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 11

Burial at Church of the Holy Apostles

What happen to all the bodies of the Byzantine emperors and empresses after the Fall of Constantinople in 1453? Were they descecrated or destroyed? Also does the body of Constantine the Great still exist?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 02:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It is an interesting question. The relationship between the Muslim states and Christians under their rule has been a complex one. Consider the fate of three major churches, the one you mentioned was demolished to make way for a mosque. However, the Hagia Sofia was spared, but converted into a Mosque, as were some other christian churches. Still others were left intact as Christian sites, c.f. the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, which has remained a Christian church throughout its long history. The custodians of said church have been a Muslim family, the Nusseibeh, for over 1300 years. All of which does not directly answer your question regarding the fate of the Emperors interred at Holy Apostles, but it just bears thinking that there would not have been a "standard" attitude of the Muslim states towards Christians and Christian sites. It varied considerably, and still does today. --Jayron32 04:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The Church of the Holy Sepulchre was destroyed by the "mad caliph" in 1009... AnonMoos (talk) 05:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and rebuilt a few decades later under his son. As I said, it is a complex relationship. Relations between Muslim states and their Christian subjects has, historically, varied from cooperation to tolerance to animosity. It depends on when and where one is discussing. --Jayron32 05:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the tombs were desecrated by the Venetians during the Fourth Crusade. A lot of other relics were destroyed by the Turks. I'm working from memory, so watch this space. Alansplodge (talk) 09:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Me again. This result from Google Books[1] Byzantium and the Crusades by Jonathan Harris says "Another group (of crusaders) was reported to have burst into the Church of the Holy Apostles... They opened the tomb of the Emperor Justinian. Finding that his corpse was uncorrupted after over six hundred years, they left it alone but stripped off everything of value...(p 168). This impassioned but rather-less-than objective page[2] says "The Latins plundered the imperial tombs and robbed them of gold and gems. The glorious tombs were completely destroyed in the fall of Constantinople to the Turks (29th May 1453) by fanatical dervishes of Sultan Mehmet II. According to the historian Kritoboulos, the dervishes smashed for 14 hours with clubs and steel rods the relics. After smashing them, they threw what was left in a lime furnace. In 1461 sultan Mehmet II demolished the church and built a mosque over its foundations, the Fatih (Conqueror) Mosque." Alansplodge (talk) 18:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to be objective about that, 1204 was pretty terrible. Lots of contemporary sources verify it anyway. Nicetas Choniates wrote about the destruction, and even the Pope was shocked. Booty and relics show up all over the rest of Europe, obviously being sent back home by the crusaders. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Philip Glass

I've recently taken a liking to Philip Glass. Can anyone recommend other composers of a similar style? Thanks a lot. 76.68.247.201 (talk) 06:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Try some of the composers listed at Category:Minimalist composers. Steve Reich is frequently compared with Glass, though the two have some significant differences. I haven't kept up with Reich's more recent music, but of his older stuff I like Music for 18 Musicians, Tehillim (Reich), Electric Counterpoint, and Different Trains. I'd also suggest Michael Nyman and John Adams (composer). Adams isn't listed in the minimalist category, but some of this music certainly is. I'd suggest Shaker Loops and The Chairman Dances. Terry Riley is another possibility. I don't know as much about him. His piece In C is particularly famous and groundbreaking. Hmm, perhaps also Arvo Pärt. I quite like his work Fratres.Pfly (talk) 06:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you ever tried exploring http://www.allmusic.com ? They can be very helpful in this regard. --Jayron32 06:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll second Michael Nyman. He had a "greatest hits" album[3] a few years ago that would be a good taster. Alansplodge (talk) 09:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll second John Adams, and suggest Nixon in China, which worked well for me. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Prez/PM

In countries with both a president and a prime minister - which has more power? Are there counterexamples? Is there a list of either case? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 09:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It varies from country to country. Look in Semi-presidential system, Parliamentary republic and List of countries by system of government. Let me point out that you could have found the answers for yourself in 5 minutes. Flamarande (talk) 10:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Only if they knew what to look for, which they clearly didn't or they wouldn't have asked. This is why the desk exists. Thank you for helping this person (your first two sentences are a very good answer), but please don't be rude to people for not having the knowledge or skills you have. 86.164.144.120 (talk) 10:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't rude, Sir/Madam. I just pointed out that the answer was/is extremely easy to find. So please do not defend those who are more than able to defend themselves (and more than able to find their own answers). Flamarande (talk) 11:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Rude or not rude: it all depends on what cultural background you are from. Flamarande's answer would be construed as rude in the US/West Europe, but not in Germany/Eastern Europe. 80.58.205.34 (talk) 12:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Wait, what? What do you mean by that? Are you saying that because Germany and a lot of Eastern Europe has a parliamentary system where the president is mainly a figurehead or did you mean something else? In fact, I'm not sure if I understand what you meant even if my first assumption is true. TomorrowTime (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

There is the possibility that User:TheFutureAwaits is a very young child; see this archived question. If so, those of us who are at the RDs regularly should try to keep that in mind. (And being snappish with children is, I think, considered "rude" in most cultures, but that's a good point 80.58.205.34:). WikiDao ☯ (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The discussion about rudeness or not goes on on Flamarande's talk page: [4]. If TheFutureAwaits is a child, then Flamarande is wrong, and he doesn't have the abilities of defending himself. There is no point is supposing that everyone here is an adult (equally, there is no point of supposing everyone here is a male from the US, although some users fall into this mistake sometimes). @TomorrowTime: I suppose 80.58.205.34 was talking only about social norms of people with different cultural background, independent of the political background. Quest09 (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You suppose that, or do you know it, "Quest09"...? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Mhm. Different social norms. Cultural background. I'd still like the IP to explain what he meant by his grandiose assumption spreading over two continents. You see, I don't believe the world is just easily explained away with sweeping statements like that, so I'd like to know what the IP is basing his statement on. "Cultural background" is not really a good answer, because there is ridiculously more than just two cultures (even broadly speaking) in the equation USA/Western Europe vs. Germany/Eastern Europe. TomorrowTime (talk) 06:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Flamarande, for taking the trouble to answer questions at the Reference desk. Plain speaking is always best.--Wetman (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I said above could. I didn't make any generalizations. Just based on my OR, having met more than one Central-East European that were rude when he actually meant to be honest. Things that are considered rude in one country count as honesty on others. People (besides me) are just speculating that that is the reason of our misunderstading. Flamarande could feel treated unfairly now, and his critics could be completely sure that he was rude. Citing from Flamarande's TalkPage: 86.164.144.120" I am saying that the words you used, in the way you phrased them, read as rude to people (as the other user has pointed out) who come from the US and the UK, and probably other western European countries (but I am unsure of that)." User:Marco Polo"I agree that Flamarande's wording reads as rude and/or arrogant to people in English-speaking countries. (Having lived in Germany, I can also vouch that many behaviors that would be considered rude in English-speaking countries are normal in Germany.) Apart from variable cultural definitions of rudeness, I would point out that Flamarande cannot know that the person who posted the question could have found the information in 5 minutes." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.34 (talk) 11:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Secret Ballot of Hobbyist Society in UK

Im trying to establish if any "laws" exist in the UK that govern the conduct and rules of secret postal ballots in a non-political society of a group of hobbyists in a society. The ballots are held every two years. I am particularly interested in the scrutineer part of any LAWS (not custom and practise but LAWS)86.133.71.157 (talk) 11:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it a registered charity? If so, you would need to look at the role and requirements of the Charity Commission - here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe most societies that are not registered charities are governed by a written constitution approved by the membership which can be amended at general meeting by a majority vote of members. You would expect any rules about ballots to be in that constitution. I dont think it is covered by law as the society is not normally a legal entity. MilborneOne (talk) 13:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It would be a legal entity, at least in UK law, if it is a limited company or similar. I think other organisations could be legal entities even if not companies, but I'm just guessing. 92.29.112.73 (talk) 13:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Any society has to follow its own rules, laid down in its constitution, Articles of Association or similar. If you aren't sure whether the rules have been followed, or a situation has arisen that isn't covered in the rules, then you need to get qualified legal advice. You might be able to get advice from a federation of associations in the hobby. As already said, if it is a registered charity, go to the Charity Commission. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You might be interested in Electoral_Reform_Society#Electoral_Reform_Services_Limited, but they conduct ballots for larger organisations, not usually for hobbyists. I think it would be overkill to go to those lengths, but the society could follow the methods. As far as I know, no laws exist to cover ballots in small organisations, just their own constitution, as mentioned above. Dbfirs 21:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Generally, organizations hold elections according to their bylaws which are the rules by which an organization agrees to operate itself. Such bylaws are laid out in accordance to their Constitution (or differently named document serving a similar purpose). While bylaws are not strictly "laws" per se (as in they do not derive from the government), there may be, depending on the jurisdiction, legal ramifications for organizations that do not follow their own bylaws (for example, in violations of implied contracts, or something like that). Before any intelligent answer can be given, you'd need know what your local laws are, and what the bylaws of your organization are. There may be a civil violation, without there being a criminal one, as well. --Jayron32 21:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

In the UK, these would be called rules or regulations, not "bylaws". See Byelaws in the United Kingdom. Dbfirs 09:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. The rules of The Scout Association of the United Kingdom are certainly bylaws, but that may be because it is incorporated by Royal Charter - this page says "Once incorporated by Royal Charter, amendments to the Charter and by-laws require government approval". Alansplodge (talk) 11:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does say that in the general article on Royal Charter, but I wonder what "by-laws" were meant? I don't think it means the rules of the organisation. Dbfirs 18:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I have to amend my previous answer. In the Scouts, the rule book which regulates commitees, elections etc (Policy, Organisation and Rules) states "The Scout Association exists by authority of a Royal Charter, granted by King George V in 1912 and supplemented by further Charters granted by King George VI and Queen Elizabeth II. These Charters give authority to the Bye Laws of the Association, which are approved by Her Majesty's Privy Council. The Bye Laws, in turn, authorise the making of rules for the regulation of the Association's affairs, and thereby give authority for the Rules printed in Policy, Organisation and Rules."[5] We may be drifting off the point here, as a local club for enthusiasts of a hobby is unlikely to have a Royal Charter. Alansplodge (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Millions paid for art

Why are tens of millions paid for art? See for example http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11732551 It seems senseless for several reasons such as 1) the same amount of money would pay for the production of thousands of art works; 2) the people or institutions wealthy enough to afford it ought to therefore be clever enough to have more sense; 3) if just an investment then the value could decline with changes in taste or fashion, and so on. What is so odd is the combination of having lots or money but seemingly little sense.

Is there any evidence for a "Rich Widow" theory of top-end art prices - that the partner of a wealthy person just sees money as numbers and recklessly buys things? Has this happened more than once? Thanks 92.29.125.32 (talk) 11:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You can speculate with any thing - useful or not - as long as you suppose that others will buy it from you at a higher price. That might be a reason for those inflated prices. However, there are other explanations for those prices: some works of art are also Veblen goods and the more expensive they get, the greater is the motivation to buy them. Buying a Picasso will definitely bring you more status than buying work from a starving artist. And a last reason to buy important works of art at amazing prices is the possibility to monetize them through museum entry fees, which seems as a reasonable economical decision for me. Quest09 (talk) 12:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair market value, though the Wikipedia article takes no view beyond real estate, is based on a willing buyer and a willing seller. This is part of what free market means. "Value", driven by culture, is not necessarily directly linked to basic practicalities--Wetman (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The combination of money and little sense is not so unusual. They just don't stick together for long. An artwork whose provenance and significance within a particular genre are well established, as is its uniqueness (especially if the artist is both well known and dead) and which with reasonable preservation is expected to appreciate rather than depreciate, can serve its owner as a strong hedge against inflation plus being a trophy that signals both their refined taste in art and financial clout. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Typically the works that command those kinds of prices are not just works of art, they're historical artifacts. Historical documents and such are not much to look at (unless you like calligraphy and long 's's) but they often command very high prices. APL (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Medal?

What is Iain Duncan Smith wearing below the poppy? [6] Kittybrewster ☎ 14:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what it is, but he was an officer in the Scots Guards and served in Northern Ireland which would entitle him to wear the General Service Medal with the Northern Ireland Clasp[7]. It may be the lapel pin of his regimental association, but that's just a guess. Alansplodge (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Could be this one[8] but turned upside-down? Alansplodge (talk) 15:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

No. Royal British Legion badge. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes - this one [9]. Alansplodge (talk) 11:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Religious conversions in Northern Ireland

Are Protestant-turned-Catholics and Catholic-turned-Protestants a factor in the Troubles? Imagine Reason (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, the conflict is between communities, not religions. When someone from the mostly-Protestant community converts to Catholicism, or vice versa, there will almost certainly be repercussions, but they would still be a member of the mostly-Protestant community. As the (possibly apocryphal) quote goes from an atheist being asked his religion in Northern Ireland, "I'm atheist." "Ah, but are you a Protestant atheist, or a Catholic atheist?" 86.164.144.120 (talk) 20:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

See the Wikipedia article The Troubles for an account of the factors involved. There were long-standing religious and political issues that cannot be represented simply as a Christian schism. The Troubles are usually referred to in the past tense since they were considered ended by the Belfast Agreement in 1998. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel able to refer to it in the past tense, since it hasn't really ended and has been reviving more recently. But I don't expect other people to do the same. 86.164.144.120 (talk) 13:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Religious conversions were not a serious issue during the Troubles, if that's what you were asking. No doubt, a few conversions happened, probably mostly as a result of marriages, but they were relatively rare, as inter-communal marriage and conversion were generally frowned upon (to put it mildly) by both communities. The first commenter is basically correct that the conflict was not about religion but about the distribution of power between the group identified as Protestant (not all of whose members were at all religious) and the group identified as Catholic (again including many individuals with no interest in religion). At its root, this was really an ethnic division, with the so-called Catholics seeing themselves mainly as descendants of the indigenous Irish population and the so-called Protestants largely seeing themselves as British people whose ancestors arrived during the Plantations of Ireland. Marco polo (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is an example of a Belfast Protestant woman who converted to Catholicism on account of her marriage to a Catholic: Jean McConville. Remember the Pope (I forget off-hand which one) back in the early 20th century did a lot of damage to Protestant-Catholic relations by issuing the Ne Temere decree which stated that in all mixed-marriages the Protestant partner had to promise to bring the children up Catholic.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to confuse things further, there have been significant, though hardly huge, numbers of both Catholic Unionists and Protestant Irish nationalists. —— Shakescene (talk) 09:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. And to add to the chaos, there's Kevin McGrady, an IRA man who turned informer after becoming a Born-Again Christian.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Armistice Day

I heard an interview on CBC radio today from a Canadian legion veteran stating that the 2 minutes of silence was actually to be observed at 10:58 a.m. The reason being is at 11:00 a.m. the armistice was signed and the celebrations began ending the war. Has anyone ever heard that view before? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.55.30.100 (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I've not heard that view before, and it sounds like it's describing a more triumphalist view than I generally associate with Remembrance Day, Remembrance Sunday, or the two minutes silence (in that it suggests 11:00am is a time for celebration?). But I'm sure these things vary from country to country, as different cultures have different associations. Here in the UK, the moment of the end of the war is a moment for (sad) remembrance, not celebration. 86.164.144.120 (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The 11:00 AM time was actually agreed upon as the official armistice time because of the nice pattern it made (11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month), see Armistice Day. Reasons for choosing that day and time are explained in the article. --Jayron32 21:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Quite poignant that 10:58 a.m. is mentioned in the question when the last man said to have been killed in action, George Lawrence Price (a Canadian), died at that exact time. Any connection? It's also a pity that not all commanding officers sat it out till 11:00 a.m. Jack forbes (talk) 23:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The armistice was actually signed at 5am on the 11th November - see our article on Armistice with Germany. I heard in a recent television program that the German delegation wanted it to come into effect immediately, but Marshall Foch insisted it should not come into effect until 11am because he wanted the Allies to capture some final strategic objectives. As a result, several thousand more lives were needlessly lost. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like the same programme I saw recently. There were many officers who did sit it out till 11:00 a.m. though the programme did concentrate on one particular American officer (who's name I forget) who ordered his men to take a town, fighting till the very last moments. Jack forbes (talk) 12:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

That would be Stenay, taken by the troops of General William M. Wright. I saw the programme too. This is a fascinating and depressing roundup of those last-minute deaths before Armistice Day, and the various reasons why attacks continued right up to the end. Karenjc 12:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, (1) the armistice was signed some time after 5 am British/French time (which was 6 am German time), but they rounded it off to 5:00 officially so that the end of the 6-hour delay would fall at a time of day that was easy to remember and communicate. And (2) the 6-hour delay was to give time for communications, so that everyone on both sides knew there was an armistice before it took effect. It was feared that if troops on one side knew about it and those facing them across the front line did not, a difficult situation would arise with the ones who knew perhaps compelled to violate the ceasefire in self-defense. When they heard that an armistice was about to be effective, different units reacted differently. Some took it as a last chance to attack with all the firepower they had, others stopped firing unless fired upon, some stopped firing until the last minute and then give a final blast with all guns.

My source for this is probably November 1918: The Last Act of the Great War by Gordon Brook-Shepherd (1981, Collins, ISBN 0-00-216558-9; Little, Brown, ISBN 0-316-10960-6); but I had A Stillness Heard Round the World: The End of the Great War: November 1918 by Stanley Weintraub (1985, Oxford University Press, paperback 1987, ISBN 0-19-505208-0) out of the library at the same time, and I can't be positive as to which facts I read in which book.

Before the advent of accurate personal timekeeping it would be difficult to halt before the hour. The tolling of a bell to mark the eleventh hour would have been a more universal signal for people to stop and reflect. Nanonic (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Two minutes silence on Armistice Day

Do people in public places or elsewhere actually observe the two minutes silence? Do people stand still or does the traffic stop? I was indoors at that time today so could not see. 92.15.3.20 (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I was in the terminal at London Gatwick Airport today and everything in the terminal stopped and went silent for the two minutes - which was amazing for such a busy place. We will remember them. MilborneOne (talk) 22:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I have never known any traffic to stop. Most drivers would not realize it was that time, and they would soon get irritated with anyone who stopped. Also it is not usually practical to stop activities at a railway station for example. However, shopping malls in the UK are likely to stop their muzak for two minutes and perhaps make an announcement. Now if only they would permanently cut the muzak....--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Stopping on Armistice Day in the UK is a fairly recent revival. Post WWII, Remembrance Sunday was created to avoid disruption on a working day and Armistice Day itself wasn't observed. From memory it was revived in the 1990s after a campaign by the Royal British Legion. Before WWII, observance was nearly universal. My father remembers newspaper reports of people being beaten-up (after the 2 minutes silence of course) for carrying-on walking. They were usually trying to make a political point, like yesterday's poppy burners[10]. Alansplodge (talk) 11:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The entire war was a series of needless deaths and bloodshed, and few heroics; it should never have happened-a debaclé from start to finish. And the outcome of all the corpses in the trenches, the pain, the slaughter: Adolf Hitler! What a mess. Sorry for the melodramatic vitriol, I just had to get this off my chest--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a common view of the conflict. However, what course would you have had France follow when they were invaded? Should the UK have stood aside and allowed Belgium to be violated? Where would it all have ended? It's easy to be wise after the event. Alansplodge (talk) 16:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

All buses in my local town stopped for 2 minutes at 1100 on Thursday and will again on Sunday.[11] Nanonic (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Racial homogeneity and liberality?

A similar question above somewhat reminded me of this. I am half-Swedish and half-Norwegian (2nd generation), so I know that there is very little racial diversity in many Scandinavian countries. However, when my friends and relatives visit, even though they have probably never seen a black person, or any kind of person other than a white person, they seem perfectly at ease around my American friends, most of whom are not white. Not only that, they are surprisingly (in my opinion) tolerant of things that America (with hundreds of years of diversity) still considers controversial, such as homosexuality, and also of other religions and even controversial political groups (for example, as long as a party did not engage in violence they were willing to listen to its views (although not necessarily agree). This did not suddenly disappear even when the Communist part was brough up. My school (~60% nonwhite) also hosted German exchange students, and they also did not seem disturbed by these things, although predictably they expressed some discomfort at political groups reminescent of the Nazi Party. Why would this be? I don't think racial homogeneity is the key to promoting tolerance, but my experiences show otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.78.167 (talk) 23:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Having grown up in New Hampshire (which, especially 25 years ago, has a racial profile similar to Scandanavia) my experience matches yours regarding racial tolerance, at least among my own generation. However, I think a big part of it is the specific relationship between blacks and whites in America (vis-a-vis Slavery in the United States that makes a part of the situation. Its not just racial homogeneity, its the historical context that led to the racial diversity in America, and the completely different history in Scandanavia. And Scandanavia isn't entirely clean regarding this issue, see Vidkun Quisling. --Jayron32 00:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the original question is more along the lines: "why are the citizens of Scandinavian countries more liberal in issues like race, homosexuality, religion and politics than the citizens of the USA?"

The answer has probably something to do with wealth, security, hope for the future versus fear-mongering and religious self-rightousness and condemnation. Flamarande (talk)

There is certainly a connection between the perceived homogeneity of a place and its views on certain political topics. In America, the poor are often as seen as a "them" by middle-income whites rather than an "us" because of the racial dynamic (whites may identify poverty with racial minorities, even though most blacks aren't poor and most poor Americans aren't black). This was discussed in the famous study of the so-called Reagan Democrats of Macomb County, Michigan, next to Detroit, where middle-income whites voted overwhelmingly for the right-wing candidate Ronald Reagan. These voters had far more racial consciousness than class consciousness -- even though they were part of what Europeans call the working class, they saw social welfare programs as helping blacks, a "them," rather than "us." In a homogenous country, presumably that ethnic animosity is absent, and the middle-income are more likely to identify with the poor. However, this cannot be the only explanation. Idaho, Montana and Wyoming have tiny black populations, so it's unlikely that people in those states are hung up about race like those who live in the edge of Detroit may be. Yet those are among the most-conservative states in the union. Also, the racial factor wouldn't explain the social conservatism of the U.S. compared to Scandinavia. Members of racial minorities in the U.S. are often very socially conservative. While whites were split on the 2008 California referendum that overturned a court decision legalizing gay marriage, blacks overwhelmingly voted yes. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

In the US, racial desegregation of public schools was based in part on the idea that children who grow up in racially diverse environments will learn to be less racially prejudiced. Surprisingly, according to a recent cover story in Newsweek, this turns out to be untrue. One study "found that the more diverse the school, the more the kids self-segregate by race and ethnicity within the school, and thus the likelihood that any two kids of different races have a friendship goes down." Few would advocate segregation to address this problem; rather, the authors argue that more frank education about race is needed. —Kevin Myers 04:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

You may be interested in Bandwagon effect, the idea that when people see other people doing something, they do it too. This would go both ways. Scandinavians see their fellow countrymen being tolerant, and they don't want to be the odd one out who hates homos or blacks, so they are accepting. Your stereotypical southern baptist sees his buddies making fun of the effeminate guy in gym class or steal the little black boys 2% milk, so he does it too. There is a veritable myriad of explanations. schyler (talk) 04:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. You may also be interested in Richard Wright's Big Black Good Man. A terrific short story that takes place in a Danish Hotel in Copenhagen. schyler (talk) 04:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure racial homogeneity is the only factor. Slovenia is almost 100% racially homogeneous, and while we may not be particularly intolerant of black people (although the writer of this blog, a black woman living in Slovenia might disagree), homosexuals or (god forbid) the Roma ethnic minority - we're talking an actual ethnic minority here, they've been here for generations - are still very hot issues here. I wish it weren't so, but it is... TomorrowTime (talk) 07:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The people you meet in the US (whether from Scandinavia or Germany) are people going abroad, often to study. These will be a selection of the more open-minded and higher-educated people from their country. After all, if you have a narrow-minded view of the world, what have you to learn from going abroad and seeing diversity? Compare, for example, Norwegian exchange students in the US ("liberal") to Norwegian-Americans in the Midwest ("conservative"). This doesn't explain it all, but I can tell you there are a lot of people in Norway being sceptical towards people with different skin color. Jørgen (talk) 08:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The U.S. has a prison system that distinguishes it from many other countries that might seem similar. This video shows a pretty brutalizing scene. I couldn't say that the prison system perpetuates racism and related ills but I don't think it contributes to alleviating them. Bus stop (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

November 12

visa question for short story

Does a hungarian citizen today require a special visa for up to 3 months in america or can they just go with their visa without doing anything first —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.186.31.236 (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

This web site should help you with your question. --Halcatalyst (talk)

East york and york

Are former cities of east york and york are considered the southern part of Toronto? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.17.161 (talk) 01:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so...East York is, well, in the east, and York is sort of in the middle. The "southern" part of Toronto is Toronto proper, pre-amalgamation; "downtown" is in the south, from (let's say) Bloor to the lake. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The reason I ask that because Toronto has North York which borders with East York and York in the south and borders with Scarborough in the east due to Victoria Park Avenue and borders with Etobicoke in the west due to Jane Street. I want to if they were considered as south or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.43.187 (talk) 14:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

We have an article on the former city of Toronto, before any of the amalgamations. I think that is what you're looking for, but I wouldn't say that all of that was "south" either. We just don't really talk about Toronto having a "south" portion, we just say "downtown". For definitions of that we also have the article Downtown Toronto. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Some departments of the amalgamated city divide it into 4 districts, corresponding roughly to the old cities of Toronto, North York, Etobicoke, and Scarborough -- but they tend to use a simplified version of the boundary between Toronto and North York, and to reflect this fact, some departments do refer to the "south district" and "north district". As far as I know this districting has been decided on independently by each municipal department (parks, schools, water, etc.), and so the boundaries as well as the names vary -- for example, one department may use Eglinton Avenue while another has something more complicated. Thus the treatment of York and East York may also vary.

By the way, before the amalgamation the boundary of Etobicoke was the Humber River, not Jane Street. A small section the Toronto/York boundary did more or less follow Jane, though. --Anonymous, 23:45 UTC, November 12, 2010.

Scandinavian flags

Why do the Scandinavian countries, which are generally liberal, use blatant Christian symbolism in their flags? --75.33.217.61 (talk) 02:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Because "liberal" and "Christian" are not mutually exclusive. The flags also date much further back than liberalism (and, actually, further back than the Lutheranism that is currently predominant there). See Nordic Cross flag. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)...well, 1) you can be both a liberal and a Christian, 2) Scandinavia was not, by any means, particularily liberal when these flags were first adopted. The flag of Denmark originates from the 14th century. The flag of Sweden has roots to the 16th century. Btw, the separation of church and state in Sweden took place in 2000. --Soman (talk) 02:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Liberalism doesn't preclude being religious, but it does preclude state endorsement of a particular religion. --75.33.217.61 (talk) 02:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The cross is not necessarily Christian, and hasn't always been so, even. See Ankh, a symbol concerning Egyptian Theology. For future refernce, the word used in The New Testament for the execution of Jesus is stauros, literally "an upright stake, esp. a pointed one" (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of The New Testament, p. 586). schyler (talk) 04:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the Scandanvians weren't thinking about the Ankh when designing their flags, and I am also pretty certain that the cross was well established in Christian iconography (regardless of its true origin) when the cross flag motif found its way into the Scandanavian countries. --Jayron32 05:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Scandinavian cross conspicuously lacks the closed-loop component of the Ankh, and the "torture stake" thing is a JW-specific theory which is conspicuously unsupported by the consensus of Classical scholarship. AnonMoos (talk) 05:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

See Dispute about Jesus' execution method (permanent link here).

—Wavelength (talk) 06:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure many definitions of "liberalism" preclude state endorsement of a particular religion; however, the social organization of the Scandinavian countries certainly went hand in hand with state religion. Norway, for example, still has a state church. The Faroe Islands is (I believe; this is based purely on anecdotal evidence on my part) the most Protestant Christian country in the world. The coupling of Christian politics with US Republican-style parties, I think, mainly a North American thing. Sure, continental Europe (meaning Europe less Scandinavia and UK/Ireland) has a lot of strong Christian Democratic parties that can be socially conservative, but not "small-government" in the US sense. Jørgen (talk) 08:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, it's not as if we don't have people here in the Nordic countries (as a Finn I must insist on this) who think the cross violates their rights or something. But unlike France or the U.S., the Nordic countries never had a revolution. Therefore we lack revolutionary traditions such as the separation of church and state, and indeed republicanism (Finland became a republic almost by accident). Our liberalism has developed slowly and more or less peacefully, like in Britain.--Rallette (talk) 08:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is as much about "not having a revolution" as "the revolutionaries not being as radical". After all, the Norwegian Constitution of 1814 represented a break with history and was strongly French Revolution - inspired, and Sweden and Denmark also had constitutions introduced in the 1800s. Jørgen (talk) 08:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

A matter of taste I suppose. At any rate, three of the major Nordic countries remain monarchies, if ever so constitutional, and republican Finland still has its official church (although some pedants will insist it's not a "state church"). In Sweden it was actually illegal until the 1960s for commoners to change their name into something that sounded too much like nobility! No "hanging the last nobleman by the entrails of the last priest" then. In all our breaks with history, we've held on to symbols of continuity.--Rallette (talk) 08:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

No revolution in the Nordic countries? Finland was on the verge of becoming a socialist workers republic (see Finnish Civil War), a revolution only crushed by foreign intervention. --Soman (talk) 12:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

This is drifting off topic, but of course what I meant was no successful revolution, that is to say, none of these countries is constitutionally founded on a revolutionary act, the way France or the U.S. are.--Rallette (talk) 14:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Turkey makes a huge point out of being a secular country, and yet it has what is generally thought to be the most common symbol of Islam on its flag (although it's often pointed out that Islam doesn't have symbols per se and that the crescent and star are historical symbols "of the land"). These flags were adopted way before the Nordic countries became a haven of irreligion, and they are kept as a uniting symbol reminiscent of common history and common culture. The Nordic cross is a symbol for a country's "Nordicness", that's why Estonia tried to adopt such a flag a while back, and in my mind has little to do with Christianity anymore. I'm sorry to hear that some people in Finland (and probably in the other Nordic countries too) have a problem with the cross, thinking it violates their rights, because even though I'm not from a Nordic country I love the flags and I think it would be a huge mistake to give them up. Sorry for this turning into a rant. Rimush (talk) 09:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I assure you, it's a very small minority, and hardly even vocal. No need to worry.--Rallette (talk) 09:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The Danish flag is the Dannebrog, the original of which (legend tells) fell from the sky during the Battle of Lyndanisse against the pagam Estonians in 1219. It was accompanied by a celestial voice saying ""When you raise this banner against your enemies, they will yield before you". The banner fell into the arms of the Danish archbishop who presented it to King Valdemar II. The tide of the battle turned and the Danes were victorious. It is claimed to be the oldest flag in the world in continuous use[12]. Not a tradition to be given up lightly. Alansplodge (talk) 10:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Why do the Scandinavian countries still have state churches and, except for Finland and Iceland, monarchies? --J4\/4 <talk> 15:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what sort of an answer you're looking for; presumably "They have state churches because it seemed like a good plan when the churches were set up and they haven't since been disestablished" isn't going to cut it. It might help if you explained what you find incongruous in the existence of state churches in the Nordic countries. Marnanel (talk) 18:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

When the Danish constitution of 1849 was instituted, it was decided, on account of disagreement, to postpone the question of separation of church and state until a later date by adding a clause that said that the position of the church in regard to the state should be specified by law (§66). Until this date no politician has deemed the cause of taking this issue up as being beneficial for their careers, so the issue has been postponed in all the subsequent constitution revisions as well as in the regular lawmaking. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't the a state-mandated church violate freedom of religion? --75.33.217.61 (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

An "established" or state-supported church can be very different from requiring all the inhabitants of a country to belong to a specific religion. AnonMoos (talk) 00:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

In England, the Anglican Church of England is the established church. Any penalties for not belonging to it ended in the 17th century. The Baptist and Methodist churches were both founded in England despite having an established church. Today, the CofE has a few perks, such as representation in the House of Lords and they get a leading role in all the great national celebrations and commemorations. There is no Government funding. There are a few downsides, in that the Government has a say in the appointment of bishops and in major changes to its constitution (although this is more theoretical than real). In Scotland the established church is the Presbyterian Church of Scotland which has fewer ties to the state and the Queen has to change religions as she crosses the border. There is no established church at all in Wales or Northern Ireland. Freedom of religion is regarded as a constitutional right in the whole of the UK. Alansplodge (talk) 17:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Not quite the whole. No person who is now, or has ever been, or is even married to, a Roman Catholic can become the monarch. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 06:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a bit unlikely to impinge on anyone's religious freedom in the foreseeable future and the abolition of that legislation has been under discussion for a while. Alansplodge (talk) 13:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It's still in place, so let's discuss what is. Are Prince Charles and the rest of the 1,500-odd people in the Line of Succession not included in "anyone"? They are most certainly NOT free to become a Catholic or marry one, if they have any hope of becoming monarch. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

successful therapy per Freud

When asked to describe the outcome of successful therapy, Freud is supposed to have said the patient was returned to the cold, gray world that everyone inhabits, or something like that. Can anyone point me to the actual quotation? --Halcatalyst (talk) 03:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a famous sentence at the end of Studies on Hysteria, where Freud writes:

"...much will be gained if we succeed in transforming your hysterical misery into common unhappiness." ("...viel damit gewonnen ist, wenn es uns gelingt, Ihr hysterisches Elend in gemeines Unglück zu verwandeln")

Might this be what you are looking for?--Rallette (talk) 08:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "common unhappiness" is the phrase I was half-remembering. Thank you. --Halcatalyst (talk) 14:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Health Insurance Premiums

On any given year (preferably the most recent), how much money is spent on health insurance premiums as a whole in the United States (not per family)?

Please provide sources, preferably internet articles. Your timely and informative answers will be most appreciated. 66.229.203.112 (talk) 09:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Not quite answering your question, but this search revealed lots of evidence that US healthcare is the most expensive in the world, including the first link - this PDF from the University of Maine - which indicates "the United States spent $4,178 per capita on health care in 1998", a total of around $1.2 trillion. Quite how much of that is only insurance premiums, I don't know. 212.123.243.220 (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Is child prostitution really being ignored in the U.S.?

I keep hearing media reports (there was another one on CNN just now) saying that incredibly large numbers of young children in the U.S. have been forced into prostitution on the streets. A figure in child prostitution is 162,000 and I've seen even higher figures - figures that would mean that there are several child prostitute liasons per capita each year in the U.S.

Now I have a hard time reconciling this with all the crazy stories about prosecutors going after children as "child pornographers" for "sexting" each other, going after businessmen who end up with one underage image among thousands on their hard drive, district attorneys threatening companies for carrying Usenet, legislation and prosecution targeting anonymous remailers and encryption software and torrents because something might slip through, and now media companies chastising Amazon for not reading every single vanity e-book anyone tries to sell on their site. It sounds like the country has a vast excess of highly trained technical enforcers looking for political prisoners to lock up, while kids are out on the streets right in the open every single night getting raped to profit the people who kidnapped them. And I've seen some sources saying that even when the "johns" get caught they don't get imprisoned and branded as sex offenders. Are things really that blatantly, flagrantly fucked up here? Wnt (talk) 11:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

There are at least three different things here:

• Sexting. Classic middle class anxiety about their kids' sexuality — a common panic and every 5 years there is a new one (remember the rainbow party fears?). This one happens to be centered on the new power of social networking.
• Heavy prosecution of child pornography or sex offenders. A more general "save the children" impulse that has in the last 10-15 years taken a complete "zero tolerance" thread in the US, leading to increasingly restrictive laws, heavy minimum penalties, and often counterproductive measures. What you are describing is a secondary effect of heavy enforcement of a zero tolerance policy — picking up borderline cases and putting them in the same category as the hardcore offenders.
• Actual child prostitution. Hard to detect, hard to break up, hard to prosecute (prosecuting the prostitute gets you no progress at all; prosecuting pimps is hard; prosecuting "johns" is a fairly inefficient way to go about it), primarily affects outcasts (runaways, homeless, etc.), potentially has a lower awareness level amongst the middle class. American attitudes towards the homeless are generally pretty bad; Americans equate poverty with failure and many think that the homeless are just "lazy" and enjoy spending all day begging for scraps. (Or worse, they have ludicrous fantasies about how good they have it off, living off of charity.) If this gets recast as a "child" issue and not a "homeless" issue, perhaps there would be room for better attention and remediation. I've seen the figure that it takes on average only 48 hours for a child runaway to be approached by a pimp.

I focus on the middle class here because it is generally speaking the middle class who seem to be responsible for the "morality legislation" in the US. This is just a generalization on my part, though. It's not surprising to me that would find different levels of media attention, and thus prosecutor attention (prosecutors have political ambitions, too), towards these three different things. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with 98 - there's a NIMBY class distinction here. The same distinction that results in the JonBenét Ramsey murder getting literally years of national press (and its own wikipedia page) while the deaths of inner city toddlers in drive-by shootings might merit a page six paragraph in the local paper. Standard bourgeois attitude: bad things shouldn't happen to anyone, but they shouldn't happen more to some people than to others. --Ludwigs2 17:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Without having read any report on this, I'll also offer that most people would think there's a difference between the calamity of a 13-year-old being a prostitute, as opposed to a 17-year-old being a prostitute in a place where 17 is the age of consent. The latter may well still be called "child prostitution". I mention this without wishing to trivialize the problem for either. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Deaths of inner city toddlers in a drive-by shooting would merit only a paragraph in the local paper? Can that really be the case? How inured to violence has the US become????? In the UK, I bet also in Canada, Australia, NZ and Europe, it would definitely make national TV news. Probably also a high profile police investigation. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, Ludwigs2 didn't cite a source for his claim about the hypothetical toddlers. Though I don't disagree that there's a class distinction in how the US media blares crime news. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not that the US is inured to violence so much as that violence against Black kids is not considered to be very interesting or newsworthy. There is a "you know how they are" aspect to those stories, even if it is sympathetic with the victims. If a white girl is abducted or dies under unusual circumstances, expect massive regional or even national attention. If a Black girl has the same happen, at most you'll get fleeting local attention. It's a race thing, it's a class thing. I doubt it is limited to the United States, though. Scrape away and practically every place has people whose plights are ignored, because if you really reported on them what they deserved, there'd be no room for anything else... --Mr.98 (talk) 20:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the same race and class phenomenon is seen toward Aboriginals in Canada. For example, it's been said that that's why it took so long for Robert Pickton to get caught--the media (and even police) just don't pay nearly the same attention when Aboriginals and/or prostitutes go missing.Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 12:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why it would be seen as hard to prosecute. There was just a huge flap about sex ads on Craigslist. If the prosecutors were interested in stopping prostitution, rather than scoring points against the First Amendment, all they would have had to do was post some ads for "barely legal escorts", then offer responders the opportunity for an encounter with someone younger if they want. Just setting up a sexual liason with a child puts the john in the position of those people you see in To Catch A Predator, while the adults can be ticketed for soliciting a prostitute and fined to pay for the operation. I don't see where they'd have any difficulty doing this at all, if they wanted. Wnt (talk) 21:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

That's called entrapment, and is illegal. It's also anti-productive. You may end up with a lot of people in jail, but how many of those would have solicited child prostitutes if they would not have been actively encouraged? And how many of those that do engage in sex with child prostitutes do not use ads to select their victims? Success is not measured by the number of convictions, but by the reduction in the phenomenon. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Based on typical practices involving drugs, I thought entrapment was harder to establish than that. I'm not sure how people go about finding child prostitutes, but I would think that no matter how they do it, there should be a way to put out poisoned bait. Wnt (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not a function of race, though race plays into it. The JonBenet case got a ton of press because they were a wealthy family training their daughter to be a socialite. She was someone with "prospects", and bad things are not supposed to happen to people with prospects. People without prospects are (largely) ignored by the press unless they do something outrageous. based on 1990-1995 data [13] (and doing a little calculation) there are roughly 150 child homicides in the US every year. It's safe to assume that most of those involve low SES minorities, but a casual search of your favorite news archives will show you that only a tiny proportion of such homicides get national attention (1 every couple of years, perhaps), and those invariably involve upper class caucasians. do the math. --Ludwigs2 22:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

To back up Ludwigs2 on this, Connecticut residents (and some New Yorkers) will know of a place called Squantz Pond in New Fairfield. Between 1997 and 2007, there were 12 drownings, more than any other place in the state. I was there for the last of those 12 drownings; as an off-duty lifeguard, I was involved in the rescue, which rapidly turned into a recovery. Later, my dad and I found that 11 of the 12 drownings were Latinos from New York City, and one (in 1999) was an upper-middle class 9 or 10 year old white girl from New Fairfield. The 1999 drowning had much more coverage; part of it was that the girl was from Connecticut, but it was also largely because she was white upper-middle class. Furthermore, the town DEP tried to play a smokescreen game to cover their asses and how they fucked a lot up, and it was only because my dad and I wrote something to the first selectman (mayor, for those unfamiliar with CT) that even he knew what happened- and he told us that every other time, no one had cared enough to say anything. I think this syndrome is largely what's affecting child prostitution, although 162,000 in the US also seems a bit high; I suspect if you cut 17 year olds (who are of age in many countries) out, that number would be substantially lower. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

the Op wrote "I've seen even higher figures - figures that would mean that there are several child prostitute liasons per capita each year in the U.S." Come on. If "several" means "at least three and sometimes more," that would be about a billion per year, if not more. The OP is either BS-ing here or is innumerate. 63.17.63.136 (talk) 03:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Please note 1,000,000,000 / 162,000 = 6172 / 365 = 16 liasons nightly. I don't know how often child prostitutes actually submit to a customer, but if the figures are really "several times higher" than 162,000 I think that this deduction would be plausible. Wnt (talk) 13:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Treason in medieval England

While editing an article, I discovered that treason was not officially a crime punishable by death until 1351. I never knew that (I have read loads of books, editing numerous Wikipedia articles and watched countless documentaries on medieval England). Can someone please elaborate on this? I know that Roger Mortimer, 1st Earl of March was not executed for the act of treason (which is what he did), but rather for having assumed royal power and other crimes punishable by death. Yet the word treason was not mentioned. I find this curious.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Where did you discover that? I can tell you all about treason in crusader Jerusalem, if that helps; there are probably similarities. In Jerusalem, there was two types of treason, "apparent" (for example if someone allied with a Muslim state) and "non-apparent" (basically an accusation without obvious proof). Accusations of treason could be solved by judicial combat, and although death was certainly possible in combat, the punishment was normally disinheritence and exile. This is specific to crusader Jerusalem and Cyprus, but in the thirteenth century there were two political factions who went around accusing each other of treason and had to constantly fight judicial duels. However, there is at least one example in the twelfth-century where the king considered an action (in this case an attack by the Templars on a Muslim ambassador) to be an attack on himself, lèse majesté, and that was punished by execution. Sorry, I blathered on there, that's probably not even relevant, haha. England, of course, is different because it had an older tradition of common law, and the laws and courts developed much differently than those in France and elsewhere. I would guess that treason was punished by exile or disinheritence in England as well, and for whatever reason it was upgraded to a capital crime in 1351, if what you read was correct. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I read it here: Hanging, drawing and quartering and here: Treason Act 1351. As I had mentioned before Roger Mortimer was not hanged for the crime of treason but rather for having assumed royal power.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Prior to 1351, treason was a vaguely defined crime. Treason and traitors in Norman and Anglo-Norman history, c.1066-1135, which examines the topic in detail and would be well worth organising access to, describes treason in Norman and early Plantagenet England as betrayal of an overlord or friend of noble or royal rank, particularly in a deceitful manner. During the twelfth and thirteenth century, high treason became more closely associated with attacks on the king. It states that a typical punishment would be exile and disinheritence, as Adam Bishop suggests. Warofdreams talk 16:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

a bit on the original research side, but I think you're getting tangled in different governance models. Treason (in the modern sense) is a crime against a state: a person is assumed to be bound to a state as a citizen, and so acts against the state one is bound to are categorized differently than 'acts of war' (acts against a state one is not bound to) or 'crimes' (acts against other citizens of a state). the modern concept of 'state', however really isn't more than a couple of hundred years old - prior to that there wasn't a clear distinction between the state and its ruler, and so treason was much more of a personal breach of trust than an abstract act of sedition. compare the related word 'treachery', which still carries to older sense. treason as an idea goes back to Cain and Able; treason as a legal construct doesn't really come into its own until the distinction between ruler and state solidifies. --Ludwigs2 17:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the English Common Law is that by definition it wasn't written down as a statute, but it was a practice of custom that had developed over time. As a result, we don't have any statutes but only limited examples in a few sources. Fordham University has a good collection of early English Common Law. It would take some research, but apparently, King Alfred's Dom speaks of "treason against his lord." It is unclear if this is treason in the sense we know of it. I can only read Latin and I'm not sure where we can find the original language source for this dom. However, Bracton also mentions treason against the lord king:

Habent etiam servi personam standi in iudicio contra dominos suos de seditione domini regis, et aliis quae fiunt contra personam eius, quia ibi admittitur quilibet de populo, et contra dominum suum de atroci iniuria, ubi agitur de vita vel membris, vel roberia

"Bondsmen even have a standing in court against their lords, for heinous wrongs, where life and member are involved, or for robbery, and for treason against the lord king and other acts committed against his person, for in that case everyone is allowed to speak."

The word he uses is seditio, which is where we get our modern word for sedition. Since ancient times, this word has meant "insurrection." The domini regis/Lord King qualifies the type of sedition of which the serf/bondsman has standing in the courts against his lords. This is a very clear, 13th Century English reference to treason in the same sense that we know of it today. What is interesting to note is that Bracton qualifies sedition against the Lord King to be a felony. All felonies were punishable by death (hanging) or exile at Common Law according to Bracton. What happened to the land of felon was a complicated matter of great interest to heirs, wives, lords, and the king. I would have to argue that treason was punishable by death earlier that 1351, but I cannot say exactly when it was established as a capital offense. At least a hundred years earlier, it was firmly established in Bracton's time and not a new principle. The English translation of Bracton on Harvard Law School's website is actually quite good. I would be curious to see if the Dom of King Alfred also used the word seditio; if he did, one might be able to make an argument that the penalty of death for "plotting against his lord" was a 9th century recognition for the death penalty for treason. My feeling is that 1351 is way too late and the concept and punishment had several hundred years of precedent. It may take some digging, but I am confident it could be established as earlier. Gx872op (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The Assize of Northampton from 1176 lists treason as an offense. I can't find the Latin at the moment so I'm not sure if it's traditio or seditio or something else. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Bear in mind the distinction between High treason and Petty treason (clarified in some links included above but not explicitly mentioned), and possible confusions arising from omissions of the qualifiers in context. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

This guy Bartholomew de Badlesmere, 1st Baron Badlesmere was hanged, drawn and quartered in 1322 for rebelling against Edward II, which was of course an act of treason. It seems that in 1351 the law specified what crimes actually constituted treason and promulgated the Act of Treason. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the first sentence of that article provides the answer: "The Treason Act 1351 is an Act of the Parliament of England (25 Edw. III St. 5 c. 2) which codified and curtailed the common law offence of treason."

Treason was a common law crime well before it was codified by Parliament. Your question obviously predates it, but by the American Revolution, treason was understood as a distinguishable, if not legally distinct crime. There's a reason the American Constitution specifies treason specially, require two witnesses. Of course under the common law treason, as with all felonies, had a punishment of death (that's what made them felonies).

What I'm very curious about, and know nothing of, is whether or not treason was considered distinct legally in England between 1300 and 1800, or around then. Shadowjams (talk) 10:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Another interesting question: The U.S. Constitution specifically abolishes the corruption of blood, which appears to be provided for in the Act. If anyone has any background on that I'm very curious. Shadowjams (talk) 10:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Is the English flag a Nordic Cross flag?

The red cross on a white background. Does its design come from Nordic roots of centuries ago? 92.28.248.229 (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

No. They are all Christian crosses but the Nordic crosses are all offset towards the hoist. Alansplodge (talk) 18:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Nope. The flag of England is of medieval origin and predates the first Nordic cross design, the Dannebrog which is said to be from the 13th Century.--Rallette (talk) 18:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

It most likely doesn't predate the Dannebrog, as they are both of medieval and crusader origin (the myth of Dannebrog falling from the skies should of course be taken with a big spoonful of salt). But yes, Alansplodge is correct that it is not a Nordic cross flag. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, both their origins are obscure. But based on our articles, the red cross of St. George has been acknowledged as the symbol of England since the early days of the crusades, while the first sources connecting the white cross on red to the king of Denmark are from the 13th and 14th Centuries (although the article on the Danish flag mentions as "possible" some coins of an unspecified earlier date).

Curiously, our article on the Scandinavian cross gives no theory on the origin of the asymmetrical design (the Dannebrog is a square banner in the earliest depictions). And a quick search fails to bring up any commonly accepted theory either. Some say it developed from the asymmetry inherent in a shield, but I have another idea: if you take a square banner with a cross and then make it into a swallow-tail by adding two triangular sections, you get an asymmetrical flag that's only one pizza slice away from a basic rectangular Scandinavian design.--Rallette (talk) 06:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Or if you wrap one side around a pole it becomes asymetrical. 92.15.30.196 (talk) 16:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Did Isidore Gluckstein enclose a park?

In the fifteenth chapter of Chesterton's book The Flying Inn we find a poem named The Song of Quoodle. The second stanza runs:

"They haven't got no noses,

They cannot even tell

When door and darkness closes

The park a Jew encloses,

Where even the Law of Moses

Will let you steal a smell."

In the tenth volume of The Collected Works of G.K. Chesterton, it is claimed that the fourth line of this stanza originally said "The park Old Gluck encloses" (Old Gluck being "Sir Isadore Gluckstein") and that Chesterton's wife emended the line without his knowledge because of her worries about a possible libel case (these worries arising from Cecil Chesterton's part in the Marconi scandal) thus "making a valid comment on the exclusion of the public from parkland seem like an antisemitic diatribe".

So, dear Reference Desk, my questions to you are:

• Who was the mysterious Sir Isadore Gluckstein? Could he have been Isidore Gluckstein, the co-founder of J. Lyons and Co.? If so, was he ever knighted?
• What and where was this parkland that Gluckstein brought Chesterton's wrath upon himself by enclosing? Marnanel (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

A brief biog here[14]. He was the eldest son of Samuel Gluckstein, the co-founder of Lyons. No mention of a park but I 'spect he could afford to have one. Maybe some confusion with Sir Isidore Salmon (also connected with Lyons) who was knighted in 1933. Alansplodge (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Me again; could be a connection with Cadby Hall, the Lyons HQ in Hammersmith, which apparently expanded in all directions. Just a guess really. Alansplodge (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The missing Louis

A few years ago, my French teacher mentioned something about French monarchs being poor with numbers. As an example, she said that one ordinal number was accidentally skipped when naming Louis the new king. I don't remember which number was skipped (13 has been considered unlucky for ages so in that case it could've been intentional) but the category[15] reveals nothing about such omission. So, is the "missing Louis" just a legend? Thanks! 88.112.51.212 (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Louis XVI's son was considered Louis XVII by royalists, although he died in prison during the revolution, so the next Louis was Louis XVIII. Is that what she meant? That wasn't because they were bad with numbers though. Was she referring to the Merovingian and Carolingian kings? They are sometimes not numbered, and there were numerous kings in different territories that make up modern France, so it can be confusing. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's a List of French monarchs, FYI. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you! 88.112.51.212 (talk) 20:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it could be argued (in fact I'm sure I have seen it argued...but where?) that the name of Clovis or Chlodovech I, King of the Franks should be modernised as Louis I, the name Louis being derived from Chlodovech. In that case Louis the Pious would be Louis II, and all subsequent kings of that name would be bumped up by one. There's a good short discussion of the name at Clovis I#Name. Antiquary (talk) 20:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Also there was no Napoleon II (or at least he didn't really reign). 109.170.169.29 (talk) 20:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

There's also the famously non-existent Pope John XX, though he perhaps takes us rather too far from the OP's question. Antiquary (talk) 21:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Your teacher's observation likely refers to a famous poem by Jacques Prévert called "Les belles familles [16]" which lists all the kings named Louis, then ends: "qu'est-ce que c'est que ces gens-là qui ne sont pas foutus de compter jusqu'à vingt" (what's the matter with these people who can't even properly count to twenty). --Xuxl (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

What is the history behind Christmas programs?

Can someone help me find the origins of the Christmas Program where children provide the information about the Christmas story in a worship service, usually around Christmas time? I assume it was after Dr. Martin Luther's time, so I wondered if he began them. If not Luther, then who and when? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JerSanMax (talk • contribs) 21:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I searched Google book search and could find nothing on the custom, but given the love of folks in medieval times to do plays and pageants regarding the Bible, I would not be surprised if Christmas reenactments (stable, babe,mother and father, shepherds, Wise men) did not have an origin before 1000 AD. The "Christmas Pageant" enacted by children might well date to the 16th century as you surmise, but I could not find a history of the custom. Edison (talk) 03:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Nativity play is relevant. schyler (talk) 04:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Mosque

Where was the first mosque built and does it still exist? Lexicografía (talk) 23:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The Ka'ba exists, still. Hipocrite (talk) 23:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The Ka'ba was NOT built as a mosque. It seems to have been a pagan site which was later converted into a mosque. Perhaps the first mosque was built in Medina? Flamarande (talk) 23:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Apparently the first mosque was the Quba Mosque in Medina. However the current mosque on that site is from the 20th century, as the old one was torn down to make way for the new. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that was presumably the first one, but the oldest one in continuous use is, I think, the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

This would be one of those places where religious doctrine and the history of architecture diverge; so, for the benefit of those who may be confused, let's note that basically, the Kaaba is considered to have been the first mosque as a matter of doctrine (whatever secular historians or archaeologists may say), while the one in Medina was the first one built by Mohammed or his followers. At least as far as I understand.--Rallette (talk) 06:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

separtion of family

does a localcounty government have the right to tell you who can live in your house or property,such as your parent or children? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.171.26 (talk) 23:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Where in the world are you asking about? Note also that we are not allowed to give legal advice here, so if this is more than a matter of curiosity, we probably can't help you. --Anonymous, 23:49 UTC, November 12, 2010.

The original poster geolocates to somewhere in the US. The answer to the question is "sometimes". It could be possible for a local prosecutor to obtain a judge's order to remove a child from a home, though I think in most states, the state's Child Protective Services agency would argue this before the judge, rather than the local prosecutor arguing. In turn, most courts use the best interests of the child (according to that article) as the standard of making decisions. As for a local government ordering an adult to eject a parent from the house, I think this would be by means of a restraining order, though I think it would be unusual for a restraining order to be issued by a judge in a situation where one of the two people isn't requesting the order. I suppose a judge could issue a restraining order that forces a parent and (adult) child to stay away from each other (including not living together) if they're both in a violent gang or something, and the judge is attempting to break up the gang. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Note also that you can be charged with "harboring a criminal" even if the criminal you are harboring is a relative. --Jayron32 02:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

There are jurisdictions where the number of people in a residence (house or apartment) is limited by contract, as in a lease. There may also be guidelines of "maximum occupancy" for health purposes even in freehold situations. If there are illegal relationships between family members, incest for example, the law may intervene.There are also frequently restrictions on increasing the size of buildings on a lot in order to accommodate more people, relatives or not, though parents are sometimes excepted. Bielle (talk) 03:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

In the U.S. familial relationships are afforded due process rights and so local ordinances like Bielle is talking about almost never apply to nuclear families, no matter how large. Supreme Court cases have considered extended family rights, particularly the rights of grandparents over parents (grandparent rights are not protected in the same way that parental rights are). As a practical matter, those with standing (usually the state, which includes, but doesn't often actually involve, the attorney general, parents, etc.) may challenge parenthood determinations. Those differ state to state, but it'd be overgeneralizing to say that only the "local prosecutor" handles these sorts of issues. It's often state agencies, occasionally the parents in child custody actions.

While the familial relationship has due process rights, that doesn't mean parental rights cannot be terminated by the state. That's a well accepted, if relatively infrequent government role. What it does require though is a hearing, a right to be heard, and all of the other trappings of due process. Shadowjams (talk) 10:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

We had a case locally. There is a prohibition agains "sex offenders" living within a certain distance of a school. When the parents of a registered sex offender live a block or so from a school, he can't live with them. 63.146.74.132 (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The OP asks if a) someone has a house or property, and b) the owner wants to have a given person live there, then c) can the local government say "no"? Assuming it is not a totalitarian government, the answer is, obviously, no. The answers above all describe specific sitautions that are not about "who can live in my house?" but rather "who must be removed from my house"? Those are two different questions. If you kidnap someone and keep them in your basement ... YES, the government forbids that. If Charles Manson escapes from jail and you let him live in your attic ... YES, you lose. But, DUH. So, DUH, if a child in a custody battle, or a neglected elderly person with Alzheimer's, or some other protected individual must be removed from your house (with due process), the government can do that. But otherwise, NO, the government cannot tell you who can live in your house or on your property, so long as the manner of "in" or "on" doesn't violate a zoning requirement. If you're a renter, the situation may be different, but then it wouldn't be the "government," it would be the landlord, using the government's courts. 63.17.63.136 (talk) 04:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

United States Balance of trade

Can it just keep on getting bigger and bigger and bigger without any problems? Where does the money come from to pay for it? 92.24.183.233 (talk) 23:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you may be misunderstanding what a trade deficit is. This is simply the value of stuff that US citizens and companies sell to other countries, minus the value of stuff that US citizens and companies buy from other countries. If that number is negative (which it has been in the US for decades) then you have a trade deficit. If you combine your thinking about every citizen and company in the US into one big blob, then I suppose who "pays for it" is those citizens and companies; but this doesn't mean that the US as a whole actually loses money every year; see the Money creation article. As our balance of trade article states, many economists think a trade deficit is good for the economy. Others disagree. Sorry for the vague answer but there are competing points of view on this topic. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The money to pay for the trade deficit is lent to the United States by foreigners. When dollars leave the United States to pay for imports and those dollars are not returned to the United States to buy imports (which is what happens as the result of its trade deficit) those dollars typically end up buying U.S. debt, including U.S. government debt and other U.S. securities. As a result, a persistent trade deficit results in a growing foreign debt, as you can see in this article. Can it keep getting bigger and bigger without any problems? Up to a point, yes. Beyond that point, no. Nobody really knows at what point problems begin (or began). Some would argue that part of the cause of the recent (and, some think, ongoing) financial crisis is in fact the imbalance resulting from the U.S. trade deficit and growing indebtedness. This was one of the topics of discussion at the recent 2010 G-20 Seoul summit. Marco polo (talk) 02:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

On the long run a trade deficit is a bad development for a country. The USA has endured thus far because foreign investors keep on investing in the US economy by either buying stocks of US companies, lending money to US firms and banks and by buying US government debt (as the post above already explained). This flow of (foreign) money is VITAL for the US economy. As everthing in the universe this will not continue forever. A possibility is that a new "national economy" promising more or/and safer profits will appear. Then the majority of foreign investors (smelling better profits) will predictably invest their money in the other country. This will diminish the flow of (foreign) money to the USA. Many of the money-lenders (investors who lended their money) will collect their money to invest it in the other country. This just MIGHT diminish the value of the US dollar to a point in which people start to panic creating a run against a plummeting US dollar. Another possiblity is that all this happens, but slowly, safely and without creating a panic. Flamarande (talk) 03:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC) Please take all our posts with a grain of salt. Remember that a couple of decades ago many were predicting that the Japanese economy would buy and dominate all others. It just didn't happen.

What if all countries switched and let Somalia or Haiti mount a huge balance of trade deficit, so that they all bought new cars, imported food, designer clothes, and big screen TV's financed by foreign loans such as presently benefit the US? Why do the various creditor countries find it beneficial to themselves to loan all this money so the US consumers can splurge year after year? What is the catch, or when does the reckoning come due? Edison (talk) 03:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The catch is that all of this is based upon human trust. Human economy needs human trust in order to function properly (remember that humans sometimes behave irrationaly and, worse of all, unpredictably). The foreign investors will invest their money into the USA only as long as they expect/trust that they are going to make a handsome profit. In the second they lose this trust and start to fear that they are going to lose their money they will withdraw/reclaim their money asap (every one of us would do the same). One or two losing this trust is negligable. If the majority of the investors suddenly lost their trust would create panic collapsing the market.

As for why do investors keep investing in the heavily-indebted USA the answer is complicated. First, most are not investing in the 'whole country' per se but in individual companies (especially choosing those which are making profits and are NOT indebted). Other companies are indebted but are creating/developing new products which they plan to sell in huge numbers, generating more than enough profits to pay the loans (it's a gamble: will the product be good enough, or not?). Other companies are indebted and have no way out (and will disappear). In final analysis ALL companies need to sell their products to customers. The problem is that way too many US citizens are increasingly indebted. If/when a large protion the costumers decide to reduce their spending or become unable to get credit the companies will not sell their products in quantities large enough to make profit. This creates a problem. One of the solutions is to simply sell abroad. In order to sell abroad the product needs to be possess a good quality/price balance.

Money-lenders who are buying US government debt either: A) trust that the interest will be paid and that they can recuperate their money. B) are lending their money for other reasons.

As for Somalia and Haiti you have realize that we are not talking about individual companies (Somali telecom companies seem to be profitable). We are talking about hundreds (perhaps even thousands) of companies, banks, etc. In other words most investors will NOT invest their money in Somalia or Haiti because there are simply way too few Somali or Haitian companies, banks, etc make enough profit to be considered valuable/worthwile. Those few that make large amounts of profit probably already have foreign investors behind them.

It's also a matter of political stability which goes hand-in-hand with economic stability. The investor has to trust that his investiment will generate profit. A company needs political stability in order to operate/sell and make profit (unless it sells guns or amunition :). Neither Somalia or Haiti (and so many more) are stable enough to be trustworthy in the eyes of foreign investors. Let's be honest here: Most of us simply would never invest our money in a Somali or Haitian company. Why? Because we do not trust that a company could make any kind of profit in such a shitty country and we don't want to lose our money. Investors basicly think as we do. They might have more information, know more insider tricks, etc but they will invest mostly in companies operating in countries with political stability and a market large enough to generate profit. Flamarande (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Saying the money to "pay for" the trade deficit is lent to the US by foreigners is not really correct, a very bad way of saying things, though the rest of Marco's explanation is OK. Foreigners have no power to (legally) create US money; they must get the money from somewhere else - the US economy, and ultimately, the US government. What foreigners - in practice, central banks of trade surplus countries like China & Japan do is buy US government bonds with the dollars they already have. They get these dollars because they buy them from their own exporters, who want yuan or yen, not dollars. This keeps up the value of and demand for the dollar, the world's leading reserve currency. A reserve currency nation must run a trade deficit (Triffin dilemma). This demand, reserve currency status confers a titanic benefit on the US economy: The US as a whole can export dollars, which the government can create by keystrokes in a computer, and receive real wealth, cars & computers in return. The US has also been used as a consumer/importer of last resort, to boost exporters' aggregate demand, a place for nations like China, Japan and Germany to send their export surpluses to and keep their domestic economies strong and unemployment low. (Their behavior is similar to that of the US before WWII and for some time after.)

Essentially, and with some caveats, having a trade deficit or an unfavorable balance of trade is a benefit. Nations (like everyone else, their own worst enemy) often rant and rave about how they want trade surpluses, but when it is a question of life or death, they want trade deficits. Exports can not logically be necessary to an economy; imports may be. Exports are only the price which may be needed to pay for imports. The Marshall Plan was one big European trade deficit, balanced by a US trade surplus. What China is giving the USA right now is a Marshall Plan. It is an index of how irrational much of economics is and how badly economies are run now that the US is complaining to China, instead of saying thank you. A major negative effect of big trade deficits is that they are deflationary. The dollars are leaving the US and sitting in the PBOC (in the form of bonds). The US as a whole does lose money (net financial assets). Wynne Godley was in the forefront of economists pointing this out on the US trade deficits. To offset the deflationary impact of the dollar leakage, a government budget deficit - the only way to create dollar denominated net financial assets - which is at least as big as the trade deficit is necessary to sustain it. (Money creation can mislead, btw.)

The answer to whether it can get bigger and bigger depends on how the benefits of the trade deficit is used. If a nation uses the resources freed up by the trade deficit intelligently to build itself up, trade deficits could go on for a very long time, many decades, probably to the point that the trade surplus countries begin to reorient their economies towards domestic consumption, rather than exporting and "exporting unemployment". Europe after the war used its trade deficit wisely and well. I don't think it is going out on a limb to say that the US is not running its economy or foreign policy as well as Europe (or the US) back then. Keeping unemployment very high, spending government money on running around the world bombing countries at random to incite terrorism in order to convince its people to support the random bombing policy and demonizing the nations giving it a Marshall Plan are the kind of things postwar (as opposed to prewar) Europe did not do.John Z (talk) 10:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

November 13

US Libel Laws and the Truth

It's my understanding that stating facts is an absolute defense against charges of libel/slander in the US. So, if I call Mary Walker a whore (as in, paid money for sex) in the New York Times, she has no grounds for a suit if she is in fact a whore. But suppose I believe Mary Walker to be whore, and call her one in the Times. If Mary Walker is not a whore, does she have a case? It seems odd that libel suits would rest on the state of mind of the defendant. 96.246.58.133 (talk) 03:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Libel laws do not depend on the state of mind of the defendants. It doesn't matter what you believe as a person, if you publish something that defames the character of an individual (or sometimes a group), it is your responsibility as the author/publisher to ensure that you are publishing something that has a basis in fact. Calling someone a whore would generally not pass muster in any case (whore is an intentionally derogatory term beyond its implications as a sex worker); calling someone a prostitute would require factual evidence (police arrest records, video tapes, or some other investigative approach that demonstrates the person in question is receiving money for sex). If you don't have solid evidence, and the person can show that your published statement caused personal, social, or financial harm, you're liable.

In fact, I believe that even if the person actually is a prostitute, they can still sue you for calling them one if you don't have sufficient evidence. They might even be able to get you for loss of income, which would be ironic. --Ludwigs2 04:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

May I ask what training you have in fact had in US libel law? The above does not correspond very well to my limited understanding of it. One particular error is the claim that using a derogatory word is itself actionable — as I understand it (and I want to emphasize that I am not trained and do not offer any warranty on this point) it is in fact a defense against libel that the language was a mere insult with no precise meaning. So for example, as I understand it, you can call pretty much anyone an asshole as loudly and publicly as you want, without fear of being liable for libel (or slander), because it doesn't really assert any precise claim about the other person.

That's not to say you'd be completely in the clear. The police might arrest you for disorderly conduct, particularly if you seemed to be looking for a physical confrontation. But libel? I very much doubt it. --Trovatore (talk) 08:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I find Ludwigs' analysis highly questionable under U.S. law... In fact Travatore's analysis seems quite right; the more opinionated, however inflammatory, the communication, the more likely as a practical matter it's found to be an opinion rather than a statement of fact. The libel distinction between fact and opinion is as old as the common law, and so I'm concerned that Ludwigs's approach may be wrong generally. It's even more tenuous when you consider the First Amendment, which is particularly concerned about that distinction, as a constitutional matter. I have 0 opinion about the fact pattern given by the OP, nor would I suggest anyone else comment on a specific legal question. But as I said, I question the previous answer for the above reasons. Shadowjams (talk) 10:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Eh, I'm no lawyer, so I'll bow to more informed opinions. My sense was just the the scales being used here were the balance between freedom of speech and harm to reputation. Speech deemed to be harmful without due foundation is actionable (or at least should be under a rationalized system). --Ludwigs2 10:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd hope libel law is more concerned with unfair harm to reputation rather than harm to reputation; under any common law system truth is a complete defense (who has that burden is a critical issue though in practical terms). Leave truthful damage to reputation to other doctrines, like the torts of invasion of privacy and false light. Shadowjams (talk) 10:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs is wrong. The state of mind of the defendant is very important in U.S. libel law. The article United States defamation law is really pretty good. For public figures, it must be shown that the person publishing the information must have had "Actual malice" in publishing the information. That is, the person had to have known the information was false (or at least "reckless disregard" for the truth, which is worse than "mere neglect" in fact checking). The bar is lower in the case of private individuals, but intent of whoever published the information is still very much taken into account. Buddy431 (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I will go farther and say that, despite popular opinion, a lot of law, in the US as well as in other countries, depends on the state of mind of the accused. The only difference between capital murder and second-degree murder, for example, is the state of mind of the killer. Comet Tuttle (talk) 02:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer, and for a definitive opinion, you would have to speak to one. However, what I have been told is that media are on very shaky ground when they accuse someone other than a public figure of illegal behavior without hard evidence to back it up. The case Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. is relevant here. A newspaper columnist accused a high school basketball coach of perjury. When the coach sued, the newspaper said in effect that the columnist believed his accusation to be true, so the case should be dismissed. It went all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of the coach. If a case like the one surmised by the questioner above were to go to trial, the result would probably depend on why the newspaper believed the prostitution accusation to be true, and what effort it had made to confirm the accusation. If the newspaper made no good-faith effort to ascertain the truth of the matter, it's likely the defamed person could win a big settlement if the libel damaged her reputation. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to follow up on my comment, if "I thought it was true" was an absolute defense to libel, it would be almost impossible to win a libel judgment. You'd have to prove not only that the accusation was false but that the defendant knew it was false, something which would be very difficult to do, to say the least. Yet people win libel judgments all the time -- or, more often, get out-of-court settlements in libel cases. Now there is the above-mentioned actual malice standard when it comes to public figures, something which is very difficult to prove. I can't think of a single public figure who's been able to overcome that difficulty to win a libel case. But lots of non-public-figures do win libel cases. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It is un-freakin-belivable how much bullshit is written on the RD whenever the subject is the law. Why does everyone consider themselves experts on the law, whereas they would never claim to be experts on science? (Answer: Because they think watching TV law shows and using "common sense" makes them experts.) People just pull answers out of their ass. STOP IT. First of all, the OP's question is appended with "It seems odd that libel suits would rest on the state of mind of the defendant." Why? Why does that seem at all odd? If I go door-to-door in my neighborhood and say that my neighbor is a drug cazr whose millions are kept in overseas accounts, and a) I have seen him conduct drug deals and I have looked at his bank statements, or b) he has a mustache and I think mustaches are evil -- WHICH is more likely to be libel? So, yes, the defendant-libeler's "state of mind" is relevant. You have an obligation to not be "reckless" in regard to the truth, and if your libelous statement is based on reckless presumptions rather than researched facts, you are actionable for libel/defamation if your statements are false and they could damage the reputation of someone. As for "whore," there are categories of "libel per se," whereby certain statements (if untrue) are libelous simply by definition (as defined, in the US, by legislatures -- given that the law is constitutional). In fact, someone might once have received money for sex and STILL be able to win a suit for defamation if called a "whore," as should be obvious. 63.17.63.136 (talk) 04:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Who introduced the horse in India?

What is current accepted answer to this question. What is the mainstream view about the discovery of horse remains in Surkotada and Hallur? 180.149.48.246 (talk) 04:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

See Domestication of the horse. Apparently, the horse was probably domesticated by 3000 B.C.E., by which date horses were appearing in Central Europe, outside of the steppes where their wild ancestors were indigenous. If the horse had reached Central Europe by 3000 B.C.E., I see no reason why they couldn't also have reached India, which is no further from the Eurasian steppes than Central Europe. As to "who introduced" the horse in India, we can't know, because it occurred before there was a historic record. However, it seems completely plausible that the horse could have been introduced by peoples on the northwestern fringes of India, who picked up the practice of fighting battles on horseback from their Central Asia neighbors. Horses could easily have reached the interior and even the south of the subcontinent through trade. The arrival of horses need not imply the arrival of an alien population of people. Marco polo (talk) 02:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I doubt this is the "current accepted answer", but of course it used to be believed that the horse was introduced by the "Aryan invasion", as I'm sure Marco is alluding to. This is mentioned in the Indo-Aryan migrations article, and Aryan invasion theory has links to other aspects of the topic. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Jackson / Rosas

Andrew Jackson's enemies generally characterized him as an uncouth tyrant. But was he ever explicitly compared to Juan Manuel de Rosas, his Argentine countarpart? The two seem quite similar in my mind. They were contemporaries, both had a rural base of support, both were military men, both had despotic tendencies, and both served as bugbears for centralist, liberal movements in their respective countries. Were comparisons drawn between them, either in the U.S. or in Argentina? LANTZY^TALK 04:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

At the time Argentine-American relations seem to be mainly focused on a dispute over the Falkland Islands; Argentina claimed that American warships had destroyed Luis Vernet's settlement in retaliation for Vernet's seizure of seal-hunting ships in a dispute over fishing rights. For more than a decade after this, "the United States chose to ignore the Argentine Republic. After the withdrawal of Francis Baylies in 1832, the Jackson administration waited two years even to replace George W. Slacum, the refugee consul. Three successors, appointed to Buenos Aires in 1834, 1836, and 1837, retrieved identical admonitions not to exercise 'any functions of diplomatic character.'" (p. 121, Harold F. Peterson, Argentina and the United States, 1810-1960). You may also want to look at Argentina and the United States: an alliance contained (David Sheinin).

That's interesting. I didn't know any of that. But I wasn't really interested in actual relations between the two men or their countries. I was just curious about whether they were perceived as politically "homologous", so to speak. To put it another way, did the Argentine Unitarians see themselves as the equivalent of the American Whigs, or vice-versa? Or were they too distant to know or care about each other's existence? LANTZY^TALK 19:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

A quick search of the Google News Archive finds a March, 27, 1852, Hartford Weekly Times editorial that compares Rosas to Jackson: "In temperament, he is much like old General Jackson: obstinate, self-willed, and resolute to desperation." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! That's just the kind of thing I'm after. I'd never explored the Google News Archive before. LANTZY^TALK 05:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

difference between a king and a bully

what is the difference between a king and a bully? Why is the bully hated so much more than the king? --95.88.20.6 (talk) 07:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Some kings were bigger bullies than others. For example these English kings, John and Henry VIII were classic bullies (although the preferred nouns are tyrant and despot); whereas this monarch Henry VI of England was instead most likely bullied by his consort Margaret of Anjou. I disagree with your view that the bully receives more hatred than a tyrannical sovereign. Prior to the 20th century most kings or emperors were bullies to some extant but operated on a far grander scale than the local heavy or high-school thug, hence the hatred by a vastly larger amount of people, whose lives were adversely affected by their king's (or queen's) policies.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

sociologically, the difference between a king and a bully is largely a matter of legitimacy. Kings are assumed to legitimately have the authority and power to do what they do; the same assumption is not made about bullies. By extension, of course, kings are often required to act in ways that supplement their legitimacy as monarchs, while bullies are not constrained in their actions.

Hannah Arendt theorized about this a lot. She made very clear distinctions between power (a collective action taken by people en masse), force (a potential for violence, often magnified by technology), and authority (a legitimized transfer of power from the populace to a given individual). So, a king might wield force, in the form of armed military or police, and wields power as it is invested in him as authority by the populace. A bully, by contrast, relies exclusively on force, and never has authority in the proper sense because everyone recognizes him as a disreputable bully.--Ludwigs2 10:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

No difference at all.John Z (talk) 11:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

If you are interested in reading a novel, this question is dealt with extensively in The Once and Future King, referring to it as the concept that "might is right". -- kainaw™ 16:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

There were many kings who were reasonably fair and enlightened rulers. Some were tyrannical, but in general people didn't tolerate tyrannical kings too long. While Kings were granted the right to rule, pragmatically they (the good ones, that is) tended to rule in the best interests of their nation, at least as far as they saw it. --Jayron32 03:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Yet revolutionaries tended to assassinate the more tolerant monarchs rather than the tyrants, as in the cases of Tsars Alexander II and Nicholas II. Louis XVI was not despotic like his grandfather and great-grandfather, yet he was seen as an oppressor of the people.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Cats and mirrors

I realise this is a hard question to answer, but do cats recognise themselves when they see their own reflections in the mirror? My cat doesn't appear to show much interest in his own reflection whenever he happens to glance in the mirror. I am wondering if they are aware of what they look like.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, cats fail the mirror test.Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

My cat spends a lot of time in front of the mirror for some reason, but doesn't get all worked up about it like the puppy in the video at that article. It's a difficult test to interpret, but maybe cats just figure out quicker that, hey, that's just a reflection, and leave it alone. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 13:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

More OR here but I have five dogs and four cats. Most of them have at one time or another in the past gone up to the mirror and sniffed their reflections. There has been only minimal reaction other than that with the greatest being one of the cats sort of doing a side step dance in what looked like play. Dismas|^(talk) 14:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to briefly describe the mirror test for our readers here, it goes like this: you stick a red dot on the animal where it can't see it (like on the forehead or between the eyes); you give the animal a mirror; does the animal look in the mirror, see the dot, and "reach for" (or respond to) the dot on its own body? The animals listed as having passed are: the great apes, rhesus macaques, bottlenose dolphins, orcas, elephants, and European Magpies. Humans can't pass it until they reach "the mirror stage" at about 18 months. There is a clever use of behavioral conditioning to demonstrate that pigeons may pass, described in the Animals that pass section of the article. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't resist adding a link to Groucho passing the test.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It's strange because my cat reacts whenever I dye my hair a different colour, he also reacts to a life-size, close-up photo of myself I have on the wall.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they are very attuned to humans; the Cat article says:

"However, several natural behaviors and characteristics of wildcats may have preadapted them for domestication as pets. These traits include their small size, social nature, obvious body language, love of play and relatively high intelligence..."

But they can "ignore" aspects of their sensory environment that aren't "real", too. I've seen cats start to pounce on a shadow of something moving, then realize it's just a shadow, and ignore it. (Then again, they sure do seem interested in bright red dots -- which, come to think of it, may be a good way of presenting the mirror test to them). WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

And I wouldn't be surprised if there had been some selection pressure for cats to be able to see the shadow of something, and figure out from that where the object (say, a bird) casting the shadow really is. They would have to perform the same sort of "spatio-perceptual calculations" on an image in a mirror to know where the actual object is, even if on themselves, as in the test, and that may also be where the "hardware" features/cognitive capacities of the animals who do pass the test come from, too. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Another thing is that while my cat noticed my photo, he never bothers with other cats, dogs, people etc., on the tv screen.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It may just not keep their interest, though I've definitely seen cats respond to "video catnip" (or, for that matter, just youtube clips -- try bird close-ups with lots of bird calls, or clips of other cats meowing) for a little while. :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 19:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I would imagine cats go by the sense of smell. Seeing as the television screen does not emit the odour of the cats they are showing, felines watching them realise they are not real.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, some cats watch the TV screen and some don't. There's no obvious explanation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

THey may have less Persistence of vision than us, and just see a lot of flickering. I recall comment to that effect here in the past. 92.15.7.155 (talk) 22:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Askers and guessers

Not so long ago I read an article or debate somewhere that investigated the proposition that people or cultures could be divided into "askers" and "guessers". That is, when wondering if something was appropriate or feasible, some people would ask outright whether or not this was the case, while others would try to infer from the situation whether it was. Does this ring a bell with anyone? I'd like to track down the source. Skomorokh 14:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The concept originated in this answer to a question at ask.metafilter.com. It was discussed by a columnist at The Guardian as well as on other websites.--Cam (talk) 15:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, wonderful, thank you so much for the speedy and exact response Cam. Mahalo, Skomorokh 15:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

That Guardian column seems so British. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 17:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

In what way? 92.15.7.155 (talk) 21:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

In, you know, that way. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 13:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, being British, I don't know, and would never think of asking, but I can guess! Dbfirs 08:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Economic growth, least unemployment, and inflation in the 20th. century

Was low inflation associated with low economic growth and high unemployment in the 20th. century? I mean in the UK or US. Thanks 92.15.30.196 (talk) 16:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

In the second half of the 1970's and the early 1980's, high inflation was associated with big economic problems, while in the 1930's in the US deflation was associated with big economic problems. Low inflation is generally better than either of these alternatives (other things being equal)... AnonMoos (talk) 16:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, was moderate inflation best? I recall the inflation of the 70s was due to big increases in oil prices. 92.29.122.31 (talk) 17:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The graph in this article (http://tutor2u.net/economics/revision-notes/a2-macro-fluctuations-economic-activity.html) seems to show that - for the UK at least - inflation of around 1-2% has a relatively strong correlation with decent GDP growth. Only over a period of about 25 years but might be of use to your question. ny156uk (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

25 data points is not enough for statistical significance. 92.29.122.31 (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

When I was studying economics in the 1970s it was considered that a country's inflation rate was inversely proportional to its unemployment rate, a relationship described by the Phillips curve, but since the emergence of stagflation in many economies around that time we seem to have heard a good deal less about the Phillips curve, at least as an infallible guide to achieving low inflation or low unemployment. Antiquary (talk) 19:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

High inflation, low unemployment? I can remember the 70s as prosperous times, despite the inflation. The current set-up seems like a capitalist plot - the wealthy keep the value of their money while high unemployment keeps the wages of the servants/employees down. Recent financial events rather suggest that low inflation is a bad idea. 92.29.122.31 (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Umm, so high inflation is good for everyone else, when it destroys the value of their savings? I don't think so. Nyttend (talk) 01:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Please keep your brainwashed propaganda to yourself. In the USA, the vast majority of people have NEGATIVE wealth -- their debts are greater than their assets. So the point you have been brainwashed into believing about "savings" is irrelevant. Usually, a high inflation rate is better for borrowers and worse for lenders, as should be obvious. But the populists have been erased from brainwashed history, or else demonized as "anti-semites" or "isolationists" or whatever else is convenient to ignore their economic arguments. 63.17.32.70 (talk) 05:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

At least you've got some savings and a job in the first place. It helps pay off debt and hence encourages investment and growth. 92.15.7.155 (talk) 15:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

What type of marketing is this?

I have recently witnessed especially musical acts entering into talent shows and then attracting a lot of attention by performing terribly or acting foolishly. What type of marketing does this make part of, and does it have a name and has it been described and studied? — Adriaan (T★C) 19:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

You mean a competent musical act pretending to be inept? It sounds like some sort of media prank, but if it has a special name, I don't know it. Can you provide a specific example of a group that did this? LANTZY^TALK 19:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Oscar Wilde said "There is only one thing worse than being talked about and that is NOT being talked about." I tried unsuccessfully to find the origin of "Any publicity is good publicity". HiLo48 (talk) 00:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Try here: Succès de scandale. 93.95.251.162 (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Martin.

US federal law based on changing facts

What happens if a federal law refers to something that changes in fact? I'm thinking of the various acts of Congress specifying that various federal district courts would include specific counties in various states. To explain my question — let's say that the Northern District Court for X State includes counties A, B, and C, while the Southern District Court for X State includes counties D, E, and F. The X state legislature decides that it's silly to have County C, so they merge Counties C and F under the name of County F. Do the district boundaries change, since the federal law says that all of County F is in the Southern District, and County F's boundaries have changed? Or do the district boundaries stay the same, since Congress defined the boundaries and said that they happened to coincide with the county boundaries as they were when the federal law was enacted? I suspect the latter is true, but I don't have any evidence to back it up. Nyttend (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Like you, I suspect that the laws apply to the boundaries as enacted and not as it exists today. As an extreme example, the states could essentially "game" the system by reorganizing and renaming all of the counties in its jurisdiction. Imagine a state which did that, and then claimed that federal law did not apply since none of the counties mentioned in the statute existed anymore? --Jayron32 19:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

My guess is that Congress would just change the provision of the law to affect the new arrangement. It would be a very small amendment that probably would be a rider on something else ("On law XYZ, section 5, replace 'Johnson County' with 'Jackson County'"). --Mr.98 (talk) 00:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

This is just an example of a common legal issue: Whether one statute's reference to another statute is intended to incorporate subsequent changes to the other statute. In general, the answer is supposed to turn on whether the legislature that passed the referring statute intended the subsequent incorporation or not. I'm not sure what the answer would be in the example you provide. John M Baker (talk) 19:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

If a state did what the OP describes, the federal government would easily obtain an injunction until the federal law was changed in conformity or the state law was stricken by a court (the state would have absolutely no chance to win any law suit concerning the issue, based on preemption and the Supremacy Clause). The injunction would be based on obvious irreparable harm (meaning harm for which no other remedy would be adequate, not something that can't be repaired -- I mention that fact because many posters on the RD think they are experts in the law because they use common sense, and common sense tells us that "irreparable" must mean "cannot be repaired," ipso facto). 63.17.32.70 (talk) 05:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Poltava

Resolved

Hi. I'm looking for more info on this painting File:Marten's Poltava.jpg, can't really find anything. Cheers. P. S. Burton (talk) 22:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

What kind of information do you want? The context is the Battle of Poltava. Nyttend (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm mostly interested in finding out where the painting is now, if it is in a museum or a private collection.P. S. Burton (talk) 01:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Martens painted it for the Tsar, who commissioned it. It was included in the tricentennial Battle of Poltava exhibition in 2009 mounted by the Moscow Historical Museum and was included in the exhibition. It's illustrated, I'm sure, in Peter Englund, The Battle That Shook Europe: Poltava and the Birth of the Russian Empire, a detailed description of the Battle of Poltava; the book will give the current whereabouts It may be in the Historical Museum's own collection, or perhaps it's at the Historical Museum of St Petersburg.--Wetman (talk) 20:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Wetman refers to the State Historical Museum (there is no similar museum in St. Petersburg). The canvas hangs in the picture gallery of the Catherine Palace. A better illustration is here. Another Martens' painting on the subject is exhibited in Poltava. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. P. S. Burton (talk) 13:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

November 14

Stieg Larsson's Millenium trilogy

Why did Larsson give Lisbeth a sister? Would it be for the 4th book? Kittybrewster ☎ 01:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It would be hard to say, and probably indeterminate for the forseeable future, since the author is no longer availible to answer questions regarding his rationale for including certain characters in his books. --Jayron32 02:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Though there is apparently much of a fourth book written — at least, that's the impression I got from various articles about the wrangling over his estate between his father and his partner. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I wondered about the sister too, and throughout the third book I kept expecting her to show up, probably as part of the conspiracy against Salander or at least with a bitter perception of her as the person who destroyed the family. If nothing else, she's a handy plot device to emphasise Lisbeth's utter isolation and the sad irony of her relationship with her mother (Lisbeth was the one who took action against her father to defend her mother, enduring years of confinement and abuse as a consequence, yet her mother doesn't recognise her and credits Lisbeth's ongoing care and attention to the absent sister). I'd take a bet that the sister would have appeared eventually. Karenjc 13:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

What caused the Netherlands to become so liberal?

--75.33.217.61 (talk) 03:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Define "Liberal". --Jayron32 03:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Partial answer found in Politics of the Netherlands#1994-present. From 1994-2002, the so called "purple coalition" was in charge, and created some of the policies that many people associate with the Netherlands being liberal: permissive abortion, euthanasia, and gay marriage laws. Now why the political parties that made up the purple coalition were able to get elected, I'm not really sure. Someone with a better sense of the history of Dutch politics might be able to answer that. The other aspect of Dutch law that people tend to consider "liberal" is the permissive drug policy: see Drug policy of the Netherlands. Unfortunately, that article doesn't really say much about the history of the drug policy in the Netherlands. Again, I must defer to someone with a greater knowledge of the political history of the Netherlands. Finally, there is the permissive attitude towards prostitution: see Prostitution in the Netherlands. That article does have a bit more about the history. In the twentieth century, especially the latter half of the twentieth century, prostitution was increasingly tolerated. Prostitute was officially recognized as an occupation in 1988. But again, why this attitude was adopted is harder to answer. Finally, I can refer you to the Dutch Wikipedia, which, unsurprisingly, has a bit more comprehensive articles. See their drug policy article, for example, as well as the 20th century prostitution article. These have a little bit more about the history. It appears that a lot of the liberalization happened in the post-war years, especially getting into the 1970s. Buddy431 (talk) 03:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

[17]. schyler (talk) 03:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

SInce you have now asked this question about Scandinavia AND the Netherlands, perhaps you could tell us - What caused the USA to be so conservative? (I'll admit to guessing a little here.) But while you're thinking about the answer, you can also think about the fact that it's all a matter of perspective. What's wierd to you is normal elsewhere. HiLo48 (talk) 03:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Just the remark I was going to make myself. To people from the UK for example, Europe seems normal (more or less) while the US seems very right-wing. 92.15.7.155 (talk) 15:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm liberal; I'm asking because I wonder why the same causes that have made those areas liberal haven't made the US any less fascist. --75.33.217.61 (talk) 04:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I wonder which other countries you will be looking at? If you reach my country, Australia, I may have a stronger interest. Many people think the US and Australia are similar, but not when it comes to politics and religion. To describe the Democrats as leftist, as Americans do, is laughable here. HiLo48 (talk) 04:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The US is fascist now? Adam Bishop (talk) 04:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The Democrats are center-right and the Republicans are far-right, so I'd definitely say that the US is fascist. --75.33.217.61 (talk) 04:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Great. By the way, you may have noticed that the Netherlands, at least at a political level, has about the same level of insane xenophobia as the US does. What's so great about that? Adam Bishop (talk) 04:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

<edit conflict with Jayron> That's certainly true; the Netherlands have been moving towards a more restrictive view of immigration in recent years. The politics of the Netherlands seems weird from a U.S. perspective, getting coalition governments whose parties may seem to have very different ideologies. Right now, they don't even have a majority coalition. The VVD (described as "liberal", especially economically, and also generally supportive of individual rights to euthanasia and prostitution, though showing some more conservative patterns in regard to immigration) and CDA (more socially conservative, in regards to drug use, euthanasia, and prostitution) form a minority coellition, with some support from the PVV (mostly known for their conservative views on immigration, but also proponents of liberal economic policies). Note that "economically liberal" policies are typically very much at odds with the economic policies of the United States' "liberals". In the U.S., the "liberal" party, the Democrats, generally support more restrictive economic policies: higher minimum wages, more business regulation, etc, where in many other places, a "liberal" is one who supports Economic liberalism. Political labels are funny that way. Buddy431 (talk) 05:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The Liberal Party in Australia is the more conservative of two two major parties there. Go figure. HiLo48 (talk) 05:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Which again is derived from their supposedly Economically liberal policies (in contrast to Labor, who favor a more interventionist approach to the economy, and are buddies with the trade unions). Now, has the Liberal party always acted in an economically liberal way? No, of course not. But the liberal label probably applies more to them than any other political party in Australia. Buddy431 (talk) 05:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

but they smoke weed in the netherlands, so that makes them commie pinko hippies, doesn't it?--Jayron32 04:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

"Many political words are similarly abused. The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies 'something not desirable.'" -- George Orwell, 1946. ([18]) -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The word basically amounts to a Bronx cheer. It defiles the speaker more than the target. LANTZY^TALK 05:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I would say that in the Netrherlands, as in Scandinavia, religion (or the lack of it) plays a major part. The Dutch who went to South Africa were fundamentalist (Dutch Reformed), whereas the Dutch in the Netherlands are not. This applies to the USA. Many Puritans and fundamentalist sects colonised America, while their cousins in England remained Anglican. Northern Ireland also follows this pattern. It is far more conservative than other parts of the UK, and the people tend to be more attracted to the fundamentalist churches such as the Free Presbyterian Church.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

However, "Liberalism" in the Netherlands (as seen with US-centric eyes) and "Liberalism" in Sweden (as seen with US-centric eyes) have some clear differences (although Denmark do share some common characterists with the Dutch Liberalism). The Netherlands went through an extremely complicated religious dispute, whereas the issue of religion was settled in Sweden much earlier (and in a very violent and repressive manner). The Netherlands also went through German occupation. In Netherlands, and several other European countries, there is a stream of thought that constantly seeks to counter-pose itself to the Nazis (notably, this tendency is very weak in Sweden, which remained un-occupied throughout the war). It seems to me that in issues like prostitution, drugs, etc., the question is "What would the Nazis have done?" and the policy adopted is then the diametrical opposite. The Anti-Germans are an extreme expression of this phenomenon. The most interesting aspect (analyzing Dutch or Danish politics) is that racist fearmongering is just as rampant still. --Soman (talk) 12:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Yet for all of Holland's liberalism, the Church of Satan could not legally operate a branch in the Netherlands, yet it openly flourishes in the US.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Revolutions and Demagogues

I just got done watching Danton (1983 film) and two things ocurred to me: 1)My American History TA saying the American revolution was headed by "The People" and "was different from all the other revolutions" because it had no "elites" in charge; and 2)I've got to post this question to the RD. Of course this assertion by my TA fails when you look at the attendees of the Continental Congress, but, my question goes into a wider spectrum.
Has there really ever been a revolution that didn't have a Demagogue at the helm? I can only think of a few revolutions, ones in America, France, Texas, and Mexico, with Madison et al, Robespierre et al, Houston et al, and Anna et al at the helms, respectively. Was there ever a revolution that where everyone seemingly spontaneously simultaneously was fed up with things and the established government was dissolved as a result. Qualifier: the revolution mustn't have been planned or have had a figurehead a the time of revolt but could have gained one following dissolution, or radical restructuring, of the government. schyler (talk) 04:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Revolutions need some form of organization, or its just a mob, which is easy to put down. An organized government shouldn't have much trouble, unless there is some form of organized resistance, and that organization needs someone at the head making decisions. And, I would strenuously disagree that the American Revolution had no "elites" in charge. Nearly all of the leaders of the American Revolution were members of the elite in Massachusetts (the Adams brothers, John Hancock), Virginia (Jefferson, Washington, Madison, Patrick Henry, etc.) or New York (John Jay, Alexander Hamilton). The closest thing to a "peasant" leader in the American Revolution was probably Ethan Allen. Actual "peasant revolts" are rarely, if ever, successful. --Jayron32 04:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Madison was really not much of a "demagogue". Insofar as anyone filled that role in the American Revolution / War of Independence, it would be Samuel Adams (though with rather limited scope as compared with a Robespierre or Lenin). AnonMoos (talk) 04:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

As a general note I would say to be wary whenever anyone invokes "the people." It's a nonsense term 99% of the time that means, "the people I prefer were doing it, and were thus morally good," and is wrapped up with an elaborate mythology that usually has nothing to do with reality. Those who invoke the moral force of "the people" are usually selling propaganda of one variety or another. This is hardly limited to any particular political ideology, mind you.</rant>

Beyond that — there have been a lot of revolutions (and rebellions, which may be more fruitful for your inquiry). --Mr.98 (talk) 05:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Anything in classical history which may fit the requirements? schyler (talk) 13:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The best fit would perhaps be the German Peasants' War. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

And of course the English Peasants' Revolt although it came to a sticky end; as did the An Gof uprising in Cornwall. D'oh! These both had leaders - sorry!Alansplodge (talk) 16:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Almost forgot the Spanish Revolution and the Paris Commune... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 16:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

There was also the Shanghai Commune of 1927. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It was possible for the lower classes in Roman to get their way by simply refusing to work with the nobles, but this was more like a general strike than a revolution (see secessio plebis). Any real revolution in Rome (or Greece) definitely had a leader, except for, possibly, the helot revolts in Sparta, but those never accomplished anything. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

This isn't actually an answer because it hasn't happened, but it's interesting to note that Marx predicts the revolution by the proletariat will be spontaneous much like you describe. --GreatManTheory (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that the collapse of the Soviet Union and its satellites is an example of a "revolution by majority". No doubt, there were some noted dissidents (though it is not clear if they were as well known within the SU), no doubt the reforms by Gorbachev were the thin edge of the wedge, no doubt this all could have gone a different way with a successful August Coup / without Boris Yeltsin, but - essentially - this was a "democratic revolution".

So, maybe Marx was right, after all:) --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Uri, Schwyz and Unterwalden (Nidwalden and Obwalden) rebelled against the Habsburgs.
Sleigh (talk) 10:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

With regard to the American Revolution, your TA may have been more right than you think. Elite participation is not the same thing as elite leadership. It's not clear that the guys sent to the First Continental Congress were "leading" the Revolution. They may, in fact, have been catching up. There's the famous apocryphal quote from the French Revolution which may describe was going on in the Continental Congress: "There go the people. I must follow them, for I am their leader." There were in fact numerous non-elite "leaders" of the American Revolution in the early stages, such as William Molineux and Thomas Young. We don't even have articles on important "peasant" leaders of the early Revolution, like Ebenezer Mackintosh or the Loyal Nine. They are now obscure because most historians have told the story of the American Revolution from the point of view of the elites who eventually got in front of the parade. —Kevin Myers 14:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

By the way, the most recent historian to explore this is T. H. Breen in American Insurgents, American Patriots: The Revolution of the People (2010), if anyone is interested. —Kevin Myers 23:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Wealthiest Nations in History

In this documentay I watched, it said that China during the reign of Emperor Qianlong had a fourth of the world's wealth in it's treasury. Is this true? Also does anybody know which nations were the wealthiest in the world in past periods history? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I think any of those claims for historical relative wealth (and probably absolute wealth for that matter) need to be taken with a grain of salt. They were (and are) often used as propaganda claims for the success and power of the leader in question. But prior to any structured, organised, world-wide international financial markets (and at that time parts of the world still remained 'undiscovered', so could not be counted in any way), how could such judgements be made? As a general rule though, it's probably fair to generalise that the wealthiest nations at any time in history fairly closely correlate to the most powerful, i.e., those with the most extensive empires. Not true in all cases of course, but your question is pretty open-ended. --jjron (talk) 13:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Reading about Mansa Musa, one gets the impression that the Malinese empire might have been the wealthiest nation at some point. Kind of ironic, given the state of the country now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You do understand that the modern nation of Mali has no historical connection to the ancient Malinese empire, beyond taking the same name. --Jayron32 06:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm well aware; I was referring to the fact that the area in which it was based has undergone a lot of desertification since the days of the empire, which has had a rather drastic effect on the quality of life there. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Jjron about the unreliability of historical statistics on personal and national wealth, especially in pre-industrial economies, but for what it's worth such estimates are available. From statistics compiled by Angus Maddison, summarised in our List of regions by past GDP (PPP) page, it appears that the Chinese economy amounted to about 22% of the world economy in 1700 and about 33% in 1820, so it's quite plausible that the figure during Qianlong's reign (1736-1795) was about 25%. But that's a measure of the Chinese economy, not it's treasury. Was there no private property in Qianlong's China? From the same page we learn (and keep taking Jjron's pinch of salt) that the Indian economy was the world's largest in the years 1, 1000, and 1700; that China took the title in 1500, 1600, 1820, and 1870; and that it was the USA in 1913, 1950, 1973, and 2003. In each case that must partly reflect the size of the population of those countries. At List of regions by past GDP (PPP) per capita we have statistics (you haven't forgotten the salt, have you?) on average wealth per person. It seems you were richest if you were Italian in the years 1 and 1500; West Asian in 1000; Dutch in 1600, 1700, and 1820; British in 1870; American in 1913, 1950, and 2003; and Swiss in 1973. Antiquary (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

During mediaeval times parts of Britain became very wealthy from the wool trade, producing fabrics like worsted which were exported to the rest of Europe. The wealth enabled the building of many mediaeval churches. The english counties of Norfolk and Suffolk have about 600 or more churches each, most of which I imagine were built in mediaeval times. It may have been the wealthiest area on earth at that time with the exception I suppose of Venice. At some point Britain, with its large empire, must have been the wealthiest country in per capita terms at least. 92.15.7.155 (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I would say the Byzantine Empire was doing pretty good until the Fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks in 1453.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

They were pretty poor off by then, actually. After Constantinople was sacked in 1204 they didn't have any money and depended on the west for help (which rarely came). Adam Bishop (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I was not aware of that fact. I had presumed they were quite well-off when the Ottomans arrived in 1453. I must add another nation to the list. Spain would have likely been the richest nation-at least in Europe, after the discovery of America with all the gold and silver filling their treasury.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You're mistaken. Read the article Philip II of Spain which explains the financial situation of the Spanish Empire. Basicly the Spanish state had a lot of gold, but was expending all of it. There were a couple of times when state was declared bankrupt and unable to pay its debts. Flamarande (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Philip II's reign began in 1554 which was many years after Columbus discovered America in 1492! I was referring to the period around the early 1500s when Spain was considered the greatest power in Europe, especially after the annexation of Burgundy and the Low Countries.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

That happened during the rule of Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor (who ruled from 1519 until 1556): "The enormous budget deficit accumulated during Charles' reign resulted in Spain declaring bankruptcy during the reign of Philip II". Flamarande (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

See this[19] question above for more details of the Fourth Crusade. Alansplodge (talk) 09:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

This is an interesting related article on changes in economic importance over the centuries, and the reasons behind them. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking for a quote by a medieval

I happened to come a across a quote a long time ago that I am now hoping to find again. It was attributed to a medieval musician (pre 1200) and concerned the changes that music had undergone up to that point. If you know of that particular quote, or perhaps somewhere where I could find it, I would appreciate it. My apologies for the vague description. Thank you. Vidtharr (talk) 06:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you remember anything about the kind of changes, or the general tenor of the quote? Hucbald, Isidore of Seville (who famously said it was impossible to notate music), Anonymous IV, ... Antandrus (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm shooting in the dark here, but this may be interesting -- a common trope since at least the time of Plato is that whatever the current generation is doing different musically is corrupting or damaging the purity of what came before. Here, for example, from Boethius De instititione musica (early 6th century, and here he is quoting an alleged ancient Greek document by Timotheus, now known to be a forgery): "Whereas Timotheus the Milesian, having come to our city, has dishonored the ancient music; and whereas, by discarding the seven-stringed cithara and introducing a multiplicity of tones, he corrupts the ears of the young; and whereas, by the use of many strings and by the novelty of his melody, he decks music out as ignoble and intricate instead of simple and orderly, embellishing the melody with the chromatic genus instead of the enharmonic ..." (tr. probably by Oliver Strunk from the Friendlein edition of Boethius, Leipzig, 1867). Antandrus (talk) 16:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, the change the quote was referring to was the effects of the fall of Rome and the subsequent invasions. It had more to do with major changes in society rather than a single person. I'll take a closer look at Isidore; it may be what I'm looking for. Thank you again. Vidtharr (talk) 18:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Augustine talks about music, and also about the fall of Rome, and he's just the sort of person who would complain about innovations. I'm not sure if he would have mentioned this in City of God or Confessions, we'll have to look around for it. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you by chance know where I can find an online version of his (Augustine's) essay "On Music"? Thank you. Vidtharr (talk) 04:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Here it is in Latin: [20] -- don't know if that helps. Can't find it in English. Antandrus (talk) 04:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I can manage with the Latin version. Thank you kindly. Vidtharr (talk) 15:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Dahrendorf's work on law schools' students

A friend of mine said that his lecturer - a sociologist - mentioned a Dahrendorf's paper on law schools' students. The thesis said that there are a few differences between them and other students, eg. they dress too formal for their age. Has any of you heard of this work? I tried google but found nothing. 83.6.193.8 (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it legal to publicly carry a spear in Oregon?

Specifically, it would be used as a walking stick for hiking both on and off trail. Also, would some dumb ass cop say carrying such a tool was "disturbing the peace" or is there some other bullshit law I'd have to watch out for? TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

This amounts to a request for legal advice, which we cannot provide. Consider consulting a lawyer. Marco polo (talk) 00:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

But "Does any law (statute or common) prohibit the carrying of spears in Oregon?" would be a permissible question, so if anyone could answer that, I would be grateful. DuncanHill (talk) 01:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't give you a specific answer, but I googled [oregon weapon laws knives] and indications are that openly carrying "dangerous weapons" is generally illegal. To find out specifically about spears, as Marco said, you should consult a legal expert in Oregon. For example, perhaps it's possible to get a permit to carry such an object. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

So I can openly carry a safe weapon in Oregon? DuncanHill (talk) 01:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It would be OK if you were on stage at a performance of Aida or Götterdämmerung. PhGustaf (talk) 01:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll start carving my treaties into my spear right away! TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, my understanding of knife laws in Oregon is that it is legal to carry pretty much any knife as long as it isn't concealed and you aren't a felon. I would think this would apply to spears too, if "holstered," but that means I can't really use it as a walking stick. I just wonder if it would be considered brandishing the weapon if you use it like a walking stick and if that would be considered disturbing the peace or something. I'm half-tempted to call the police department or district attorney's office, but even the police don't know the law half the time and make shit up when it is convenient for them (i.e. they want to confiscate what you have for themselves). As for getting a permit, AFAIK Oregon only provides for concealed pistol permits, which don't let you carry knives in a concealed manner which is pretty much bullshit, but at least it isn't like California where any attempt to prepare for self-defense is a crime. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Generally speaking, a spear would always be classified as a weapon - there's no other use for a spear. In almost every US jurisdiction I'm aware of, walking around with bare weapon would be considered menacing - oregon menacing statute -since a bare weapon implies a willingness towards violence. you wouldn't actually have to do anything except display it in an inappropriate circumstance to be arrested for menacing.

Generally speaking, police do not like to see weapons flashed around in public areas without reasonable context. I suggest that if you want to carry a spear in public, you should wear a grass skirt and put a bone through your nose, and claim to be going to a costume party. it won't stop the cops from confiscating it, but you may avoid the misdemeanor. --Ludwigs2 01:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

And make sure that it is Halloween. Bus stop (talk) 02:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

That is certainly an odd law, but would it really apply? If I'm just hiking with it on trails and don't threaten anyone then I'd think it would be okay. I don't think anyone would assume someone with a spear is "intentionally" placing them in "imminent" physical injury - someone that thin-skinned would assume the same of a holstered firearm. If I was wildly swinging it around, especially towards other people then I could see it, but not just walking around with it. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The wording of the law applies a person who "intentionally attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious physical injury". By my naive reading, I think it would be rather difficult to prove (absent some other circumstance like previous threatening behavior towards a person you expect to be present) that merely carrying a weapon has any such intent. For comparison see open carry (there was a recent controversy about it when, as I recall, Starbucks said they wouldn't bar people from their stores for open carry). --Trovatore (talk) 04:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, imagine how you'd feel if you were wandering around a hiking trail and came across a man with a shotgun in his hands. You might not care if it was safetyed and stuck in his backpack, but if the guy walked right past you with the gun in his hands and his finger on the trigger ... even if he was really polite, that'd make me nervous.

A spear that you're carrying around in your hands is every bit as ready to kill someone (or something) as a gun that you're carrying around in your hands. APL (talk) 04:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

In the UK, it is standard practice (and common good manners) to "break" a shotgun, remove the cartridges, and carry it with the open barrel pointing to the ground when meeting someone. Spears are slightly more difficult to carry in a way that clearly shows no hostile intent, but I would be happy to meet a stranger carrying a spear with their arm unraised and the spear's point covered. Police in cities here would certainly regard either weapon as "offensive", however it was carried. Dbfirs 08:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

There's an idea. Encase the spearhead with a sheath of some kind, maybe a leather covering; and then maybe attach a "bear bell" so that it's clear it's intended as a walking stick. Still, the OP needs to contact the authorities before actually doing this. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

There isn't much of a point, pun intended, carrying a spear with a sheath on it, but I do like the idea of attaching a bell to it, since it is a boar spear it should be easy to tie it to the quillion. Perhaps I should get a khakkhara, but I'm not exactly sure where to purchase one. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

If I were to carry an exotic weapon, I would be sure to include an atlatl, just because I would enjoy saying it when someone asked me what it was. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

"Mad Men" and smoking

On "Mad Men", they sure do smoke a lot! How do they protect the actors' health, i.e. with fake cigarettes, or real ones but not the normal filling, or what do they do? I'm a smoker, and it hurts my lungs just to look at how often they smoke -- and that's just the one take that I see! 91.183.62.45 (talk) 23:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Googling around suggests they smoke "herbal cigarettes", which, while probably not great for the lungs, are at least not addictive. They probably don't inhale the smoke into their lungs most of the time, either. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

First, consider the possibility that many of the actors may already be smokers, and are going to get their nicotine fix either on camera or off.

Secondly, check out this article : The Straight Dope : Do non-smoking actors use fake cigarettes when playing a part?

APL (talk) 04:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible to be resistant to the addictiveness of nicotine? Because if so, I'd rather smoke an actual cigarette for a scene, since there is very little difference health-wise between tobacco and herbal cigarettes. 24.189.87.160 (talk) 05:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

But keep in mind you will probably re-take the same scene dozens of times if not more. So if you're smoking actual cigarettes, your one puff for a scene could easily be smoking a pack a day or more. Unless you are already a very heavy smoker, that's quite a lot. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

But they don't have to finish smoking every cigarette they start. As soon as the take's over, they can just stub out what's left of the cigarette. Twenty puffs for twenty takes would not add up to any more than one whole cigarette over the course of a day. Quite mild, really. Plus, they don't have to inhale; they certainly couldn't be forced to these days. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 17:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes real life can dictate story lines. Actor Don Johnson stopped smoking around the first season of Miami Vice, and as a result so did his character on the show. [21]. 10draftsdeep (talk) 18:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Stopping smoking is an excellent thing to do. This week is my first anniversary. What I saved paid for an overseas trip. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Which begs the question. How did you quit the weed? I've known people who have stopped without the aid of patches, nicotine gum etc, but at the moment it seems beyond my capability to stop. I know, it's sad, but is there a proven method of stopping that is generally seen as better than all others? Jack forbes (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I never said I quit the weed. :) No, seriously, that's all in the past now. :) No, seriously, I've never touched the stuff.  :) No, seriously ...  :) As for cigarettes, Champix did it for me, in one 2-week course with virtually no side effects. No lingering hankerings. Just occasionally I get a bit stressed out and I think that if anyone offered me a ciggy I'd take it. But they never do, and I never ask. This is my experience. You, go see a doctor. I know people who tried Champix and it failed utterly for them. Horses for courses. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

November 15

UK Candidate Selection Process

Sorry if this is on Wikipedia, but I can't find it anywhere, or on the parties pages. How does each of the 3 main parties in the UK select it's candidates for MPs?

Many thanks, Prokhorovka (talk) 09:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't link to the site as it's blacklisted (Suite 101) but the 6th result down on Google (UK) search 'selecting candidates for election' gives a reasonable summary. Dalliance (talk) 12:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks, Prokhorovka (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• The Conservative Party recently began using open primaries to select most of their candidates. Otherwise, it is usually the members of the local party who vote on which candidate should represent them. ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 16:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

  I believe the Conservative Party have only occassionally used open primaries. Most recently, to select Sarah Wollaston as their candidate for Totnes in this year's General Election, they sent out a postal ballot to all 69,000 constituents who were registered voters; this cost the party £38,000 [22]. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

  Hmm, in my constituency (not Totnes!) I was invited to their open primary, and I'm not a party member. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 18:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I'll just call them tomorrow, to see what they say. Prokhorovka (talk) 21:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Alleged offender, accused, indicted accused, defendent, etc

What are the deferences between the following terms in general legal sense:

1. Alleged offender
2. Accused
3. Indicted accused
4. Defendent

Aren't they synonyms of each other?

182.52.101.139 (talk) 09:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

1. Alleged offender: The police have arrested/ticketed the person for the crime or identified them as the person who is wanted for the crime but it has not been proven in court that they actually committed the crime. So they are only alleged to have committed the offense.
2. Accused: Essentially the same as an alleged offender.
3. Indicted accused: The accused person has now been indicted.
4. Defendant: They have been arrested/ticketed and are now standing trial in court. See Defendant.

They aren't all synonyms of each other but are related to one another along a certain time-line. Dismas|^(talk) 09:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think that in the US, at least, there is a difference between (1) and (2) in popular usage: (1) can be used for a person who the police or a victim say is the offender (no arrest is necessary), whereas (2) I think is usually more formal than (1) and implies it's a little further along in the legal process. Unfortunately I don't have the AP Stylebook at my desk to see what terms the AP uses. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Invasions

As I understand, an invasion is when a country uses military force to seize a territory that is not under his command at the time (regardless on whenever the action was good or evil). But how do we name it when the invaded country prepares a counter-offensive, as part of the same military conflict, defeat the invaders and restore their original control over the territory? Liberation? Reconquest? I don't think "invasion" applies, unless both actions take place during different military conflicts. MBelgrano (talk) 12:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The BBC used the phrase "recapture" in reference to the Falkland Islands. Our article on Falklands war uses "re-occupation" for the Argentinian action and "retake" or "recapture" for the British action. It all depends on your point of view. Dbfirs 13:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The BBC also used "liberation" here[23] as do the Falkland Islanders themselves[24]. Then there's the Liberation of France[25] and the Liberation of Kuwait[26]. The Argentinians thought that their original invasion was actually a liberation, so what they called it when they were removed again I don't know. Alansplodge (talk) 14:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Reconquista? LANTZY^TALK 14:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Dbfirs, I'm asking for a neutral term that doesn't involve a positive or negative opinion about the action (for keeping a neutral point of view at an article I'm writing). I have checked that "invasion" seems to be such a term, as described at invasion, and wanted to confirm if "liberation" is neutral as well or a biased term, and if it was, which other should be used.

As for "Reconquista", is that a valid word in English?

Off the record, the article I'm writing has no relation at all with Malvinas. MBelgrano (talk) 14:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for jumping to an incorrect conclusion based on your user name and location. I would consider both "invasion" and "liberation" to imply bias in many contexts, and I would suggest that "recapture" and "retake" are more neutral. Dbfirs 01:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Reconquista is one of those that has a singular meaning, except in a purely metaphorical sense. The Reconquista is used pretty much exclusively in English to refer to the christian recapture of the Iberian Peninsula during the 15th centure, just as The Holocaust is used for a specific genocide, the Armada is used for a specific fleet, etc. etc. --Jayron32 16:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

For the record, "reconquista" wasn't a serious suggestion, though I could easily imagine The Sun giving the event that nickname (were it not too high-brow for their readership). As for a sober, neutral term, avoiding the connotations of "conquer", "occupy", and "liberate", I'd suggest some sort of circumlocution like "reestablish control", "reassert sovereignty", "restore the status quo ante", etc. LANTZY^TALK 17:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's keep the words and phrases short. We don't want the writers of The Sun to run out of fingerpaint before the end of the articles, do we? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

"defeat(ed) the invaders?" HiLo48 (talk) 18:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Reconquest is a perfectly good English word. Marco polo (talk) 20:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that the Invasion of Normandy in June 1944 fits the description well enough, and as the article title indicates, it is referred to as an "invasion". For me that settles the point. --Anonymous, 14:45 UTC, November 16, 2010.

Literary characters like Uriah Heep

What are some other literary characters who put forth a Goody Two-Shoes or perhaps smarmy image but later show their true angry self? 20.137.18.50 (talk) 15:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The White Witch of Narnia? Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Every one of the "New-teacher-with-the-unknown-past" that appears in each of the Harry Potter books could likely fit this. --Jayron32 16:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Tartuffe - Karenjc 17:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Antonio Salieri, as depicted fictionally in the film Amadeus. Maybe, the Mouth of Sauron, though his is a bit-part indeed. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Iago? Elmer Gantry? Rumpelstiltskin? John Hathorne? It seems like the description could be applied loosely to almost any malevolent hypocrite. LANTZY^TALK 17:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The characters of Satan/Mephistopheles sometimes get portrayed that way - "A man of wealth and taste" one minute and the next thing you know, they're ready to "Lay your soul to waste". 64.235.97.146 (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You could argue for the Marquise de Merteuil too, who has carefully cultivated a public image of chastity and wisdom. Karenjc 18:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The Mysterious Stranger. Savage piece of writing, that. Antandrus (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

How about Regan and Goneril in King Lear? Antandrus (talk) 23:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Sex lives of the mentally disabled

Well, this is an odd question any way you phrase it. (Please don't think I'm asking for legal advice!) People with intellectual disabilities are often described in terms of "mental age", such that a mentally handicapped adult might be said to possess the mind of a child. Obviously this is not to be taken literally, but what exactly is the attitude of the law? Are there jurisdictions in which it is considered a form of statutory rape to have sex with people who are profoundly retarded? No doubt this is a question people would prefer not to address, but it must come up. And it's a non-trivial dilemma. On the one hand, it is quite probable that the mentally handicapped would be taken advantage of. On the other hand, if the person has the appetites in question, is it not cruel to prevent the person from satisfying them? Add to that the complication that there are various degrees of disability. How is this issue dealt with? LANTZY^TALK 18:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

We have an article, Sexual abuse of people with developmental disabilities. It seems to start off exclusively discussing "abuse" but then gets into the topic of how it's determined that sexual contact is consensual. Naturally, the law regarding this will vary a lot depending on which country you're discussing. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

In the UK at least, the key concept is "capacity", i.e. whether an individual is capable of giving meaningful consent to something and communicating that consent. If they are deemed to have capacity, then presumption is that they have the same right to sex and relationships as the rest of us - see this BBC report about a campaign by the Family Planning Association on this issue. This paper from 2008 gives a general overview of the practical and ethical issues involved. Our most important protective legislation is the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which says that if someone has a mental disorder that causes them to lack "sufficient understanding of the nature of the act or the reasonably foreseeable consequences", or are unable to communicate a choice, then they lack the capacity to consent and sex with them is an offence. The Act also makes it an offence for a carer to have sex with a person with a learning disability, whether they have capacity or not. We also have the Mental Capacity Act 2005 which looks more widely at capacity and its implications. You may find Nina de Vries interesting, though the article needs work. Karenjc 19:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

4th amendment and the TSA

For the benefit of unAmericans, TSA=Transportation Security Administration, and the 4th Amendment is to do with search powers. DuncanHill (talk) 21:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone brought a lawsuit against the TSA with regards the the 4th amendment of the US constitution? What was the result? Googlemeister (talk) 19:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to "unreasonable search and seizure"? I've not heard of such, but I doubt such a claim would get very far. Is there a particular incident or scenario you have in mind? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess the typical security screenings (including X-ray searches of hand baggage) at US airports and the occasional confiscation of items of non-dangerous nature. I know that there are a lot of people who go through this treatment and was wondering if anyone has brought forward a legal objection based on the 4th amendment. Googlemeister (talk) 20:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

How about references instead of guessing? A quick scan of the ACLU website yields their page on George v. TSA. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I can not download the pdf file containing the actual legal argument at this time. Did the 4th amendment play significantly in the argument, or was it a minor point? Googlemeister (talk) 21:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The first claim on page 18 of the initial complaint is, "The detention, arrest, unnecessary and extended restraint, incarceration, and interrogation of the Plaintiff by the Defendants...constituted an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution." The second complaint is that there was "excessive use of force", also violating the 4th; then the third complaint is a freedom-of-speech violation complaint. Note that this case is about a guy being grilled for hours after having been caught with English-to-Arabic flash cards, and isn't a challenge to the new standard screening procedure itself, à la the "if you touch my junk, I'm going to have you arrested" guy. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the George v. TSA case has basically just begun, and is somewhat exceptional (it is not just the regular search, but it's a detention of the defendant for having notably innocuous items). --Mr.98 (talk) 21:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Of relevance here is the border search exception to the 4th Amendment — particularly because it is considered a special case scenario applying to international border inspections, and puts full-body X-rays into the "search" category that requires "reasonable suspicion" before they can be conducted (whereas searching of luggage requires no such suspicion). While I'm not opposed to the full body X-rays (I think they probably fall under what most Americans in a post-9/11 age would consider a "reasonable" search, when properly done, which would satisfy at least some of the requirements of Katz v. United States), it's interesting that what was once reserved only for international travel with reasonable suspicion is now routinely used for domestic travel without any specific suspicion. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks all. Googlemeister (talk) 21:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I was going to suggest what 98 already brought up - namely, that the slippery part is "reasonable". The ACLU has brought suit pertaining to a specific guy, but I doubt very much if the courts would overturn the screening process wholesale. If they did, the government might issue an order grounding all flights, and that would not sit well with the public. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

While it may be somewhat arbitrary (phrases like "post 9/11 age" make me cringe) there is a line of cases that address these issues, so it's not as if the issue's never come up. Airport searches and some other types of public transport searches (common carriers have always had slightly different legal obligations... which isn't exactly the same as here, but worth noting for context) have always had more leeway than some other sorts of searches. This is actually a distinct, but related doctrine from border searches (unless it's customs... at which point it's a different question... but we're assuming domestic flights here). Shadowjams (talk) 08:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

How do homeless people die?

?? In developping countries certainly malnutrition is a major factor, but what about in developped countries where they can usually beg or go to soup kitchens for enough food to survive? Theoretically if they can get enough food they can stay alive until they're quite old (assuming they don't die of drug overdose or something), but I find it hard to imagine an homeless person in ripe old age expiring peacefully on a curb as a better-off person might in a hospital or in their home. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.78.167 (talk) 21:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Depends. Should they start suffering a compliant where they can not physical move away from their door way, then they might end up in a hospice, (if this is in Europe). In the US they just are just moved to somewhere where they can be left to die somewhere out of sight and out of mind. Their bodies are then cremated as John/Jane Does.--Aspro (talk) 22:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you're misinterpreted the question as where do homeless people die, not how. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The homeless tend to have high rates of illness, and are probably slower to go to the hospital than 'ordinary' people. They will also have weaker immune systems due to the poor diet and sleeping habits. Finally, I suspect at winter a fair number simply die of the cold. Prokhorovka (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

This literature survey gives a number of causes of death in various jurisdictions. For example, a survey in Boston found that amongst homeless people (mostly men) from 18-24, homicide was the highest cause of death (in women that also included age 25-44), and from 25-44, AIDS was the leading cause of death. Amongst the more elderly homeless (45-64), heart disease and cancer. Also noted is that hypothermia and tuberculosis, often associated with homelessness, were not terribly significant factors. In that particular study, though, it included only those who had sought medical care through a charity service, so probably was skewed a bit with regards to some aspects. Lack of food is not the primary cause of death for any, but food alone (without security, safety, health care, etc.) doesn't keep you alive too long on the streets — there's a lot more to living than just eating. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I think where they die is an interesting question, because how they die might not be as different than would be the case with people with homes. My guess is that cause of death would be about the same as with people adequately sheltered, though at a younger age. My guess would be that the place of death for a homeless person would be indoors—in some institution—having been taken there when they were found to be so ill or dysfunctional that they were taken off the streets or out of public places. Although some die on the streets—and they probably do so in greater numbers than do those with homes. And probably people with homes are more likely to die at home than homeless people. Well, I guess that one is obvious. Bus stop (talk) 23:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess somebody (Mr.98) has some actual facts. I was just pontificating (guessing). Bus stop (talk) 00:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

And of course, there are some transients who die rather violent deaths; some as a result of people beating them because they can, and some of them in fights with other homeless people. Sometimes, they just aren't as harmless as they're portrayed in some places. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course, if those stats only count people who showed up in hospitals under their own power, you're not going to see many starvation or hypothermia deaths regardless off how common those are in homeless people in general. APL (talk) 08:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It varies by the cities surveyed — some were shelter or hospital based, but some were surveys of all deaths in the county morgue. The meta-reviewers point out, though, that "Deaths occur throughout the year, not only during the colder months of winter. Hypothermia and exposure are surprisingly infrequent causes of death. Premature death is more highly associated with acute and chronic medical conditions than with either mental illness or substance abuse." Which is interesting and somewhat counterintuitive. With that data in hand, I think we can probably say that getting enough calories is not as hard as it once was (which is not too surprising, given how cheap empty calories are in the USA, anyway — you can probably get enough McDonald's to strictly survive for a couple dollars a day, not including food handouts), and freezing to death is less common than you might expect (though no doubt on a cold Boston night, anyone outside must be pretty miserable). --Mr.98 (talk) 14:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Marine accident?

This is going to be very vague; I'm sorry. I remember reading an article here on Wikipedia about either a sub-marine or submersible accident. It involved at least four people and I think they were bringing something through an opening in the vessel when the accident happened. I also remember reading about intense pressure changes killing a man instantly. Any help finding which vessel/article this was would help. -- 24.251.101.130 (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I wonder whether you are thinking of the Byford Dolphin incident? Karenjc 00:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

That's the one! Thank you very much! -- 24.251.101.130 (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome :) Karenjc 08:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

National Debt

Apparently UK owes £4.8 tn ie £77,000 per person. What are the equivalent figures for Ireland? Kittybrewster ☎ 23:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The program that figure was taken from used a very unofficial method to gain that figure. As such the equivalent is likely very hard to determine without access to a lot of Irish documents, time and expertise. Prokhorovka (talk) 23:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems like every person and nation owes money to one or more somebodies. Has anyone tried to figure out, if everyone on earth could magically pay off their debts, who (if anyone) would end up with a net gain from where they were? (A positive number, that is, not just a return from the negative to 0.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

China and a bunch of other Asian countries? See also United States public debt, or this slide show [27] & [28] [29] [30] which gives figures for the US public debt only (not net, it includes the UK for example) Nil Einne (talk) 07:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Do we know ehere the figures come from? Kittybrewster ☎ 07:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

List of countries by external debt shows $9.088T for the UK, which works out currently to £5.66T , not £4.8T. List of sovereign states by external assets could help answering Bugs question, but it may have problems according to its talk page. For Ireland, the external debt list gives $2.287T , $515,671 per capita, Economy of the Republic of Ireland says €430,000 , somewhat higher.John Z (talk) 08:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

That list shows Monaco, Luxembourg, Switzerland, UK (insurance), Belgium (EU), at the top. Maybe this is debt management under some designed control? Plus Ireland. Kittybrewster ☎ 08:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

For the US, Bugs's question really has no answer. The only entity that can create money is the Federal Reserve, and they put money into circulation by lending it. Currently they are lending some money at a zero interest rate, but most of the existing money was lent at a positive rate. That means that if all of the money in circulation went back to the Fed, they would still be owed money. But this is really pretty meaningless, because the effective money supply is actually well over ten times the amount of currency in circulation, as our money supply article explains. Looie496 (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Eucharist for unbaptized ones

Can unbaptized Catholics receive the Eucharist during the Mass? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.77.156.31 (talk) 23:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Read Eucharist in the Catholic Church and it may provide your answer. Look also for articles on baptism and confirmation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Open_communion#Position_of_the_Roman_Catholic_Church may also be helpful. Karenjc 00:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I know for a fact that an Anglican such as myself was able to receive the Eucharist as well as confess due to my parish priest having obtained a dispensation from the bishop of the diocese. I believe Tony Blair was able to do the same prior to his formal conversion. How can someone be considered Catholic unless they are baptised as one? Its the sacrament of baptism which makes a baby (or an adult) Catholic.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

To give a clear answer here: an unbaptised person who considers themselves Catholic could receive the Eucharist, in that people are supposed to police themselves and they are unlikely to be stopped, especially if they receive it in a parish where nobody knows they weren't baptised. However, they shouldn't because it is considered a sacrament by Catholics, something very holy, and is supposed to be received by people who have been baptised, confessed, and understand the religious importance of the sacrament. An adult who had not previously been baptised, and wanted to become a full Catholic and receive Communion (the Eucharist) could go through the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults, which (after enough sessions of catechesis to ensure they understand the significance of what they're doing) would involve being baptised, confirmed and receiving the Eucharist for the first time, all in a single service. 86.164.144.120 (talk) 11:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

antisemitic?

I just watched a film called "The Social Network" about a thieving person with no friends who starts a "friend network" then rips off, in turn, all of his associates, in order to become a billionaire. Is this film antisemitic? It seems to me that it is trying to tell the story of a "thieving jew", giving its protagonist a Jewish name, Jewish featuresetc. Then there are the stereotypes, the connivery, the obsession with money (in this case becoming a millionaire). It all just seems too much for me. Is the whole film just a thinly veiled antisemitic screed? It just seems it goes out of its way to make a "Jewish problem" out of a situation that would otherwise be interesting. There are a lot of psychopaths in business, and most of them don't have Jewish names or features, or stab that many people in the back as him, so it seems to me that this story goes too far... Thanks for any insight you might have on this matter... 91.183.62.45 (talk) 23:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

According to the article on The Social Network, it's about Facebook, which appears to have been started by a Jewish guy, so what are ya gonna do, try and make him Irish instead? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, "Facebook" was the name of the network in the movie, I don't have any objection to picking that name, but Irish people don't have a stereotype of being obsessed with money or being conniving. They could have called him some nondescript last name, if they really wanted to portray such a character and not be antisemitic. I doubt their motives. 91.183.62.45 (talk) 00:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

According to the movie article, the founders of Facebook indicated that the dramatization of their lives is only partly factual. It doesn't seem like they saw themselves as being portrayed in an anti-semitic way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Reading further, I don't see any complaints about anti-semitism from Zuckerberg or Moskovitz. And it would be a funny charge anyway, as the film's director, who is Jewish, also wrote the screenplay. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Alvy, you're a total paranoid. Anyway, while Zuckerberg's vague middle class Jewishness is perhaps meant as a foil with the old-money WASP Winklevoss twins, I don't think there's any anti-Semitic overtones to the film. (I say this as someone who is an occasional Jew.) They did not emphasize Jewishness in any way other than showing how "uncool" his Jewish friend was at that party. The film is based roughly on a book which is based very roughly on real life people and situations, so it's not like they could have (or should have!) called him something else. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The original book's author also has a somewhat Jewish-sounding name, but I don't think the article identifies him as Jewish, as such. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Mezrich comes from a conservative Jewish family — his grandfather was a rabbi. This article is actually quite interesting about the Jewishness of the book and movie. Not anti-Semitic, mind you, but similar to what I said above — that a lot of it is about the social differences of middle class Jews hanging around old money WASPs at these kinds of universities. (I don't personally know how obvious it is anymore. Jews are fairly assimilated, especially at places like Harvard. Maybe at the very top of the social hierarchy, like the "study clubs" discussed in the movie, it matters, but even then, I wonder. There are plenty of other more interesting "inside/outsider" groups at these institutions in my opinion. Class differences are certainly there, as are "legacy" admits, which historically favor the non-Jewish.)

I would actually read the movie as being somewhat triumphalist about the Jewish aspect. The Jewish kid is the excluded one, intended to be somewhat used by the WASPs to cement their fortunes, and instead he turns it around and outwits everyone. The American historian David Hollinger has written about what I believe he calls the booster-bigot dichotomy in relation to Jewishness — it flips around quite quickly, as positive exceptionalism can be used as fuel (or misread as) negative exceptionalism. This might be what the OP is sensing. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I've often thought that a good deal of anti-semitism is based on envy, i.e. the willingness of Jews to look after their own (since almost no one else will), to organize, to persist and to excel - something Americans, at least, claim to be all in favor of. It's just that Jews have often displayed a better "Protestant work ethic" than even us Protestants supposedly do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

That's not exactly right. The Protestant work ethic is about quiet, repetitive toil. They get ahead by keeping their head down, being proud, working hard, and saving and scrimping. The Jewish work ethic (if there is such a thing) is about cleverness and ingenuity, about trading, about assimilating yourself into key positions, about occasional use of clannishness to get ahead. They're not quite the same thing at all. In the 17th century, the Protestants in the Netherlands (which are the sort of Protestants that Weber was talking about primarily — Calvinists) were toiling in their fields; the Jews were making and losing fortunes trading and speculating in Amsterdam. Not quite the same thing. And Zuckerberg would more properly fit into the latter category than the former. Yuri Slezkine, a noted historian, has argued in a fairly recent book (The Jewish Century) that we're all becoming "more Jewish" in our mode of living — the 20th century is one that leans towards the kinds of work previously reserved for Jews, and so on. It's an interesting and quite controversial argument. I find it troublesome, but my wife (who is classic Protestant ethic WASP, whereas I am such a muddle of things that I have no obvious ethnic identity, though Jewishness is part of that muddle) finds it compelling! (I suppose one could probably argue that I draw the distinction here so firmly because I live it on a daily basis. I am no toiler...) --Mr.98 (talk) 14:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You're making a good argument for why the traditional WASP "work ethic" now seems to be overrated. Hard work as such is no longer so highly valued. What's valued most highly in America is salesmanship. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

See chutzpah. 92.28.252.5 (talk) 18:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

if you're arrested by the sergeant-at-arms for avoiding call of the house, does it go on your criminal record?

I never see serious criminal charges or consequences levelled at Congressmen for avoiding roll call. John Riemann Soong (talk) 23:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of that procedure is to help establish a quorum. Is it actually considered a crime? The article doesn't suggest that that's the case. It merely authorizes the sergeant-at-arms to go round up legislators in case the legislative body is short of a quorum. However, I expect anyone frequently absent would find that it becomes a campaign issue next time around. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm just starting to read it, but I expect the official U.S. government page on the subject might provide some answers:[31] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The article uses the term "arrest" in quotes, and I see no hint that there is any kind of criminal charge connected with it. Presumably the legislative bodies have rules that they could use to deal with frequently-absent members. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

November 16

Czechoslovakian party organization

Hello, dear Wikipedians.

I have two question pertaining to the Communist party of Czechoslovakia (63-69). First, how could Novotny avoid splitting the office of party first secretary and president, after the (though belated) de-Stalinization??

I am reading on Novotny's wikipedia article that he was First Secretary, and then Dubcek took over as First Secretary in 68. Am I correct in identifying that there was ONE party organization, but two parties (the novelty Slovakian and the 'main' Czech), with each their first secretaries? In that respect, it can be said that Dubcek took over in '63 "as first secretary of the Slovak section" (Rothschild, 2008, p134). Consequently, in '68, Dubcek became party first secretary.

Thank you for any answers! 88.90.16.74 (talk) 00:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it there was one CPCz, but that the Communist Party of Slovakia functioned as an autonomous unit with CPCz. There was thus no 'Czech' branch of the party analogous to the Slovak branch. The Slovak party had its own leadership, but were also represented in the national leadership of CPCz. The first secretary of the Slovak party was subordninate to the first secretary of the Czechoslovak party. --Soman (talk) 00:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Ancient demolition

How were very large buildings demolished in the days before cranes and explosives? Cevlakohn (talk) 11:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Name examples of large buildings before the days of cranes or explosives? The Parthenon, the Pyramids? I think they either fell down and became ruins or were kept in use. Cranes were necessary to build most large buildings. Crowbar (tool) or pick-axes perhaps. 92.28.252.5 (talk) 13:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

What period are you thinking about? Mediaeval castles in Europe were physically attacked by various means, including battering rams at weak points, undermining (to cause their collapse), and fire. This might give you some ideas. Similar means could obviously have been used outside wartime. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Punching a hole through the wall to get access was not the same as demolishing them. Although I vaguely recall that one or two or so of castles might have been demolished for political reasons, to remove a potential power-base. 92.28.252.5 (talk) 17:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Or you could wait for an earthquake or some other disaster to destroy the building (like the Colossus of Rhodes). Adam Bishop (talk) 14:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The Parthenon (mentioned above) was destroyed by explosives in 1687 by forces led by Francesco Morosini:

"How it dismayed His Excellency to destroy the beautiful temple which had existed three thousand years!".

War would probably be the most common reason to deliberately want to destroy a structure in the "ancient" world, and before cranes or explosives became available for this purpose it was certainly more difficult but could still be done with enough time and labor. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The Trebuchet was highly effective in siege warfare.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Others are talking about enemy destruction, but I think the OP is asking about ordinary demolition. The fact that quite a few ancient buildings (or their ruins) are still around suggests that, in general, "they didn't". Once a building was built, why destroy it? One answer would be, to build something else from its stones - which is why the external cladding from the pyramids was taken off, as well as significant chunks of the Roman collosseum (sp?). It's only relatively recently that humans have been obsessed with total destroying their own buildings and putting new ones up, for no other reason than because they want to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The Great Wall of China is going the same way [32]. If a building or structure falls into disuse quite often it will be demolished, or as Bugs points out, will be used as building material for new structures. Jack forbes (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Although some impressive specimens still exist, a large majority of ancient buildings simply doesn't exist anymore. And a large part of those buildings was already demolished during ancient times (for example we have no intact example of an insula in the city of Rome itself, although the city most likely consisted mostly of that type of buildings, some going as high as seven stories). The most frequent causes was probably war, fire or collapses ocurring on account of faulty structures. But this often still left enough ruins to require proper demolition. This was done by hand, cheap labour was readily available during most of the period of the Roman Empire. There are also numerous instances of reused building materials turning up in excavations of later buildings. Most of the city of Rome in the medieval and Renaissance times consisted of buildings constructed with Roman era building materials. My examples mainly concern Rome, but much of it is probably applies for other ancient cultures as well. Except for the Mesopotamian cultures, that mostly used mudbrick as construction materials. These dissolved within a relatively short period of time (10-20 years), and the entire structure had to be rebuilt. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Nation Names

What nation-state has the most syllables in its name? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 11:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Presumably you mean in English rather than in the native tongue. Names are often contested, which makes answering this tricky, plus there are official names and common names. For example, "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is the name often used by neutral parties to refer to the Republic of Macedonia. Then you have things like "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" to refer to the country commonly referred to as the UK or just Britain. I didn't count the syllables in those two examples, sorry. --Viennese Waltz 12:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

In UN membership it is The former Yugoslav..., sorted on The, just after Thailand. Comes to 15 syllables if you say Mass-e-don-ee-a rather than Mass-e-don-ya. UK, in full, is 14. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

"United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is 15 syllables when I say it. Does 'Ireland' only have two syllables officially? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

If you go through the common names in our list of sovereign states, "Democratic Republic of the Congo" and "Federated States of Micronesia" both have, on my reckoning, 11 syllables, and "Bosnia and Herzegovina" has 9. ("United States of America" also has 9 syllables, but is listed there simply as "United States".) Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Death penalty

Why does the US still use the death penalty when every other developed country has abolished it? --J4\/4 <talk> 16:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Not all US states use it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

See Capital punishment in the United States, especially the "Controversy" and "History" sections. Paul (Stansifer) 16:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not been abolished in every other developed country. Most definitions of "developed country" would include Japan, Singapore and Taiwan, all of which practice capital punishment, while it remains legal in Israel and South Korea, too.

And India. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Most definitions would say India is a developing country. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Don't most of the Islamic republics allow it too? Or is the OP displaying some Euro-superior bias? :) As to why some states in the US use it - ya got me, as it would probably be cheaper just to stick them in a max-security prison for life without parole. But there is a mindset among many US citizens, that if someone has committed a horrible crime, taking the life or lives of others just to be doing it, then that guy has forfeited his own "right to life". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

A simple view is that there should be three elements in deciding the consequences of criminal behaviour - punishment, protecting society from the criminal, and rehabilitation. Capital punishment doesn't leave much room for the third element. I guess those places still allowing capital punishment must regard the first two elements as having overriding importance. HiLo48 (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I've heard it said that the death penalty is not really punishment, it's permanent removal. They've forfeited their right to life. And how are you going to "rehabilitate" the likes of someone like John Wayne Gacy? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

There's also an old saying about if you're willing to do the crime, you have to be willing to do the time. By implication, someone who takes the life of another willingly, has to be willing to suffer the same fate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, clearly Gacy wasn't a nice person. In Australia, with no death penalty, Martin Bryant was given "35 life sentences + 1,035 years without parole" for his record breaking shooting spree at Port Arthur. I understand that he is kept pretty much in isolation in order to protect him from other prisoners. (Tasmania has a very small population). The cost of his lifetime imprisonment will be very high. HiLo48 (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Gacy was evil. In the old superstitious days, it probably would have been said that he was possessed by Satan. And in some sense, he was. A lot of us who lived in Illinois and hence were closer to the case, especially resented how he abused the legal system for so many years, when there was no question whatsoever that he was guilty. That accounts in part for the unseemly spectacle of a cheering crowd outside Stateville the night he was finally snuffed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I wonder how it would compare with the costs associated with fighting the death penalty. And therein lies the dilemma as regards capital punishment in the USA. It used to be that once the guy was found guilty, it wasn't long before the sentence was carried out. Now it takes like 10 years. In addition to the cost of simply keeping him alive for 10 years, there are also the legal-system costs connected with all the appeals, even if the guy doesn't seriously fight the conviction (Tim McVeigh comes to mind - although he did fight it for awhile). Which is a practical (as opposed to emotional or moral) argument against the death penalty. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

What's the best country to live in?

--J4\/4 <talk> 17:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It's Finland. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Those rankings are weighted by "economic dynanism" and "political environment" which could be anything the (American?) rankers like. 92.28.252.5 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC).

That is going to depend on what you are looking for. If you like warm weather and beaches, I would not advocate Finland. Googlemeister (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

For that matter, it depends on which languages you can speak. APL (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

..or Costa Rica, apparently. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It depends on one's income and personal preference as to climate, standard of living, lifestyle. Many people of means choose New York, while others opt for southern Spain.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course, but the Newsweek study (cited by Comet Tuttle) and the wealth of information on this site are interesting and informative. (When did New York become a "country"?) Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Perish the thought that I would show any bias, but I would say that my own country is generally considered the best country to live in. Nope, no bias from me. Jack forbes (talk) 18:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. "Some consider the weather in Scotland to be slightly dreary", it says. It's Costa Rica for me! Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Jack is onto something: The "best" place to live is the place that "feels like home". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

...unless you want to get away from home, of course. (Say, from Scotland to somewhere dry and sunny.  ;-) ) Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

OOps my bad! I was actually thinking about specific places rather than entire countries. Saying the USA is vague, and a lot of celebs do choose the NYC. As for countries Spain is very popular not to mention the jet-set zone comprising the French Riviera and Monaco (for those with a ten-figure bank account).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

A large country with a reasonable climate (such as the USA) can allow for almost any lifestyle someone would want. So to some, small-town America would be perfect, and large cities would be horrible; and for some others, the opposite would be true. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

For someone like me who loves medieval history the USA doesn't offer what Europe can. There may be climatic and variety in lifestyle, but America doesn't have the cultural diversity that the Old World continents possess. I am from Los Angeles, by the way.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I've lived in countries with a warm climate and wonderful though they were it's still Scotland for me. The question put by the OP has no definitive answer in my opinion. Oh, and Ghmyrtle, a wee bit of bracing weather does no-one any harm. In fact, it makes a man of you. ;) Jack forbes (talk) 19:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I well remember the stormy seas between Walls and Foula, and the effect it had on the contents of my stomach... Character-building for sure. But we're going off-topic.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The points made by Jeanne above make it clear, as Jack says, that there is no one right answer. The answer is personal, and is the answer to the question, "What do I want?" That's something only the OP can answer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Prince William & Kate Middleton

Resolved

The ITV news has just said that 'the excited young couple will one day be King and Queen'. Will Kate Middleton become Queen? I was under the impression that the UK only has a single monarch and any spouses are generally given lesser titles, such as Prince, etc. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The wife of a reigning king, such as Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, becomes Queen consort. The husband of a reigning queen, such as Philip Mountbatten, is a Prince consort. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

There are two types of British queens, the Queen regnant and the Queen consort. In effect, "King" outranks "Queen", while "Queen" outranks "Prince". Queen Elizabeth is a queen regnant, i.e. a ruling queen. If Kate becomes Mrs. Prince William, she would become a princess (prince outranks princess), and when he ascends the throne, she would become queen consort. (Feel free to correct me if I'm oversimplifying or if I've got it wrong.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, cheers both. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It's been a little confused by Prince Charles's arrangements re his 2nd and current wife Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall. They've announced that when he becomes king, she will be called the Princess Consort. She will in fact be the Queen Consort but just not called that. Even today, she is the Princess of Wales, but chooses not be called that. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Refresh my memory: Charles and Diana were divorced, right? Let's suppose Diana were still among the living. If so, would that have made any difference as regards the titles Camilla is allowed to have (even if she doesn't use them)? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

While married to Charles, Diana was Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales (because the wife of His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales is automatically that). After their divorce, she became Diana, Princess of Wales (note, not The Princess of Wales, and no HRH). That was simply a courtesy title, mainly because her children were living and they are members of the Royal Family. Had she had no kids, or if they’d predeceased her, there’d have been less of a case to allow her a courtesy title because she would have severed all her connections with the RF. Currently, if Camilla and Charles were so minded, Camilla could quite legitimately use the title Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales (for the same reason as Diana was called that when she was his wife). It has nothing to do with any previous consorts Charles may have had or whether or not they're alive. (Analogy: the current wife of Mr Smith is Mrs Smith, even if his ex-wife continues to use the surname Smith.) But they prefer her to be known as Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cornwall. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Russian living in Thailand tried by an American court?

While the alleged crimes of Victor Bout are very serious and would deserve extreme measures, why does an American court have the juristiction to try a Russian living in Thailand, and who may never even have set foot in the US? 92.15.16.149 (talk) 20:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)