius tried to save himself by flight. As he was running, he was stopped by one who caught hold of him by the gown; but he threw it off, and fled in his under-garment only. I assume the "gown' he is referring to is a toga and the under-garment is the tunic. Was the toga he was wearing a toga praetexta, an ordinary white toga with a broad purple stripe on its border? Can not find anywhere where Plutarch says that Tiberius Gracchus appeared in the Roman senate with armed guards and in a mourning costume, implying that his defeat would mean his prosecution and death.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 11:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Did Confucius say?

"One hundred women are not worth a single testicle." Thanks. Imagine Reason (talk) 13:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't find any mention in Analects, are there any other sources to look in?83.100.250.79 (talk) 13:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I researched that a very long time ago. It is a Vietnamese phrase attributed to Confucius during the direct Chinese rule over Vietnam (around 111BC). As with most "Confucius says..." phrases, it has nothing to do with Confucius. Of course, you'll find millions of references that state it is quote from Confucius and maybe 3 that explain that it isn't. -- kainaw™ 13:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Moon Publicity

www.moonpublicity. com. Is this a hoax? Google is not helping. Thanks.