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

June 7

What did the NYSE and Euronext merger achieve?

Most of the stocks traded in NYSE are still traded under the NYSE banner? Right?

I thought when they would merge all the stocks would be under one exchange.

Am I mistaken, or is the merged entity just a holding company for the two stock exchanges?

What did the NYSE and Euronext merger achieve? --Obsolete.fax (talk) 01:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

They are still under 2 exchanges, for the simple reason that NYSE is not open in the European morning time, and therefore europeans couldn't trade their prefered stocks on Euronext if it was only one exchange. The companies that provided these trading services in each reagion NYSE and Euronext merged, but that does not mean that they changed the way they operate the trading. It was on April 4, 2007. The main achievement is control of the market they specialise and it allows them to share technology costs. --Lgriot (talk) 07:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

So other than sharing technology costs, everything else remained the same? The stocks on the NYSE are still traded the same way, as was before the merger? --Obsolete.fax (talk) 02:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there was no change that was a consequence of the merger that I can remember of. Of course the exchanges will upgrade their system from time to time, introduce new stocks as companies need to be listed or delisted, but they would have done that anyway. --Lgriot (talk) 08:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Marxist/socialist view of robotics

What is the Marxist/socialist view of robotics research? Are they opposed to robotics research? I have this paper Karl Marx on High Tech, but it does not shed much light on the contemporary Marxists' and socialists' view on robotics. Can anyone find some sources on this topic? Thanks. --Reference Desker (talk) 04:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• The most famous primary source is the Fragment on the Machines from Grundriesse here. Very broadly, "Automation" and "Leisure" were major debates in Marxism in the 1960s and 1970s. You could do well to read Braverman's extensive deskilling thesis in Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century. Very broadly
  • Marxism supposes that the increasing capitalisation of the process of production results in the [relative or absolute] emiserisation of the working class. Increased capitalisation also causes the tendency of the rate of profit to decline. These both lead to the largest section of the population of a capitalist economy being the working class, that this population be the poorest in terms of consumption of the share of production, and that the value of commodities approach zero (ie: free). This will create unemployment, and the economic and political basis for the great proletarian social revolution.
  • Automated robotic production is usually perceived as merely another step in the development of more intensive and extensive systems of capitalist production. The above still applies.
  • Marxists who: emphasise the subjective potential of the working class to foment revolution separate from their position in capital (ie: Autonomists), or those who doubt the tendency of the rate of profit to decline, doubt the labour theory of value, or doubt the automatic conversion of economic poverty into political class consciousness rather suspect that robots don't equal revolution. Then again, they suspected that Ford/Taylorism didn't equal revolution either. There's also a fair number of Marxists who are workers and are therefore personally fucked-off with robot related speed-ups and loss of wages and conditions in the here and now.
  • Finally, most socialists love robots, given the long standing linguistic, literary and cultural symbolic links between robots and the proletariat. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Please explain what emiserisation of the working class means. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Emiserisation, emiseration, emiserising are all variant English spellings of immiserisation, immiseration, immiserising (replace s with z as applicable to your variant of English). Our article on the topic Immiseration_thesis gives a fairly good explanation. There are two main variants:
        1. Emiseration in capital is an absolute. The real living standard of the working class will decline. This is generally considered as disproven; though, some proponents of this position argue that the absolute world wide standard of living of the working class must be considered.
        2. Emiseration in capital is a relative, based on returns of surplus value to classes and fixed capital. In Marx's conception of the circuit of expanded reproduction of capital where ' indicates that a term is in a varied (ie: expanded) form: Money -> Commodities (being Labour Power, Variable Capital (consumables) and Fixed Capital (plant)) -> Product -> Commodities' -> Money' there are some necessary implications:

           As the process is cycled, and as technological change occurs, a greater proportion of the social wealth ends up in the hands of capitalists as either profit or ownership over fixed and variable capital (particularly fixed capital). A less proportion of social wealth ends up in the hands of workers as wages. Even though the form of the commodities may be subjectively "better", in objective value terms, less value is returned to workers, leaving them emiserated. A key example is market entry into mature markets. In 1700, by saving wages, workers could buy the capital to set up a steel works. In 2012, I doubt even the largest worker controlled superannuation/pension fund could mobilise the capital of millions of workers to establish a new steel plant. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I just want to point out that in countries where self-avowed Marxists took power, Taylorism and Fordism were often explicitly embraced. Arguably no state embraced Taylorism and Fordism than Lenin's USSR. It seems counterintuitive for those of us raised on the leftist critique of Taylorism and Fordism as technologies used by bosses to de-skill workers, but when the "boss" was the Soviet state, they had no problem justifying that. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Definitely, but there is a "yes but no but yes" here. Simon Pirani's work on the Soviet workers in Moscow to 1923 indicates that workers eagerly sought a deal where they sold political rights in order to buy social democratic material outcomes. One Man Management and the NEP were rarely opposed in plants, and only political groups with an inherent critique of Taylorism (ie: anarchists, anarchistic Left SRs) or a considered critique of New Classes (same mobs, plus Mensheviks, some Bolsheviks, many industrial workers) resisted this at length. Part of the reason they could do so is that while Lenin deeply advocated a full scale Taylorism, including the positive HR benefits outlined by Taylor but never implemented in Fordist factories; the actual implementation of Ford/Taylorism prior to 1942 was minimal. This has been explored at length in the 1930s, where the possibility of pseudo-Taylorist "advance" to higher wage grades on the benefit of demonstrated skill through unauthorised movement between factories by workers was considered standard. Workers straight off the farm in the 1930s could move massively through skill and pay grades in a single year, and factory labour turnovers were many multiples of the workforce. Starting during the war workers gave up the last of their workplace freedoms to save the "nation". Subsequently, the Eastern societies became a nightmare of Ford/Taylorism for the standard worker, even in post-Stalinist plants. Miklos Haraszti Worker in a Worker's State is magnificent on this, and on how the Ford/Taylor "Norm" was used to discipline workers as a class in the East. So at times Soviet Ford/Taylorism resulted in more freedom for workers than in the West (bits of the early 1920s, most of the 1930s), but generally was worse (1920s, 1940s-1990s). And of course Ford/Taylorism never managed to measure up against workers control (1917-1921, 1956, 1968) in terms of industrial freedom and democracy. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Plessy vs Ferguson -- unanticipated disaster?

From the Civil Rights point of view, is it reasonable to call Plessy vs. Ferguson an unmitigated disaster for the Civil Rights Movement? From reading the Plessy, and case articles here, it seems only a decade or two later things were MUCH worse for black Americans than before the verdict was handed down. Is that an accurate assessment? The Masked Booby (talk) 08:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Another view might be that it was the ongoing bigotry (and greed?) of white people with power that made things worse, rather than one particular court case. HiLo48 (talk) 09:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• For the benefit of the uninitiated, Plessy v. Ferguson was a decision by some white Americans that it was OK to discriminate against black Americans. DuncanHill (talk) 11:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but this court decision removed the constitutional and legal obstacles to discrimination and even seemed to enshrine such discrimination in the constitution. As such, the decision made it much easier for white people to enact discriminatory laws against black Americans, whose circumstances consequently did worsen. However, Plessy v. Ferguson was just one of a number of court decisions that institutionalized racism, which also included Williams v. Mississippi and Giles v. Harris. Marco polo (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

And Reynolds v. United States. Oh wait-- that was a different minority group. Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 14:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Arguably a very different type of thing. The latter is about what people do, the former is about who they are. The law ostensibly should only be about what people do. The line between doing and being is a fuzzy one, to be sure, and reasonable people will disagree on the question of bigamy, but it's hardly the same level or type of prosecution as Plessy v. Ferguson. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

See Nadir of American race relations. Obviously, Plessy set a very bad precedent for race relations, but they were already terrible at the time. It's hard to imagine the court ruling differently considering the prevailing mindset in the era. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Work Accident Claim

[Sorry, we can't offer legal advice. You have to talk to a lawyer. Pais (talk) 09:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)]

Simion Tavitian, Lascu Stoica: reliability

There is a series of books by Romanian Simion Tavitian dedicated to the history of Armenians in Romania. Some of them are reviewed and prefaced by a historian Lascu Stoica (see e.g. "Dobrudjan Contributions to the Development of Contemporary Armenology"). Are these sources reliable in what concerns the Armenian origin of the mentioned personalities (among them - Spiru Haret, Vasile Conta and others)? --Max Shakhray (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• It all boils down to the reliability of Lascu Stoica. If he vetted the work of Tavitian, then he is basically putting his name on Tavitian's book and taking responsibility for Tavitian's claims. I don't know Romanian, but it seems like Stoica is a scholar, whereas Tavitian isn't. As a result I would use Stoica only, as he seems to meet Scholarship requirements. Divide et Impera (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the reply! The formal consideration is now clear. It would be surely also helpful to read some specialists' opinions on Stoica in general or his work on Romanian Armenians in particular. --Max Shakhray (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Inflation

Bear with me and my limited understanding of economics. :) I understand that if the US were to say, just print 56 billion dollars, it would cause some Inflation, i.e., the value of the dollar would go down, right? Since there is that much more money in circulation?

Assuming I'm not missing something and the above is true - what would happen, then, if Bill Gates were to take his 56 billion and burn it (thereby taking it out of circulation?) Would the value of the dollar go up? ^Avic_ennasis @ 18:02, 5 Sivan 5771 / 7 June 2011 (UTC)

What would stop the Fed from printing 56 billion in new bills to compensate for the ones that went up in smoke? Gabbe (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Even if the Federal Reserve System were to take no further action in either of the scenarios you present, you fail to account for a crucial variable: The value of a currency depends not only on supply but also on demand. In currency markets today, demand tends to be a much stronger force than supply. Considering that the stock of U.S. dollar money in the broadest measure of money supply (M3) totals about $14 trillion according to this source, it would probably take a change in supply of considerably more than $56 billion to overcome the forces of demand in a lasting way. Marco polo (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Gates doesn't have $56 billion in cash. Most of it is in Microsoft shares. He couldn't sell all those shares without causing the share price plummeting, so he wouldn't get anywhere near $56 billion for them. Even if he did sell them, he wouldn't get physical currency, just numbers on a bank's computer. Trying to withdraw $56 billion in cash would be a challenge, since that's pretty much the entire supply of currency in the country. --Tango (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

And it would weight something like 500 tons and fill 56,000 stereotypical Hollywood breifcases. Assuming you only use $100 notes of course. Googlemeister (talk) 19:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

That's when you use 100,000 bills. ^Avic_ennasis @ 20:21, 5 Sivan 5771 / 7 June 2011 (UTC)

See our article burning money, which discusses how such a gesture would indeed raise the real value of other dollars (details of cash/stock notwithstanding). SemanticMantis (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The important thing to remember is that the vast majority of dollars in existence are not printed money. In fact, there isn't really a limit on how much printed money the treasury will print. They're happy to exchange "virtual money" in bank accounts with real paper money as fast as they can print the stuff. While theres

Cecil Adams gives his usual easy-to-read summary The Straight Dope : How Much Money Is There?

APL (talk) 20:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Though exchanging virtual and printed money doesn't decrease the total, which is what I was trying to get at. :) ^Avic_ennasis @ 20:21, 5 Sivan 5771 / 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks all for your responses, though perhaps I should have used a better example. :-) I'm aware that most money is not paper and that Bill Gates's value is not all cash. I guess what I was really getting at - is there anything a private citizen (even if it has to be a very rich one) can do to increase/decrease the value of the dollar in the US? ^Avic_ennasis @ 20:21, 5 Sivan 5771 / 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure. If a very rich individual decided to devote his (or her) entire fortune to buying or selling dollars on a given day, they would probably push the exchange rate (versus the other currency or currencies they transacted) enough for markets to notice on that day. However, no individual is rich enough to have a lasting influence on the exchange rate. Marco polo (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm also interested. I think that the New Zealand dollar was once affected by a couple of people sitting at home, buying it. Maybe that's a myth, I don't know. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

There are certain circumstances where one individual can have a big influence on an exchange rate. See Black Wednesday for one example. --Tango (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

As I understand burning money, any destruction of US dollars increases the value of all other US dollars, at least conceptually. This is true whether one burns $1 or $10^10^10 (though of course the magnitude/significance of the change does depend on the amount destroyed). If anyone can describe why this should not be the case, I welcome her to update the article after explaining it to us :) SemanticMantis (talk) 22:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you can prove that cash money was destroyed it could be replaced at no cost, or at less than face value, depending on the circumstance. APL (talk) 23:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Three semi-wealthy guys are showing off their casual attitude about money. The first one puts a match to a 50 dollar bill and uses it to light his cigar. The second one does it with a 100 dollar bill. The third guy, not to be outdone, writes out a check in the amount of a million dollars, and then puts a match to it to light his cigar. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I think nobody here is talking about the Fed destroying old bills and printing new ones (which they do all the time, and doesn't change the money supply). The circumstance is, suppose I just burned $100, and can prove it. How can that money be replaced? Even if I can get someone to give me $100, that doesn't replace the money I burned, because someone is still out $100. I'm not trying to be difficult, I just have no idea what you're talking about. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The United States Bureau of Engraving and Printing has an entire department for investigating such cases. If you can convince them that cash money was destroyed they will replace the bills. This doesn't come out of any existing pool of money, so no one is "out" any money. They're not giving you money, they're just replacing the pieces of paper that represent the money you already have. (This is different than an insurance pay-out, because the insurance company would have to give you some of their own money, the BEP will just print some replacement bills.) APL (talk) 23:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Fascinating, I was not aware of this. Do you have a reference? I suspect that the provision is intended for accidental destruction, and that I would have a hard time getting them to send me a shiny new bill if I send them a video of me flagrantly burning one... SemanticMantis (talk) 23:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure. It's mostly for people who had their entire life savings hidden under the mattress when their house burned down. You put the ash in a box, along with how much you think it's worth and they'll do their best to verify it. Looking at their claim instructions it looks like mutilated coins go back to the Mint. Makes sense, but I hope you didn't keep them in the same coffee can. APL (talk) 00:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It's handled by the Mutilated Currency Division of the US BEP.

Under regulations issued by the Department of the Treasury, mutilated United States currency may be exchanged at face value if:

• More than 50% of a note identifiable as United States currency is present; or,
• 50% or less of a note identifiable as United States currency is present, and the method of mutilation and supporting evidence demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Treasury that the missing portions have been totally destroyed.

^{Damaged Currency}

So, if your home catches fire, and you send the ashes of your money-stuffed mattress to them, they will replace your money. (Provided their research correlates your story.) ^Avic_ennasis @ 00:30, 7 Sivan 5771 / 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Can I just point out that the "value of the dollar" has two senses: 1) the purchasing power it has for Americans, 2) the amount of foriegn currency it buys. These are by no means the same. 2.101.15.113 (talk) 10:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

No, they are the same. You can use it to buy a certain amount of printer toner, paper, or paper with toner on it, the last being in fact currency of another country. People forget that PPP is a fiction, in fact currencies are just something you can buy just like anything else. People pretend that "rice in Manhattan" is the same item as "rice in Shanghai" and then say "but it doesn't cost the same even though it's the same!" and introduce the fiction. Obviously the error comes from thinking that "rice in Shanghai" and "rice in Manhattan" are the same item. 87.194.221.239 (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. Purchasing power is different than the value on the currency markets. Over the long term they tend to follow each-other, but they are by no means the same.

This is why it's a good idea to take your vacation in a country whose currency has recently lost value compared to your own. If the pound suddenly lost value so that it was worth the same as the dollar, it would be quite some time until prices in London adjusted. The pound would still have the purchasing power of just over a dollar and half. In the mean time, American tourists would pay about a third less than they expected to pay.

Now if you want to get all philosophical on us and say that a pound of sugar in London is a different product than a pound of sugar in Boston, well that's fine, but it's a matter of semantics that doesn't change the fact that there's a real phenomena of local prices not instantly being adjusted to match the day-to-day fluctuations of the currency markets. 76.28.67.181 (talk) 19:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you're simply wrong. "purchasing power is different than the value on the currency markets" is exactly wrong, a myth perpetrated by economists. Think about it. If I command you to buy me an apartment in Manhattan, does it become any cheaper for you to do it if you move to Malaysia first? Or South America? No. It becomes cheaper for you to buy a LOCAL substitute. The local apartment and the Manhattan apartment are not the same thing - everyone knows that. What everyone EXCEPT economists knows is the "slice of Malaysian bread" and "slice of Manhattan bread" are not the same either. Everyone in the world knows you're buying DIFFERENT goods, not at all the same ones. Economists are the only ones who introduce the myth, no, no, they're the same, it's just that your purchasing power has increased. If that were true I would never spend more than $5000 on anything, whether car, house, whatever, without first buying a round-trip ticket to BumF-ck, Asia, getting a disposable phone there, and then completing the transaction by phone and from there before flying back home to enjoy the goods bought with my greater purchasing power. --188.29.215.73 (talk) 23:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're wrong. Certainly, some things can only be purchased in certain areas, with the local currency. And certainly the cost of living is different in different areas and that does not indicate that the currency has more or less "purchasing power".

You seem to be (violently) reacting to some argument (that no one here has made) that intentionally confuses purchasing power and cost of living to make it seem OK that someone in Malaysia is paid very little compared to a westerner. Those arguments are nonsense, but not because the idea of purchasing power is a fiction, but because they're confusing several different ideas. (Besides, the differences in "purchasing power" wouldn't even come close to explaining why Malaysians make less money than Americans.)

The fact remains, that the real purchasing power of a currency does not vary day-to-day with the currency markets. Sometimes it lags quite a bit behind, or even remains somewhat apart for various reasons.

Now, you think about it. If I buy a pound of sugar in a market in London they won't charge me the USA price translated by that day's currency exchange rates. They'll charge the same price they charged the day before. That is because the exchange rate has changed, but the purchasing power hasn't. Obviously, over the long term, wholesale prices of imported goods are driven by the exchange rate, and that will in turn effect the consumer prices. So the exchange rate clearly affects the purchasing power, but they're just as clearly not the same.

"Purchasing Power" is a very useful concept to understand when traveling. Take the example above. The pound usually has a purchasing power near a buck fifty. But the exchange rate varies quite a bit. When the exchange rate is up near $2.00, you can expect everything to seem super-expensive to visiting Americans, because they'll be paying $2.00 for a unit of currency that can only buy $1.50 worth of stuff. But if the exchange rate drops to near $1.00, then it's a great time for Americans to visit, because they'll be paying $1.00 for a unit of currency that can buy $1.50 worth of stuff.

Many people intentionally plan their vacations to take advantage of these sorts of fluctuations. It would be ignorant and costly for a traveler to pretend that the exchange rate is the only way of understanding currency.

I particularly like the (only somewhat serious) attempts to define purchasing power based on the cost of a Big Mac. (See Big Mac Index) Big Mac sandwiches are pretty much the same everywhere in the world, but they are certainly not priced at what you would expect based on the exchange rates. 76.28.67.181 (talk) 05:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

To answer your question without the crazy arguments above, What you are describing is called the quantity theory of money. In theory the value of a currency (or more precisely the price leven within the economy) in the long run is determined by the quantity of that currency. One of the problems with that theory today is that most money is not created by governments, but by the fractional-reserve banking system. Jabberwalkee (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Nazereth to Jerusalem

Luke 2:42,in the bible(KJV)states "And when he was twelve years old, they [Jesus and his family] went UP to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast". Jesus and his family lived in Nazereth at this time, according to my references. How would Jesus go UP to Jerusalem when Nazareth is in the northern region and Jerusalem is in the southern region as depicted on any map that I can locate? This event probably took place around 12 to 16 A.D. Was the map different during this era, or is there another explanation for this wording?

The maps to which I am referring are Palestine in different eras. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wruth244 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The idea that north is 'up', and south is 'down' is evidently not universal (there is no particular logic to it). I suspect that Jerusalem was 'up' in the sense of being 'higher' as in 'more holy' or 'closer to God'. Or perhaps Jewish maps (did they make maps then?) has south at the top? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The convention of depicting maps with North at the top dates back to Ptolemy (see [1]). Gabbe (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

^^As your own source says, though, this didn't become the prevailing convention until after the Middle Ages. --M@rēino 20:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

True, but my point was that the convention post-dates 16 AD. Gabbe (talk) 23:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

In the Hebrew scriptures, travel to Jerusalem is traditionally represented as ascent. That is, one travels up to Jerusalem. See Song of Ascents. This may be a reference to the position of Temple in Jerusalem atop the Temple Mount. Your passage makes an explicit reference to Pesach, one of the Three Pilgrimage Festivals, when Jews traditionally went up to Jerusalem. Marco polo (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

As well as endorsing the "north doesn't automatically mean up" responses above, I would add that the word up was not in the original Bible. It is a translation. If it really bothers you, you need to find the original text. HiLo48 (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

And as a more modern example of "up" not meaning "north", in Railroad directions, trains tend frequently to go "up" or "down" for north/south, unless they're going to the capital, in which case, a train would go 'up' from Scotland to London, despite the journey being due south --Saalstin (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• I'd also add that the New American Standard Bible and the Revised Standard Version do use the word "up", but don't say "up to Jerusalem." --M@rēino 21:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see the corresponding Greek verb and preposition. Notice in the link former that it says "to go up (literally or figuratively)." Schyler (one language) 22:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2011 May 21#Are north and south strongly connected with up and down everywhere? for a recent discussion.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Note also that Jerusalem is on a plateau, at an average altitude of about 2500 feet -- so many routes of approach must involve going uphill in the literal sense. Looie496 (talk) 00:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes Jerusalem is 2500 feet above sea level while Nazareth is 1200 feet.--Bill Reid | (talk) 11:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The first verse of the World War I song "It's a Long Way to Tipperary" begins with this line:

"Up to mighty London came an Irish man one day..."

London is geographically east and south of Ireland. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The song continues with the information "As the streets are paved with gold, Sure, everyone was gay". Wikipedia has an article about the song which was premiered by the redoubtable Florrie Forde, "a dashing...lady with a most attractive figure, excellent voice, and a positively uncanny faculty for taking hold of an audience."[2]. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Ancient maps often had East at the top - see Mappa mundi. Astronaut (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Some historian I don't remember the name of said that "To orient" originally meant to turn so the map faced East (if one were in Europe) since The Orient (or The Holy Land) was at the top. Similarly, The "Oriental Institute" in Chicago is devoted to artifacts from the Holy Land and surrounding countries, not Asia. Edison (talk) 04:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The Holy Land and surrounding countries are in Asia. — Kpalion^(talk) 08:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

There is also some speculation that "Nazarene" as applied to Jesus may have been a title, rather than a geographical classification, and even that the town now known as Nazareth may not have existed in biblical times. See Nazarene (sect) Rojomoke (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I doubt there were any maps 2000 years ago. Some of the earliest maps, from medieval times, had south or east upwards. 2.101.15.113 (talk) 11:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

People in the English Home Counties "go up" to London, whichever compass direction they have to go in. By ancient tradition, you also "go up" to Oxford or Cambridge - everywhere else is "down". As the King James Bible was translated in Oxford, Cambridge and Westminster, perhaps it's no surprise that the translators followed the same logic for Jerusalem. Alansplodge (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Me again. I've just found the Latin text from the Vulgate Bible; "et cum factus esset annorum duodecim ascendentibus illis in Hierosolymam secundum consuetudinem diei festi"[3]. My Latin is not up to much, but "ascendentibus" sounds as though it ought to mean "went up". Perhaps the idea of "going up" to the capital and "going down" to the provinces is more widespread than I thought. Alansplodge (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Consider the name "Songs of Ascents" — there's a good reason that these psalms, sung by pilgrims going to Jerusalem, are songs of Ascents instead of songs of Descents. Throughout the Bible are found references to going up to Jerusalem, going down from Jerusalem to wherever, etc.; for a New Testament example, look at the poor victim in the Parable of the Good Samaritan, who (along with the religious leaders that followed him) was going "down" to Jericho, which unlike Jerusalem is below sea level. Nyttend (talk) 04:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Photo from federal prison

Asked at the Image help desk and not given an answer:

This photo is of an inmate in federal prison, while in federal prison. Would it therefore be considered public domain? --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know the answer either way, sorry, but I'll bet it makes a difference whether the prison in question is operated by the government or if it's corporate operated. It might help to know which facility it's from. APL (talk) 23:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

What matters is who took the photo, not where or who it was of. If the mugshot originates from a Federal Bureau of Prisons or the FBI, on Wikipedia we give it the {{PD-USGov-DOJ}} tag. Anything else we consider to be probably non-free. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

That's why I wondered about corporate run prisons. Wouldn't photos taken by employees there be handled differently? APL (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The inmate is at the Federal Correctional Complex, Beaumont, which is federally-run. The photo is from this page--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about the photo in all it's formats, but the file you linked is of such low resolution that I personally would have no qualms about using it on fair use grounds. It's a tiny image! --188.29.130.143 (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

June 8

Queen Victoria's diaries

Are Queen Victoria's diaries available online anywhere? Or have they been published in full? All I have found is a selection from her youth. They must be out of copyright by now, although the originals will be locked up somewhere. Thanks 92.29.122.28 (talk) 00:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The question was asked at Yahoo Answers. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

They don't seem to have been published in full. This may be because there were 111 "large manuscript volumes" of diaries, plus hundreds more destroyed after her death[4]. They are apparently held in the Royal Archives at Windsor Castle, which is open to academic researchers[5]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not Queen Victoria's own diary but here is the lost diary of her servant Abdul Karim. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

"Mr. Kinnock remarked that it was great to see Queen Victoria's diaries, "and in her own handwriting". The Queen then told the truth with millions watching, that Queen Victoria's diaries had all been destroyed because she had upset the British establishment. The diaries were all rewritten, taking out the most important bits where Queen Victoria recorded every sitting she had with the medium John Brown when she made contact with Prince Albert." According to this source this was said on a live TV broadcast. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Given that that article is an opinion piece referring to "the British thought police", etc., I doubt whether it should be seen as reliable. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow! According to this http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=A0S00SaBau9N9QwAoQP37BR.;_ylv=3?qid=20110608003953AADTGGP Queen Victoria's first language was german, and she spoke german at home! Perhaps the diaries have not been published because they were partly written in german. I wonder how fluent our current rulers are in german. 92.28.242.181 (talk) 12:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like anti-royalist half-truths to me; Queen Victoria#Heiress to the throne says "Her lessons included French, German, Italian, and Latin,[13] but she spoke only English at home.[14]". Interestingly, Queen Elizabeth II is pretty fluent in French. Astronaut (talk) 13:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I hate to disabuse you of this, but Queen Victoria was English and her first language was English, not German. Her husband, however, was indeed (what we would now call) German and so there is every possibility they spoke both English andGerman at home. (The UK imported the Hanoverian King George I over a century before the birth of Queen Victoria, so it could be said that the Royal Family was German, but as every monarch since George III has been born in England, they are English by birth.)--TammyMoet (talk) 13:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Our article on Victoria's mother, Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, states that she was unable to speak English in 1820 when the Duke of Kent died (the year after Victoria's birth), so perhaps there would have been some German spoken in the Kent household. Victoria's governess Baroness Louise Lehzen was German too. However, Victoria was writing a journal in English from 1832[6]. But I do agree that anti-royalists often over-play the German ancestry card. Alansplodge (talk)

This page says that Victoria was "taught only German but at the age of three she started to learn English". I'm looking for a better source. Alansplodge (talk) 17:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

So it appears to be true then. 2.101.15.113 (talk) 11:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, being fluent in French is not surprising for someone with an upper-class background and in Elizabeth II's generation. It's probably not even rare now for people from good schools. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

French isn't taught as a manner of course any more, even in top schools. GCSE French may be compulsory in a particular school, but A level, which is by no means fluency, surely isn't. Anyway, it's certainly not surprisign for QEII. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

What language did Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh grow up speaking? His family was Danish, he was a Prince of Greece, but his uncle was the Earl Mountbatten, in the British nobility. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

According to our article, he understands a bit of Greek but doesn't really speak it. The languages his parents had in common were English and German, but German was clearly his mother's first language, his sisters all married Germans, and he attended school in Germany until he was 16 (though he had lived in France for a while). Thereafter, he attended school in Scotland and later joined the Royal Navy. So, most likely, German was his first language, but English became his dominant language. Marco polo (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec) From Elizabeth & Philip by Charles Higham & Roy Moseley, p. 74: "The boy's nanny, Nurse Roose, was British ... English was his first language, German and French his second and third, and Greek not at all." He was also "raised to learn sign language, so that he could communicate with his mother", who was totally deaf. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Somewhat correcting myself, I point to the quote from the prince himself about a third of the way down this page. He was apparently multilingual from childhood. Marco polo (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Pierre Albuisson

I'm looking for a good reliable source that supports the statement "French engraver Pierre Albuisson designed a stamp for the Principality of Monaco featuring Claude Monet's painting The Magpie to honor the 150th anniversary of the artist's birth." I've found the personal website of the artist[7] but no reliable secondary or tertiary sources (although I'm sure they exist). The website says the stamp was awarded "Best stamp" at the "world cup 1993", so surely it must be notable? Any help finding more information about this stamp and any coverage in good sources is appreciated. Viriditas (talk) 04:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Three hobbyist websites: [8], [9], and [10]. No mention of a 'World Cup', but several references to Monaco 1993. Meph^talk 07:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The "World cup" refers to a a competition of stamps of the world, during which the readers of Timbres magazine voted for their preferred stamps proposed by postal administrations (In French the name of the competition is Coupe du monde des timbres, "Stamp World Cup"). You can check here that Pierre Albuisson wins four times. — AldoSyrt (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Are any of these reliable sources that we can use in Wikipedia articles? Viriditas (talk) 03:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Mixed capitalist-communist system

Is it possible to develop mixed capitalist-communist system which in partiuclar would be able to fight unemployment more efficiently and whose planned ecomomy would combat financial crisises while retaining private property?--188.146.51.33 (talk) 11:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

How would you mix them? The key difference between the two is the ownership of the means of production (factories, farmland, etc.). If they are owned by private citizens, it's capitalism. If they are owned by the community generally, then it is communism (although capitalist economies usually have a fairly large public sector too). I am simplifying things to a ridiculous extent, but that's the gist of it. You could have a partly planned capitalist economy, using a combination of regulation and incentives (eg. tax breaks) to influence what private owners of capital do with it (in fact, all countries do this to some extent). That wouldn't make it communist, though. --Tango (talk) 12:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

State capitalism? Mixed economy? The articles may be of interest, anyway. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any state that has ever had a pure capitalist or a pure communist system. A mix with aspects of both is the norm. For the model used in several European states (originating in Germany and Austria, and implemented with vastly different degrees and shades), see Social market economy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Which begs the question, is China really a communist country or is it a capitalist autocracy? --Bill Reid | (talk) 13:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It's neither. It's a hybrid system with some heavy aspects of socialism and some heavy aspects of capitalism. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No, it raises the question. </lostcause>AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

@ Mr. 98. Looking at 21st century China it is hard to find heavy aspects of socialism. Maoist-communism is only given lip service and the large state owned industries are being privatised quite quickly. The direction is towards complete privatisation with a non-centralised market economy. The heavy hand of suppression is ever present but communist? Socialist ideals are almost gone. --Bill Reid | (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

So, "State capitalism" could fit. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• It could, but it would be bending it heavily. The largest user of State capitalism at the moment is the SWP (UK) line parties. It is a bit of a stretch to reconcile their Cliffite construction of the soviet union with the nature of China. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I think they call themselves a Socialist market economy. There are some rather significant industries under state control that don't seem like they will privatize anytime soon. Whether you want to call that socialism or capitalism or what have you seems like cutting rather fine hairs. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that these days China is more capitalist than the US. This is because a totalitarian state can suppress unions and government regulation that would otherwise be demanded by the workers/voters. Meanwhile, the US has a large proportion of government workers, and those working at companies which get government grants, bail-outs, subsidies, etc., especially in fields like the military, police, fire-fighting, agriculture, and education. StuRat (talk) 18:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

China has all of those things, too. The main difference between China and the United States today is in the area of political freedom, not economic system. The main way in which their economic systems differ is that, in China, the financial system is tightly controlled by the government, which also represses labor. By contrast, in the United States, the government allows labor organizing and theoretically lightly regulates and oversees the financial system (though some have argued that it is really financial interests that control the U.S. government). Marco polo (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

James Meade (in Full Employment Regained?) argued that something like the OP's system might be achieved through the introduction of a Basic income guarantee; the idea is that with that in place the minimum wage could be significantly lowered or abolished and with aggregate demand high enough and labor cheap enough, full employment would be possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand the Italian Autonomists used the "Social Wage" as an explicitly transitional demand, believing it to be incompatible with continued capitalism. (Then again, some Social Democrats used a non-starvation wage as an explicitly transitional demand...) Fifelfoo (talk) 22:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

A mixed system WOULD be possible. You could have the state owning all the key industries, and people assigned to jobs for which all their needs are then met (state issued food vouchers, housing, car, public transit, ect), as well as private ownership of small businesses that were run as a sideline business to your state-given job. HominidMachinae (talk) 06:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

A much more common mixed model is created by limiting ownership. Just because you "own" something, does not mean that you can do whatever you want with it. You have to abide by all sorts of rules and regulations. Restaurants are not allowed to discriminate based on race or sex. Nuclear power plants must implement extensive safety features. Microsoft, Apple and Google probably would not be allowed to merge, even if 100% of the stock owners would support it. Eminent domain can be used to further the public interest even over individual owners. In that sense, "the people", represented by the state and its laws, exercise some aspects of ownership over private property. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Only to the extent that you can demonstrate that the state itself is a radical democracy, rather than being hegemonised by a property owning class. And if controlling the state is conditional on displacing a capitalist class, then you can't really describe it as socialism. For early critiques of state control, see Proudhon, Bakunin, Marx, Goldman, Luxemburg. Another interesting question in this mix is about states in transition, such as dual power on one hand, and the NEP on the other. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

India from independence till the early 1990s is an interesting example of a mixed system. There was widespread nationalization of many industries, Soviet-style central planning, and private businesses were strictly controlled. Economy of India has a bit of info. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I found it very amusing when our Australian government privatised the nationally owned telecommunications company, with a very aggressive argument that government ownership of such bodies was wrong, while the biggest player in the newly opened up telecoms market happened to be owned by the Singapore government. Go figure. HiLo48 (talk) 10:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

And French companies, some state-owned, some private, some mixed, but from supposedly statist France anyway, have bought up much of the UK's erstwhile public sector. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Bible version(s) used/referenced by Henry VIII in his dispuute with the Vatican

Which version(s) of the Bible would Henry VIII have referenced in his dispute with the Vatican regarding the biblical interpreation of divorce? Which would the Vatican have used?82.17.198.76 (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.

Henry VIII cited from the Catholic Bible's Book of Leviticus regarding the invalidity of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. The Vatican would have mainly relied on Canon Law--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I would guess the OP meant which printed editions they used. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It would appear Henry and the Vatican used the Latin Vulgate Bible.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Homosexuality in Israel, need lots of info

Hey all,

My girlfriend is giving a very important speech on homosexuality in Israel (complex relationship =p), and I need to find as much info as possible about it but I see no article. Basically everything and anything so we can boil it down. =p Could someone please assist with this? Thank you very much. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 18:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

LGBT rights in Israel is a good place to start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 18:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a good start. Anything else? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 19:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

We also have Category:LGBT in Israel. You could take a look at the pages listed there, and follow the sub-categories downwards. --Antiquary (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, even better! Thanks! Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 19:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

She is giving a speech about homosexuality in Israel OR in Israel, giving a speech about homosexuality? 2.139.12.164 (talk) 13:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

On the topic of homosexuality in Israel in Israel (as an Israeli). =p More I cannot say. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect and no offense intended, if it were me giving an important speech, I probably wouldn't start with Wikipedia. Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 17:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, when given the choice between finding info all over the web in sources you may not be able to trust, and finding them all in one place and being able to check the sources themselves for more info and credibility, in what is actually a very good article (though it could use a bit more on the anti-discrimination bit), I think I'd pick that article as a good starting point. I am going to see if I can find sources not covered in the articles though and hope they are good. You can count on Wiki at times. Let's face it, most people do. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 18:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Except that Wikipedia and the web are not your only two sources of information. (Shrugs.) Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 14:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Except when we put some thought into it and realise that most non-digital sources on the subject would most likely be in Hebrew. (Also shrugs.) =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 02:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Upon thorough inspection of most online English sources on this matter, I can happily say that the current Wiki articles have pretty much all of the relevant info. Well done. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 03:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Western Europe 1453

Did the West ever plan to come to the aid of Constantinople in 1453? I know they never did. But did any of the rulers of Western Europe ever thought of extending their hands to help their fellow Christian brother in the East? Also what was the immediate reaction toward the fall of Constantinople by the rulers of Western Europe.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I think if you read our article on the Crusade of Varna, perhaps along with our article on what is sometimes known as the Crusade of 1456, it should give you a pretty good fix on the state of affairs at the time. Executive summary: people cared less about what happened to Constantinople than about the threat the Ottomans posed to the rest of Europe. Looie496 (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The Fall of Constantinople article also talks about this. Who would have helped? The west already tried to help, and failed disastrously, at Nicopolis and Varna. The Polish king was killed at Varna, Poland had no king at all for a few years afterwards, and was probably not very keen on getting involved with the Ottomans again. They were also occupied with a war in Prussia. In the Empire, there were disputes over Austria, Bohemia, and Hungary, and the Hungarians (like the Poles) had already been defeated numerous times. England and France were still fighting the Hundred Years' War. And what would be the point of helping, if anyone had been willing or able? Constantinople was essentially all that remained of the Byzantine Empire, and it had been that way since the fourteenth century. The Ottoman sultans left it alone because they could extort tribute from it, but otherwise the empire no longer really existed. The emperors did come begging for help in the west, but the Papacy (which was itself still recoving from the schism of the fourteenth century) wanted the emperor and the Orthodox clergy to recognize the superiority of the Roman rite first. One of the emperors (John VIII maybe?) agreed to this, but the Orthodox population wanted nothing to with it. They didn't want western help at all if that was the price. (This was in the later stages of the Council of Florence.) So, basically, mutual distrust, the inability of most of Europe to help, and the absolute futility of doing so, led to the fall of Constantinople. There was really no way to beat the Ottomans at this point, and they eventually conquered Hungary and almost Austria before western Europe was able to do anything about it. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes it was John VIII Palaiologos who re-submitted the Orthodox Church to the authority of the Pope and attempted to force the use of the Latin rite in Byzantine churches. He led a mission to the Council of Florence in 1439, taking with him a retinue of scholars (claimed by some historians to be pivotal to the Rennaisance). This led to some financial support from the Catholic nations - I believe that Henry VI of England ordered a collection to be taken in every English parish church for the Byzantines. In terms of direct aid "Although some troops did arrive from the mercantile city states in the north of Italy, the Western contribution was not adequate to counterbalance Ottoman strength. Some Western individuals, however, came to help defend the city on their own account. One of these was an accomplished soldier from Genoa, Giovanni Giustiniani, who arrived with 700 armed men in January 1453" (from the Fall of Constantinople). Alansplodge (talk) 12:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Ownership of Royal Graves

Okay in current modern day monarchies, palaces and royal estates belong to the state rather than the monarch. But who do the tombs and bodies of their ancestors belong to? Do they belong to the Church they were buried in, the state as in the case of royal palaces and estates, or to their descendants.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 23:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Since nobody has given an authoratative reply yet, I expect that for example Princess Diana's grave is owned by her brother, as it is on his estate. Presumably the graves of anyone are owned by who owns the land they are in. In some countries it may be customary to buy grave-plots, in others the church or local authority owns the land. On the other hand, "buying" a plot may be just paying a fee to the owner of the land to reserve use of the plot rather than actually owning the freehold. As to who owns the bodies - one would guess that bodies who died hundreds of years ago are owned by the landowner, although I understand that often even the skeleton decays away completely. 2.101.15.113 (talk) 11:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Not all royal residences belong to the state (perhaps more strictly The Crown): I think Sandringham House and Balmoral Castle are personally owned by the Queen. (The Sandringham article says it's owned by the Royal family.) AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Since 1928, all Royal burials (except for sovereigns and consorts) have been at the Royal Burial Ground at Frogmore near Windsor. I believe this is privately owned by the Queen but not 100% certain. Kings and Queens come to rest at St. George's Chapel, Windsor Castle, which is a Royal Peculiar and so answers directly to the Sovereign and not to any bishop. Westminster Abbey which contains the remains of several medieval monarchs, is also a Royal Peculiar, so the chances of a rogue bishop selling them on eBay to boost the funds is rather remote. Alansplodge (talk) 16:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I expect that "ownership" of a buried body is not a simple issue. The land in which a body is buried has an owner, such as a cemetery association, a church, a municipality, or the family who owns the old family burial ground. There are laws in some localities governing the treatment of dead bodies, such that if I own the family cemetery in which my ancestors (parents back to some great grandparents) are buried, I have no legal right to dig up their remains and sell their skeletons as curiosities or medical teaching tools. I probably also have no legal right to dig them up. Exhumation typically requires legal process. I doubt that someone could legally have their ancestors dug up and the bones ground for fertilizer. That said, there was once a lively trade in Egyptian mummies, which were used as medicine or for various disrespectful practices. Edison (talk) 03:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course it might be that someone (the descendant, the estate, and or the cemetery owner) "owns" the body, just as a pet owner or farm operator owns his animals, but society has laws to limit actions taken. One cannot legally torture animals, unless it is "for science," and even then there are supposed to be limits, based on public sentiment. An owner of a failing animal is typically supposed to take it to a vet to be euthanised, rather than killing it himself. A descendant can have an ancestor dug up, with suitable paperwork, and the remains moved to a different cemetery plot (so Grandma can "rest" next to Grandpa, if they were initially buried in different cities), but typically just cannot grab a shovel and do the digging himself. Edison (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

June 9

Genealogy in Australia

I wish to grind through free records of birth on the www to see if I can figure in what order my "friends" came to join me on my planet. What site should I searh for?Kittybrewster ☎ 00:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Each Australian state maintains a separate Births Deaths and Marriages register, but these registers are not web accessible for recent information. BDM NSW for example offers online "limited information for records from 1788 to: Births (up to 100 years ago); Deaths (up to 30 years ago); Marriages (up to 50 years ago)." This means that anything from 1982 onwards will not be accessible online for NSW BDM. Many Australians weren't born in Australia, and the Federal Government's Immigration files may also be of great use. Your first step would be your State Library, your State Archives and National Archives. These information agencies have guides for genealogists. Australia also has a genealogical community. Once you've tracked down the basics, you can proceed to Church or Union archives—the Union archives are predominantly held at UWA, Adelaide, Melbourne and ANU. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Palin and Paul Revere

What the hell is this going on [11] and why Palin is so interested in Paul Revere. What will she gain by making edit in that article? --999Zot (talk) 06:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

There's some discussion about this on the Misc desk. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 08:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

But this is about edits to the Revere article...and it's probably not Palin herself doing it, but some nutjob followers, or people trying to make her look even worse. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually the Paul Revere article has been protected since november 2010, so the "rush of Palin followers" are most likely highly exaggerated. From following the discussion on that article I have not been able to find anyone coming up with a concrete example of political editing following this incident (though of course the page abounds with accusations of it). There was some discussion about inclusion of a "Sarah Palin"-section, which of course led to partisan bickering, but the section was sensible deemed irrelevant for the article and removed. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Palin doesn't have anything to gain, but the anti-Republican crowd has a lot to gain by doing all they can to support the "All Republicans are dumber than monkeys" message. -- kainaw™ 12:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Please do not start a political discussion here. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Kainaw, you are missing the deeper game. This is a common trend: Palin says something wrong. Media reports on it. Palin spins it into a "lame-stream media persecution" story — elites vs. "regular folk," and so on. Followers learn to tune out any voices that don't reinforce their worldview. And so on. It's not a new phenomena — the Bush crowd had a variant of it, and the "look at how stupid this guy is" line backfires as often as it hits — but Palin's gotten very good at it. It's become Palin's primary means of responding to criticism of any form, and it certainly resonates with her "base" (which does not include all Republicans, thank goodness). --Mr.98 (talk) 14:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I am basing it on history of Presidential elections that I've followed: Both Bush's were considered monstrous idiots. Reagan was a blubbering idiot. Quayle was such an idiot that he couldn't string two words together. McCain was so senile that he was an idiot. The only exception is Cheney. Instead of being an idiot, he is evil. Looking at elections from before my time, Nixon and Ford were both idiots. So, it is clear to me that the standard anti-Republican cliche is that all Republicans are idiots. -- kainaw™ 14:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

"Actually the Paul Revere article has been protected since november 2010". This is the Internet - "hardly a man is now alive who remembers that fateful month and year..." 87.194.221.239 (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

And as for FDR, Truman, JFK, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, and Obama? ... All complete idiots! (and don't get me started on Biden!)... Now that we have all expressed our personal political biases and called every President (and most vice-presidents) in the last 75 years an idiot... things are nicely balanced... can we please move on and discuss the issue (if there is one) with some neutrality?

Palin said something stupid off the top of her head, and then got defensive when the media called her on it, and instead of just laughing about it and saying "come on guys... ok, I said it wrong, but you all know what I was trying to say" she got defensive and tried to spin it. It isn't the first time a politician (from either party) has done this, it won't be the last. It really is irrelevant in the context of the Paul Revere article... and I would argue that it is irrelevant in the Sarah Palin article as well. Her mis-statement has a degree of notoriety right now, but it really isn't notable in the long run. In a few weeks, no one is going to care about this. Blueboar (talk) 15:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Enough with the politics, please. This is an example of historical revisionism. As semi-vounteers for this thing, it's our job to make sure that silly things like this don't have any lasting impact, so let's all just be vigilant next time someone with a lot of followers makes a silly remark like this. Or let someone else do it, big project after all. =p As for mentioning this thing in any article, we go by WP:RECENT. As Blueboar said, no one is going to care about this in a few weeks. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Kainaw,As long as you're listing off Republicans who acted like senile idiots, I was amazed by how intelligent, witty, and vibrant Bob Dole seemed in talk show interviews after he lost his election. Why didn't he act like that during the campaign? Perhaps big thinkers in the Republican party have decided that intentionally acting in a way that you and I perceive as "stupid and senile" will win them votes from their base? Or from moderates? There's a similar phenomena with George W. Look at debates he participated in to become governor of Texas. It's difficult to believe you're watching the same person who bumbled his way through the presidential debates. I'll readily admit I'm no expert in these matters, but it's difficult to believe that in this era of carefully crafted media personalities that this isn't being done on purpose for some reason. 76.28.67.181 (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Mr 98, In fairness Obama did something similar, if not quite as extreme. His campaign against the news media's "distractions" probably won him as many votes as anything else. If his opponents and detractors had stopped going on and on and on about Obama not wearing a lapel pin, McCain might have won. I don't feel like slogging through article histories to back this up, but it wouldn't surprise me if some Obama supporters were inspired to remove unflattering details from his articles as "distractions". 76.28.67.181 (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Obama makes his own distractions, though. I don't think he didn't wear a pin in order to get attention for it, or have a complicated birth story so that people would get suspicion, and so on. And Palin's campaign against the "lame stream media" has been more forceful than any politician on the national stage that I've seen in my lifetime. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Total outsider here (non-American), and someone older, who has watched many campaigns in many countries. This incident hardly matters in the individual sense, but it will be remembered cumulatively as part of a long term image that seems to exist for Palin. Many candidates seem to gather collections of "silly" comments around them. At Presidential level, there do seem to be more with that sort of image on the Republican side, but remember I am just saying "image". Given that there have been plenty of Republican Presidents, it's obviously not an insurmountable barrier to election, so maybe it's all just part of the broader game of politics in the USA. HiLo48 (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I haven't paid much attention to this story, but when it first broke, I took a glance at the Paul Revere article, and it seemed to me that the media had it backwards. There wasn't a rush of Palin fans trying to change the article, as much as a rush of anti-Palin folks who wanted to highlight her gaffe in the article. Editors who follow the article probably know if my impression is correct or not. Mostly I just heard about the story from friends' Facebook links. I was amused by this anti-Palin blogger, who seems to have a weaker grasp on history than Palin, but doesn't know it. —Kevin Myers 23:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Length of sentence: EU vs. US

It's a common belief that in the US you get a longer prison time than in Europe. However, how much longer is that? (if it's the case at all). Is there any reliable comparison between the two systems?2.139.12.164 (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I suspect the data is available. However, there is unlikely to be a single convenient comparison - the EU has many different states with different legal systems and traditions. However, I'm not aware about anything like a "three strike" law in any EU state. Likewise, no EU state has the death penalty under normal circumstances (I think some very few have reserved it for war time treason, but I'm not too sure even these holdouts haven't been phased out). I'm most familiar with the German system, and here it's basically unthinkable to try juveniles as adults - on the contrary, for young adults its fairly routine to be found "not fully mature" and tried as juveniles (which affords extra protection and much lower sentences). This paper describes some of the difficulties of comparison (e.g. different distributions and frequencies of various criminal acts), but also concludes that Germany uses lower or no prison sentences compared to higher sentences in the US for similar crimes. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

About the death penalty, see European Convention on Human Rights protocol 6 and 13 Nil Einne (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I know it was on the way out, but not how far... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• I can't help you with length of sentence, but I can point to a related variable: incarceration rates. Assuming that everything else is equal (obviously an overly heroic assumption), then longer prison terms should mean higher incarceration rates. And, indeed, see List of countries by incarceration rate (also see Incarceration#Incarceration rates by country). The USA beats everyone on the planet at keeping people in prison, and it isn't even close. --M@rēino 13:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Also in Germany, no one under the age of 14 can be held accountable for any crime, a fact that many people take advantage of. I've heard of cases where gangs intentionally recruit 12- and 13-year-olds because they won't be punished, and cases where an honor killing among Middle Eastern immigrants has been assigned to a 12- or 13-year-old for the same reason. Several year ago, there was a Swiss family living in the U.S. whose 11-year-old was arrested on suspicion of raping his younger sister and kept in a reformatory until his trial. I don't think he was going to be tried as an adult, but he did have to wear the orange jumpsuit associated with prisoners. The German press raised a hue and cry over the pictures of him behind the barbed-wire fence in his jumpsuit and being "treated like a criminal". In America, on the other hand, there was no particular media interest in the story at all, except for some reporting on the German press's reaction to it. (In other words "Eleven-year-old rape suspect is held in custody until his trial" was not news in America, but "German press is incensed by the fact that 11-year-old rape suspect is held in custody" was news.) Pais (talk) 14:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The article on United States incarceration rate says, as one example: "the average burglary sentence in the United States is 16 months, compared to 5 months in Canada and 7 months in England." Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You really need to compare the sentences given for identical crimes, not average rates. For instance, American burglars may be more likely to carry guns, which would get a more serious sentence (certainly in the UK). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Another factor to consider is the actual time spent in prison relative to the sentence. In the UK prisoners typically serve half the "headline" time, though they may be on licence when released and liable to be recalled if they misbehave; this is certainly true for Life sentences. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

In France, suspended prison sentences are very common (impression based on reading the press, but also based on reading of comparative research somewhere). It seems to be a habit among magistrates to give a suspended sentence, on the basis that the convicted person then has an incentive to keep out of further trouble. Of course a proportion subsequently re-offend and are then incarcerated. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

16th century ports

The year is 1594, two young men wish to travel to Dublin in the English held part of Ireland, only a few miles from north Wales, as it turns out. Coming up from London, they decide the best course would be to take a ship from the northwest of the country, but I am wondering, which port would they sail from? My first guess, with limited knowledge of geography and history in that part of the country, was Liverpool, which I have at least heard of, but it seems that was a village of about 500 people at the time. Recent research suggests the only major settlement in that part of the country, rather out of the way and rural as it was, was Chester, though that was, and still is, situated some miles from the coast itself. So, giving up, I thought to come here and ask if anyone else can provide some better informed information on this problem...

79.66.111.46 (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Roads were really poor in Britain before the late 18th century. My guess is that it would have been quicker, safer and cheaper to get on a ship in London and sail round the coast to Dublin. Failing that, Bristol or Cardiff would have been the best bet in my opinion. Alansplodge (talk) 21:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

This page says; "Travel (in Tudor England) by road is dirty, tiring, slow and dangerous. A hired horse can cover about 30 miles in a day. Otherwise travel means a slow walk or a bumpy wagon. It takes more than two days to go from London to Oxford by wagon." At that rate London to Bristol (107 miles) would take four days on horseback - Chester (166 miles) is the best part of a week. Alansplodge (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Sailing from London was no piece of cake either. If the winds were in the wrong direction at any point, you could easily get hung up for a couple of weeks or more. My guess is that Bristol would have been the most likely spot -- it was the second largest city in England at that time, and a major connecting point for trade with Ireland. Looie496 (talk) 23:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the least risky and probably the cheapest way would be to walk or ride to Bristol, then sail from there. Although it would take probably five or so days to get to Bristol, the time required to sail from London east, around Kent, and then west (mostly against the wind) through the Channel past Cornwall could easily take as long in less than ideal weather, with the added danger of shipwreck or other accidents at sea. Marco polo (talk) 01:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Southampton is another choice of port, an easier sailing route than going from London but not as good as Bristol. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a comment re Chester. The Dee estuary was (and is) very prone to silting up, so that by the 16th century Burton - now a small inland commuter village - was being used as a port for some of Chester's shipping, and later on Parkgate further downstream was developed for the same reason. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Besides the lengthy and arduous land travel required from London to Cheshire, another argument against such a route is that sailing from Cheshire to Dublin would typically have taken almost as long as sailing from Bristol, since the entire route from Cheshire would have been against the prevailing winds. While a ship leaving from Bristol would have had to sail nearly as far upwind through the Bristol Channel, the remainder of the trip, from St. George's Channel to Dublin would normally have been a relatively quick course perpendicular to the wind. So, for all of those days spent slogging on muddy roads to the north, your travelers wouldn't gain much advantage in sailing time. Marco polo (talk) 14:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Alansplodge. London was the biggest port in England and ships would have been traveling between London and Dublin regularly so I'm sure the two men would have boarded at London. In many ways it would have been safer as traveling on foot or on horseback would have been very dangerous unless they traveled in a large group. The well off wouldn't think about traveling without armed guards. Outlaws were prevalent and wild and feral animals could be dangerous. The main roads were maintained to a reasonable level by the local landowners and were wide enough to let two wagons pass but off the beaten track they were rutted and could become quagmires after heavy rain. Inns and hostelries were positioned about 20-30 miles apart and that determined the traveling horseback mileage. Roads tended to follow the topography and today's mileage would'nt be all that accurate. A medieval cog could travel around 40-60 miles per day with an unfavourable wind and doesn't stop till it reaches its destination while the road traveler has to stop. All-in-all, better by sea from London. --Bill Reid | (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I was about to make a counterargument for the road to Bristol, until, looking for an article on the Great West Road, I found in our article on the A4 that the road was not really laid out until the 17th century, before which travelers would have had to follow one of a number of routes along minor paths between villages. So overland travel could have been difficult. However, so could sea travel. Apart from the danger of shipwreck, Breton pirates were certainly active during the 16th century and ships traveling between London and Dublin would have been targets. All in all, I think the answer would depend partly on the circumstances of the travelers. If we are talking about young men of modest means and appearance, I think that they probably would have chosen to walk to Bristol, the main port involved in Anglo-Irish trade, where a quick and relatively inexpensive passage to Dublin, or even a reduced fare in return for work on board, might have been possible. If we are talking about sons of the monied gentry, mercantile class, or nobility, then I think a sea passage from London would have been more likely. Marco polo (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes I agree piracy and shipwreck was an ever present risk but that risk would still have been present from a Bristol embarkation although lessened. Grace O'Malley was a case in point for Irish pirates. Yet, with the cost of animal feed if our travellers were on horseback plus board and lodging at the inns, the longer time to get there, the need to travel in groups, I feel a London embarkation would have been the better option. --Bill Reid | (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

What about river travel? Are there any ports further west that could be reached from London by barge? --Nicknack009 (talk) 10:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The River Thames was a very busy river in both goods transportation and for passengers but in the 1500s it wasn't navigable even as far as Oxford but it was almost possible to reach that town when it was deepened by 1620. So our travelers would still have had a considerable land journey to face to reach a west coast port. --Bill Reid | (talk) 11:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• Aside from looking at the lay of the land (one of the Britons who helped carve up Africa said that spending your whole life looking at maps will lead to some very distorted views - and decisions - on geography) it's possible to look at historical records which give some clues as to how people in that era planned long journeys. IIRC, Platt's "The English Medieval town" has a couple of good case studies, if you will, of transport (including a monastery's records of where/how they travelled to buy different supplies). Roads were bad, multimodal journeys were common, and river transport was sometimes used even in circumstances where modern people might consider the river non-navigable. We can even look at historical records of when letters and official documents were sent/received, as these would tell us how long it took a courier to make the journey, although in the cases where it was highly institutionalised, the speed of couriers could differ substantially from the speed of a random travelling member of the public (for instance, delivery of writs got faster when Edward IV stationed riders at regular intervals along a main road).
• There have been hints that the number of relatively high-quality roads in this era may have been underestimated: [12]
• Bear in mind that before the modern era, pirates are not the only people who might threaten sea travellers - you might be at the mercy of the crew, too, or a corrupt customs/port official...

Might be a good idea to check the Gough map. It's pretty inaccurate in terms of physical geography, but it was based on the routes that people actually travelled at that time... bobrayner (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Most impressive speech against U.S. Policies

What is the most impressive speech(es) blaming U.S. for post-9/11 policies and crimes in middle-east, inside U.S. and ... . Flakture (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

President Obama is credited with becoming President of the United States post-9/11. --188.29.215.73 (talk) 23:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I would hardly say that Obama has been critical of the U.S. policies post-9/11. He's been an ardent supporter of the Afghan War, which was a direct response to the 9/11 attacks. He's not necessarily been a strong supporter of the Iraq War, but he's hardly alone in that regard, and I don't know that he's had any impressive speeches regarding it. --Jayron32 00:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually I don't mean just presidental speeches and high offices. They could be professors, political strategists, social leaders and ... .Flakture (talk) 05:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

In the UK, former foreign secretary Robin Cook's speech against the US invasion of Iraq was highly rated.[13] The full text is online.[14]

Some people rate Osama Bin Laden's rhetorical style; his speeches are collected in Messages to the World. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Since he himself was responsoble for 9/11, his commentaries on its aftermath are of special interest. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Hugo Chavez's speech where he called Bush the devil is pretty impressive, at least in its ridiculousness, haha. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Harold Pinter famously used his lecture upon receiving the 2005 Nobel Prize in Literature to deliver a stinging condemnation of U.S. policies. It can easily be found through a google search. --Xuxl (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I got a pick. Ahmadinejad's Speech to the United Nations General Assembly (22 September 2010). or it's some highlights in this. Flakture (talk) 07:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

If when you say "impressive" you mean "fucking ridiculous" then yes, anything by Ahmadinejad would be a shoe in. If instead of wanting speeches that support your point of view... you'd like speeches that perhaps were convincing to free people... you should start a new thread. Shadowjams (talk) 10:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

June 10

YHWH

Sorry if you're Jewish :) I know that most observant Jews aren't supposed to say the name but would they be offended to hear a Gentile (non-Jew) say it? (in an educational or otherwise non-confrontational context of course, not in a mocking-your-religion context). How does this vary by denomination? thnks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.128.95.0 (talk) 01:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that most orthodox and ultraorthodox people say adonai, which means lord. Others just say God or Yahweh or sometimes El or Elohim. It varies from person to person, but generally the Reform Jews and Conservative Jews have no fear of saying God's name, especially the reform. Reconstructionists, I am not sure, but I think they follow us Reform Jews. In prayer, most people will just say adonai, because that is customary. You're not required to though. The reason for Yahweh being written as YHWH btw is because that is the latinisation of the four Hebrew letters, Yud, hei, vav, hei, (יהוה)that make up God's name. It doesn't have anything to do with respect though, just no vowels except in the form of nikkud. :p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 02:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

To add on, while most Orthodox Jews wouldn't say it themselves, I don't believe they'd really be that upset over a Gentile's use of the name. If anything, I would think they'd have only a slight discomfort with hearing it used in an educational light. And as Petrie said, the more "lenient" denominations wouldn't offer any protests at all. ^Avic_ennasis @ 08:08, 8 Sivan 5771 / 10 June 2011 (UTC)

In regard to "saying His name", is it even known how YHWH is properly pronounced? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

We do not know how the Tetragrammaton was pronounced in ancient times. Yahweh is a modern convention. Marco polo (talk) 13:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

And there is the equally-artificial "Jehovah". In any case, since we don't know how YHWH was pronounced, we can't really "say" His name anyway, right? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Correct. I believe in modern days it's more along the lines of gezeirah than anything. Jews have historically implemented additional "safety zones" or "fences" via gezeirah - an example is that the Torah commands us not to work on Shabbos, but a gezeirah takes this a step further and commands us not to even touch our tools on Shabbos, less we forget what day it is and accidentally perform work. By not pronouncing the name, we fulfill at least two mitzvot; we avoid the desecration of His Name, and we sanctify and respect His Name. ^Avic_ennasis @ 17:33, 8 Sivan 5771 / 10 June 2011 (UTC)

See The Divine Name That Will Endure Forever - Jehovah's Witnesses Official Web Site.

—Wavelength (talk) 06:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Pensions and salaries in occupied France

I am just curious about what happened to public and private sector salaries and pensions - and personal savings after Germany occupied France during WWII. Even a point in the right direction would be appreciated. Thanks 92.4.32.2 (talk) 10:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

As our article German occupation of France during World War II points out, the Germans imposed an artificially low exchange rate on the French franc, resulting in a devaluation of the franc. This would have reduced the buying power of the savings, salaries, or pensions of French residents. Marco polo (talk) 14:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

If you want to pursue this topic further, you'll find references at the foot of our article on Otto von Stülpnagel. Marco polo (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Assassination of Abraham Lincoln

I have seen a documentary film shortly ago, about the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. It mentioned a detail I did not know, that the assassination was actually a scheme to kill the president, the vicepresident and the secretary of state all at the same time, to make the US fall into anarchy. Fortunately, although Booth was successful, the others were not, and the plan never achieved its real purpose.

But that raises a question: what would have actually happened in such a situation, if all the people in the presidential line were killed or died at the same time? And what would happen today in such a scenario? Surely during the Cold War and the atomic threat, the chance should have been considered Cambalachero (talk) 13:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

See United States presidential line of succession, Presidential Succession Act, and Designated survivor. Marco polo (talk) 13:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The short answer, in the case of the Lincoln conspiracy, is that the President Pro Tempore of the Senate would have become acting President. As regards the actual conspiracy, I've seen conspiracy theories that claim Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton was actually behind the assassination conspiracy. No definitive proof can be found, of course. But he and his "radical Republican" pals nearly succeeded in eliminating Johnson from office via impeachment, which would have had the same effect as killing him would have... and in practical terms, it did anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

How so, Bugs? Johnson was impeached by the House, but the Senate acquitted him, so he returned to his presidential duties. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but Johnson was denied renomination a month or two later. Although he was so unpopular by then anyway I don't know if it would have made a difference. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Johnson had been rendered politically irrelevant, but he did get one last lick in, by pardoning a lot of Confederates. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Although it wasn't the case for Abraham Lincoln, it's interesting to note that, according to the article Presidential Succession Act there *were* three times in history, summing to about five weeks time total, that assassination of the President would have resulted in there being no clear successor to the office. Note that these were all before the passage of the Presidential Succession Act of 1886, which added the cabinet to the line of succession. -- 174.31.219.218 (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Difference Liberal Party and New Democratic Party

What are the main differences between Liberal Party of Canada and New Democratic Party of Canada, despite being left-wing parties? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.155.215 (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Do they have lists of issues, or "position papers"? If so, you could start by lining them up and see where, if anywhere, they differ on issues. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Our articles have sections on the current positions. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Traditionally, the Liberal Party is not considered a leftist party but a centrist party. That is a significant difference. --Xuxl (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

During the recent election the Globe and Mail put a comparative party platform tool on their website. It's got the main points at least, for those two parties. [[15]] i.m.canadian (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

One BIG difference is that the NDP is now the Official Opposition for the first time ever, with all the perks that entails, after its second place showing in the recent election. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Marx in mainstream economics?

Have any of Marx's theories or writings been accepted by right-of centre economists? 2.97.219.191 (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Much of Marxian theories of understanding economics has been included in mainstream academic curriculums. --Soman (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Show some evidence. Looie496 (talk) 02:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Um... I would not call the typical mainstream academic curriculum "right-of-center" (if anything, academia has a reputation for being left-of-center)... also there is a difference between including a theory in a curriculum (ie discussing it) and accepting it. Blueboar (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I think only very sporadically. The mainstream of economics derives from the work of Alfred Marshall, who never read Marx. Marshall himself wasn't on the right though; he supported the co-operative movement. If you do your own digging, especially into particular topics, you can find many places where mainstream and Marxist economics are consistent. The Worldly Philosophers is a great account of the history of economics that brings out all the similarities and differences between the various schools. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Shimon Peres

From the article:

Peres was elected to the Knesset in November 1959 and, except for a three-month-long hiatus in early 2006, served continuously until 2007, when he became President.

What happened in early 2006? --Theurgist (talk) 23:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

He left the sixteenth Knesset in January when he switched from the Israeli Labor Party to Kadima. He was elected again in March of that year for the seventeenth Knesset. ^Avic_ennasis @ 23:22, 8 Sivan 5771 / 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. --Theurgist (talk) 23:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Benjamin's wife

Is there a bible scholar here who can tell me the name of the wife of Benjamin (son of Jacob)? I can't find it anywhere. Moriori (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

According to our article, the name of his wife/wives are not given in the Bible. Are you looking for answer outside of the Bible? ^Avic_ennasis @ 00:04, 9 Sivan 5771 / 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Aaaaarrrggghhhhh. I read that article too, but didn't see that info. Thanks. Moriori (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

There are no extrabiblical sources currently known with that info afaik (by which I mean there is no info on the Patriarchs currently known that exists outside the Tanach/Bible). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 04:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

June 11

support vehicle

I saw a picture of the US Airways Flight 1549 support vehicle. It looks nice. But I was wondering what the brand was. Anyone know?24.90.204.234 (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

From the picture in the article, I'd say it's either a Chevy Suburban or Tahoe. Dismas|^(talk) 02:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

What's the difference between the two?24.90.204.234 (talk) 03:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Check the articles but my cursory check indicates that the Suburban is the long wheelbase version of the Tahoe. Exxolon (talk) 11:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

When will this case be heard?

I suppose there are too many variables to make a guess? [16] 66.108.223.179 (talk) 02:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Such lawsuits rarely go to "trial" in a traditional sense. What usually happens in these cases is that one group or the other gains favor with either lawmakers OR with the regulatory agency in question (in this case the FDA it would appear) and either law or regulation ends up changing to favor one side or the other. --Jayron32 03:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, it was filed in federal court, and specifically in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, in Los Angeles. In the federal courts there is a crisis with judicial vacancies; the Senate takes much longer than has been traditionally standard to confirm the President's judicial nominees, and the result is that as seats become vacant and judges go on senior status, it takes correspondingly longer for cases to proceed in court, although magistrate judges take up some of the load. So you can count on a long-term backlog in the federal district courts, and probably in this particular California federal district.

As to when it will actually proceed to trial - it might not. There might be a settlement, or the FDA might issue some rule that makes the suit moot. Even if the suit does proceed, there will be pretrial motions to take up (such as a motion to dismiss and motions on venue and jurisdiction), continuances, and so forth. So count on it being many months at the very least. Neutrality^talk 05:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Marriage alliances with Portugal

Was Portugal a very undesirable country to marry with or marry into in the age when royal marriages were used as diplomacy? I mean from my observation Portugal has seen the most spinster and bachelor infantas and infantes in any of the royal families of Europe.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

This is by no means my area of expertise, but it occurs to me that for most of its history after the Iberian Union, Portugal was virtually a protectorate of Protestant Britain. As such, it may have had little to offer diplomatically to prospective spouses. Marco polo (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, there was Catherine of Braganza... The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Robert Kiyosaki

Approximately how rich was Robert Kiyosaki before he sold a single book about how to get rich? 76.27.175.80 (talk) 13:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

(for reference) we have a Robert Kiyosaki article. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 13:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Somalis in Canada

How did Canada receive Somali immigrants in the first despite Canada doesn't have an embassy in that country? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.228.20 (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is no visit required to a local embassy to immigrate to Canada. Looking at the website for the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, it seems you fill out forms and mail them. ^Avic_ennasis @ 16:27, 9 Sivan 5771 / 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Note that if a country recognises the other country, they will usually have an embassy which covers that country although it may be located in another country. In this particular case, the High Commission of Canada to Kenya covers Somalia [17] although they have no formal diplomatic relations with the Transitional Federal Government (but do have a working relationship) and given the security situation they cannot provide consular assistance to Canadians in Somalia [18].

Also note that even if a country has an embassy in another country, it doesn't mean that embassy processes immigration requests or visas. New Zealand has a High Commission in Kuala Lumpur [19], the Singapore branch of New Zealand immigrant handles visas [20]. (Passports for New Zealand citizens are still dealt with by the HC in Malaysia.) While these can sometimes be handled by post, Malaysia forbids you to send your passport by post so many may not wish to do so in the unlikely event it's lost. (Although some Malaysian high commissions and embassies will send your new passport to you if you take full responsibility rather then require you to visit in person.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Looking for b/w photo

Reposting after suggestion from entertainment desk. I'm looking for a photo I saw once in a book. It was black and white and featured a woman wearing a wedding dress standing in a forest beside a big oak (or similar) tree. I think the name of the photo was something similar to "beauty and the beast in the dark woods". I'm sure it was a famous photographer, potentially a nz photographer - I saw it in a book in a school photography class. Not much to go on, but I'd appreciate if anyone has any ideas. Thanks! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 15:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Photos of non-'rectangular'-star-pattern United States Flags?

The wikipedia page on the History of the Flag of the United States shows many unusual patterns for the stars. Are there any photos of some of these variants in use? How common were they? --CGPGrey (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, there is this pic: [21], from the article. It's not a pic of the flags themselves, but rather of an oil painting containing the flags. However, if you edit that pic to make a dozen individual pics of the non-rectangular flags, they should look pretty good. I suspect that many of the original flags, if they still exists, are in poor shape and therefore make for ugly pics. StuRat (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Countries offering citizenship for anyone

I've been wondering (out of interest!) whether there are any countries which offer citizenship with very limited or no requirements, ie. could anyone apply for it even if they have no ties with the country? ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 20:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Not citizenship, but visa-free residence: there is no visa requirement to live on Svalbard (ref). Although this itself not a route to Norwegian citizenship, it seems that the time one spends living on Svalbard does count toward the time requirements for permanent residency in Norway (and later citizenship).(ref). The realities of Svalbardian life, however, seem to mean that few people avail themselves of this. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 20:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Have a link, on me: Svalbard. StuRat (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

If you're Jewish (or wanna convert) you can easily gain citizenship in Israel under the Law of Return. Also, you can join the French Foreign Legion and apply for French citizenship after 3 years of service. And if you're wealthy, a few countries offer "citizenship-by-investment", such as Austria, Cyprus, Dominica and St. Kitts & Nevis. ^Avic_ennasis @ 21:21, 9 Sivan 5771 / 11 June 2011 (UTC)

One that surprises me in not letting just about anybody in is Canada. They have an extremely low population density, even if you discount the portion which is Arctic tundra. You'd think, under those conditions, they would be more welcoming of immigrants than they are. StuRat (talk) 22:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, there is probably room for some more people (although not too many - even in the south of the country, the growing season is very short, limiting the amount of food they can grow) but what would they gain by letting anyone in? They do have an immigration policy that is more open than many - see Immigration to Canada - but you have to bring something worthwhile to the country. If you have a useful skill or you plan to start your own business, then they'll probably let you in. If you are just going to get a job that a Canadian could easily have done or, worse, live on benefits, then why should they let you in? --Tango (talk) 22:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

All things being equal, the larger the population, the larger the economy, which in turn increases that nation's power and influence. And the argument that they will take a job from a Canadian isn't true, as more people create more jobs. After all, they will need more waiters to serve them food, more teachers to teach their kids, more auto mechanics to rip them off when their cars break down, etc. StuRat (talk) 23:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

That seems to me a bit over-simplistic to me. The taxes they might take from that waitresses' $7/hour job, for example, isn't going to add up to the cost of feeding, housing, and medicating me. (Plus, I could not have kids, ride my bike everywhere, and grow my own food in my garden.) ^Avic_ennasis @ 00:48, 10 Sivan 5771 / 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I don't know about Canada, but in the UK only the richest 40% of the population make a net contribution to the Treasury. The other 60% receive more in benefits, education, healthcare, etc. than they pay in taxes.[22] If an immigrant is going to enter that 40%, then the quality of living of everyone already in the country will be probably increase on average. If they enter the 60%, then it may well decrease. I would expect Canada to be much the same as the UK in that respect. --Tango (talk) 13:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Increasing the population would certainly increase the size of the economy, as most of the money spent on the new arrivals would presumably stay in Canada, too. Add to this any new wealth they create or bring with them. It is, however, possible that the new arrivals could bring the GDP per person down, if they make less than current citizens. StuRat (talk) 00:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Why would China have a One-child policy if increasing the population also grows the economy? ^Avic_ennasis @ 02:34, 10 Sivan 5771 / 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Unlike Canada, their nation is overpopulated, leading to a whole range of environmental, economic, and social problems. And newborns don't grow the economy as quickly as adult immigrants, since they don't work for many years. Also, back then China was far poorer on a per capita basis, so didn't have the money to invest in that many children, as far as education, etc. StuRat (talk) 06:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah. So it's more complicated than I thought. :-) Thanks. ^Avic_ennasis @ 06:44, 10 Sivan 5771 / 12 June 2011 (UTC)

While Canadian politicians might gain more prestige from a nation having the "power and influence" of a large economy, the voters who elect them are probably more concerned with per-capita measures of wealth so it doesn't necessarily follow that it would be desirable. I'm sure most people would rather be rich in unimportant Liechtenstein than poor in powerful China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.214.166.169 (talk) 09:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

"Reading" people

Good morning neighbours. A frequent problem I have is I have trouble picking out or interpretting non-intentional physical cues, including subtle body language but also those in appearance (for example, a ruffled shirt, unwashed hair, and more subtle that this), that is, I may not think to take notice, or if I do I can't tell what it means. It might be called forensic body reading, I'm not sure. I'm not looking to become House, but it seems that this is a rather useful skill to have that I would like to cultivate. Can anyone recommend any literature written on this topic? thank you. (PS: Oddly enough, friends who are naturally or by profession good at this sort of thing say they rarely can get anything from me, or if they can it is not accurate. weird :) 72.128.95.0 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC).

There are no such signs, it is bunkum like astrology. 92.24.181.38 (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. So-called "psychics" doing cold readings use such techniques, as do even less reputable people, like salesmen. :-) StuRat (talk) 23:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Here is how you cultivate it. Get to know someone very well, spend hours a day with them, and you will be able to read many of their cues and tell what they are thinking (you will also act a lot like them and they will act like you which helps). It's not psychic or anything, you just get to know someone well. So what you want to do is get to know people much better. Your friends probably don't know you well enough, and your "professional" ones. Well, I'll just be frank. Psychics are full of it. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 23:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: this question comes from an IP who abuses the reference desks with frivolous questions on a daily basis. Looie496 (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

There are loads of books on the subject. Whether any of them say anything useful, I don't know. See neuro-linguistic programming for one attempt at a rigorous treatment of the subject. I suspect the best way to learn such skills is just by practising, though. Try people watching and try and guess things about the strangers you see. You won't be able to find out if you are right in most cases, but it will get you thinking about such signs. --Tango (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

...You could just watch a Lie To Me marathon... ^Avic_ennasis @ 00:20, 10 Sivan 5771 / 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Trolls sometimes ask very useful questions. What has been asked here is a subject I studied at degree level, and the ability to "read" people is a distinguishing trait for people with Aspergers syndrome or autistic spectrum disorders. The topic as a whole is called Non-verbal communication. I suggest reading "The Psychology of Interpersonal Behaviour" by Michael Argyle, or "Manwatching" by Desmond Morris, for starters. --TammyMoet (talk) 07:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the OP was asking about what in poker are called "tells", like people supposedly wriggling their foot or scratching their nose when they are lying. I believe they have been debunked by recent reasearch. I've read Argyles TPOIB, and it covers a much greater range than merely "tells". 2.101.1.42 (talk) 11:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

People definitely have tells. The standard theories you hear ("If you look and to the left, you are lying. If you look up and the to the right, you are telling the truth." or possibly the other way round) are almost certainly nonsense, but individuals do have tells you can spot. They are different for different people, but they exist. --Tango (talk) 13:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Not true. As I wrote, they have been debunked by recentish research. If you similarly want to believe in astrology, then you will find lots of support from popular newspapers, other believers, and charalatans. 92.24.176.63 (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

June 12

Baron Hirsh suicide rumors

A New York Times article from May 18, 1896 refutes a rumor that Baron Hirsch committed suicide. Does anyone know where I could find more information about these rumors? Were they ever published anywhere else, not in the form of a refutation? There are obscure references to this rumor in unusual sources, which piqued my curiosity... Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 11:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)