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

November 10

Citizenship of the Queen

What is Queen Elizabeth II's citizenship? Obviously British, but she is the Queen of 14 other realms, officially head of state. So, for example, she is the Queen of Canada, a separate crown from that of Great Britain. Does she also hold that citizenship? 70.79.246.134 (talk) 05:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC) (edited to added the login of the asker Aaronite (talk) 03:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC))

Citizenship in the U.K. is related to the idea of being a British subject, quite literally it means "A subject of (subordinate of) the British Crown" and as such, the concept that the Queen would be a subject to herself is a patently silly idea. Furthermore, the concept of "official citizenship" is basically one of bureaucratic paper pushing; the sort of thing that commoners need to worry about, and not what the Monarch worries about. The queen is just the queen. She is both a sovereign (as a person) and sovereign (as a concept). In otherwords, at the theoretical level, the Queen is under the jurisdiction of no one except God; and as such needed worry about things like citizenship. In practical matters, Parliament rules the U.K. (and the various national assemblies likewise rule other Commonwealth realms). However, the "pomp and circumstance" surrounding the Government of the U.K. at least plays along with the idea that the Queen is the ultimate source of all sovereignty in the U.K. (with ideas like Her Majesty's Government, etc.) To sum up, she isn't the citizen of anywhere, because being a citizen would mean she denies her own sovereignty. --Jayron32 05:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Not so fast, there. As you'll see if you follow the link, the concept of "British subject" has been redefined several times and the term is now almost obsolete. Citizens of the UK are just citizens of the UK now, like the way it works in most countries. --Anonymous, 08:41 UTC, November 10, 2009.

I agree with Jayron - whatever the rules on UK Citizenship, they don't apply to the Queen. Alansplodge (talk) 09:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

And it's 15 other realms, btw. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Though I too agree with Jayron, I'd have to say that if you define "The British Crown" as meaning the whole system of monarchy, rather than simply the monarch, then you could argue that there is probably no-one who is more "subject of the British Crown" than HMTQ. Just about her every move is specifically part of the monarchic system. Grutness...wha? 10:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

www.royal.gov.uk describes the Queen as "a national of the United Kingdom" and "a citizen of the European Union". However, her position as Sovereign is obviously somewhat unique - she does not hold a passport, for example, and UK civil or criminal law proceedings cannot be taken against her in person. Interestingly, she is entitled to vote in both UK and European elections, although by tradition the Queen and members of the Royal Family do not exercise this right. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Do any heads of state, or even heads of government, have (or at least use) passports? I would expect they all travel on diplomatic papers. --Tango (talk) 15:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you mean by "diplomatic papers". There is such a thing as a diplomatic passport, but it is still a passport. All other members of the Royal Family apart from the Queen need passports. The US President has a passport [1]. I imagine it is only monarchs who don't need passports. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Heads of states normally travel on diplomatic passports. I'm not sure what the Queen does when she travels outside the Commonwealth. --Xuxl (talk) 16:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

"When travelling overseas, The Queen does not require a British passport ... As a British passport is issued in the name of Her Majesty, it is unnecessary for The Queen to possess one. All other members of the Royal Family, including The Duke of Edinburgh and The Prince of Wales, have passports." www.royal.gov.uk Gandalf61 (talk) 16:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing here, but if her son and heir has a passport, it is probable that she also had a passport which has since expired. She wasn't always the queen. Flamarande (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Good point, and in fact she was outside the UK when she became Queen. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

However, the rules in 1952 may have been different. Did British subjects need passports to travel within the British Commonwealth then? I don't know. Oh, but she'd also been to the US while a princess. I guess she'd've needed a passport for that anyway. --Anonymous, 19:58 UTC, November 10, 2009.

In 1952, she wasn't in a dominion, but Kenya, then a British colony. Of course, the United States was neither. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Quick, someone try to abuse this loophole in the system by impersonating the Queen in order to travel abroad without a passport! Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Stranger things have happened... Flamarande (talk) 23:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Name one. --Tango (talk) 23:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

There's a legion of Lizzian look-alikes. However, for her to just turn up at an airport all by herself, carrying her own luggage, with no advance security and other arrangements having been made, and to stand in the queue like everyone else - that would be exceeding strange. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the answers. They certainly help a bit, but would she also be considered a Canadian/Australian/Belize citizen)? Aaronite (talk) 03:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The whole point is, as sovereign, she doesn't worry about citizenship of any sort. Such matters are beneath her. It is quite possible that other commonwealth realms have granted her citizenship, or that she qualifies for citizenship under the rules of those nations, so the question could be answered on a techincal level by asking of each individual nation what their stance on her citizenship is. However, its a moot discussion because it has no practical bearing on how the British Monarch operates. --Jayron32 04:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. That is more clear. Appreciated. Just one thing, though, is that while British Monarch is a handy shorthand, she is the Monarch of several independent realms, so Canadian Monarch applies just as validly (though obviously it's more confusing to most people.) Aaronite (talk) 19:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

See Monarchy of Canada, Monarchy of Australia, etc . -- JackofOz (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Creeds

I've noticed that the Apostle's Creed describes Christ as "crucified, dead and buried", whereas the Nicene Creed merely says "he suffered and was buried". Is there any theogical significance in the Nicene Creed not specifically saying that he died? Has this ever been the matter of controversy or alternative views as to whether he did actually die on the cross? --rossb (talk) 12:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Our article Christology may be a good starting point for your research. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 13:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

No, that article doesn't seem to address this issue. --rossb (talk) 14:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That's really interesting. It seems clear in the Latin at least, although the ecumenical English translation widely used since the 70's has "he suffered death and was buried". Does anyone know if the word used in Greek means only 'suffered' or can also mean 'suffered (death)'? 86.142.224.71 (talk) 16:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

From English_versions_of_the_Nicene_Creed_in_current_use#1973_draft_for_an_ecumenical_version: ""He suffered death and was buried" (1975) replaced "he suffered, died, and was buried" (1973): "παθόντα" in Greek and "passus" in Latin are indicative of a suffering demise; but the 1973 draft inserted an extra verb, "died", not present in the original Greek or Latin." This suggests that the Greek and Latin verbs translated as 'suffered' indicate 'suffered (and died in this suffering)'. Obviously there is a lot of discussion about how best to exactly translate the Greek and Latin, but it looks like the Nicene creed doesn't necessarily leave out him dying. 86.142.224.71 (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about the Greek, but "passus" often does imply death; however it often does not, and anything can be suffered that way (hunger, some idiot bothering you, whatever). Of course, in this context it implies the Passion, which is derived from passus, and that certainly includes the death bit. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

In the Greek the word is παθόντα, which I understand is the aorist participle of πάσχω and means "having suffered". Like the Latin, I suspect it may or may not imply death. One wonders why the authors of the Creed didn't spell it out more explicitly. --62.49.68.79 (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I speak no Greek, but I wonder if the verb that is translated "rose again" necessarily implies death. It's an interesting question--I think there's more than enough evidence (NT, writings of church figures of the time, etc.) that the people composing the Creed didn't doubt Jesus' physical death, but the phrasing is odd. I'm suspecting, though, that "rose again" is a phrase that can only really refer to the reanimation of one who was dead. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 01:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Checking a couple of online dictionaries, including one that claims to translate Koine, it does not look as if the meaning of πάσχω entails or by itself implies death. It really seems to mean just "suffered". Marco polo (talk) 02:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Marco, either you mistyped that last word, or misunderstood my comment. I'm suggesting that the phrase after "he suffered [death] and was buried" -- that is, "on the third day he rose again, in accordance with the Scriptures" -- uses a phrase "rose again" which in English certainly seems to imply he was not merely someone who had suffered, but in fact someone who had died. What Greek word or words are being translated as "rose again"? And what did they mean in 3rd century Greek, as far as we can tell? 67.170.96.241 (talk) 07:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Another question about DC Sniper

The US Supreme Court denied request to stay his execution and now I read that Governor Tim Kaine has denied clemency. Is there any other way he could be saved now? --Maru-Spanish (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure. He could escape, or the governor could change his mind. I would say his chances are pretty low for either. Googlemeister (talk) 19:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that if he has a genuine medical emergency they would actually delay his execution until he was medically treated and was "well enough to be executed". I know, irony abounds. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

A team of vigilantes could stage a daring rescue. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, his attorneys could always file another emergency appeal with the US Supreme Court, or with the state appellate court, if, say, the attorneys found new evidence showing that he didn't get a fair trial. The likelihood of this is low at this point, of course, after the years of opportunity to find such new evidence. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Or, or... oh, nevermind. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, at this point, one could reanimate him. I don't know if the technology is availible yet. Plus, there's a good chance he could become a brain-eating zombie if we did... Still, its not much worse than what he was before... --Jayron32 04:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Resurrection Hospital might be useful. Edison (talk) 05:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

middle-eastern and white american interracial marriage

our artlce said other and white interracial is a huge gross amount. This makes sense. But which one is mor likely. For middle eastern dad to have white mom or other way around. The 2006 census said 32% of Hispanics go with white-american 18 is white male with hispanic mexican female, and 15% other way around.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 22:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Multiracial people make up only 2.4% of the U.S. population. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 02:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. Self-declared multiracial people only make up 2.4% of the US population. Googlemeister (talk) 14:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Wrong partially. I've known like 11 people who is black dad, white mom, two in my math class, 3 unknown people, one in my old middle school, few people in my high school. Of African American interracial I only know black dad with white mom, but I still never hear the other way around. let's see for Asians and white. One OCTA driver is Japanese male and he is marry to a white female, one in my middle school have like a Vietnamese dad, a white mom (last name is Tran), anohter one in High School (last name is Butte) have Chinese dad and a white mom, one in my nieghborhood is a Japanese dad, white mom, one last name of Gizara, and one Lee at old Chinese school have Chinese dad, and American white mom. But largely, I've known like 7 people with white male and asian female. I've known few middle eastern, hispanics males with white female.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 16:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Also Isn't middle eastern consider as a white? i thouhght black people is USA born, black people isn't neccessairly having descents from Africa.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 16:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• The USA does not have legal definitions of who belongs to what race -- it's largely a matter of "I know it when I see it." In some contexts and for some people, Muslim Arab-Americans are seen as being their own separate category. But usually they've blended in to "white". Consider the huge number of Lebanese-Americans who are powerful politicans. Do you think most people know that the Majority Leader of the Senate in the early 1990s, the current governor of West Virginia, and the governors of New Hampshire for half of the last 25 years are Lebanese? No -- they were all thought of as "white." And in America, that pretty much means you are white. --M@rēino 20:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Read Race and ethnicity in the United States Census: Arabs are counted as White. This may not be enshrined in law (I could be wrong, but I don't think so), but it's close to being an official national definition — the Census Bureau is the nation's official statistics bureau. Nyttend (talk) 23:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

This might be the data i want For my english class we try have to learn else besides google seach. --209.129.85.4 (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

November 11

History of neutering

When did it become common and socially acceptable to neuter house pets? Looked at objectively, the idea that one would systematically remove an animals' male or female bits is a rather aggressive approach to population control. I would guess that it was uncommon before the advent of anesthesia and modern surgical techniques, while today it seems to be very common and widely accepted. (My perspective is American, if that makes a difference.) Dragons flight (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Neutering has been common on farms far longer than anesthesia has been available. Geldings, oxen, etc. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 02:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, neutering has been around for a while, but I would guess the incentive to neuter beasts of burden was somewhat different from the incentive to neuter pets. I also suspect that society in general may have been less concerned about preemptively controlling stray dogs and cats in the past, so it may not have been pushed as a systematic agenda like it is in many places today. Dragons flight (talk) 03:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Given that historically farms had bullocks, geldings and capons, I'd say neutering animals in generally has been socially acceptable for a long time. However, cats have historically been either pampered and kept separate, or viewed very cheaply such that drowning excess kittens was fairly common. It's generally much easier to neuter a male animal than a female one (given lack of anaesthesia and modern surgical techniques), and it is the owner of female dogs and cats who bears the cost of extra animals, so it's easy to see a situation with little incentive to go through a tricky procedure. I'd imagine the set-up with dogs is slightly different.

If you look at the article castration, you'll see that there are specific terms for all manner of commonly castrated (male) domestic animals, since it was common practice. Even in humans, you have eunuchs and castrati, with the last castrato only dying in 1922. However, it is questionable how socially acceptable these last were. 86.142.230.196 (talk) 02:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Eunuchs were used by (and often made for the purposes of) royal courts throughout the Old World for many centuries, and many post-Renaissance composers wrote music specifically for castrati. I'd say that they were socially acceptable. Nyttend (talk) 04:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

"I castrate my bulls by slamming two cinder blocks together on their balls."

"Geez ! Doesn't that hurt ?"

"No...only if you get your fingers stuck between the two blocks." StuRat (talk) 16:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Gastric pressure needed to vomit

I have been unable to discover the intra-abdominal pressure (mm/Hg) needed to eject the gastric contents from the gastrointestinal tract in human. Please quote authoritative source.72.75.122.122 (talk) 01:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Did you not read the responses the last time you asked this same question. I'm not sure that the data you seek has changed all that much in 3 weeks. --Jayron32 03:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Ha! Brilliant!! DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Legality of To Catch a Predator

I have always had problems with this show, but when discussing it with my friends they never agree with me about this. I've had these problems:

1. The show never asked the subjects permission to film them, interview them and broadcast them on national television. He doesn't even admit that is what's going on at the beginning of the interview.

2. They kind of set up the subject by talking to him about sex and stuff on the chat room; the FBI agent had to say yes at some point in the conversation.

3. Chris Hansen always ends the conversation with "you're free to go", or something of the sort. Except they're not free to go, there's a bunch of police officers and stuff waiting right outside for them, and they get arrested immediately. It doesn't seem right that he can tell them they're free to go when he knows full well that they're not.

My friends say these points don't matter because they're child molesters, and so don't deserve any rights, but I thought everyone in America had privacy protection and protection from getting set up and lied to by the cops. --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 04:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen that show but going from your description you might be asking about entrapment. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 04:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

As a note, that show really bothers me as well, so you aren't alone. Grsz¹¹ 04:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it a "reality show," staged by actors? If so, that would answer your questions: the entire program is a lie. See our article. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

In order to be entrapment, the show would have to plant the idea of the crime in the perpetrator's mind. In other words, it isn't entrapment to merely "go along" with someone until they commit a crime they already were going to commit, it would have to be the show that propositioned the perpetrator. The show is careful not to do that. Those posing as underage children merely passively wait to be propositioned for sex, and accept the proprosition. --Jayron32 05:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I see your logic for #2. I guess it's okay in that regard. What about points 1 and 3? --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 05:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There is certainly an ethical problem with "to catch a predator". In a sense it's very much like provoking a Pit Bull intently to lead him to bite and then to define it as a dangerous dog and to put it to sleep. It's true that these people are somehow on the border, but it mean nothing about their being dangerous because dangerous pedophile will initiate sexual relationship even outside the internet, many times using force or seductive means, with childrens much under 16 (actually, the DSM definition for pedophiles, if I remember correctly, is attraction for childrens under 12 and without sexual features that usually distinguish male from female)and his urges are typically uncontrollable. Here they produce a very artificial situation: underage teenager is being left alone at home, she is interested in sexual relationship with a much older man and etc. They traped these people with a fantasy they dragged them into. This is not real situation and the way to keep this danger far from childrens is by monitoring chat rooms and not by deliberately hunting and destroying in a wave of the hand the life of people for a fututre crime they yet didn't commite in the scene of the crime they were cast in just for the rating. I think that this phenomenone is much more dangerous than those people themselves.--Gilisa (talk) 06:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no legal implication for #3—telling someone they can go (as far as you are concerned) when you know that a cop is outside to arrest them does not break any laws whatsoever. You can lie all you want to people, casually. There are only a few situations (relating to fraud and perjury) when lying to someone carries legal implications. As for #2, I think they ride a pretty fine line close to entrapment, but don't cross it. As for #1, I am sure their lawyers have hashed over the permissions question fairly carefully, since the entire thing hinges on that. My understanding is that US law is somewhat weak in this respect (privacy, exposure, etc.) and that the copious permissions forms usually used are just overkill to avoid any possibility of lawsuits, not that they are necessary to win lawsuits. You can get more information about privacy law in the US at Privacy laws of the United States—being exposed for committing a crime is probably not a violation of privacy, but if the shows air before someone is convicted, that seems like it would open the network up to False light problems. But again, I ain't no lawyer, and I know they do have fleets of lawyers. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Based on TV, it even seems, in the US, at least, that cops can lie directly to the suspect, and often do. For example, they will say "your buddy has agreed to take a plea bargain and testify against you, but we really want to get him, not you, so this is your last chance to take the plea and testify against him, instead". I've only seen this on TV, and hope that a lawyer can explain that this isn't actually the case. This type of thing certainly seems like it should be illegal to me, as it might cause an innocent person to agree to plead guilty and also calls into question why anyone would believe anything a police officer tells them. StuRat (talk) 16:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

American's don't have a right to not be lied to by the police. In fact, the life of a police officer would be very difficult, if not down right impossible, if they couldn't lie (why bother doing any undercover operations if you always had to say "Yup, I'm a cop" every time you are asked?). Also note that law enforcement does not do any of the initial online investigation, its done for the most part by volunteers from Perverted Justice. Entrapment only applies to law enforcement and a defendent would have a very difficult time trying to prove they were coerced in to the meetings by a civilian volunteer. Livewireo (talk) 19:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you're all saying. I guess the show is okay. It doesn't sit well with me, but I do see they're not breaking the law. I guess it's kind of like when cops pretend to be homosexual at gay bars and arrest people after 'requesting' sex. Those arrestees didn't get any of the above three points either, and while I can disagree with it, it's not illegal. --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 21:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

See the article Louis Conradt, about a man who killed himself after being "caught" by "To Catch a Predator." Note that the district attorney wanted nothing to do with Chris Hansen and refused to pursue any "To Catch a Predator" cases that had led to indictments. There are clearly legal issues with Dateline's methods of operation -- not that those will let all of the people they caught off the hook. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I was reading once about a specific case I came across once (think on Youtube) of a rabbi who's name is mentioned in To Catch a Predator but I won't mention here for BLP reasons who was eventually prosecuted. The DA (or someone) originally said it was unlikely so I'm not sure whether public pressure or something else happened in the interim. You can search his name for more info Nil Einne (talk) 02:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

While perhaps only of limited relevance, privacy laws are often fairly weak in the US AFAIK (although they do vary from state I'm pretty sure) compared to privacy laws in many Europeans countries, or Australian and NZ. In Germany for example, Google Street View was subject to some restrictions (as discussed in the article). The blurring of faces and/or vehicle registration plates was also I believe primarily the result of privacy concern & laws outside the US. It's not uncommon people are concerned about email and other stuff hosted in the US for privacy reasons. Nil Einne (talk) 02:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting geography question

I am looking for the name of a slice of land (nearly 4,000,000 sq km) contains over 75% of a political entity's population, yet only 25% of its territory.

Apprecaite any help.

I tried to figure out variuos combinations but could not succeed.

Obviusly the total area of the political entity (may be a country or state etc) is close to 16,000,000 sq km. Only China matches this size. It could be one of the cities in China —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.38.92 (talk) 04:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

European Russia is what you seek. Roughly 1/4th of Russia's area and 3/4ths of Russia's population. I spent a long time digging through various official Subdivisions of Russia, but none was nearly large enough or populous enough. --Jayron32 05:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If you ignore the size of the slice, Japan also fits into this - I seem to recall reading that 80% of its population lives on 20% of the land - in the shore belt you can draw from Tokyo across Aichi and Osaka to Kitakyushu. TomorrowTime (talk) 06:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Alaska? --Thomprod (talk) 11:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

90% of Canadians live within 100 miles of a US border. Not sure if that total is 25% of the country or not. Googlemeister (talk) 14:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Not even close. It's a big country. --Anon, 01:43 UTC, November 11, 2009.

The Indian subcontinent has more than 75% of the population of the Commonwealth of Nations population in under 25% of its territory (just over 4M square kilometres). Warofdreams talk 14:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Jayron is right, it's European Russia. China and Canada are each less than 10 million square kilometers. Only Russia comes close to being large enough, and it also matches all the other parts of the Q. StuRat (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Another tantalizing geography question

Which is the highway of sorts (may be waterway or seaway or similar one) which is named for a major religious figure (some thing like santa or saint or st) and it has a namesake in one of the African countries ( Kenya, South africa, Angola, Congo, Nigeria , Liberia or Cape Verde) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.38.92 (talk) 04:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The only african nation named for a major religious figure I can think of is São Tomé and Príncipe named, in part, for St. Thomas. That may give you a start. --Jayron32 05:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the OP's asking about a passageway of sorts, not the name of a country. Sort of like if Nile was called "St. Nicholas' pass" or something. TomorrowTime (talk) 06:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If it's a saint, a likely guess might be a patron saint of travellers or sailors. Saint Christopher is the patron saint of travellers. Maybe it's him? AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

And St. Nicholas is the patron saint of boatmen, which is why I used him in the example :) TomorrowTime (talk) 10:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I suspected as much. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it only those specific African countries? If so it's an odd range... For some reason, my first thought was St. Lawrence (as in the seaway, definitely a "highway of sorts"), but I can't find any St. Lawrences (or Saints-Laurents or San Lorenzos) in Africa - though there is a São Lourenço dos Órgãos in Cape Verde, so that might be it. Loads of places in Cape Verde are named for saints, BTW, as this page implies. Grutness...wha? 23:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

How about the Saint Paul River which runs through Monrovia, the capital of Liberia? Astronaut (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

One more challenging Geography teaser

1.It is Frequently plagued by pirates and 2 somewhat difficult to navigate because of its depth 3 it conveniently connects two of the planet's oceans, 4 and through it a huge percentage of the world's oil is transported on a daily basis

Which fits the above criteria??

I am looking at straits/channles/canals since these water bodies connect Oceans. But I am not able to zero on any since I am not able to verify with resources like wikipedia

I would appreciate any help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.38.92 (talk) 11:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Panama Canal. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The Panama Canal connects 2 of the world's oceans, is difficult to navigate due to depth - not sure if it has piracy problems but then it wouldn't be hugely surprising - it's a place where bilions of dollars worth of cargo goes through every year so would be a prime sport for would-be pirates to try their hand. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. It's a big shipping route, including by Saudi Arabia, and plagued by pirates from Somalia. With the Suez Canal and the Mediterranean Sea, they connect the Indian and Atlantic Oceans. I have no idea about #2. Rckrone (talk) 13:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think the Suez Canal is probably more likely than the Panama Canal, even though it is deeper (it is still too shallow for many supertankers). --Mr.98 (talk) 14:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I personally think that it is the Strait of Malacca in Indonesia. Googlemeister (talk) 14:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's the Strait of Malacca. The nations of Panama and Egypt have very tight control over who enters their respective canals. Indonesia is not capable of doing the same for Malacca, because Malacca is international waters (it also borders Malaysia and Singapore). Go read Piracy in the Strait of Malacca if you want to learn more. --M@rēino 15:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If you illegally copy a CD on a cruise ship, are you guilty of "piracy on the high seas" ? :-) StuRat (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a subject that's difficult to navigate because of it's depth. Fribbler (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to come up with a torrent pun but I couldn't come up with anything clever enough for me to be happy with. —Akrabbim ^talk 16:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I though it was likely to be the Bab-el-Mandeb, the straits between the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea, or the Hanish Islands some 150 km to the north-west in the red Sea itself. In both places, the deep (>50 m) channels are only a few 10's of km wide and the Hannish Islands have several sets of rocks mid-channel which I imagine are a significant navigational hazard to shipping. All shipping to and from the Suez canal has to pass through this area and the nearby Gulf of Aden where piracy, particularly against large ships such as oil tankers, has become a significant problem in recent times.

However, the Strait of Malacca in Indonesia, is even shallower (<30 m deep in many places), has many shipwrecks and other navigational hazards and is also plagued by pirates. Astronaut (talk) 15:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

But that fails the "2 oceans test". The straits of Malacca, mentioned previously, seems to pass all the tests. StuRat (talk) 15:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Most comprehensive search engine for second-hand books in the UK?

I want to look up and buy some second-hand books in the UK. What is the most comprensive website for doing this? I am aware of Alibris and Abebooks. I seem to remember some website that combines both of these. Does anyone know any more about this please? 78.149.246.109 (talk) 12:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I have found http://used.addall.com/ which I now remember and which appears to be relevant to the UK but I'd be interested to hear of any more. What would be great would be something that combined this with Amazon and eBay etc. 78.149.246.109 (talk) 12:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I use BookFinder, which aggregates the listings of a number of sellers and listing services, including Alibris, AbeBooks, Amazon, and eBay—click on "Our booksellers" at the bottom of the page for a full list. (This is not an advertisement, and I have no connection with the site.) You can set your search parameters with "United Kingdom" as the destination and "British Pound" as the currency displayed for prices. Deor (talk) 14:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There is also the British branch of the Antiquarian Booksellers Association. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

When did the changes in pre-trial Small Claims Court procedure in England and Wales come into effect?

I understand that to recover a debt you are now expected to go through an exact pre-trial procedure. Does anyone know when this came into effect please? I am trying to find books that will be relevant to the current proceedures, so ones published before this date will not be relevant. Thanks 78.149.246.109 (talk) 13:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know when it came into effect, but can point you to guaranteed up-to-date documentation. The CAB advisernet says "The protocols require each party to provide specific information to the other. The nature and subject of this information varies between the protocols, but in general the claimant is expected to set out a clear summary of the facts and the defendant is expected to state if s/he accepts or denies liability within a set time period. Details of the protocols are contained in the Civil Procedure Rules and may be viewed on the Ministry of Justice website at www.justice.gov.uk.". That website has a PDF of "Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct" which I would suggest should be what you need. --Phil Holmes (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Place in Lincolnshire, name of Tid

Resolved

 – by Nanonic

The Dictionary of National Biography entry for Gerard de Camville has him "measuring the marsh between Spalding and Tid in Lincolnshire". Is there any evidence of such a place as Tid, or has someone simply misread the word tide (however it was spelt at the time). Jan1naD ^{(talk • contrib)} 17:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You might want to expand your search into alternate spellings, for instance - Tydd railway station used to serve many villages called Tydd- in Lincolnshire. Nanonic (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You've been very helpful - that makes perfect sense. Thank you. Jan1naD ^{(talk • contrib)} 17:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget that a very large number of rural communities in England simply disappeared following the arrival of the Black Death. Alansplodge (talk) 09:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hitler

Someone in my class claimed that Hitler was a Socialist, and that therefore all Democrats are neo-Nazis. Ignoring the glaring logical errors, I have one question: Was Hitler a Socialist? ----J4\/4 <talk> 17:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Nazi comes from National Socialist German Workers' Party, so basically yes. (One could argue over whether Hitler was actually socialist, especially towards the end, but that was his party association.) Dragons flight (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That's highly misleading. The "national socialist" in the Nazi Party's name comes from the right-wing nationalist ideology of Austrian National Socialism, although the use of this name was initially opposed by Hitler. While there were a few points in the party's first programme, copied from the Austrian group, which have origins in socialism, these were de-emphasised, and they are far outnumbered by nationalism and conservatism. To give an example of the Nazi's attitude to socialism, both communists and social democrats were imprisoned in concentration camps. It's not for nothing that socialism is placed on the left of the political spectrum and fascism on the far right. Warofdreams talk 17:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The early history of the Volkswagen is sometimes mentioned in this context. It was to be a nice affordable, government sponsored car that almost any German worker could afford. That's a pretty socialist thing to do. Of course, they never really delivered any of those cars (except a few photo-ops) before they switched the factory over to making tanks. I don't know if historians interpret this as an honest socialist effort that was ruined by the war, or as a Trojan horse from the very beginning. 72.10.110.109 (talk) 17:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The largest communist nation on earth is the People's Republic of China. George W. Bush is a member of the Republican Party. Therefore, George W. Bush is a communist. See how that works? The use of a word in one's name means nothing. The German Democratic Republic was an oppresive dictatorship under the control of Erich Honecker for 18 years, and wasn't really democratic nation under any reasonable definition of the term. Forget the names of things, and what groups call themselves, instead focus on their actions. Your friend is an idiot on two counts. 1) The Democratic Party is a liberal/leftist party on the U.S. political scale, but they are FAR from what anyone would define as socialist. On most worldwide political scales, the Democratic Party would be considered a centrist, or even center-right party. See also Blue Dog Democrat. 2) Even so, the Nazis were not "socialists" in any reasonable definition of the term; the Nazi's were primarily an authoritarian nationalist party; the socialist part of their name has little to do with following any branch of political or economic socialism. --Jayron32 18:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Then there's North Korea, or, by it's official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. They must have defined "democracy" as meaning you have the choice of voting for the person you are told to vote for, or being killed. It's good to have a choice, isn't it ? StuRat (talk) 03:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hitler was fervent anti communist, however he was socialist. I think that in USA it's somewhat harder for people to make the distinction between socialism, which not forbid private property, and communism which is a totaly different creature. For example, the EU countries are pretty much socialistic (espcially the Scandinavian ones)--Gilisa (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Hitler was a fervent anti socialist. The movement you mention in Europe is social democracy, sometimes described as a branch of socialism - our article is quite good on how it arose and how social democracy relates to socialism. Again, Hitler fervently opposed social democracy. Communism is also a branch of socialism; it should be distinguished from social democracy, but not from socialism.

You totaly missed my point. In the first section of my post here I wrote that Hitler was socialist. You don't have to be democart to be socialist and addressing me to the article on social democracy was realy unnecessary. In the second section I just tried to shortly make the difference between socialism, communism and capitalism. I wrote that the EU countries are socialist to make it clear that they are not following the American capitalistic model, and that countries can be socialistic without being communistic-a fact that is not well known to all. So Hitler wasn't a communist, nor a capitalist, he promoted the idea of nationalistic socialism. BTW, there are studies that show tight connection between nationalism and socialism: the more one population is culturaly and racially homogeneous the more taxes people are willing to pay on the behalf of socialitic state system.--Gilisa (talk) 21:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you have missed my point. I was stressing that your assumption that social democracy was a form of socialism was not straightforward - while it is sometimes called socialism, and there is certainly a relationship, it is not as simple as saying that it is socialism. Your contrast between communism and socialism is also incorrect (unless you are using communism in the Marx's strict sense of the ultimate state towards which socialism tends); communists also describe themselves as socialists, and Marxism is widely recognised as an influential variety of socialism - it is covered, as expected, in our article on socialism. Hitler did not promote "nationalistic socialism"; he promoted national socialism - a specific ideology which is not socialism any more than the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" is democratic. The negative correlation you mention between nationalism and socialism is interesting - I wouldn't have thought it would make any difference, but I suppose that if people feel that nationalism is less of an issue (e.g. in Scandinavia), they may be more likely to accept socialism. Warofdreams talk 21:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I will start from the last to the first. Fisrt, who told you that in Scandinavia nationality is less of an issue?I have a Sweedish friend and she once told me that many people in Scandinavia even have derogatory names for Swedish people of German origin (when I can't see any great differences between the two nations) and certainly for people of other, non European, races. Many right wing parties whose political platform focus is to stop immegration of non Europeans (and eastern Europeans) to their countries are pretty much bolssom -even in the Netherlands which is considered by many to be maybe the most friendly for foreigners among European countries. In scandinavia, the biggest party of Sweeden is the Swedish Social Democratic Party, which strictly fight for stiffing the laws of immegration. It's not that they necessarily adopted nationalistic agenda, but it's just that there is deep, unsolveable contradiction between the cultures of some immigrants societies and that their way of life is treatend. Second, Hitler didn't promote social rules for Jewish people and not even for Polish ones-that's tell nothing about his vision for the Aryan nations, which was at least at the declarative level -socialistic. I know that the Nazis, for instance, grant maternity benefits. Communism is a radical for of socialism, even I feel pretty much uncomfortable to imply that communism can be a form of socialism. While in socialistic society priavte property is allowed and the focus is on equal opportunities, communism focus on equal outcomes. What more that socialism have its roots already in the bible and it's not restricted to one form (but you told it already). Social democracy is much more a form of socailism than communism is, and as I see it, it's the best and most successful form of socailism (and state economical system at all). Are you familiar with the social rights of women after birth in Finland for instance? With the rights of single-parents in Scandinavia (even if here you can find an instance of a case where too much social rights can cause problems in society)? About the protected tenancy in Germany? It's all very socialistic, I can find no other term for it. If Wikipedia article imply that social democracy is not a form of socialism, then it don't worth much.--Gilisa (talk) 07:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Some of the things Hitler did were socialist, even if the predominating mantra of the party was not. Lots of the posters for the 1931/2 election campaigns show the Nazis as a party for every sort of problem (this one springs to mind). Clearly that has a lot to do with popular appeal, but it does demonstrate the rule that not every policy of a party need match the underlying ideologies. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 20:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

What things that Hitler did were socialist? By that, I don't mean populist, and I certainly don't include state control of much of industry - there's nothing inevitably socialist about that. Warofdreams talk 20:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd go with "Most socialists share the view that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through exploitation, creates an unequal society, does not provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximise their potentialitie and does not utilise technology and resources to their maximum potential nor in the interests of the public" as a general idea. Taking this, one can see parallels with the position of Jews in society (perceived or real) as believed by Nazis, and through a few other smaller things, including natural opposition to other forms of government. Shakey, perhaps, but it's enough to say there are a few small aspects of the Nazi ideology (particularly during elections) that were socialist. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 21:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a useful question to answer is: why does anyone (and it's not many people) think that Nazism is related to socialism? Leaving aside crude propaganda, usually, it's one of two reasons: the use of the term "national socialism" in the party's name, or the state control of sections of the economy. As Jayron discusses, the name of a political entity isn't a good guide as to its actual position. The idea that state control of sections of the economy is sufficient to make something socialist appears to originate with the Austrian school of economics. It's not a definition which many socialists would agree with (for them, the question is in whose interest is the state acting, or at least claiming to act?), and it's not a definition with which fascists would tend to agree - they tend to either see their ideology as stridently right-wing, or as outside left-right politics. It seems to me that, therefore, this is not a useful definition of socialism. Warofdreams talk 21:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Hitler promised to take many socialistic moves: he promised a private car for every laborer (however, his industry was more busy with war and war preparations to do that), he promised to make socialistic reformes but escaped these promises as well to avoid confrontation with his sponsors and etc. However, he did rehabilitated German economy, create an atmosphere of uniformity and as socialism ask, gave everyone (very roughly) the same oppurtinity to success (which is a great moral and economical principle that capitalism ignore) -as long as they were Aryans(...). However, Nazis didn't invent Socialism and didn't realy apply it.--Gilisa (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's first just say, "socialism" means a lot of things. It is not incompatible with capitalism. It is not restricted to Communism. It is not restricted to Nazism. It generally refers to government ownership of and administration of resources. In the United States, "socialism" is used as a bogeyman, something to attack as being similar to the USSR or Nazism. In reality, many sectors of the US are or have been in the past run in "socialist" ways—public power production, Medicare, the public mail service, Social Security, etc. You can have socialism without having horrible 1984-like situations, and you can have hybrid public-private systems that try to utilize the best of both worlds (the private system is very good at certain types of public systems, but less good at others, and prioritizes profit higher than other goals, which depending on the system in question may not produce the greater good for the greater number).

Once we've gotten that out of the way—and the implication that if the USSR or Nazi Germany or whomever is "socialist" then it makes people who believe in, say, increased regulation of economic transactions or government-run health insurance Nazis or Soviets—I think we're ready to have a real historical conversation.

Hitler did believe in a centralization of the state, and definitely was of the mind that the resources of the centralized state should be used to enact certain economic outcomes. It was not the same economic approach as, say, the USSR, where the state actually planned out the economy every five years. But it was still pretty centralized and was not unfettered capitalism in the least.

Hitler did this, though, not because he believed he would reallocate resources, or that the state was a better organ for doing these tasks than the private market. He did these because he wanted power and because he could not tolerate dissent whatsoever. He centralized the medical profession not because he believed it worked better that way, but because he could then use it as an organ of political power and ideological justification. He centralized the scientists not because he believed it would make for better science, but because he wanted to enforce loyalty among the intellectual elite and complicity among the wary. All of his "socialist" activities were clearly and explicitly done in the name of political power. (The same cannot be as easily said for the policies of Stalin, which were often for political power but cloaked under layers of Marxist justifications, e.g. collectivization, which was about breaking the kulaks as much as it was about trying to turn agriculture into a proletarian economy).

So was Hitler a socialist? It depends whether you are defining socialism as the ends or the means, and how broad a brush you are painting any government intervention into the economy as "socialist". Personally (as a Democrat, I would say, and one who, I am sure it comes across above, believes that some government economic intervention is necessary and appropriate), I think the answer is probably, "yes", but a very qualified "yes", and one that recognizes fully that Hitler was vehemently anti-Communist (both in terms of consolidating his power, but also in terms of denying the core of their ideology, that class was the central unit of political power and change) and espoused a variety of "socialism" that is very different than even the left-wing socialism of his day, much less what passes for "socialism" these days. Hitler's ideas about socialism are a bit like Hitler's ideas about hygiene—yes, they bear a family resemblance to certain concepts in modern politics, but the motivations and the means are fundamentally different.

But opinions on this question are a dime a dozen, and even professional historians slog this particular battle out, so I do not encourage you to take me (or the other answerers) as being the final word on this. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Refusing to testify in death penalty cases

If I witnessed someone commit a capital offense, would it be legal for me to refuse to testify due to the fact that I oppose the death penalty? If not, and I were fined or imprisoned for contempt of court, and I still refused to testify, and my testimony were vital to the prosecution's case, could the person still be convicted on the grounds that I wouldn't refuse to testify if the suspect weren't guilty? (Note: This question is purely hypothetical.)

Also, is contempt of court/obstruction of justice a felony or misdemeanor? ----J4\/4 <talk> 17:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Refusal to testify could be deemed obstruction of justice, and you might find yourself on trial. Googlemeister (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

But if my testimony were vital to the prosecution and I still refused to testify, could the suspect be convicted anyway on the basis that I wouldn't have refused to testify if the suspect were innocent? ----J4\/4 <talk> 18:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

isn't that circumstantial evidence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.224.205.178 (talk) 18:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and it doesn't indicate the value of the testimony at all (your testimony could be full of holes, or just plain wrong, and the only way to know would be to actually have it open for cross-examination). I do not think any judge (or lawyer) worth their salt would let your refusal to testify officially be part of the judgment of the jury. (How that would actually play out with a real jury is, of course, different, but I am certain that a judge would direct them not to take it into account.) --Mr.98 (talk) 22:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

This question, or one similar to it based on the Fifth Amendment, was asked within the last couple of months. In the United States, no, it would not be legal for you to refuse to testify on those grounds. You would be cited for contempt of court and jailed until you agreed to testify or until the judge got tired of thinking about you sitting there in prison. The law says you have to give the evidence that's demanded in court. In every state. On your last question, the jury would not have heard your evidence, so, no, they can't pretend that the evidence was presented anyway and convict on the grounds of the pretend evidence. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the prosecution could direct the jury to take your refusal to testify into account, though (which it couldn't if you were the defendant). I would be circumstantial, but that doesn't make it inadmissible, just not particularly convincing on its own. Having somebody else testify that you told them you saw XYZ would be hearsay, so would be inadmissible. --Tango (talk) 18:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

PS: In cases like this, I believe it's common for the judge to call a recess until the witness agrees to testify, so the trial is simply put on hold, if the judge feels this is what's required for the administration of justice. He doesn't have to march through the rest of the trial ending up in an acquittal due to lack of evidence. But this is my vague belief and I'm unsure how common this type of recess is. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You can't be forced to testify, though, and no judge would recess the trial indefinitely. Eventually they'll have to give up on you, charge you with contempt (as opposed to just detaining your for it on their own authority), and get on with the trial. --Tango (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe. You're speculating when you say "no judge" would recess indefinitely. Judith Miller was in jail for 3 months for refusing to testify to a grand jury. I don't know what the longest recess for this purpose has been; it'd be interesting to know. Branzburg v. Hayes, a 5-4 decision, has been the only reporter's privilege case decided by the SCOTUS to date, apparently. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and for your felony vs. misdemeanor question, see Contempt of court in the United States section (assuming that's the location you are asking about). Normally it is actually neither; the judge just throws you in jail, and since "you hold the keys to your own release" by simply agreeing to testify, due process is not required under the law. You can later be charged with criminal contempt of court, which is a more lengthy and complicated and unusual process. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Josh Wolf served a record 226 days, surpassing Vanessa Leggett's 168 (in a murder case), see the Wolf article and Murder of Doris Angleton.John Z (talk) 04:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The separation of church and state

What are the laws pertaining to the separation of church and state; or more specifically; what are the right of a religious orginization to lobby, petition, or otherwise try to influence state or federal lawmakers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danpoehls (talk • contribs) 17:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

In Iran, there is no effective separation of church and state. In the UK, there is an official state church, but (nowadays) people are free to ignore it. In Germany, there is a stronger version of separation - no state church, but some large churches have special status and receive special taxes. People again are free to follow any religion (or none), and their religion does not limit rights or access to offices. In the US, the guiding principle is the First Amendment to the constitution, interpreted by the US Supreme Court over time in light of Jefferson's famous letter to the Danbury Baptists (the "Wall of separation" phrase). In short, it limits what the US government can do, and by application of the Fourteenth Amendment, what the states and local government can do, but not what religious bodies can do. The Southern Baptist have the same right to buy a congressperson as Exxon Mobile, Boeing, and Kenneth Lay. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I assume you are talking about the US. In which case, the relevant law is the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. I don't think it makes any restrictions on religious organisations. The constitution is designed to restrict the powers of the federal government. There may be some restrictions on what an organisation can do if it wants to get the tax and other benefits, but they aren't part of the separation of church and state. --Tango (talk) 18:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Your latter statement isn't really true. The IRS has been pursuing a policy, which I think the OP is alluding to, where if a church advocates one political candidate over another, it is in danger of losing its tax-exempt status, which I'd argue is definitely related to the separation of church and state. Oh, Separation of church and state in the United States ought to be related to the OP's question, though the article is mostly about the history and is pretty sprawling and has an OR tag or two. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Since the Supreme Court hasn't stopped the IRS from doing that, I guess it isn't in violation of the prohibition against the state getting involved in religion. It could be considered as being related to it, I suppose. --Tango (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I would expect that endorsement of a political candidate is not about separation of church and state, but would be considered evidence that the organisation is not a religious one but is a political one. In the US the line can be pretty fine at the best of times. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I think the OP is making a somewhat subtle distinction, asking about the laws about political contributions. These are largely statutory creations. In fact, religious organizations have as many if not more free association and political contribution rights as other groups (commercial ones, for instance). However practically speaking, IRC 501(c)(3) (tax exempt) status for religious organizations is premised on their non participation in certain kinds of politics. I haven't researched it in depth, but I see no reason why congress couldn't tax churches if it was inclined to do so. 501(c)(3) is an exception, but because it is the IRS can set some terms on that. The full story is more complicated partially because putting strings on legal privileges premised on constitutional rights is often a problem for other reasons. Shadowjams (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Found it, or good enough; here is an IRS fact sheet that goes into great detail. "Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office." Violation can result in the removal of tax-exempt status. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Those organizations may still have rights to participate in elections, albeit without tax exempt status. Shadowjams (talk) 06:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure; and looping back to the OP's question, a church could "intervene in elections" all it wanted as long as it was OK with being taxed. I'd be interested in knowing whether there are any such churches, and very interested in whether this IRS rule has been tested in court. As for the other questions from the OP, about churches petitioning and influencing US lawmakers: this happens all the time, and there aren't any restrictions. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Gelatin, whey, and lard vs. Islam

Why Islam forbid Muslims to eat gelatin, whey and lard? do they associate with pig?

Animal products have to be killed in a certain way to be halal. If the animal wasn't haraam and had been killed in the proper way to obtain these products, I would imagine Muslims would eat them - but I'm no expert. I don't know about whey. Vimescarrot (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

This piece may shed some light on the issue of whey. Pallida  Mors 19:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Lard is a pig product, so is right out. Gelatin is boiled out of bones, and would seem to be OK only if the bones were of halal animals. PhGustaf (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There was once problem with giving immunizations to the Muslim population in few places after it became clear that many vaccinations have gelatin as one ingredient. The problem with gelatin is that it actually made of haraam animals bones or from animals that was not slaughtered according to the Islam. I don't knopw how it was solved, in Judaism most rabbinical ordinates viod any problems with gelatin as it's considered as new raw material that during its long manufacturing process lost any connection to its original animal source. As for whey, it's a basic by product of cheese manufacturing. Some cheese generes use rennet enzyme to cause the coagulation of the acidified milk from which the cheese is made. The rennet is obtained from animals stomach, having the same problems Vimescarrot described. As for lard, eating pork is haraam and forbidden for Muslims. There are also animals which are not haraam but are makrur -meaning that eating them is not forbiddened nor allowed. Generally, they are treatend as haraam.--Gilisa (talk) 20:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Most rabbinical ordinates would not void gelatin because the rules of nullification have a few exceptions, and davar hama'amid is one of them. Kosher gelatin could come from properly slaughtered kosher cows, but in practice, is derived primarily from fish (info is included in previous link). DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, in Israel many products have the label "Kosher for gelatin eaters" and generally, most orthodox people in Israel do consume it (I don't know about the ultra orthodox) -but I don't know what animal the bones were taken from to make this kosher gelatin.--Gilisa (talk) 07:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Anything is 'permitted' for those who 'permit.' It's often suggested that it is 'permitted' to drive on Shabbat for 'those Jews who drive on Shabbat.' DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

In Malaysia, halal gelatine is commonly made from beef/bovine/cow bones/skin/etc I believe [2] [3] (Indonesia not Malaysia). I presume this is the same for most Kosher gelatine [4]. As for the method of slaughter some say it matter (the Indonesia link), [5] [6] [7] [8]. However the use of gelatine from beef/bovine/cow sources obviously creates issues for Hindu consumers. For this reason gelatine is often avoided entirely (if they uses non animal alternatives they can cater to vegetarians as well). Gelatinious jellies are rather uncommon in Malaysia for example, instead you're likely to encounter agar-agar jellies (which are just called agar-agar) although which I presume is a historic thing given the origin of the name. Agar-agar jellies and powder are also used in other deserts. On a similar note, while this is somewhat of a problem in Malaysia, it's likely to be even more of a problem in India so I presume studying the situation there would be enlightening.

As mentioned by DRosenbach fish bones/etc may also be used but I believe they're less common (and probably more expensive) and thought this is a fairly recent thing but it obviously has the potential to get around the Hindu/Muslim/Jewish animal choice issues (but not vegetarian ones). At least in Malaysia I'm pretty sure it's the case historically. The link provided by DRosenbach does appear to suggest most Kosher gelatine is form fish sources. However the link I provided to the same site (i.e. [9]) seems to suggests to me that beef/bovine/cow gelatine was the more common source for Kosher gelatine at least historically. The fact that such a large proportion of gelatine comes from cow skins also makes me suspect this is partially for religious reasons since several references say pig skins is often a cheaper source so it seems likely the primary reason you would use cow skins is for halal and kosher purposes (although obviously it depends on quantities since they're all waste products). One of the obvious issues is that there's likely to be a significantly large source of halal animal skins/bones then the is kosher whereas if I understand it correctly many fish are kosher and the method of slaughter doesn't matter so there's quite a large source there (also for halal but that has both) so that may be the reason for the difference, if these is a difference. Our article on gelatine also mentions that the use of fish byproducts is recent although the ref isn't great and in the pie chart comparing sources it doesn't distinguish bone types. I've read before the use of fish byproducts is an active area of research (at least in Thailand) e.g. [10]

Nil Einne (talk) 03:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Forgot to mention in response to the original question, one of the obvious issues is that outside of countries with a large Muslim population it's unlikely most foods including those containing gelatine would specify whether it's halal. Most probably won't even specify the source so even if they don't care about the method of slaughter they still don't know if it is, and there's a good change it won't be. With the increasing Muslim population this is obviously changing [11] Nil Einne (talk) 05:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way vs stands for versus. Perhaps vis a vis is what was meant. Dmcq (talk) 12:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Black immigrants in the USA

Where is black people or African Americans usually immigrant from. Since black people not neccessairly come from Africa then from what country could they most possibly immigramnt from Is Central America or Australia most likely, our they can be just born and raise in the south of USA? not too many blacks come from Africa-from my know of I don't think any black people I see comes from Africa.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 21:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think they don't come from Africa? If they (or their ancestors) don't come from Africa then they aren't really African american, the article goes into some detail about history and demographics. We also have an article on Black people. I didn't think the Americas had native black people, i could be wrong, but I thought all the black people the Americas, including central and south were African descent also. I think it's a pretty safe bet that there would be very very few Australian aborigines immigrating to the States. Vespine (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That's because they have never been to Africa.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Australian immigrants, even Aboriginal ones would not be considered African Americans or even, by most, black Americans. Of course, I don't think I have ever met an aborignial Australian American. Immigrants from the Caribbean and Africa still come to America but some will not identify themselves as "African American" which usually refers to the culture associated with the descendants of American slaves who make up the vast majority of black Americans. More than 1 million of the 1.4 million African immigrants in the U.S. come from sub-Saharan Africa and they make up only a couple percent of all U.S. immigrants.[12] See also African immigration to the United States 75.41.110.200 (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The vast majority of black people in the USA will have been born there. Most immigrants to the US these days are from Mexico and Asia, so they wouldn't generally be black. I can't find a break down of US immigrants by race and country of origin, but if we just go by country of origin for people getting permanent residency in 2006 there were about 1.3 million total, of which only about 120,000 were from Africa, who would probably have been mostly black. There were about 150,000 from the Caribbean, who were probably mostly black as well. Most of the rest were Asia (440,000) and Mexico (170,000), who wouldn't generally have been black. Country of origin isn't a perfect way to tell race, but it's the best I can do. --Tango (talk) 21:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

hold on when Tango said black in the USA will have been born there he means where?--209.129.85.4 (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

He meant: Most black people in the USA were born in the USA. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. --Tango (talk) 02:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This is what you want, at least a good starting point. It has breakdowns by country of origin, so you could assume that African immigrants were largely black, and it might also have breakdowns by race (I don't know if it has breakdowns by race and country). Shadowjams (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I think the OP is confused about the term "African American". (See that article for details.) This is not surprising, because the term is easily misapplied. In most of the USA, the term is a euphemism for "black". It doesn't mean that the person came from Africa, or that their parents did; it is supposed to indicate they have some ancestor who came from Africa. (Presumably in the last few hundred years, or else all Americans would be called "African Americans".) Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

In the Boston area, there are large numbers of immigrants from Haiti, for example. They are definitely "Black" but they are not part of "African American" culture. (Their children probably will be, though.) They look quite different (much darker), they speak a different language (Haitian French), go to different Churches, wear different clothes, etc. There are also a non-insubstantial number of immigrants from Nigeria, who similarly stand out for the first generation (but subsequent generations do not, in my experience). --Mr.98 (talk) 22:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Getting back to the original post... There are American citizens who were born in Africa. I know at least two that I work with. The first was born in Kenya and the second in Ghana. Also, I work with another black guy who was born in Canada and has American citizenship. And finally, not all blacks who are born in the US are born in the South. They're free to travel anywhere and give birth to black children anywhere in the country. I'm not quite sure what you seem to think of the US due to your comments and questions... Dismas|^(talk) 23:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If the questioner is asking, "From what countries do black immigrants to the U.S. come from?" I'd bet the U.S. Census Bureau could produce a table for him, although I can't find such a table in a cursory check of their website. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

A link with that information was already provided above: African Immigrants in the United States. Tops are Nigeria, Ethiopia, Ghana and Kenya. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 02:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, but my guess is more "black" immigrants come from the West Indies. And not all immigrants from Africa are black. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Much to my surprise (knowing several African immigrants but no Caribbeans ones, myself) - "In 2005, two-thirds of the 2.8 million foreign-born blacks were born in the Caribbean or another Latin America country and nearly one-third were born in Africa. Another 4 percent (about 113,000) were born in Europe, Canada, or elsewhere."[13] Now I am still not sure how many Afro-Hispanics (?) there are versus Afro-Caribbeans. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 15:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You should probably read African American culture if you want some perspective on the cultural difference between recent African immigrants in the US and the so called African American community. Most African Americans are descendants of slaves brought to America by force hundreds of years ago. To find the countries or regions that these slaves tended to come from see Atlantic slave trade, however due to this history of slavery, most African Americans today simply identify as African American (or black or whatever other term) rather than by ties to specific countries or regions their ancestors were from. A lot of those specific ties were destroyed, although many slaves did try their best hold on to pieces of their shared cultural roots, which still heavily influence black culture today.

It's true that a slight majority of blacks still live in the South (see African American#Demographics). Many also live in big cities like Chicago and New York (see Great Migration (African American)), but there are African Americans dispersed throughout most areas of the US and have been for many generations. Rckrone (talk) 04:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Communism

In Letter 40: Choosing a College in Chapter 40: It's Over in the book Lord Foulgrin's Letters by Randy Alcorn, Lord Foulgrin says:

While our experiments in communism with their legacy of mass destruction have disappeared nearly everywhere in the world except China, I'm proud to say that communism is alive and well among many American college professors.

I don't understand. What does he mean by that? What does he mean? What is he talking about? What American college professors? Like whom? Where? In what universities or colleges? Can you please explain?

Bowei Huang (talk) 23:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The book is fiction, not real. If that bit has a meaning, read on and the book will tell you. However, don't expect to find a real-world match. Bielle (talk) 23:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read the book, which appears to be a work of evangelical fiction. Assuming that the author means the statement to be taken seriously, I would guess that it is hyperbole, referring to the reputation of college professors to be more liberal than society as a whole. But they could be talking about the continuing influence of Marxist thought in many fields of study. I'm no expert on American academic Marxism, but Michael Hardt is one name which springs to mind. Warofdreams talk 00:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Bowei Huang asked what it means, so let's try to answer him. I have not read this book, but I am going to try. "We, the devils of Hell, have experimented with installing the evil plot of Communism in several places on earth. Communism has disappeared nearly everywhere except for China. However, fortunately, there are many college professors in the United States who remain Communist!" There is an old conservative complaint that there are "too many" leftist professors in US universities, and the youth of America is at great, continual risk because the leftist professors are inculcating the youth with their leftist values. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The book sounds just like the premises of C. S. Lewis's The Screwtape Letters. It certainly has copied the format and the characters. I suspect the style may be where the two books part company. Bielle (talk) 00:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that this was asked in good faith. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't. The OP probably knew it was fiction, but didn't know how much truth was in that particular clause. —Akrabbim^talk 03:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The OP has asked questions in this fashion for a lonnngg time now, always along the same lines, never with any particular interest in learning anything, never with any apparent regard to the answers given, without any attempt to actually understand the issues at hand. He has been warned about this for literally months. Always the same "left-behind" literature, always questions that are the political (anti-leftist) equivalent of "when did you stop beating your wife?" Check the edit history, check the comments he has removed from his talk page warning him about such things. Don't take my word for it. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

But (s)he doesn't incessantly disagree with the given responses like most other bad-faith posters. We shouldn't discriminate against loaded anti-leftist questions if they are factual. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

There probably are a lot of "communist" professors in the United States, by some warped definition of communist. But it's all in the definition. They are definitely leftist/socialist ones - but socialism and communism are not the same thing, any more than conservatism and fascism are. They are leftist, that is, in relation to general US political standards, but those standards are so far to the right by most western world standards that any straightforward comparison is meaningless. Given that the basic tenets of socialist government are government of the people, for the people, and by the people, it's surprising there aren't more of them; it's a shame that the US for the most part has abandoned such principles. Grutness...wha? 00:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I know that Lord Foulgrin's Letters is fiction. I know that. When I asked what did Lord Foulgrin mean by that statement, I actually meant what did the book's author, Randy Alcorn, mean by that statement. I meant what did Randy Alcorn mean by what he wrote there in the book. What did Randy Alcorn mean? What did he mean by that statement? What did he mean by what he wrote there in the book? What was he actually talking about?

It was the only one place in the letter, the chapter, and the book where it mentioned communism. I've read on in the letter, the chapter, and the book but the book didn't tell me.

Bowei Huang (talk) 01:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

As (I am sure) none of us can read minds, the only way to find out is to write to the author and ask him. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

November 12

The Difference Between Sunni and Shia Islam

What are the fundamental differences between Sunni and Shia Islam? I worry that without understanding this, I wont be able to truly understand Mid-East issues.

Expect a reply soon! 98.211.246.70 (talk) 00:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be great if we had an article on this? Don't forget to search before asking your question - you're likely to get your information all the sooner that way. Warofdreams talk 00:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't expect a thank-you soon!--Wetman (talk) 04:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a great question, that have more than one answer of course. First, Shia muslims believe that Ali is the only successor of Muhammad and do not acknowledge the three khalifs. The founder of Shia, Husien, was killed by Sunni muslims in Karbala and they mark his day of death at the Day of Ashura. While Sunni Islam has 5 pillars of believe, the Shia muslims have sixth. Besides Mecca Shities have two other holly cities: Karbala and Najaf and Shiite ordinates are disputes about the sacredness of El Medina. They believe that out of 12 Shiite imams that lived at the 9CE, only one survived and the rest were killed by the Sunnites. Only one survived -the Mahdi, or as dubbed frequently by Shiites "The lord of the time" or the "disappearing imam". They belive that he is still alive, and that through the centuries have passed he remained undercover but will revel himself at the end of the days. The Iranian president Ahmadinejad oftenly refer to him during his public arrivals, and also claimed once that the 12 imam have shown himself to him. The history of Shia and Sunni muslims with each other is blooded (as in Iraq today). As Shiites Muslims mostly lived as a persecuted minority among Sunni muslims along the history, their Fiqh scholars designed 4 rules of thumb as main survival tactics, that according to many orientalists were used extensively by the Iranian regime (Iran is the biggest and most influential Shite, or even Muslim, country):

1. Choda: Make your enemy judge his situation unrealistically-claim he is losing while you are win even when reality is otherwise.

2. Tanaphia: Use the enemy's shortcomings to make benefits-for instance, when fighting democratic societies claim that the enemy slaughter childrens when you know such claim will shock its people and turn them against it.

3. Takiya: pretend that you agree with your enemy and wait for the opportune moment. For instance-when living among hostile Sunni majority.

4. Kataman: deny your actions, intents and even opinnions while you keep striving to achieve them. For instance-the Iranian nuclear project.--Gilisa (talk) 12:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend reading our articles Sunni Islam and Shia Islam. As Gilisa says, the key difference is the difference in belief about who was the rightful successor of Muhammad, his son-in-law Ali and his descendants (hereditary leadership), or the caliphs elected by community leaders (semi-elective leadership based on merit). The split between the two groups led to other differences over the interpretation of the Quran and Islamic law. Marco polo (talk) 16:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

To the OP, if you truely want to understand whats driving the Middle East, or to be more specific, what are the roots to the bloody conflicts between Sunnic and Shiiets Muslims in Iraq, then the questions you should ask are less concern with religious differences (even they do play part) and more to the different ambitions thet the different regional regims have, as well as to their stand in the region and internal political and economical status. There is much order and sense behind this chaos, even if insanity is certainly important factor as well.--Gilisa (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Gilisa is right. Though an understanding of the difference between the two is important in understanding the politics of the Middle East it is far from the whole story; it's equivalent to expecting that knowing the difference between catholic and protestant would enable you to understand the politics of Northern Ireland. Grutness...wha? 23:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It's an interesting difference between Christianity and Islam that most Christian schisms have been over relatively esoteric doctrinal-theological issues, while most Muslim schisms were originally about political-legal disputes (i.e. who had the right to lead the overall Muslim community and why). If you want a rough-and-ready guide to understanding the current importance of Shi`ism, then reading up on Ali ibn Talib probably won't help you as much as knowing the following: 1) During the early Arab caliphate period (7th century to 10th century), Shi`ism was a kind of dissident movement or focus of political opposition to the Caliphal Sunni government -- so while today Sunnis tend to look back on the Abbasid period as Islam's golden age, Shi`is consider the Abbasid dynasty to have been illegitimate usurpers. 2) Ever since the rise of the Safavid dynasty in the 16th century, the predominant form of Shi`ism has been the so-called "Twelver" version, and Twelver Shi`ism has become identified with Persian cultural influence and/or Iranian nationalism. 3) A basic building block of Wahhabism (the form of Islam oficially promulgated by the government of Saudi Arabia) is hatred and contempt of Shi`ism, and in the 19th-century, an essential part of the early Wahhabite program was the attempted destruction of all Shi`ite shrine cities or holy places in southern and central Iraq. AnonMoos (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Another challenging geography question

I am looking for

1. City on the western edge(border of a familiar country) 2. It is also close to the border of another country 3. The city was ruled by both the countries (back and forth) several times 4. Massive construction project completed in mid 19th century gave the local and regional economies a boost

Would appreciate any help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.38.92 (talk) 05:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I want to say Strasbourg, which was ruled alternately by France and Germany over time as part of Alsace, but I'm not sure if that fits all of the conditions.--Danaman5 (talk) 05:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It was destroyed and rebuilt after the Franco-Prussian War, so maybe that counts. It's on the eastern edge of France though, not the west, unless that means the western edge of Germany. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

In Europe, I can think of three cities that might meet these criteria: Aachen, Gdańsk and Vyborg. Astronaut (talk) 14:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Two other possibilities are Szczecin and Rijeka. Marco polo (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Trieste is another. Grutness...wha? 23:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Gdansk seems the most likely of the ones that have been suggested so far. Steewi (talk) 06:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Could also perhaps be East Jerusalem, Edirne, Yerevan, Lagos, or Geneva. --M@rēino 20:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• I suspect that point 4 in the OP's comments was a clue. Some big construction project finished in the mid-19th century near this place. (A shame that Port Said isn't at the western edge of a country...). If we can work out what this massive construction project was, we'll know the city. Grutness...wha? 00:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

symbol

I have seen a symbol on cars several times here in Central Orange County California and I have searched online and asked people and cannot find an answer to what it is. I have seen it on several occasions. It appears to me to be an "n", followed by a Christian cross, followed by a "w". I believe the "n" and cross may have a circle linking the two. I don't know if it's from an organization or group or what. Any answers would be appreciated.

Jon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.215.124 (talk) 05:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Could there be a reference to North West? —— Shakescene (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Not Of This World clothing [14] Livewireo (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Show trials

How is it possible that all accused political prisoners in Soviet show trials admitted their "guilt"? I mean, Nazis also held similar trials, but not all of the victims admitted, also in recent times Saddam Hussein was tried but he never admitted and it could be argued that ICTY trials are, in most cases, little more then "show trials". I can understand why people would admit to save their lives, but in Soviet show trials they knew that the death penalty is the only possible outcome, so why would they admit? Surely people like Bukharin had a reputation to worry about (being famous worldwide) and they pretty much knew that they will die no matter what, so what made them admit? It couldnt be just the torture and pain, cause at least some of them would have resisted or admitted to the investigators, but told the truth in front of the media in court. Is there any explanation for this, I couldnt find it anywhere on the internet. I red a book on this issue recently, but its explanation that they felt "its one last sacrifice for their communist ideal" isnt valid in all cases, it does not explain why there were not exemptions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.2.173.156 (talk) 06:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

A threat against the family of the accused? Confess or we will torture them all? Maybe they were killed in prison and the "confession" is fake? Just speculation, I have no actual information. Comet Tuttle (talk) 07:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Surely some were killed in prison, but those who confessed during the public "show trials" did so in the presence of often even western jurnalists. I cant understand why would they admit it all in public, saying things like "I am a fascist" or "I had raped my childrend and conspired to kill Stalin". After all they were all well-known former leaders of USSR. Thats why I cant understand why would they admit to all of those accusations when they had a chance to at least die with the clear name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.2.173.156 (talk) 08:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Bukharin, as I recall (though I wasn't born then), was a rare example of a defendant who positively contested his case at trial and didn't confess or give in. But the question of what can induce these confessions and apparent changes of heart goes all the way back to Tudor treason trials and right up to the current show trials in Tehran. Although I haven't read it, I understand that it's the main theme of Arthur Koestler's book and play, Darkness at Noon. The ex-Communist Koestler, as a fellow anti-Stalinist veteran of the Spanish Civil War, was a close friend of George Orwell, who drew upon the Stalinist and Nazi show trials to draw the fictional picture of Winston Smith's conversion in Nineteen Eighty-Four. See also the discussion of similar topics in Alexander Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago. A combination of physical torture, disorientation, terrorization, playing upon guilt and political brainwashing seems to produce these effects, but the results (as in Tehran today) while very useful for convincing the already-committed and some naïve outside sympathizers, is often quite counter-productive to sceptics. I've read that the main reaction to seeing the defendants on Iranian TV has been not to what they say but to their stark physical appearance and demeanour after confinement. —— Shakescene (talk) 13:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Also note that many of the things they are accused of are actually true, in a way. Say the interview goes like this:

"Did you carry out the massacre of the village in question ?"

"Yes, under the direct orders of ..."

Then, in the televised version of the confession, they cut the answer off after the "Yes". StuRat (talk) 15:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You might be interested in reading the chapter on the Trial of the Twenty-One in Eastern Approaches by Fitzroy Maclean. He was then a junior diplomat, and sat in the courtroom day after day, discussing the trial each evening with other expats. I don't have the book with me, but in at least one case, the accused denied the charges and made a spirited defence for as long as the judge would allow, only to return the following morning a broken man, recanting the previous day's bravado in a robotic voice. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Bukharin admitted as well, according to Wikipedia article he finished his last plea with the words: "the monstrousness of my crime is immeasurable especially in the new stage of struggle of the U.S.S.R. May this trial be the last severe lesson, and may the great might of the U.S.S.R become clear to all".

I understand that physical torture, disorientation, terrorization combined with other methods would break most people, but Bukharin, Zinoviev, Kamenev, those were former top Soviet officials, why would they admit when they knew that they will die anyway?

For example, most Nazi at Nurnberg were guilty, but they still defended themselves. Most of the people accused by Stalin were innocent, but they accepted to accuse themselves in front of the whole world. Thanks for the books recommended, I will definitely read them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.2.173.156 (talk) 10:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Read this section: "At first, Zinoviev and Kamenev refused to confess, but after harsh interrogations and threats against their families, they agreed to confess on condition of a direct guarantee from the Politburo that their lives and those of their families and followers would be spared." Stalin seems to have recanted this promise later. The Nazis in the Nuremberg trail were not subject to torture nor threats against their families. Flamarande (talk) 15:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, that pretty much answers my question. I guess everyone would confess with his family on line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.2.173.156 (talk) 16:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I would, wouldn't you? Notice that they (Zinoviev, Kamenev, etc) probably knew that they would be executed despite the confession-agreement but perhaps hoped that (most of) their families would be spared. Flamarande (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Robert Conquest's The Great Terror: A Reassessment discusses this topic as well: tortures were often employed until an individual agreed to confess. If you know that you're going to die soon, and it's a question of confessing what you didn't do and being shot quickly or not confessing and dying of torture, you're likely to confess. Nyttend (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Sacha Distel

How many of his songs were featured in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid? Ericoides (talk) 10:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Only one, "Raindrops Keep Fallin' on My Head". However the version in the movie was recorded by B. J. Thomas. Sacha Distel covered it later, though his version became more popular in the UK. —Akrabbim^talk 12:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Ericoides (talk) 12:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

In the future, you may want to post music/movie relate questions on the entertainment desk...you may get and even faster response. cheers, 10draftsdeep (talk) 14:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for alerting me to its existence (although this was plenty fast enough ...) Ericoides (talk) 16:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Burt Bacharach and Hal David would say that none of Sacha Distel's songs were sung in "Butch ... Kid". They wrote the song, and presumably they still own the rights to it. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Victor Hugo's religion

The article says (in section 1. Life) that he was an atheist, but in another (4. Religious views) that he was always religious but just anti-Catholic and followed rationalist deism - So was he really an atheist as such for a certain period or not, and when? Thanks for help, --AlexSuricata (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The line about being an atheist is a bit confusing in its use of pronouns, but it is referring to Hugo's father (a huge believer in Napoleon). ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

How do you call something that you assume to be true, but it is not a dogma for you?

Like, if you see a guy beating a woman, he is the criminal. In a car accident, the car which crashed behind the other is at fault. A working hypothesis? Standard assumption?--Mr.K. (talk) 16:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It depends on context. Definition. Assumption. Hypothesis. Or "probably", "likely". Or. in my case, "oversimplified and not generally true" (but I'm a professional nit-picker). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

"Alleged?" "Standard assumption" and "working hypothesis" are good too. Bus stop (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

circumstantial evidence? heuristic? statistically significant correlation? --Gilisa (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

How about supposition? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

"Presumption" is the usual word in UK law; "rebuttable presumption" if it's possible for evidence to show that the fact presumed is false, "irrebuttable presumption" if it isn't. Tevildo (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I use the word "apparently", meaning it appears to be that way: "The driver apparently at fault was...". StuRat (talk) 12:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Who are the Elfs of Tolkien

I have read all of Tolkien's writinigs along time ago and yet I can't drew the conclusion whether they are Scandinavians or from the Netherlands-does anyone have a lead? And seriously, Tolkein implied at least once in the past that there is some connection between the different races he described in his books and races/nations in the real world. --Gilisa (talk) 18:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

There are some connections, for example the Rohan are based on the Celts, if memory serves. I don't think the elves are based on any real world culture, though. They are largely based on real world mythologies, including those from Scandinavia. Elf (Middle-earth) has information on this topic. --Tango (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The inhabitants of Rohan are actually based more on the ancient Anglo-Saxons -- their names and the words of their language as they appear in the Lord of the Rings (holbytlan etc.) are mostly pure Old English. See Section II ("on Translation") to Appendix F of The Return of the King etc... AnonMoos (talk) 21:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I know that kingdom of Rohan is a Celtic kingdom and that the Hobbits are somewhat English people (as Tolkien said himself). I know that Elfs were described already in ancient Scandinavian mythology -but I doubt that Tolkien didn't take the inspiration from real people when he gave the detailed description of their traits, look and etc. In one interview he had he pointed out a connection between few non human races in his book and real nations. So, just out of curiosity, who are the Elfs?--Gilisa (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

See Elf (Middle-earth), but Tolkien didn't literally write the elves as though they were some nation from historical Earth, and of course we know Tolkien cordially detested allegory in all its forms. He did love the Finnish language and the main Elvish language was strongly influenced by, or derived from, Finnish. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Comet Tuttle, In a letter he wrote in 1955 Tolkien spoke out on the dwarfs: " Like Jews they are at once native and aliens in their habitants...Speaking the languages of the country, but with an accent due to their own private tongue..They guard their language, Khuzdul, as a treasure of the past". He also made somewhat similar comparison between Hobbits and British people. So, I don't think he distest this kind of allgories-even if not explicitly admit them. So, you think that Elfs are of Uralic origin?--Gilisa (talk) 19:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The Elvish languages were inspired by Uralic languages, but I don't think the Elvish people were based on Uralic people. I've certainly seen no mention of that in any of Tolkien's writings (although I'm not as well read on the subject as I'd like to be). --Tango (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Only one Elvish language (Quenya) is based on a Uralic language (Finnish). Sindarin is based largely on Welsh. Algebraist 23:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Quenya is partially based on Finnish sound-structure (phonotactics) -- with the exclusion of umlaut (front rounded) vowels and the addition of certain influences from Latin as well -- but otherwise the resemblances in detail are apparently somewhat limited... AnonMoos (talk) 21:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Just because he didn't intend for any allegory doesn't mean he didn't incorporate real-world parallels into his characters. I think he once stated that the dwarves were based loosely on Jews, but I don't think elves fit into any parallel as strong as that. —Akrabbim^talk 19:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I am cringing as I read these claims. Tolkien was not writing the Dwarves to be the Jews of Middle-Earth just because he compared one aspect of dwarvish culture to one aspect of Jewish culture. Rohan was not a Middle-Earth version of the Celts. I remember the likening of the Shire to aspects of part of England ... but I'm really uncomfortable with these claims that ME's different races and nations have counterparts on Earth, and you're all going to have to cite better sources than that if you want to sustain your claims. Remember how he hated the claims about LOTR being an anti-Soviet-Union novel. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Tuttle, we are just saying that the Jews and Celts were just some inspirations for Tolkien's races/nations. He did not mean to represent the real-world entities in his stories. As for references, looks like this book is where the Dwarf-Jew claim is from. I don't know about the Rohan-Celt claim (the section at Rohan#Inspiration is mostly OR), but their language seems to be inspired by Old English languages (looks like that is learned from one of his appendices). —Akrabbim^talk 20:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Comet Tuttle, I'm not implying for a direct connection, and to be more specific, the associations Tolkien had are what I'm after. Also, somehow I can't see how he totaly isolated himself from external influence when he wrote a trilogy about an imaginry complete world, with its own languages and etc. As for the Dwarves-it's actually a funny comparison he made, as I can't see too much connection (but I can see a little when comparing between imaginery Khazad-dûm and Jerusalem). What about the people from the east that he described?--Gilisa (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Look, you said Rohan was a Celtic nation, and you asked whether the elves were Scandinavians or Dutch, and are asking "who are the Elfs (sic)". You're indeed asking for, and making assertions about, "direct connections". All I'm asserting is that Tolkien did not write the ME kingdoms and races to correspond to different Earth nations. I never made any assertions about his inspirations or any alleged isolation from historical influence. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm pretty much accepting your opinion -I think that you misunderstood me or/and that I didn't explain myself correctly. Anyway, thanks!--Gilisa (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

For the record, Rohan is not a Celtic nation. At all. The Rohirrim are Anglo-Saxons on horses. Algebraist 23:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[unindent] The only obvious parallel between the Jews and the Dwarves is their language: Hebrew (along with the rest of the Semitic languages) forms most of its words on three-consonant word roots, and Khuzdul is clearly formed the same way. Since Tolkien was a philologist and familiar enough with Hebrew to be able to participate in translating some of the Old Testament for the Jerusalem Bible, he was clearly familiar with the way that Hebrew worked, so it's quite probable that Khuzdul is based on Hebrew. However, I've never seen anything else that suggests that the Dwarves were "based on" the Jews. Rohan, by the way, was not Anglo-Saxons on horses — I can't remember where (perhaps in the appendicies to The Lord of the Rings), but Tolkien says that they were not at all like the "ancient English". The only direct connection between any real humans and the peoples of Arda is linguistic, between the people of Bëor and the Indo-Europeans: in one of the volumes of The History of Middle-Earth, Christopher Tolkien observes that "Nom" (the name given by the Bëorings, said to be "Wisdom") is clearly an Indo-European word — it's cognate with some Indo-European words for wisdom or knowledge, such as the Greek root we see in "agnostic", one who says that it's impossible to know whether divinity exists. Other than that, there are no peoples in the book who are truly related to actual people. Nyttend (talk) 23:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, more than the language the name of their lost city "Moriah" making a kind of similarity between the Jews, who were living in exile but continue to pray to return to Jerusalem (in which mounth Moriah is) and for the establishment of the third Temple- instead of this was destroyed by the Romans, and the Dwarves. Tolkien was an expert for North European languages (but as he was devoted christian, very scholastic in nature and gifted enough to easily grasp new languages, maybe he also knew some Hebrew as you suggested) and I heard (or read?) once that the Elfish language is based on scandinavian languages.--Gilisa (talk) 16:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The city was named "Moria", not "Moriah", and this was a Sindarin name ("mor" ["black"] + "-ia" ["abyss"]); the Khuzdul name was "Khazad-dum" = "Dwarf-folk mansions". This name fits into the established etymologies — "mor" as a word that means "black" appears many years before the first versions of The Hobbit, in which Moria first appeared. Moreover, to say that the name "Moria" was based on the name of the Temple Mount is as much of a stretch as it would be to say that the name Gondor is based on the name of Gondar, a city in Ethiopia. Nyttend (talk) 06:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I was not refering to the meaning that Tolkien gave to Moria, but to the similarities between the names as they are. You have a point with Gondor.--Gilisa (talk) 10:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

food prices

Approx how much does a dozen chicken eggs cost in the capitol of Zambia? Googlemeister (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

About the same as in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.--Gilisa (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

?

Sorry, I was thniking that you just joked when you posted this question.--Gilisa (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I have a friend who will be going there later and wants to know some basic food prices. Googlemeister (talk) 22:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This page says that, in 2004, one unit of eggs (I assume that means 1 egg, although it seems a little expensive) cost 3,200 ZMK, which are current rates is 0.69 USD. Our article on the subject says inflation is about 10%, so over the last 5 years I would expect the price to have increased to 5,150 ZMK or 1.11 USD. --Tango (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, while that page was written in 2004, it says the prices are from 2002, so those last numbers should be 6,200 ZMK or 1.35 USD. I am, of course, assuming inflation has been constant and that the price of eggs has followed general inflation figures. I don't have any evidence to confirm or contradict that. --Tango (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

One way to find out might be to email one of Zambia's supermarket chains (the main ones seem to be Shoprite and SPAR) and ask directly. Failing that these people might be able to answer your question. Grutness...wha? 01:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Can I add this question to the original question of Googlemeister?

Is there any place where one can buy any 5 of the following items for .10 USD each?

1 dozen chicken eggs

1 bread (about 1 lb)

1 lb rice

1 lb potatoes

1 lb fish (any kinds)

1 lb meat

1 lit milk

1 lb vegetable (any kinds)

In Canada, one can buy 5 of these items for a 1.00 USD each where the minimum wage is at least 8 USD. So if one can buy at least 5 items for .10 USD each where the minimum wags is .80 USD, then the living standard is much higher than in Canada; in overall analyses, even a wage of .30 USD. That is, three hours of labor for an average three persons households. I do not know, but it seems 5 of the above items for .10 USD each still possible somewhere. Couchworthy (talk) 04:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a grocery store advertisement from Canada offering 5 dozen eggs for the equivalent of $1 U.S. I sincerely doubt that is a common retail price, unless it be some giveaway gimmick to attract customers. Ditto for the rest of the items. Very doubtful. Edison (talk) 05:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood - it's $1 each, if you buy 5. It sounds like a special offer - you buy 5 things, you get them cheaper. --Tango (talk) 06:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

In New Zealand, when they're in season, pumpkins can be bought for very low prices. Pretty sure they'd work out at somewhere close to 10cUS per lb at some times of the year. Grutness...wha? 05:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Half kg of pumpkins for 10$ is cheap!? In Israel you can by it for less than 2.50.5$ all along the year.--Gilisa (talk) 08:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

He said 10c which is 0.1 USD. A similar thing happens to apples in parts of the UK, in season you can buy "windfalls" in bulk for less than 10p per kilo. They are not "class one" but are fine when you remove the bruised bits. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

10 penny?--Gilisa (talk) 11:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

10 pence. The plural of penny is pence (although "pennies" is used as the plural of penny when referring to a 1 pence coin). --Tango (talk) 02:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

One pattern seen in many developing countries is high prices at markets that cater to foreigners and much lower prices at markets which cater to locals. However, be aware that using local markets means they may need to be able to haggle in the local language. StuRat (talk) 12:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I have traveled in many developing countries (it's the best, without doubt) and you can always pay the local price if you are a bit savvy. For instance -on my first day in Bolivia I paid about 15 Bolivians for a taxi drive that cost about 4-5 Bolivians for the locals. When I returned to the hostel I was accommodated in I asked the clerk what are the real prices of this kind of taxi service and he told me not to pay more than 4-5 Bolivians. In reality, I almost always more than the locals, but only a bit more and not several times the real price. Also, associating with experienced turists groups (e.g., backpackers) who are not after the luxuries in the middle of the jungel may give you a lot of information about best places to buy from, prices and etc. There are also local travel agencies in these countries who will charge you by your country of origin: They just know who is willing to pay what.--Gilisa (talk) 13:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I have done some traveling in developing countries. By far the cheapest of these (in my experience) was India. Prices in India for food were lower than in Tanzania, even though Tanzania is a bit poorer on average. In India, 10 US cents works out to about 5 rupees. I think that you could get a pound of rice, potatoes, or local seasonal vegetables for 5 rupees, but all of the protein foods that you mention would cost more than this, generally quite a bit more. I think the only thing you might get in Tanzania for this price would be corn meal and maybe seasonal vegetables in a rural market. Prices in China and Latin America are generally higher than in India or the poorer African countries. Marco polo (talk) 20:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

November 13

What is the correct number of figures in Rodin's “Gates of Hell”?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auguste_Rodin#The_Gates_of_Hell States The Gates of Hell comprised 186 figures in its final form.[25] 25.^ a b Jianou & Goldscheider, 41.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gates_of_Hell States The Gates of Hell (French: La Porte de l'Enfer) is a monumental sculptural group work by French artist Auguste Rodin that depicts a scene from "The Inferno", the first section of Dante Alighieri's Divine Comedy. It stands at 6 m high, 4 m wide and 1 m deep (19.69'H × 13.12'W × 3.29'D) and contains 180 figures. 132.198.153.130 (talk) 00:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It's going to depend on how you define "figure". There are some real asses and elbows parts of the piece where it's hard to tell what belongs to whom, and there are skulls lying around and such which you might or might not add to the total. Here is a fairly high-res shot of one of them where you can see what I mean. --Sean 20:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

History of Volkswagen

Hi, i need help. Could somebody help me to identify the man on this picture? [15].

It seems like the CEO of Volkswagen during the 1970s but i am not sure. He is posing in front of a newly made Volkswagen Golf Mk1. The picture dates possibly from 1978.

Thanks in advance.--HappyApple (talk) 02:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Rudolf Leiding perhaps? He ran VW when the Golf first came out. I can't quite tell from the photo labeled "Rudolf and the SP2 model" on this page if it's him (much older), but it looks like the same chin. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

For some reason, I can´t get the link to work, but the URL indicates that it may be Ferry Porsche. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Ferry it is. The same image shows up when I search for "Ferry Porsche photos", and the third picture here is a good match too. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Interest rates and money flow

Where does the extra money paid by borrowers go, when interest rates are raised by a central bank? e.g. mortgage interest payments.

In a historical and simple view of a single bank, the extra cash would end up in savings accounts at the bank through a higher savings interest rate. However in today's global economy where securitization is prevalent and everyone lends to everyone else, I'm guessing it doesn't end up with bank depositors or the banks themselves.

I know that corporations suffer with higher interest rates as they are usually geared, so I guess it doesn't go to shareholders as a group.

I know that a government must pay out higher bond coupon rates on new borrowings, so I'm guessing it doesn't go to government.

Where does the money go then? And how does it flow there? What are the gaps in my logic? CrazyGoldy (talk) 03:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Be careful of basic assumptions. First, the US Fed (to take a familiar example) adjusts the rate it charges other banks, not the rate they charge customers. The action is most effective at the short end (30 days), rather than on longer-tenure bonds. Second, raising interest rates may result in a loss of interest income. For example, ten loans are made for $100 each, at 2.5% interest. When the interest rate is raised to 2.75%, one borrower drops out, and the remaining nine loans are rolled over. Income from the 10 x 2.5% loans was 25, whereas interest from the 9 x 2.75 was 24.75. In other words, there was no increased income from raising the lending rate. Third, rising interest rates affect not only loans but also deposits. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Health Insurance Costs in the 1960s

I read a youtube comment on a video implying that government inclusion in the Health Insurance system drove up costs of Health insurance from their original levels in the 60s, that being around 15 dollars a month. Is their any truth to either claim brought up?

How much is 15 dollars adjusted for inflation? 74.236.23.152 (talk) 05:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Which country ? StuRat (talk) 12:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's an interesting take: In the 1960s, US households spend 24% of their consumption expenditure (goods and services) on food and healthcare, combined. This decade, the total is 25%, because as healthcare got more expensive, food became much cheaper. Source: http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=70&Freq=Year&FirstYear=2007&LastYear=2008. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course, you can have 1960s level health care for much less. But that means no transplantation, no useful chemotherapy, not MRIs or CTs, no synthetic insulin, ... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be interesting to see if procedures and operations done the same as in the 1960's, like maybe a tonsillectomy, are now more expensive, when adjusted for inflation. StuRat (talk) 12:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. But for the OP, that probably would have to be "procedures and operations done the same as in the 1960's and covered under 1960s health care plans" to be a useful comparison. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Medical school costs have risen far faster then inflation in the US as well I would suspect (since every other type of college seemed to). It would be interesting to compare tuition at various medical schools in 1960 vs today. Googlemeister (talk) 14:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

That's right — when President Eisenhower had a heart attack, the premium medical care of the day for a sitting president was to get 2 weeks of bed rest in the hospital and then another 6 weeks of taking it easy at home. These days they'd rack up US$1 million of charges on day 1, I imagine. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The mega-corporatization of U.S. health care drove up costs at least as much as government interference. In the 1960's, auto manufacturers etc. put health-care benefits in the contracts they negotiated with employees unions as a relatively cheap substitute for offering pay raises -- and by the late 1980's (corresponding with the rise of Humana etc.), many of them were beginning to strongly regret it. Exploding costs of the health-care benefits that were specified in union contracts was one factor driving GM's bankruptcy... AnonMoos (talk) 22:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Man and God

It has been said that one reason the Jews do not believe in Jesus Christ is because Jesus Christ is at best still in part a man while God is not man and the First Commandment prohibits them from accepting any other God before Him. This argument seems to be trumped by Jesus saying that in fact he is God so that the inevitable result is that since man cannot be God Jesus is lying and attempting to nullify the First Commandment through deception to win allegiance to God for Himself. This is a great argument for not believing in God unless you consider the idea that man and God are joined in a manner similar to a caterpillar and a butterfly or an egg and a chicken. Man and God certainly seem to be joined by a covenant so how is it impossible that man and God can be joined in flesh and in spirit? 71.100.0.254 (talk) 08:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• It sounds to me from what you say the difference is the same as thzt between consubstantiation or pheumatic presence and transsubstantiation at the eucharist. And if that divides Christians how on earth do you expect a Jew to agree with anything similar or different or whatever? It's not as thougfh we can do any experiments to determine anything like an answer. Dmcq (talk) 10:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• What? I mean "the question presupposes a lot that is not obvious and/or wrong and/or employs circular reasoning, and could be clearer". "The Jews" probably have many different opinions. Most of them do not believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah of the the old testament. Some of them do not believe he existed at all. Heck, some of them even believe God does not exist, although those are probably not religious Jews. We do not know what Jesus (if he existed at all) actually has said, much less why he said it. The main sources, the Gospels, have been written long after the events depicted, and they do not agree to well with each other. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

There are lots of reasons why the Jews do not believe in Jesus as the Messiah, let alone as a manifestation of God. Bear in mind that even if he was able to do miracles, the ability to do miracles was never proof of being the Messiah - for example, in the OT you can find Balaam who could do pretty amazing things but was evil. You need to look into this further because your basic premise is flawed. --Dweller (talk) 11:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

As Dweller wrote, there are a lot of reasons why Jews don't accept Jesus as the Messiah-I don't know where to start from, but it's noteworthy that the first of the principles of the Jewish faith is that God has no image or physical form and that it's one. Unlike Stephan I do believe that Jesus most probably existed -but it mean nothing about his being the Messiah. There is only negligible precent of Jews who accept Jesus, but those are messianic Jews and part of them is not even Jewish...--Gilisa (talk) 12:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that "Jesus most probably existed"? , please! Seriously, I do believe that he most likely did exist - there only is a small chance that he is a complete amalgamation. I do believe, however, that most sources on Jesus are highly questionable in almost every detail. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Stephan, just made incorrect commentary of "..We do not know what Jesus (if he existed at all)". Apologize.--Gilisa (talk) 12:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

No offense taken. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I am asking whether God and man can be one but have different forms in the sense that a caterpillar and a butterfly can have the same DNA but exist in different forms. I was a bit hasty in asking the question without reviewing the reference more slowly and in greater depth. It appears that the reference is much more thought out. And deserves to be quoted. It will however take more time to quote the reference so I will restate the question with the quote in a few hours. 71.100.7.164 (talk) 12:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

380 villages destroyed by Ottoman Syrian Druze?

Does amyone know where I could source and list the names of the 380 Ottoman Syrian Christian villages destroyed by Ottoman Syrian Druze and Muslims during the 1860 Lebanon conflict? Thanks! Chesdovi (talk) 09:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Only ideas about who to ask. Our article (which gives the 380 number) has two sources: (1) Lutsky, Vladimir Borisovich (1969). "Modern History of the Arab Countries". Progress Publishers. [16] and (2) Farah, Caesar E. The politics of interventionism in Ottoman Lebanon, 1830-1861, p. 564. I.B.Tauris, 2000. ISBN: 1860640567. Farah at least can be contacted through the University of Minnesota and might be able to point you to the correct records. Another scholar you might ask is Yusri Hazran [17], currently at Harvard. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 14:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Ships used in the Battle of Lake Erie

The ship noted as brig Adams built in 1799 and then captured and renamed the HMS Detroit by the British. A brig is a two masted ship yet the picture of the Detriot has 3 masts. Can you clerify this for me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.239.0.84 (talk) 15:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

All is answered in HMS Detroit. In short, there where two ships of the same name, in the same theatre, at the same time, the brig (captured by the British from the US and renamed), and a 3-masted flush-deck corvette (British-build, but captured by the US in the Battle of Lake Erie). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

History: how horrible was it?

From what you learn at school and read in books you would come away with the impression that in the Middle Ages peasants basically ate pig dung for breakfast while the lords sat around on top of a pile of gold-plated skulls saying "hahaha I'm rich bitch." How accurate is this impression, though? Dudes did revolt sometimes, obviously, but if conditions were as bad as I imagine them to be they'd have been freaking out basically all the time. What responsibities did the lords have? Vitriol (talk) 21:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It was kind of like in third-world countries today. Sometimes life is great, sometimes life sucks, but I suppose for most people it sucks more often than it's great. Sometimes there is a very rich lord who doesn't much care for the people below him, and sometimes you go hungry or die of diseases. Sometimes your crops might fail and you can't harvest them, sometimes you might have a larger than usual harvest. Maybe you live in an area where knights go around fighting each other and burning each others' villages, or maybe you live in a peaceful area. Maybe your lord works you to the bone, or maybe there is a local monastery that does the same, but maybe your lord (or your local monastery) is very charitable towards you. Maybe you can use the lord's ovens and maybe you'll get to eat a lot of meat...or maybe not. Maybe you'll live in or near a city, maybe a city is an entirely foreign concept to you. Of course (as I say whenever we have a medieval question), it depends on where we are talking about, and what time period, because the Middle Ages covers all of Europe (and even Asia and Africa to some extent) for over a thousand years, and obviously it wasn't the same everywhere at the same time. Do you have a particular date and place that you are thinking of? It's very difficult to give an appropriate answer otherwise. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

And remember that happiness is relative. When a peasant in those days received an orange (as from the real Saint Nicholas), it was the most wonderful day in their life (I recently saw a story about the Berlin airlift, which related a very similar story). If we got such a gift today, we'd be highly disappointed. See how it works ? The more you have, the more you need to make you happy. StuRat (talk) 22:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

More likely they would wonder "what the heck is an orange" since they wouldn't have ever seen one before the thirteenth century :) Adam Bishop (talk) 22:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The stereotypes are totally inaccurate.

I would suggest reading Misconceptions About the Middle Ages[18] - Pollinosisss (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

"Totally inaccurate" ? No, that's not even what the book claims. For example, the first chapter on the corruption of the Church admits that there was a great deal of corruption, but says there were also attempts at reform. If there was no corruption, then your statement that "stereotypes are totally inaccurate" would be correct. The book also seems to lack a scientific approach. Of course there were both corruption and attempts at reform, as there is now. The question then, is the ratio of each. Had they listed each of the medieval popes and classified each as "corrupt" or "not corrupt", using evidence, then we could get an objective view of just how corrupt the medieval Church was. Instead, they just substitute their own totally subjective opinion that "it wasn't so bad" for the previous totally subjective opinion. I'd rather see some evidence. StuRat (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

My sense is that there were some very harsh periods in medieval western Europe, such as the 5th and 6th centuries at one end and the 14th century at the other, when life was hard indeed and the death rate exceeded the birth rate. Apart from those widespread hard times and more scattered periods of hardship due to war, however, I think that, most of the time, ordinary people (which is to say peasants) were about as happy or as unhappy as ordinary people are today in countries without grinding poverty. Apart from the centuries I mentioned, the Middle Ages were not a time of widespread absolute poverty. Most people had enough to eat most of the time. Don't forget that lords had some incentive to keep their people healthy and reasonably happy because this would maximize the lord's yield in the long run, just as you would not let a herd of cattle get run-down. Unlike cattle, peasants could be resentful and exercise passive resistance, so lords had an interest in maintaining minimal good will. Some peasants even prospered. Of course their idea of prosperity would look rough and austere to people in the present-day developed world, but they were comfortable enough and felt fortunate. Because of poor sanitation and health care, infant mortality and death in childbirth were high, and life expectancy was low, so lives were shorter, but I think mostly not less happy than ours. Marco polo (talk) 01:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Happiness economics is an interesting read too. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 14:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

It's difficult to judge such things objectively. While you or I might think of life in 9th Century Europe as filthy, boring, and harsh - something we could never find happiness in - someone from then might consider our times to be aseptic, horribly disjointed and fast-paced, and detached from the natural and spiritual worlds they were much more intimate with. To us, life back then would be a bit like doing hard time in a prison - a small-scale society with much more labour than we're used to, while someone with a huge amount of power over us looks after our "best interests". To them, our life might seem like drowning in free-fall, where each day is different, strange - and scary. Imagine living your entire life only having met the few hundred people in your local area and where technological innovation happens so slowly that you might count on your hands (if you could count) the changes you'd seen in your lifetime. Matt Deres (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I found this TV series to be an interesting look at this point.Terry Jones' Medieval Lives.Watch it if you can...hotclaws 15:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

As humans we are able to 'project' what we think others would feel into their scenarios, but we're very poor at it. There's an excellent TedTalk by Dan Gilbert about this kind of 'assumed unhappiness' issue. Here's the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTO_dZUvbJA . Also whenever this type of question comes up i'm reminded of the words of a song by James. It goes "If i hadn't seen such riches I could live with being poor." ny156uk (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting point, and one with wide implications. Not only does it affect our ability to understand history, but also the lives of modern people in other countries, or in our own country in harder circumstances: we assume widespread misery. More alarmingly, it affects the discussion of disabilities, provision for the elderly and living wills. Healthy young people pretty commonly report that they would rather die than (insert condition), whereas people actually in those situations very commonly feel differently. This becomes alarming when healthy young people get to make decisions about what should be provided for those who are disabled, or elderly, or dying, or are expected to make decisions that will be applied to themselves in these circumstances. 86.142.231.220 (talk) 20:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Newton’s dark secret

Heresy is a condition, which can cover opposition to many religious doctrines . If one proclaims by the actions, words or deeds for instance that they put money before God then that is heresy against the First Commandment. If they hold that Jesus Christ is not divine then they commit heresy against the doctrine of the Trinity held by the Anglican and the Catholic church.. However, Newton is said to have held the belief that Christ is not divine in defiance of the Trinity doctrine therefore making the Trinity doctrine a blasphemy of the First Commandment (if you believe Newton). My contention is that Newton was wrong because Christ, while not completely equal to God in the sense that he was not around for the Big Bang is equal to God as an instrument of God’s will which many others have tried to imitate but have failed. In other words Christ is equal in the sense that his existence is in absolute conformance, compliance and fulfillment of God’s will which no one else has or can achieve. Is my contention logically unsound? 71.100.7.164 (talk) 22:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

That would depend on what kind of Christology you and Newton believe in. Newton might be wrong if you assume your definition is correct, although you yourself likely hold a heretical belief, according to someone else. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You are talking about religious belief, logic doesn't come into it. It's all about blind faith. I will point out that the Bible says Christ was around from the beginning ("In the beginning there was the word and the word was God and the word was with God" or words to that effects. "The word" is interpreted to mean Christ, see Logos.) so your statement about Christ not being around at the Big Bang would seem to contradict mainstream interpretation of the Bible. --Tango (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I of course mean in the flesh rather than in spirit. 71.100.7.164 (talk) 00:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The Gospel of John says that. The Bible implies lots of other things too; that's why our Christology article is so long :) Adam Bishop (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

He said that he always does what is pleasing to him, and that the words that he spake were not his, but the father's. So I would say, no, it is not unsound. —Akrabbim^talk 23:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The assumption that "Heresy is a condition, which can cover opposition to many religious doctrines" is a fallacy, which creates apparent problems. Heresy, the "wrong" path, is a phantom that exists in the minds of those powerful enough to enforce their reading of "orthodoxy", the "right" learning. Outside the cult, these phantoms have no existence. --Wetman (talk) 09:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The concept of heresy can also apply to science, you know. Did you know that Newton wrote 2 million words on alchemy? He wrote more on alchemy than he did on gravity. Was Newton an heretic when it comes to our concept of science? --TammyMoet (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

And when Edmond Halley questioned the basis of astrology, Newton replied "Sir, I have studied it, you have not!". -- JackofOz (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, Newton would have been considered a complete nutcase in today's scientific community. We consider a rainbow to have 7 colours (when actually it is a continuous spectrum and you can arbitrarily separate it into any number of colours you want to) because Newton considered 7 to be a sacred/mystical number. Deciding on scientific definitions based on mysticism would get you laughed out of the lecture theatre today, but it was completely accepted in those days. Don't try and judge/classify historical figures by today's standards - that way madness lies. --Tango (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually the basis of Newton's distinction of limited colors is due to his use of a second prism to analyze the light coming from the first. 71.100.7.164 (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

According to Rainbow#The place of indigo, Newton originally said there were 5 colours (he didn't include orange or indigo) and then added 2 more because he liked the number 7. (Our article says it was by analogy to the diatonic scale in music, other things I've read have said it was for mystical reason [which would fit in with other things Newton did and said]. I don't think it really matters which.) --Tango (talk) 20:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

November 14

Town

Why does the town of Fucking have that name? jc iindyysgvxc (my contributions) 03:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The second section of the article goes into that quite extensively. Did you have a more specific question that isn't dealt with either by our article or the references therein? Dismas|^(talk) 04:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

More importantly, because the entire world does not have English as a native language, and cannot be expected to name their places with the idea that the word may have a "naughty" meaning in English. --Jayron32 16:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

See http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004295.html etc. AnonMoos (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Greek/Roman statue copy?

Who is the figure in this statue? I saw it in the Trend campus pub at Trent University; it's about 1m tall. Is it a copy of an ancient statue, or is it entirely modern? NeonMerlin[19] 10:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The first thing I thought of when I looked closely at the sculpture was French, not Greek. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 22:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Neoclassical certainly. A 19th-century Hebe? --Wetman (talk) 08:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

What percentage of people stopped from committing suicide make a second attempt?

My question is this. Among people who attempt suicide, but are stopped by some one else, what percentage attempt suicide again? What percentage go on to live happy lives?

It is going to depend massively on how close they got to committing suicide. "Cries for help", where someone "attempts" suicide but would never have actually gone through with it (they may have thought they would, of course), are very common and it is very common for someone to make that kind of attempt at a low point in their lives, recover from their depression and never actually kill themselves. On the other hand, if you stop someone that really was going to kill themselves if you hadn't intervened, then there is a good chance they will try again. I don't have any numbers, but they will be completely different in those two categories. Is there one of those categories you are particularly interested in or would you like us to try and find numbers for both? --Tango (talk) 20:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to say how many go on to live happy lives, which is not a well-defined term, but about one-third will attempt suicide again within one year, usually unsuccessfully, according to the linked source (I'm not sure what its source is). A great many suicide attempts are impetuous and the individual, if prevented, will not make a subsequent attempt. John M Baker (talk) 02:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

This will be completely unsorced and possibly untrustworthy, but I recall reading an article or interview or something a long time ago about the time they put safety nets around the Eiffel tower - a well known suicide point. The article said that the safety net saved a lot of the jumpers, and of those, a very high percentage "changed their mind" mid-air, i.e. decided they wanted to live after all at a point where they were already falling down. How this affected the numbers of repeat suiciders I don't know, but I suspect a considerable number of these jumpers with a change of heart would not attempt another suicide. TomorrowTime (talk) 09:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

american college costs

how much does it cost on average to go to college in the states? $100,000? $400,000 for places like harvard or yale? how do you pay that off? you're in debt for the rest of your life. just wondering because in canada at my local uni its about $20,000 but its not very prestigious and i hear its more expensive in the states.--Uponneeds99 (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I just got accepted at a (mildly prestigious) public university, and the tuition is less than $10,000 per year, so I don't know. Usually, if you are going to a public university, it depends on whether you live in the state or not. Private universities are often significantly more expensive. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The cost can vary a LOT, even for public schools, from state to state. For example, the University of New Hampshire costs in state students $10,080 per year, and out-of-state students $24,050 per year in tuition. For comparison, the North Carolina State University costs in state students $3,953 per year and out-of-state students $16,438. --Jayron32 21:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The most expensive U.S. college charged $40,400 per year as of spring 2009: [20] Of course, many students get scholarships and state or federal grants but very few leave college without some loans to pay off. Attending a community college for the first two years then transfering to a four-year can often save some money. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

According to a recent story in The Brown Daily Herald, five U.S. colleges now charge more than [US]$50,000 a year for tuition and fees. Brown University didn't top that line, but came close. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The tricky thing about high-end colleges (e.g. Harvard, Yale) is that a lot of students' parents are in an income bracket where they earn enough that it is not a big problem, and a lot are in a bracket where they are totally covered by financial aid (the high-end schools can afford to be fairly generous on this front, more so than state schools and less prestigious schools). The tough ones are those in the middle -- not "poor enough" for financial aid, but not really "rich enough" to swing $40K a year very easily. These parents and/or students take out loans, do "work-study" jobs on campus, and apply for grants and etc. to help defray costs. Many leave college very much in debt. That being said, a degree from a very prestigious university can pay for itself over time if you can parlay that into a good job (or a good law/med/business school), which is an advantage over a cheaper but less prestigious institution that doesn't have the same name recognition. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

From the research I have done (I'm off to college in a couple years), I have found that most public universities (like University of Oklahoma or Kansas State University) typically cost between 5,000 and 15,000 a year for in-state residents and between 15,000 and 25,000 for out of state residents. Not fun when I am looking to go out of state. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 23:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

It's worth researching what goes into becoming a state resident for the purposes of tuition. In California, for example, it is not actually that hard (live in the state for a certain amount of time, basically)—which can save you a LOT of money on UC fees, if you are going to a school there. I know a lot of people who are "out of state" for only a year or so under these fees. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Everyone answering this question so far seems to be concentrating on tuition fees. There are many more costs involved in university that just your tuition. You need somewhere to live, food to eat, electricity, gas, an internet connection, a phone... The list goes on and on. At least for the cheaper unis, those costs will massively outweigh the tuition fees (but probably won't reach $40k!). --Tango (talk) 02:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

True, but many of those costs tend to be fairly consistant across the board. Campus tuition itself is the most variable cost when comparing one university to another. Everyone pretty much has to buy the same books, pay the same phone bills, etc. etc. --Jayron32 05:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Cost of living can vary widely from place to place, even within the same country. --Tango (talk) 09:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Ha! No. American education depends on three factors. State/private, Scholarship/Not, and Cost of living. Private schools in the U.S. are generally the same price, no matter the quality. Yale costs roughly as much as a mid-range liberal arts college. Of course, getting into yale is a bit tougher. Graduate schools work the same way. State schools skew things because if you're in state they discount tuition by a substantial amount, typically about 50% (feel free to disagree with me on this number), and then states differ, but most state schools are going to be less than most private schools. In the U.S., of non-instate tuition, expect between 8-35 thousand a year for tuition, then add on cost of living. Instate tuition will knock a lot off the low end, but less off the high end (because few state schools go above 25k). Shadowjams (talk) 10:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Since Yale has come up a few times, the current term bill as of 2009/10 is $47,500 (which includes tuition of $36,500, and room and board of $11,000). 50% of undergraduates receive financial assistance from the university based on need; the average award is $32,336. The average net cost for financial aid students taking all aid into account is $14,021/term. See the ref for details on who qualifies for assistance: [21] - Nunh-huh 15:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, the top-tier may not be the most representative, either. They often have more money (and more PR incentive) and can thus offer much better financial aid possibilities than schools with less dough and clout. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

November 15

Richest prostitute

Who is the richest prostitute in the world? --EditorAndrew1990 (talk) 00:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that information is publicly available. --Tango (talk) 01:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

And even if it were, are you defining "prostitute" as 1. someone who is currently making their money as a prostitute, 2. someone who once made their primary income as a prostitute, 3. someone who was once for some amount of time a prostitute, or what? --Mr.98 (talk) 02:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

At a guess, I'd say Heidi Fleiss. Though, I don't know if she was ever a prostitute but she was a madam. Dismas|^(talk) 03:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't count her, even if she was prostitute at some point. Presumably the OP is interested in people that have made lots of money being a prostitute, she made her money managing prostitutes. --Tango (talk) 03:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

How about the "marrying well" crowd who have outlasted their prey (insert your own candidate) or are just biding their time? hydnjo (talk) 03:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Criterion might be if they ever performed sex acts for money. Edison (talk) 03:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

How about ANS? hydnjo (talk) 04:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

A criterion that broad includes porn stars, "kept" women (mistresses that receive financial support in exchange for sex) and, arguably, spouses that don't pay their way financially (although those caring for young children could be excluded from that). --Tango (talk) 06:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Do politicians count? 69.228.171.150 (talk) 11:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you're thinking of lawyers, as per the old joke:

• Q. What's the difference between a lawyer and a prostitute?
• A. Nothing - they're both c**ts for hire. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Infante Pedro

Was Pedro II of Brazil a Portuguese infante? Even though he was born in the Empire of Brazil.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe the terms used in Brazil were Princes of Brazil for sons of the Emperor and Prince Imperial of Brazil for the heir apparent. In Portugal, it looks like Infante was reserved for sons and grandsons of the reigning King of Portugal, so Pedro II would techincally qualify, since his father, Pedro I of Brazil was King of Portugal until 1826, while Pedro II was born in 1825; so for a few months he would have techincally been an Infante. However, once Pedro II's sister Maria II of Portugal became queen, it removed Pedro II from direct line of succession. So it would appear that he was, for a very brief time, an actual Infante. --Jayron32 06:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Civil war in 60's America

If the whites had not let up on the blacks after the 60s riots, would there have been a civil war between black and white, and who would have won? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.82.206 (talk) 01:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Your question is well-intended, but the Reference Desk is for information, not speculation or debate, and it would be impossible to respond without engaging in both. [For example, I'd begin with the observation that the chronology assumed in the question is just wrong: the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 occurred before most of the major riots.] And WP:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. But I wouldn't object if someone else deleted this thread before anyone else is tempted to answer. —— Shakescene (talk) 01:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, there isn't much we can do on this one. I will also correct an error in the question, though - it wasn't really the whites letting up on the blacks, it was certain whites letting up on the blacks. Racism wasn't universal in the US in the 60's and it wasn't completely eliminated after that. The civil rights debate wasn't "whites" vs "blacks". --Tango (talk) 02:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

1860's or 1960's? Ratio of "black people" to "white people?" Firepower controlled by each? Edison (talk) 03:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Assumption that both groups would act as homogenous blocks? Just as they did in the 1860s...? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, is there any evidence to show that, in the 1960s, if the civil rights movement had been stampedon, that things would have got much nastier resulting in what could only be described as civil war?--79.67.82.206 (talk) 12:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "if the whites had not let up on the blacks after the 60s riots." The worst race riots of the 60s happened after the biggest changes to the laws affecting civil rights. For example, the Watts riots happened less than a week after the signing of the Voting Rights Act. If anything, the riots of the mid-late 1960s led to a hardening of Middle American attitudes toward further legislation aimed toward improving the lot of African-Americans and helped bring in Nixon and 40 years of conservative dominance in American politics. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 13:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

How pauper burials are organised

Iam interested in how local governments organise pauper burials. Specifically in Adelaide South Australia and how this compares to other regions of the world. This is not home work just a general enquiry. Thank you, Simon203.122.251.174 (talk) 02:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a page about how it works in Brighton, UK. --Tango (talk) 02:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

As an NHS manager in the UK I once had to arrange the burial of a person who died in hospital with no relatives or assets. I arranged the burial through a local undertaker and the NHS, the local hospital, footed the bill. I don't think there are normally huge complications in the scenario you mention. The usual problem is who is going to pay. I suspect that most local governments have a specific or discretionary budget they can call on. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 12:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

question about the law

This is not a question requesting legal advice but rather about the ramification of non-compliance with a particular law. The law in question is that a person has a right to be tried by a jury of their peers. What if a person is tried by a jury that is not the person's peers such as an artist being tried by a non-peer group consisting of commodity traders with no concept or appreciation of art (...seen one painting, seen them all) or a lawyer being tried by a non-peer group of medical personnel such as nurses. Once allowed to serve in the capacity of the defendant's peers does the defendant have the right thereafter to claim that as their ¶ "peers" he has the right to join their clubs and otherwise to be treated equally with them? 71.100.7.164 (talk) 03:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

An anthropologist or pimp a homeopath or an astronaut or a Zoroastrian do not have the right to a jury of anthropologists, pimps, homeopaths, astronauts or Zoroastrians, respectively. "Peer" does not mean "exactly like the accused in every way." "Peer" means "a broad spectrum of the population." Edison (talk) 05:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Legally, in the U.S., peers are anyone with the same legal standing as the person on trial. Since all U.S. citizens are guaranteed the same equal protection before the law, all citizens are each other's peers. This applies in U.S. civilian courts. I believe that in US military jury trials, "peers" generally means that officers are tried before jury of officers, and enlisted men are tried before courts of enlisted men. I could be wrong on that last one though. --Jayron32 05:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

According to what I remember of a news broadcast about the Fort Hood shootings the other day, a military jury is selected by the base commander. I don't know about the officers for officers, enlisted for enlisted part though. Dismas|^(talk) 06:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm no military lawyer, but a defendant enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces can apparently request that a third of a court-martial's members also be enlisted. See Courts-martial in the United States. The criminal-procedure elements of the United States Bill of Rights aren't considered specifically applicable as courts-martial are established by Congress under Article One of the United States Constitution as part of the President's executive function (Article Two), rather than one of the courts established by Article Three. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I am pretty sure most military court martials, for both enlisted and officers, involve juries of officers (in the US). I can't imagine that the wikipedia articles on point don't answer this question. Shadowjams (talk) 10:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, commissioned officers constitute a majority on every U.S. Court-martial. However, enlisted defendants, according to the Wikipedia article, can request that a third of the members also be enlisted, which means that officers would still constitute two thirds. —— Shakescene (talk) 11:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that typically the defense gets some say in choosing the jury. They can rule out jurors who they feel might be biased against the defendant. See jury selection. Rckrone (talk) 05:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

That is the case in some countries (such as the US), but it isn't the case everywhere (eg. in the UK a juror can only be rejected for particularly good reason, such as knowing someone in the case). I'm not sure it is common enough to be considered "typical". --Tango (talk) 06:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the term is just out of date. In England, people used to be tried by people of the same broad social rank. Peers (as in Lords) were tried by peers (in the House of Lords), commoners were tried by commoners (in regular courts with juries) and the sovereign wasn't tried at all. These days everyone (except the sovereign) is tried before a randomly selected jury. --Tango (talk) 06:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

¶ Looking at the U.S. Bill of Rights, I see that the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution doesn't require a jury of one's peers, but one selected from the same jurisdiction as the alleged crime being prosecuted:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law,...

If you commit a Federal crime in Vermont, you normally couldn't be tried in Utah, although some federal prosecutors have tried to stretch this by (for example) prosecuting a publisher of alleged pornography in every state where his publication was received. The idea of a "jury of one's peers" goes back to Magna Carta (1215) which provided that a free man had to be tried before his peers, when "free" excluded huge classes of Englishmen, such as serfs and villeins:

XXIX.

Imprisonment, &c. contrary to Law. Administration of Justice. NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor [condemn him,]† but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.
† Annotations: Variant reading of the text noted in The Statutes of the Realm as follows: deal with him,
—current English law
39. Nullus liber homo capiatur, vel imprisonetur, aut disseisiatur, aut utlagetur, aut exuletur, aut aliquo modo destruatur, nec super eum ibimus, nec super eum mittemus, nisi per legale judicium parium suorum vel per legem terre. [Articles, c. 29; 1225, c. 29.]

40. Nulli vendemus, nulli negabimus aut differemus rectum aut justiciam. [Articles, c. 30; 1225 c. 29.] — Latin original

—— Shakescene (talk) 07:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

¶ To clarify let me say then a trial of a male for rape by an all female jury who have been raped or had a family member that was raped. Regardless of the outcome what I am asking is that if such a jury was allowed would the male then have an arguement to support joining an all female club , etc. 71.100.7.164 (talk) 07:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Such a jury wouldn't happen, but even it if did it wouldn't make any difference to membership of a group. Just because you are a member of one group that someone else is in doesn't automatically make you a member of every other group that person is in. That would be absurd. --Tango (talk) 09:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

In most U.S. jurisdictions, both the defense and the prosecution are entitled to a certain number of peremptory challenges to jurors who aren't disqualified by the judge for cause (such as hardship, inability to follow the proceedings, prior relationship with a party, or bias). Prosecutors sometimes try to exclude as many black jurors as possible (especially when trying a black defendant) on the thesis that black jurors are more likely to acquit than white ones. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that this kind of arbitrary exclusion, which would otherwise fall well within the prosecution's right to exclude without the need to justify, may invalidate a conviction, even if the defendant is white. A similar systematic exclusion of men or women from juries can invalidate the conviction of a male or female defendant. —— Shakescene (talk) 09:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, here's the case (from my old paralegal course on the Administration of Justice; remember, especially if you're not the original enquirer, that Wikipedia does not offer legal advice. We can offer general information about the law, such as Brown vs Board of Education of Topeka, Dred Scott vs Sandford, Gideon v. Wainwright, Miranda v. Arizona, Bush v. Gore or the United States v. Nixon, but we can't tell what might affect the possible outcome of any particular plea, motion, legal strategy, trial, suit or proceeding. Most of us aren't lawyers, and those who are would be ethically prohibited from advising a client without a full understanding of the individual case.) See J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B. [511 U.S. 127, 114 S.Ct 1419, 128 L.Ed.2d 89] (1994) which threw out a child-support judgment against a male defendant rendered by a jury from which all male candidates had been excluded by peremptory challenge. Also see the other cases cited in the Wikipedia article and in the court opinions, such as Batson v. Kentucky (476 U.S. 79, 1986), discounting similarly-constructed all-white juries, and Hoyt v. Florida (368 U.S. 57, 1961), discounting an all-male jury. —— Shakescene (talk) 10:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Swiss automobile laws

During an episode of Top Gear, they decide to go find the "perfect" driving road. Hammond wants to go to Switzerland but Clarkson goes on a small tirade about how restrictive the driving/auto laws are in that country. One that he mentions is not being able to wash your car. Although I wasn't specifically looking for this when I was there last, I don't recall the cars being particularly dirty. Are Swiss laws really that much more restrictive than the laws of other countries? And is the car washing bit due to water conservation laws or what? Can you only get your car washed at a carwash and not your private residence? Dismas|^(talk) 05:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a reference to certain local laws rather than a national law. The municipality of Saanen, for example, as a law in which Article 18 says:

Motorfahrzeuge und Maschinen dürfen nur auf dafür vorgesehenen, bewilligten Plätzen gewaschen werden.

Google translates that as:

Motor vehicles and equipment must be washed only in designated, approved courses.

Apparently it is to prevent pollution of the drains. --Tango (talk) 06:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, Switzerland is notorious for being very clean, so I guess people do, in general, use the designated car washes rather than letting their cars get dirty. --Tango (talk) 06:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

GDP + PPP

I always had the UK down as a rather more expensive place to live than other European countries, such as France, Spain, Germany and Italy. However, judging by the fact that France and Germany rank higher in terms of nominal GDP than the UK, yet lower once GDP is adjusted for PPP, I might be compelled to conclude that the UK is cheaper! Also, whilst Spain and Italy only fair very slightly lower in terms of nominal GDP, once adjusted for PPP, the discrepancies are larger. Where am I going wrong?--Leon (talk) 07:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll bite. What in the world is PPP (obviously not a Personal Pension Plan)? Some kind of purchasing power? Nominal GDP is Gross Domestic Product, but that differs from the cost of living, real GDP or the GDP deflator. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

PPP = Purchase Power Parity. As I understand it, it's purpose is to account for the cost of living.--Leon (talk) 07:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

PPP is to do with cost of living, but what you're seeing is not a difference in cost of living, it is a difference in the difference between the nominal exchange rate (ie. what people actually exchange money for) and the PPP exchange rate (which is, roughly speaking, what the exchange rates would need to be for the cost of living to be the same everywhere). The nominal rate tends to change faster than the PPP rate, which is probably what is causing the small differences between those different rates for European countries (eg. if a country increases their base interest rate that will cause the currency to increase in value nominally immediately, but it won't immediately change prices, that will happen over time due to a reduction in inflation). Countries with pegged exchange rates (or that use currencies that aren't easily exchanged) can have massive differences between the nominal rate (which is the pegged rate) and the PPP rate - that is why China's GDP under PPP is double it's nominal GDP. --Tango (talk) 08:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so in that case, at this time, prices are lower in the UK, right? Or am I missing something? Also, assuming my thesis that the UK is usually more expensive than these other places, will the GDP(PPP) rank of the UK likely go down in the next few years?--Leon (talk) 08:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

In exchange rate terms, yes. The pound has recently dropped in value, which makes things in the UK seem cheaper to those abroad (it actually makes things more expensive in the UK since imported goods and components of goods are more expensive). From the point of view of people actually living in the UK (so both their income and expenditure are in pounds) the exchange rates make no difference. So, if you are interested in prices for a visit to the country, you are absolutely right. If you are interested in comparing what things are like for people living in the country you need to look at average income and things (percentage of income spent on food is a good general metric - if you spend a greater percentage of your income on food you are less well off, it's not perfect, but it is pretty good). I don't think the PPP ranking will go down, rather than nominal ranking will go up - PPP changes slowly, nominal exchange rates fluctuate. If nominal exchange rates stay at their current levels then the PPP ranking will go down due to higher inflation, but I think it is more likely that nominal rates will return to their historical levels once the current financial crisis is over. --Tango (talk) 09:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Late blooming millionaires and billionaires

I see that John Sperling started the private university that resulted in his $3billion fortune when he was 55 years old. What other examples are there of people who only became wealthy when of a mature age? 84.13.173.43 (talk) 12:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Colonel Sanders is a classic case. He didn't start clogging arteries on a large scale until he was 65. StuRat (talk) 13:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I once heard from a very welthy man that one who didn't learn how to make money by age of 30, would never learn how to do it. I feely agree.--Gilisa (talk) 14:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

What does "I feely agree" mean, Gilisa? -- JackofOz (talk) 19:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Where to download historical daily values of UK stock market indicies?

The FT30 began in 1935, other UK indicies began more recently. Is there anywhere I could download a data set of daily values please, for as long a period of time as possible? Thanks 84.13.173.43 (talk) 12:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

From the looks of this discussion (http://old.nabble.com/FT30-historical-data-td21086821.html) the info is more easily available for a 'fee', but the last suggestion in the thread links to https://www.globalfinancialdata.com and suggests it may be accessible through there. I have no idea if you have to pay to access the info, but the site does require a username/password to get to it - so probably worth investigating that. Alternatively there is here (http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ec/cup/FT30.htm) that has the close price for each day but doesn't have the date so you'd have to manually add them which is trickier than it sounds as there'll be non-trading days that are 'one off' rather than expected (e.g. maybe something during the war or the QUeen's coronation etc.) ny156uk (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Trying to find mining court case

I am trying to identify a particular court case that took place in the 1940s (or perhaps late 1930s). As best I can figure out, it was brought on behalf of the United Mine Workers (of America) concerning portal-to-portal wages. It seems to have eventually led to the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947, but this preliminary suit was apparently dismissed as de minimis. I would like to find out more details regarding this dismissed case. My searches keep hitting on the Act (for which we shockingly do not have an article, but which is summarized here), but not initial case. Matt Deres (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Third Reich as successor state

Is there any document which attests Nazi Germany as a legal successor of previous German states (like succession over Soviet Union in the case of Russia)? 94.20.23.106 (talk) 19:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Would there need to be? The Third Reich was not accomplished by revolution or regicide (unlike the USSR), but a transition between appointing Hitler and his enactment of emergency powers and new civil service statutes. It was as far as I know not considered to be an entirely new state, though. Hitler took power through "legal" means—that is, within the legal framework of the German system (although, of course, we all know that in practice that it was pretty problematic). --Mr.98 (talk) 20:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)