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.
Some people name their shoes and get attached to them, as if they were their friends, and refuse to throw them out. Is this attitude more common among women, and is this part of the stereotype about women and their shoes or not?
It strikes me that the author of this bibliography is not the Richard Southern of the Wikipedia page (here plus several interwiki). My Google search hasn't revealed anything substantive about the one who writes on theatre history. I've queried on the Talk page, suggesting that the medieval historian might suitably be referred to as Richard W. Southern with at least a disambiguation page noting two similarly named published academics. At this point, I'd appreciate help on investigating this further. -- Thanks! Deborahjay (talk) 09:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm of the opinion that titles of articles about authors should reflect the names that they used on their publications (cf. C. S. Lewis, T. S. Eliot, H. G. Wells). Since the medievalist invariably published as "R. W. Southern," I'd recommend moving Richard Southern over the redirect at R. W. Southern. Then an article about the other guy could be created at "Richard Southern" (if it's determined that he's notable), and hatnotes could be added for cross-referencing. Deor (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just made a redirect from R.W. Southern the other day...it was unusual to see his name without the W. and I never thought to make the link that way. I think Richard W. would be fine, but Deor is right, his name is invariably "R.W." Adam Bishop (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bankruptcy is a legally declared inability or impairment of ability of an individual or organization to pay its creditors. Creditors may file a bankruptcy petition against a debtor ("involuntary bankruptcy") in an effort to recoup a portion of what they are owed or initiate a restructuring. In the majority of cases, however, bankruptcy is initiated by the debtor (a "voluntary bankruptcy" that is filed by the insolvent individual or organization).
In bankruptcy an individual or organisation has their financial affairs supervised by a court. There is currently no international court with powers to exercise such financial supervision over a country. Our article on default (finance) says "Sovereign borrowers such as nation-states generally are not subject to bankruptcy courts in their own jurisdiction, and thus may be able to default without legal consequences ... In such cases, the defaulting country and the creditor are more likely to renegotiate the interest rate, length of the loan, or the principal payments." Gandalf61 (talk) 10:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Countries don't declare bankruptcy, as such, they just default on their debts and the only thing anyone can do about it is not lend them money in the future (this is a significant deterrent, though). There is no way to compel a sovereign nation to pay up. --Tango (talk) 10:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bankruptcy has become a shorthand way of saying the phrase "Bankruptcy protection" This definition is somewhat new, under the literal meaning of the word, the term bankruptcy is merely a synonym of sorts for "insolvency". When you declare yourself bankrupt, you are merely notifying your creditors that you will not be repaying them. Anyone, even national governments, could default on their credit obligations and thus be "bankrupt". Many governments, such as the U.S. government, have provided bakruptcy protection laws which protect bankrupt individuals from being destroyed by the condition, and which also provide means, such as bankruptcy courts, for there to some sort of remediation availible to creditors. But concepts such as "state bankruptcy" do exist, even if there is no "supranational bankruptcy court" to preside over any sort of remediation hereing, the term "state bankruptcy" is in common usage to refer to the insolvency of a national government. We do have a fairly new article titled National bankruptcy which needs some help, but there are LOTS of examples of state-declared bankruptcies; for example that of Philip II of Spain, of Denmark in 1813. --Jayron32.talk.contribs12:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The term "bankruptcy" is used that way when people are speaking very loosely, but as a legal term it is a state that can only be declared by a judge. There is a difference between insolvency and bankruptcy in that respect. --Tango (talk) 12:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In short, a country can declare bankruptcy whenever it wants. That declaration does not appear to much in the way of legal ramifications however, since it can also default on its loans whenever it wants without such a declaration. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Has a country ever used the word "bankrupt" to describe itself? Usually they do their best to make the default look like something else (no-one is fooled, but they try!). --Tango (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a confusion here between states and countries. States can default on their debt : if you don't give any formal legal meaning to the term, they go "bankrupt", as they cannot pay what they owe. Countries do not have any legal existence : in legal terms, they do not exist. So they cannot go bankrupt. --Gede (talk) 07:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About 60 Catholic bishops publicly opposed the President Obama's speech at Notre Dame Recently. Is there a list somewhere of these bishops? --Halcatalyst (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That depends on what job you are doing in each. There isn't an obvious correspondence between the levels in one and the levels in the other. It also depends on the relative size and prestige of the think tank and newspaper. --Tango (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Requirements for what? The prerequisites for making the tea at a local newspaper are very different the prerequisites for heading up a major national think tank. --Tango (talk) 19:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tango would be correct even if he was more generous about trying to interpret your question correctly. Plus currently print newspapers' business has gone to hell because of the Interbanet, and a lot of journalists have been laid off, so the supply of talent is currently clearly larger than the demand, which must mean that salaries at newspapers are not going to rise for a long time. Tempshill (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I gave an intentionally extreme example to make a point, but as I said in my first reply there is no obvious correspondence between the jobs in each industry, so I can't possibly interpret the question any better. --Tango (talk) 00:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What year will south African first lady birthyear be like. Since Thabo and Zanele mbeki marry in 1974, then Zanele is likely going to be Thabo's 20 year junior, for Zanele to be at least 15 years younger I thought. I'm guessing Zanele should be born in 1960s. Ana Paula Santos is born on October 17, 1963 is junior of jose by 21 years.--69.229.111.118 (talk) 20:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
:Guessing at the birthdates of people is a fruitless and pointless exercise. Every day or so, you ask a question about someone's birthdate, and then go through a long bizarre method of deriving a supposed birthdate, and then ask someone for confirmation of your weird deductions. If you want to know someone's birthdate, seek out an official biography somewhere. I don't see where these questions of yours get anywhere here... --Jayron32.talk.contribs20:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He does often get help here, and I assume (and hope) he's subsequently improving the Wikipedia articles about these persons. Tempshill (talk) 21:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking for anything on the popular reaction to nazi agressions of the jews. I've read somewhere around wikipedia that the attacks of the SA against jews were not popular. What did the general public think about the nurember laws ? About concentration camps ? About the final solution ? Cold Light (talk) 08:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd advise looking for multiple respected opinions on this before forming your own. I've looked into this a few times over the years, and some historians insist the German people were totally devoted to Hitler until the bitter end, while other's claim they were more like collaborators, going along with him out of fear, not respect or adoration. Whether the antisemitic actions were a reflection of a minority or the majority (even given the propaganda element, which further skews interpretation) is very much still debated. Add in the fact that Germans tend to claim post-war that Hitler was the root of all evil, and that they were unwillingly dominated by him possibly as a national coping mechanism, and finding meaningful answers is very hard. Prokhorovka (talk) 09:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that people "tend to think what their [sic] told to think" in a totalitarian state, it's that there is not a lot of opportunity for different actions. If you spoke up or protested in even the most minor way, poor fortunes would await you. One nice example of this is when the Nazis took over the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, full of scientists, many of whom were not fans of the anti-semitism at all. Hitler had them do things like sign petitions saying how great Hitler was, taking loud and public oaths to how great Nazism was, publicly salute the flag and etc. If you had reservations, if you disagreed—it would go on your record, and that could be used against you in the future. In this way, partial collaboration in the Nazi activities by anyone who didn't or couldn't flee the country was assured.
Keep in mind that of the things you've mentioned, about half are public and half are secret. The general public had some inclining (and a lot of fear) of camps (they could be sent there themselves), but that they were specifically being used as death camps (rather than just labor camps or prison camps) was not so obvious. (Consider that the US also had "concentration camps"—e.g. Manzanar—but they weren't being used as death camps. Just because you have camps doesn't mean you have a final solution.)
But as User:Prokhorovka points out, this is a highly contentious matter and one of the great, great debates amongst professional historians. How much did the German public know, how much were they complicit? There are a lot of very well-argued answers to this that disagree with each other entirely. Because of the nature of the Nazi state, actual polling, or even things like party membership, etc., are useless indicators. Even someone who was an active member of the Nazi party might have been doing it to save their own skin alone or to save their job. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 12:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although it's a complicated issue, anti-Semitism was at least a part of the views the Nazis campaigned democratically on. Some, but (importantly) not all, of Hitler's and the Nazi Party's views towards Jews was known, when people voted for them. SA attacks had started before Hitler's chancellorship in a capacity - although I'm not sure whether some of these were anti-Semitic. While not all plans were known, some of them were. I forget exactly what is said in Mein Kampf on this issue, but our article certainly says it had anti-Semitic elements to it: "In Mein Kampf, Hitler uses the main thesis of "the Jewish peril," which speaks of an alleged Jewish conspiracy to gain world leadership. The narrative describes the process by which he became increasingly anti-Semitic...". Hitler did win votes, so those people either didn't understand his views or at least were prepared to put up with anti-Semitism. We're talking around 45% of the voting public voting for Hitler in normal democratic elections. That may help you to draw answers. Of course, people's views change. There must have been people who were happy to have Jews discriminated against, but not killed. Reaction to different events or ideas would have been different. - Jarry1250[ humourous – discuss ]16:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a different thing to be anti-Semitic and to be genocidal. (As a parallel, there are plenty of people in the United States who would describe themselves as "anti-immigrant." But very few of those people would want them rounded up and actually shot.) The most common German sentiment I have seen written about is the idea that they thought Hitler would mellow over time, or that his policies would not be nearly as radical as his rhetoric. These are not ridiculous notions—they are true in almost all political situations. The Third Reich was not exactly business as usual, politically speaking; they are one of the few (only?) examples of an advanced industrial democracy transforming into a completely centralized totalitarian state. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If that's a reply to me, that's not what I was saying. The question was everything anti-Semitic, from the minor to genocidal, and this must include measures which people knew about and voted for. Good points on rhetoric, though. I'm not suggesting people were voting for genocide, far from it, but by the laws of probability, some would have known and approved of some policies when they voted for them. As a bonus, parties weren't going to mention unpopular policies, so if you look at what they were offering, as it were, you can gauge what they thought would be popular, to a fair extent. - Jarry1250[ humourous – discuss ]20:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, though I'd always heard (ie, I found a good level of agreement on this) that a good portion of the German population believed the more racist policies of the Nazis to be the more racist wing speaking, and that Hitler would move towards the centre once elected (a not uncommon thing for elected leaders to do). Also, one must remember the lack of serious possibilities to lead Germany circa 1932, the country was in a bad way and almost all political parties were too. Prokhorovka (talk) 22:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel Jonah Goldhagen's controversial book, Hitler's Willing Executioners contains much source material of relevance to this question. The book's title says it well, but if I may generalise a complex book into a trite half sentence, Goldhagen does not believe there to have been popular opposition to the persecution of the German Jews. --Dweller (talk) 10:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty dresses
For lack of a better headline. :P
What is it called when fabric is woven so that it shines in two colors, like this? I seem to recall how you do it, which is that the warp and weft (horizontal and vertical threads) are just different colors, but what's the name of the technique? Or to be more specific, how can I go about google-searching for more of it? --Masamage♫01:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Iridescent fabric" turns up many Google hits involving fabrics of the type you're looking for, some even stating that they're made in the manner you describe. The humanities desk doesn't seem the right place for this question, though. Deor (talk) 01:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I was growing up in 1970s UK, two-tone trousers and Crombie coats were all the range. I thought someone had trademarked "two-tone" as a trade name for this fabric at the time. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's "shot taffeta". (Taffeta is just the type of fabric weave; shot refers to the variety with differing colours.) Can come in a variety of fibres: the luxury version is made with silk, but you can get it in synthetic fibres. A similar effect is gained in chambray: a cotton with white/unbleached in the weft, and colour in the warp, but it's not iridescent. Since this is a reference desk, I'd better find you references: shot taffeta cf. taffeta and chambray. Gwinva (talk) 10:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fabric stores may describe it as "changeant" which is just French for "changing". It most commonly comes in silk (or substitutes). It requires fairly thin yarn and close weave to achieve the affect, with warp and weft the same thickness. Taffeta is the name of the weave pattern used. There is depressing little about this, both in Wikipedia and in Google. - KoolerStill (talk) 10:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The original question was asking whether two African presidents had met, and then complained about their rule. (Which I'm not sure was a BLP violation, though it is certainly soapboxing). The more interesting general question was asked about whether most leaders in Africa were "good or bad." That's a pretty big question but one that has been asked before—African nations have had some notoriously poor leaders (defined in their ruthlessness, corruption, and anti-democratic ways, for example), and the exact reason for that probably lies somewhere in the general poverty of the continent, its unfortunate colonial history, and it general lack of strong democratic and reform-minded institutions. Still, this is a vague answer, and plenty of more qualified people have written entire books on the subject. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
books or films which significantly contributed to social change?
Assuming you're looking for examples from any country, then Cathy Come Home is often cited as having made a significant contribution to a change in British public attitudes towards families with social and economic problems, particularly those caused by unemployment and homelessness, and towards the taking of such families' children into the care of the authorities. Karenjc16:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of controversial books that led to forms of social change one way or another. Perhaps if you are a little more clear about what your intention is, we could be of more help. Otherwise this will just be a poorly organized listing of important books. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Silent Spring led to a wave of antipesticide sentiment and contributed to the evvvvvvvvventual popularity of organic produce. Actually our article says it's popularly credited with helping start the environmental movement itself. Tempshill (talk) 22:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure the TV miniseries Roots, which generated astounding viewership ratings, had an impact in the perception of African-American history among both blacks and whites. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i am writing an essay about censorship. one of my points is that censorship prevents open discussion which is needed for society to progress. so i need examples for this argument. here, there was this movie criticising the government and education system, and people expected it to be censored, but the government reformed the education system instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.10.254 (talk) 08:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In almost all of these cases though you are talking about works that ended up undermining the government that was trying to censor them. That's not the kind of "progress" that a censoring government wants. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 19:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Black Beauty apparently had a direct effect on British cultural attitudes towards cruelty to horses, and subsequently (it would seem likely) to other animals; it seems to have prompted changes in laws regulating horse-drawn taxi cabs (benefitting the horses), which likely led on to more general animal welfare legislation. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 02:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indian man/child who, though alive, was officially dead in public records as a result of a family member trying to scam money
Can anyone recall the case above? It was several years ago - can't be more specific than that - but I'm hoping one of you can. My memory might have embroidered the details, but I think the person in question was also having trouble getting the labyrinthine govt. system to have him declared alive, despite that he was standing there talking to them.
Related question: are there articles on other people with the same fate? I'd guess bureaurcracy anywhere would find it hard to bring back someone from the "dead". One fictional case I can think of right away is the pathetic Doc Daneeka. Jay (talk) 11:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ceremony when a tribe wants the new technology of an explorer by praying to god/gods
Many inferior tribes and civilizations have a ritual or ceremony when they meet an explorer and do not understand the technology that they have is man made. they believe the technology (such as rifles) to be gifts from gods, in response they then do a ritual or ceremony.
You might also want to avoid 'inferior' in this context. I also understand that cargo-cult practice is quite rare, so your assertion that 'many ... tribes and civilisations have a ritual...' might benefit from being revised. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I expect you mean "technologically inferior". You really should specify that, otherwise it looks rather racist. --Tango (talk) 00:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier ancestors of the Families of Brabant and Hesse
Can anybody tell me who were they? They are obviously Frankish/Neustrian counts.
Count Brunulf I in Neustria
Count Aubri I in Neustria
Count Walter I in Neustria
Count Walter II in Neustria
Count Albo in Neustria
Mainer, Count of Sens, d. 800
Gainfroi, Count of the Maasgau,
Gilbert I, Count of the Maasgau, d. 842
Gilbert II, Count of the Maasgau, 825–875
What do you want to know about them? A google search turns them up in a variety of genealogy sites, of which this seems the most useful (and cites its source as Burke's Peerage, which is reputable). Our article Neustria offers a bit of political background to the area; we hear a little about Brunulf here in a discussion of Dagobert I's reign. (Brunulf appears to be the uncle of Dagobert's half-brother.) Gilbert gets a passing mention in this book. You migt find similar pieces of info by googling some of the names yourself. Gwinva (talk) 04:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How do germanic and latin europeans 'behave differently'?
Any attempt to group people together like that are destined to fail dismally. Every individual belongs to all kinds of groups divided along all kinds of lines and those classifications will all have an influence (of varying degree depending on the classification and the individual) on what kind of person they are. To pick one specific classification and consider it in isolation is never going to get particularly meaningful results. --Tango (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, yes. Stereotypes do usually have some basis, but only on a large scale. Applying them to individuals is meaningless. --Tango (talk) 03:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst stereotypical, there is a view that the butter/olive oil line (also the Protestant/Catholic line) functions as an honest/corrupt line, as seen here. Recent revelations in UK (a hodgepodge of german, latin, viking and celtic europe) politics may suggest that such a line is meaningless, of course --Saalstin (talk) 02:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget other similar European lines like the Beer/Wine line as well; however such differences are likely more botanical than cultural (i.e. barley and grapes grow in different climates; just as olives and cattle grazing land does as well). However, such difference have NO bearing on individual personality traits, and any claims that they do should be taken with serious suspicion. --Jayron32.talk.contribs02:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Protestant work ethic probably comes into it somewhere, at least as something that was believed to be true (southern Europe being less Protestant).
Presumably, it was discovered by people living in the highlands of Ethopia in the ninth century. There may not have been any known first discoverer who documented his findings; rather it is far more likely that the earliest archeological evidence we have that coffee was consumed was in artifacts dated to the ninth century, and located in the highlands of Ethiopia. --Jayron32.talk.contribs02:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even look at the article? The statement is not only referenced to a reliable source in both the lead and in the text of the history section AND in the article History of coffee, but it is elaborated on, and THOSE elaborations are also referenced. It is quite well sourced! --Jayron32.talk.contribs12:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are we seriously considering that a single individual first discovered the coffee plant, or that we could know who it was? Mac Davis (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Sweet J**** I hope not! But the question still remains, "HOW did ""WE"" discover which plants were edible and which poisonous? Trial and error?" I doubt that. 67.193.179.241 (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Rana sylvatica[reply]
We seem to lack an article on it, but doing a search [2] seems to indicate the river is mentioned in many articles. The modern (Croatian) name seems to be the Raša River, while the earlier Italian name seems to be the Arsia River. Here is an external article about the modern town of Raša, which is presumably located on said river. There's a picture of the river in the article: [3]. --Jayron32.talk.contribs03:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From what I know of them, the FBI is basically a special police unit, so they definitely can. The CIA are a small wing of the army whose job it is to do bad things behind enemy lines (among other things), so almost certainly not. I suspect the military don't have arrest powers either, however if the concept of a Citizens Arrest exists in the US then members of the CIA and Army would sure be in a good position to use it, seeing as they could likely beat up and detain any member of the public. Prokhorovka (talk) 08:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One does go all over the place just to get here. From what i can see, you have everything all but what im looking for. Do you hold names of those who were actually awarded the B.E.M during the second world war. NZ soldier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miniminz (talk • contribs) 07:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may wish to look at the London Gazette website. This carries names of all medalholders when they were awarded their medals. [4] It also carries help for family historians. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)I've just noticed that New Zealand has its own gazette, which is linked from the London Gazette page I gave you above.--TammyMoet (talk) 08:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Their father, Eric Ernest Hitchens, was a commander in the Royal Navy; their mother, Yvonne Jean, née Hickman, was of Jewish descent. See the summary of the first search hit here for the names and here for some details. Deor (talk) 13:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Constitutions
In Canada, our constitution has a special formula: what i mean is that a certain percentage of the population or number of provinces, or number of provinces and territories have to accept a proposalchange to the constitution, before something about the consititution can be changed. And I'm not sure ofif the provinces and/or territories have to hold (legally binding) referenda.
This Canadian constitution is harder to change compared to just a regular Canadian law.
So in actually, the Canadian constitution has a bunch of laws. And with the Canadian constiutional formula, these Laws (literally), are harder to change, considering hasit has to go through a percentage. Hypothetically speaking, say if this was the case, we could have a polity that has only one law in the constitution, Yay, nay?174.3.103.39 (talk) 11:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)174.3.103.39 (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)174.3.103.39 (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in the U.S. at least, the constitution is also harder to change than general laws, and I suspect that this is true in many places, because the constitution is not just a random set of laws; it is a set of laws which constitute the government; that is it is supposed to be a description of how the government is supposed to be organized and operate, and not just a random set of rules about how people behave. In fact, there has been exactly ONE true "law" in that sense in the U.S. Constitution, the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and that was shortly repealed by the Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution. Other than that aberation, the rest of the constitution is about how the government (as opposed to the people) are to operate. Since one wouldn't just want to change such an important document willy-nilly, the amendment procedure is by necessity quite involved. In the U.S., the amendment procedure is described in Article Five of the United States Constitution, which sets two procedures for amending. An amendment requires the recommendation of 2/3 of BOTH houses of Congress OR 2/3 of the state legislatures may request a special Constitutional Convention to deal with a proposed amendment. After either proposal procedure, the proposed amendment then as to be passed by 3/4 of the states, either by their legislatures directly or by state-level conventions called specifically to deal with the amendment. --Jayron32.talk.contribs12:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In concordance to what is stated above is only logical to assume a countries basic laws or constitution, representing the basic values on which the state is built, to be more difficult to change then everyday laws. (Imagine people abolishing the separation of powers on a whim) There are even some constitutions that restrict changes to certain parts completely. Namely the Eternity clause of the basic law of the Federal Republic of Germany. --91.6.41.211 (talk) 17:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that most constitutions require a higher standard of amendment than an ordinary law, since they define the fundamental principles by which the country is run. The British constitution is an oddity in this respect, since formally it doesn't exist as a single written document, but is instead the sum of statutes, court judgements, and treaties, and Parliament can simply pass new laws to alter existing ones. The Irish constitution, on the other hand, can only be amended by the amendment being approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas, then approved in a referendum, and finally signed by the President. As to the European constitution, note that that's so difficult to enact that it has not been ratified and come into force. -- Arwel Parry(talk)20:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another example: the Venezuelan Constitution (translation here) requires ammendments to itself to pass a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly and then a simple majority in a popular referendum (Title IX, Chapters I and II). There is also a procedure for modifying it by calling a special Constituent Assembly; I'm not sure what the rules are in this case, but the original one in 1999 had to have its draft approved by popular referendum. "Organic Laws," which are in between the constitution and ordinary laws in importance, require a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly (Title V, Chap. 1, section 4). I think regular laws just require a simple majority in the National Assembly, although I couldn't find that explicitly stated in the constitution. So to sum up, the Venezuelan Constitution, like most of the examples here, makes itself harder to change than ordinary laws. Regarding your idea about a constitution with only "law" (or "article," as I think may be a more usual term): if the constitution was going to make itself harder to ammend than an ordinary law, that would have to be the one article, so the constitution couldn't do anything else. Possible, but not too useful. -- Ong saluri (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the European constitution so difficult to enact?
Is it possible to "entrench" (from what I take from the above responses, entrench = to make something harder to change (or amend (in law))) ordinary law such as: Jailing for a period of 3 weeks for not puttinghay in a barn before sundown, without exception?
According to our V-2 article, the last V-2 attacks were on 27 March 1945 and our V-1 article says "The last enemy-action incident of any kind on British soil occurred on 29 March 1945, when a V-1 struck Datchworth in Hertfordshire." --Tango (talk) 04:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to make a computer model for sales in a market, for a game (i.e. not real money). The market has a number of products, each with a fixed price and fixed value to consumers. Each customer has a preferred buying price. The result should be a number of sales for each product.
Is there any function, statistical distribution, or otherwise that would give realistic sales figures?
To give an example of what ought to happen:
- If a customer has a budget of $100 and the product nearest to $100 has a value of 1000, he should probably consider a 900-value at $90 and a 1100-value $110 product equally. But a $120 product might be so far outside the budget that it would need 1500-value to be considered equally. Similarly, a product of 800-value might have to have a price of $50 to consider.
- It shouldn't lead to paradoxes like a product that is the same value but cheaper than another selling less.
- No market is perfect. Even if one product is clearly the best, some people will buy worse choices. The more outstanding a product it the less people would buy the others.
- It should be smooth - there should be no sudden jumps between e.g. $99 and $100 products.
It might help to look at some price/number sold graphs. It's a similar concept - perceived value and the price one has to pay for it. I mean, if you can't model the current situation, this one (which has definitely been studied) might help. All it is is a different variable - you have the value of the product in actual terms, and the number who bought it, which can give you an indication of perceived value - the more who bought it, on average they must have valued it more highly. It would be some work, but there's lots more material. A poor second, really, but messing around with this might be the answer. I don't have the links, but others will if you don't find exactly what you're looking for. 92.1.236.171 (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to know when Canada stopped the practice of allowing titles. Does Canada have nobility?
Is it written into the constitution, the British North American Act? No nobility in Canada
USA has it written into thier constitution that everyone is equal.
Since Caanada has the British style of governance do they still have Sir somebody, or Lord this or that, or the Earl of Ottawa, etc. The first Prime Minister was knighted by Queen Victoria. Sir John A Macdonald. Lord Black gave up his Canadian citizenship to get a title from Queen Elizabeth. When was the priactise of allowing titles dissoved in Canada?
Thanks for your answer, Nottawa Nottawa (talk) 23:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just reading this article, I was curious — can any Parliament in the Commonwealth (or the UK, if it's not part of the Commonwealth; I can't remember) make demands of the reigning monarch? Of course they can resolve to make requests of the monarch, and the Prime Minister's advice is always taken in practice, but would it be seen as proper/constitutional/traditional/whatever to make an absolute demand upon the sovereign? Nyttend (talk) 00:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Legally, I doubt it. Conventionally, yes. The Queen rarely makes any political decisions for herself. She'll hand out honours and titles to members of the royal family unilaterally, but not to other people. --Tango (talk) 01:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's what I meant about requests and the PM giving advice — I can't imagine such requests/advice being ignored or rejected. Given the highly formal system of the British constitutional monarchy, it just seemed to me rather disrespectful to demand something (in those words) from the monarch when "requesting" or "advising" would get the job done well. Nyttend (talk) 03:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Queen, by convention, acts on the advice of her ministers. In relation to the UK, this would be her UK ministers. In relation to Australia, her Australian ones. In relation to Canada, her Canadian ones. If the Canadian Prime Minister properly advised her to bestow a title (except those within the monarch's personal pleasure, like the Order of the Garter) -- then she would.
The Australian, Canadian, Jamaican ... Prime Ministers could advise her to award a knighthood or some other sort of honour. But I would have thought the only person who can advise her to raise anyone to the Peerage of the United Kingdom is the PM of the United Kingdom. Just as the British PM could not advise the Queen to appoint someone as a member of the Order of Australia, for example. (Not that the Australian PM is involved in that process either; it's decided by an independent committee). -- JackofOz (talk) 07:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, there are two women in this painting. Richardis is the nun in flames in the far back. See: Talk:Richardis. Responding to the original poster, I have translated the German description in the image page into English. —6birc (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
June 29
Jesus as myth?
I believe in Jesus as depicted in the New Testament, but no, this isn't an attempt to start a debate about the reliability of the canonical gospels, of the noncanonical gospels, of Jesus' actual personality, etc. — I'm curious about the application of the word "myth" as defined in our article on the topic: "a sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind came to be in their present form". In this sense, are the New Testament accounts of Jesus properly to be considered myths? I recently ran across someone making such a claim, and clearly intending the academic meaning, not saying that Jesus never existed. This definition sounded rather incorrect, because the gospels clearly depict Jesus in a world very much like our own, minus technology and miracles done by Jesus' power. To my mind, biblical myths appear only in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, where we can read accounts of creation, the first humans, etc., all with God working directly in the situation rather frequently. Do I understand rightly? Nyttend (talk) 00:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the New Testament fits the definition of a myth. I don't see anything in the definition that requires the most powerful character to play an active role. A lot of Ancient Greek mythology revolves around fair minor gods and even some mortal heroes and they are certainly considered myths. I'd say any story that is claimed to have really happened but doesn't have the kind of supporting evidence required to be considered a historical event is a myth. --Tango (talk) 00:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By deciding on your definition of myth you decide whether Jesus is a myth or not. Notice that the definition you gave above can apply to the Gospels, even if they are true.
I strongly suggest you read C.S. Lewis on this matter. He spent a lot of his life studying mythology, and among other things came to the conclusion that the Gospels were in a completely different style to every other kind of "traditional myth", such as the Greeks. However he also eventually said that he considered the story of Jesus to be a "true myth" - i.e. that it was mythological in character but also true. For the rest of his explanation you'll have to read it yourself. DJ Clayworth (talk) 02:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The idea of a "true myth" isn't strange to me; I've read Tolkien writing about biblical accounts as true myths, so hearing that a close friend had the same idea. Confused, though — most of your answers seem to attempt to help me to come to an understanding of whether the biblical accounts are historically accurate, but that's not what I was asking: I'm simply trying to get at the literary/sociological/otherscholarly sense of "myth". Nevertheless, thanks for the insights: I have a strong respect for Lewis that this is a very useful answer. Nyttend (talk) 03:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's clearly a good deal of overlap in the ways "myth" and "legend" are used; and both are vague enough to admit a variety of applications. Personally, being somewhat old-fashioned, I'd say that the Gospels (except for the beginning of John) partake more of the qualities of the legendary than of the mythical. Deor (talk) 04:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. From my perspective, another yardstick for something being a "myth" rather than a "legend" is the age of the story when it was recorded: the Gospels were written comparatively soon after the events they describe, while myths tend to tell stories of very remote times. There's a different feel to those two perspectives. 24.172.156.74 (talk) 04:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The main CS Lewis essay on the subject is "Myth became fact" in God in the Dock. You might also be interested in "Myth Matters" - a discussion on Lewis's views on myth, imagination and Christianity. Gwinva (talk) 04:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it's worth keeping in mind that scholars of myth tend not to take Cambell's work very seriously, the charge being that he's imposed a uniform interpretation upon what are diverse mythological elements, and thus assumed what he set out to demonstrate. 24.172.156.74 (talk) 04:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Might not the Gospels be more properly described as legend? After all, many of the historical events in the Bible are known to have actually happened, and most historians agree Jesus actually existed. Unlike myths, which tend to have more of a pure-fantasy feel to them, legends tend to have a basis in the history of a people and draw on mythic elements in recounting (more or less) what actually happened. In terms of Greek lore, we would say that the story of Arachne is a myth because we know that spiders weren't created from a woman who challenged a goddess to a weaving contest, but the story of the Trojan War is a legend because archaeologists have excavated a place that matches the description of Troy and was completely burned to the ground at around the right historical time - but scheming goddesses trying to win some poor schmuck's favor to get a golden apple probably wasn't what started it! (Notice, you always hear larger-than-life figures described as "living legends" all the time - but have you ever heard someone called a "living myth"? Myths represent our spiritual truths; legends are where the spiritual meets the physical in the halls of memory.) Likewise, the Gospel narratives are rooted solidly in time and place, but some matters such as Jesus' miracles remain a matter of personal belief. - Aletheia James —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.139.75 (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Colloquially, the term "myth" means a false story. Academically, "myth" means any traditional story, including sacred narratives.ProteanEd (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As Deor suggests, the categories of (hi)story, legend and myth need not be mutually exclusive; a given "traditional narrative" can contain various proportions of all three. I would suggest that academically (in ProteanEd's sense), traditional stories (which might be historically true, partly true or entirely untrue) are in addition myths if they have important cultural (in which I include religious) significance regardless of their actual degree of truth or untruth.
Thus, for example, the (European, well-known in Britain) story of Cinderella is a traditional one, and like many folk tales carries social/cultural messages, but is neither a legend (since no-one supposes it's based on any particular and actual historical events) nor a myth, since it does not significantly contribute to the self-perception of a particular culture.
The traditional story of Robin Hoodis a legend (since many do believe it to be based on some historical events, though in reality these are likely to be minimal), but not really a myth, since it contributes only slightly to (British) cultural identity.
The traditional story of King Arthur is both a legend (since many people do believe it originates in historical events, which is possible though currently unverifiable) and a myth, because it does form a significant element in the cultural identity of "the British."
The traditional story of The Battle of Britain is not a legend, since it is a verifiable recent historic event, but it is a myth since, although some popular beliefs about it (such as it being won mainly by Spitfire pilots - "The Few") are distortions of actuality, their contribution to British cultural identity transcends their strict historical (lack of) accuracy. (I accept others may differ with me over the history/legend/myth quotients of these four examples: they're meant more as illustrations of the principle than as definitive judgements.)
It's therefore important to realise that often, when people discuss stories which have religious significance for themselves or others, their characterisation of those stories as "myths" or "mythical" does not mean that they are explicitly denying those stories' historical truth, or insulting other's beliefs in them: it means that they're discussing aspects of those stories for which their literal truth is irrelevant, such as how belief in their truth has influenced subsequent history and cultures. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 01:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Visual Bible
There have been some movies made that use books of the Bible word for word as the script called The Visual Bible; I know they have made Matthew, Acts, John - are there any others? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.131.33 (talk) 02:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the recent The Passion of the Christ was supposed to be fairly loyal to the Bible (wouldn't know myself, haven't seen the movie nor read the New Testament...) TomorrowTime (talk) 07:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The witch trials in Catholic and Protestant states are known, but can anyone tell me about the witch trials in the ortodox countries, in Russia and South Eastern Europe? It seems that this subject simply isn't very well known. --Aciram (talk) 10:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did a search and came across V. Kivelson paper on the subject, but you need a university subscription to access it. What it says, in a nutshell, is that yes, there were witch trials in Muscovy in late XVII and in XVIII century, but nowhere near the scale of the Western European ones. Typically there were 1 or 2 accused, and the largest recorded number of accused in a single trial was 8. Also, 75% of the accused were men, in stark contrast to Western Europe where women were more likely to be accused of witchcraft. --Dr Dima (talk) 20:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I forgot the link. You need to do a Google Scholar search for "author:kivelson Witches and Gendered Categories in Seventeenth-Century Russia" and it will come up. --Dr Dima (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see now that Russian wiki does mention this : [[5]]. How about the other Ortohodox countries, such as Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria and Greece? It is a shame that English Wikipedia does not mention this. It should at least be mentioned in the articles Witch hunt, witch trial etc, who does mention Catholic and Protestant withc trials. Perhaps someone with access to this information would like to create an article, or at least a stub? It would be better with more available links for that. The most famous case, the biggest case, or the latest case would be a good choice. Thank's for your reply!--Aciram (talk) 09:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
contemporary classical music question
ok, so I am a huge fan of 'classical' classical music, up to and including Mahler, Bernstein, Copland etc, but who has been writing in the last 50 years who is comparable in style and quality? I am not interested in minimalism, or other directions that classical music has taken, I want things that have the same emotional resonances (for me, I recognize that tastes are subjective) as the historical greats - any ideas? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.189.100.62 (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
James MacMillan perhaps? See also some of the more recent examples featured in the article on neoromanticism. I have noticed that people who generally only enjoy styles up to the romantic period are quite accepting of many of Tōru Takemitsu's works (featured article, btw!), particularly his later ones. And I have also noticed that the same people are more open toward "contemporary" styles when accompanied by motion pictures. Which brings us back to the point Wetman is making (I think): Film music is a special, perhaps less "elitist" genre in that it more free to reach back into mothballed styles of yesteryear (Shore and Williams) without having to worry about being dated or passé, but can also use its functional aspect of accompaniment to sneak in more radical styles and present contemporary composers to a wider audience (e.g. Ligeti and Penderecki in The Shining) without anyone complaining or making statements such as "that's what it sounds like when my cat runs over the piano keyboard". ---Sluzzelintalk05:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but Shore, Williams and in particular the execrable Jenkins are not serious composers and certainly not worthy of being considered part of a lineage with people like Bernstein and Copland. The OP should investigate the genre known as Holy Minimalism (dang, we don't have an article), principally John Tavener, Arvo Part and Henryk Gorecki (whose 3rd Symphony has more emotional resonance than pretty much anything I've ever heard). --Richardrjtalk email06:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What was the justification for Truman dropping a nuke on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Would the results have been different if he had instead nuked a military base? Or why not a warning shot off the coast instead of right in the middle of the city? Why was it necessary to kill 140,000 civilians? (Yes, I have read Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki but it doesn't really shed light on why this was necessary). TheFutureAwaits (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have now, it still doesn't explain why it was deemed necessary to drop the bomb directly over cities. This page seems to be more involved in debate on whether it was necessary to drop the bomb at all. I want to know if there was debate and what justification was given for nuking a city versus a military target or a warning shot over the ocean. TheFutureAwaits (talk) 17:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The main reason to not do a warning shot over the ocean was that at that time, the US nuclear arsenal was 2. Since Japan did not surrender after the first hit, it is obvious that a warning shot would not have caused them to quit either. And contrary to your statements that it was not a military target, Hiroshima was a regional army base, as well as a storage site for large amounts of war materials. I would state that due to these circumstances, Truman as a war criminal because of the nuclear strikes is not a widely held belief. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is an argument that a weapon is only effective if you are willing to use it. It's fairly pointless keeping a gun if you are not prepared to shoot an intruder. Exxolon (talk) 20:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "military target" objection also requires you to suggest what such a target would have been -- by and large, there wasn't one. Military bases, airfields, factories, and other such acknowledged military targets are almost invariably near cities, inseparably so when you're looking at nuclear weaponry. A naval fleet might be sufficiently isolated but Japan's navy had already been swept from the sea. Our article on the strategic bombing of Japan notes that "by July 1945, only a fraction of the planned strategic bombing force had been deployed yet there were few targets left worth the effort." Of course, as Gadget notes, conventional bombing was just as deadly as nuclear and was far more sustainable. Further, the primary reason that Hiroshima and Nagasaki hadn't already been bombed was to preserve worthwhile targets for nuclear weapons. The value of the atomic bomb was shock -- a single bomber carrying the destructive power of a thousand. It is exceedingly difficult to make a cogent argument that the use of nuclear weapons caused more fatalities than an equivalent conventional campaign. My personal opinion is that there's no moral ground to be gained unless you go all the way back to arguing the Allies' stated goal of unconditional surrender, which has been cogently argued by many historians as prolonging the war in both theaters. — Lomn20:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As is pointed out above, the firebombing of Japan achieved similar results (and even more explicit targeting of civilians, arguably) than the atomic bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Whatever one concludes about the atomic bombs, if anyone was to be a war criminal they would have been one some time before nuclear arms came into play. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 00:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One small correction of fact: the US did not have any more bombs assembled after the Nagasaki attack, but they had enough nuclear material for at least one more. They didn't continue with the attacks because Truman decided after the second one that that was enough. This is covered in The Making of the Atomic Bomb. --Anonymous, 05:47 UTC, June 30, 2009.
True, though they wouldn't have had the third bomb ready to go anyway by the time Japan surrendered... (if Japan had not surrendered, then yes.) --98.217.14.211 (talk) 00:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The interesting and brief book "Prompt and Utter Destruction" makes the case that Truman barely had any decision to make: the US was engaged in total war with Japan and it had a weapon that could bring that war to an end, so to not use it would have been an absurdity which was hardly considered at all. The book dismantles the widely-repeated nonsense that it would cost 1 million American lives to take the Japanese homeland, but it also does away with any realistic notion of a "nuclear demonstration". --Sean21:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, it is interesting to note that only two nuclear bombs have ever been used, as compared to conventional bombing and other methods of mayhem. Perhaps humanity has learned something. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)talk00:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, other countries have learned how to make nuclear weapons, if that counts. What has stopped further uses of nuclear weapons isn't any kind of morality, it's the principle of mutually assured destruction. The only nuclear weapons used in anger were used when only one country had nuclear weapons. Now many do, it isn't likely to happen again (although, if you back Kim Jong-il into a corner, all bets are off). --Tango (talk) 00:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether the attacks were justified, he won the war. That means he isn't a war criminal. That's how it works. (Unless, I suppose, he loses a future war, but that doesn't seem likely, what with him having been dead for over 30 years.) --Tango (talk) 00:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Modern usage of the word virgin simply means not having had sex. That can be with man and man, man and woman or woman and woman. The old school years ago term only used to apply to men and woman penetration sex, but no one uses it in that narrow minded way anymore —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.91.128 (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not having had intercourse....or we're back to debating with Bill Clinton what counts as sex. By extension it is also used for a man who has not had intercourse. Medically it's called virgo intacta which means the hymen has not been broken, a definition which leaves a lot more leeway for related activities. - KoolerStill (talk) 19:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we could equally debate what counts as intercourse. 'Sex' is more straightforward, with 'penetrative sex' being more specific when needed. 'Intercourse' is rather euphemistic. 89.168.19.118 (talk) 19:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the same vein as sexual "relations" or "congress".
I'm curious about the wording of the question. To "lose one's virginity (to someone)" is quite common, but I've never heard of "giving one's virginity to someone". It almost suggests the other party has to be someone who was not a virgin themselves, but now gets their virginity back. Is this a common expression in your part of the world, questioner? -- JackofOz (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This strikes me as a bit odd, too. I think "give one's virginity away *to* someone" is what was intended. I believe in certain contexts, a man (and perhaps a woman) can be counted as a virgin if he has not been anally penetrated. Wakablogger2 (talk) 22:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly not suggesting that vaginal, or penetrative, sex is the only real kind of sex. I'd say what Clinton did absolutely counts as sex - not "[vaginal] intercourse" perhaps, but certainly sex. However, not all activities that fall in the realm of the sexual can be considered "having sex." Tongue-kissing is certainly sexual, but by no stretch of the imagination would most of us consider a tongue-kissing couple to be "having sex." I guess what I'm really asking is, since a woman can't penetrate her partner's vagina with a (real) penis, at what point can they say they've had sex, as opposed to just engaging in foreplay or heavy petting? I suppose this would apply to any sexual encounter, whether it was a woman's first time ever, her first time with a new partner, or just making the distinction between different kinds of amorous encounters . . . but I do believe that the first time ever is rather more fraught with significance for most folks, no?
Yes, but still clearly wrong. A woman who has been raped has had sex, and (if previously a virgin) has lost her virginity, but is probably neither satisfied nor content. Algebraist00:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again we run into that "accepted standard" thing. You say that a woman who has been raped has lost her virginity, and some people would agree with you. Others identify loss of virginity only with a person's first consensual sexual encounter. There doesn't seem to be a hard-and-fast standard as to the meaning existing anywhere. The Wednesday Island (talk) 03:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The question of whether a woman who has been raped can still call herself a virgin gets to the heart of what I'm really asking. Rape would take a woman's virginity in the medical sense, but a raped virgin still hasn't made the choice to give herself to another person that way, and as such she may still consider herself a virgin in a spiritual sense - I'm not referring to any religious view per se here, but to her own sense of dignity and whatever her virginity means to her. A woman can be raped or molested by another woman, and in this sense she would still be a virgin, if she hadn't given herself. . . . But the "satisfied and content from interpersonal sexual activity" is really begging the question, because the question I was asking was, just what IS that "sexual activity" supposed to be in the first place? As I wrote before, I think we can agree that tongue-kissing is definitely sexual - you don't kiss your mom like that - but you can do it and still be a virgin. And making out/petting/foreplay can result in satisfaction, while by definition stopping short of "going all the way." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.139.75 (talk) 05:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You first have to decide on whether you are asking the question on a legal, moral, psychological or medical level. If we are talking law, then in some (more innovative) jurisdictions any penetration of one part of one person's body by any part of another person's body is considered sufficient for "sex", for the purposes of "sexual assault" (i.e. rape) and related concepts. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Washington Post apparently does not consider oral sex to end virginity, saying "nearly one in four virgin teens has engaged in oral sex [6]." Various other major newspapers similarly discuss "virgins" who are having oral sex or manual manipulation [7]. Edison (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Acts of parliament/congress - differences between UK and US terminology
On a current AfD, Phil Bridgerasked a question I've been wondering about for a while as well. As he puts it more succinctly than I am likely to be able to, I quote him below:
"In the UK, with which I'm more familiar, a proposed piece of legislation is called a bill, and only becomes an act if and when it is passed. Is the terminology not the same in the United States? We seem to get a constant stream of articles from the United States with "act" in their titles (and they nearly always seem to have been proposed by someone called "Ron Paul" - is he famous or something?) that don't appear to be acts by the definition of the word with which I am familiar"
It is just a bill until it becomes law. Only then is it an act. Until then, the name proposed in the legislation, such as PATRIOT Act or Megan's Law, is just the name the legislation would have should it become law. This is all explained in cartoon form here: [8]. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How what deree have Paul Kagame got in unversity. Have he got master of science or major in science. he seems like a philospher, and he is very smart. Does he know alot about astronomy?--69.229.111.118 (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find anything at all about an earned degree for Kagame. There is nothing at the WP article and nothing on his official website. I assume, then, that his last formal schooling was in high school, as the article says. He has a number of honourary degrees, but they have nothing to do with any field of study. None of this speaks to how "smart" the man might be. // BL \\ (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So his degrees doesnot imvolve academics? Kagame looks like he is almost as smart as Barack Obama by his appearance. A thin young-looking-black-man-with glasses. people usually look smart with glasses on 24-7. Robert Mugabe said he won a master in Science, people good in science is usually good in astronomy. John Kufuor majors in Law. Do lawyers usually hve strong astronomy skills?--69.229.111.118 (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
His honourary degrees do not involve any academic knowledge. As for the rest of your comments, I can make no sense of them. Mugabe's article has him with six graduate degrees, most earned in extension courses. So far as I know, all the wearing of glasses indicates is some form of weak eyesight. I can find no correlation between the obtaining of a law degree and competence in astronomy. // BL \\ (talk) 02:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if you're confusing the two meaning of the English word "smart"? It means both "well-dressed" and "clever". However, there is no indication that both senses of the word overlap in meaning. --88.108.233.67 (talk) 11:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)whoops didn't notice I wasn't logged in! --TammyMoet (talk) 11:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Bangabandhu / Kemal Mustafa Ataturk
No need to be so childishly literal, the OP is clearly asking if the secular nationalist ideology of Sheikh Mujib was influenced by that of Atatürk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 08:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, see Gnosticism. There are lots of things which get called "gnosticism", but generally the term gets applied to any of a number of Judeo-Christian heretical sects of the first few centuries AD. Most would be considered "cults" under the modern understanding. --Jayron32.talk.contribs04:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gnosticism involved specific mythologies (see Aeon and Ogdoad for some of the complexities), and often included the ideas of extreme spirit-matter dualism, and that the creator of this world was actually the evil demiurge, a false god. Many forms of gnosticism were ultra-ascetic (opposed to all sex, even within marriage), though a few were "antinomian" or "libertine"... AnonMoos (talk) 18:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The short answer is that the Seat of Government Act 1908 (which determined the site of the ACT) required it. As to the reasoning, it may have been so the ACT wasn't dependent on NSW for access to the sea and the trade and travel that went with it. This was, after all, before the age of air travel. Dalliance (talk) 09:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Until fairly recently, being landlocked was a VERY impractical way to be for any political unit. Lots of territories had their borders established so that they would always have access to warm-water ports; see the relationship between Bremen and Bremerhaven for a similar situation in Germany. Lots of conflicts were started as countries fought over access rights to the sea, see Polish Corridor and Ingria and Crimean War for some background on areas that were hotly contested specifically because they were vital for ocean access. In most cases, even in subnational political units, like Australian or American states, the borders were carefully considered to allow each state access to deep-water ports. Look at the U.S. states east of the Mississippi.
Every state except Vermont and West Virginia has either direct access to the ocean, or has deep-water access via either the Mississippi River or the Great Lakes. Lots of these states have short panhandles which give them this access, see Pennsylvania, Alabama, Mississippi. --Jayron32.talk.contribs14:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Within the former Yugoslavia, the boundaries were drawn so that four of the six constituent republics had seacoasts, and Slovenia set up a port that to some degree competed with the ports of Croatia and Montenegro... AnonMoos (talk) 18:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Returning to Dalliance's answer, the thing is that Jervis Bay is separated from the ACT by about 100 km of New South Wales. So even with the Jervis Bay Territory, the ACT is still "dependent on NSW for access to the sea", unless they transport their boats by air! --Anonymous, 19:40 UTC, June 30, 2009.
Jervis Bay serves to ensure the ACT would have control over its own port - and thus is not subject to, for example, "soft" pressure from NSW in the form of, say, landing duties. That goods and people still have to travel to Canberra by road through NSW is not an issue unless NSW actually blockaded Canberra - and if that happens, sea access might be the least of the ACT's worries. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One thing that strikes me when I look at the ACT on a map is that the actual capital city is located near one edge of the irregularly shaped territory. When a new capital city and territory is created out of a largely unpopulated district, it seems more natural that things would be laid out more symmetrically, like the way the original square shape of DC had the government buildings near its center. On what basis were the boundaries of the ACT chosen? --Anonymous, 19:40 UTC, June 30, 2009.
(ec)I can only give additional information here. Most of the rest of the ACT (the bit that Canberra is not built on) is National Park. Might it have been chosen so that the Capital Territory had national parks? On the Jervis Bay question, there's very little of use in the Jervis Bay territory. It's mostly seen as a holiday spot from here in Canberra. Steewi (talk) 01:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some of it serves as water catchment for reservoirs that supply the city, but I have no idea if that's part of the reason for its inclusion. -- 203.97.105.173 (talk) 04:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did notice that the border travels along the top of the mountains and ridgelines along much of the border. You can see this on Google Earth. This is particularly true along the western side. So it does seem like a lot of the border is determined by natural features. - Akamad (talk) 13:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thanks. --Anon, 20:14 UTC, July 3, 2009.
1st person hanged
Who was the first person who was given death penalty i.e. hanging? Please do not give answer with reference to any specific region or country, rather considering the whole word history. 119.152.77.212 (talk) 09:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean "e.g." where you have "i.e."? It seems strange that you ask for the first person put to death if you are looking only for those hanged.
I've read that death by hanging originated in ancient Persia, but am not sure how reliable that information is.
For what it's worth, and despite your tersely worded addendum, death by hanging as a penalty in China appeared during the Spring and Autumn period. The Zuo Zhuan records that, in the year 493 BC, Duke Ai of Lu instituted death by hanging (with a silk noose) for ministers of the lower ranks. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect the Chinese records are the most precise you will find. The Tollund Man is likely to have been killed by hanging. Though he is thought to be from the 4th century BC, and hence a little later than Chinese records, it is believed that he was probably killed as a sacrifice suggesting that hanging was by that time an established method among the Danes. Esther 7:10 (from about the same time) also mentions hanging: "So they hanged Haman on the gallows which he had prepared for Mordecai", though this may have been hanging his dead body rather than a method of execution. Among the Maya, suicide by hanging was regarded as a noble death and it was also used as punishment, but it is unknown when in Mayan history this practise began - it is also likely that heinous crimes carried a sentence of death rather than hanging specifically. More generally, the Code of Ur-Nammu from the 3rd millennium BC establishes the death penalty for murder, robbery and the rape of a married virgin (rape of another man's virgin slave carried only a 5 silver shekel fine). Fouracross (talk) 10:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How long did a woman typically remain a virgin after being married back then? Seems like it would be a narrow window of opportunity for the bad guy. Perhaps out back of the reception hall? Edison (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I presume that was a question in response to Fouracross, not my comment. I've not read the Code of Ur-Nammu, but I'd bet he's referring to a two-stage marriage like that described in the Bible, where the couple are first "betrothed" and then marry some time later, during which period sex with others is adulterous and divorce is needed to separate the couple. --Dweller (talk) 14:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure whether the married state would have started at the betrothal, but, anecdotally, one of the complaints made against Gilgamesh in the Epic of Gilgamesh is that he abuses his power by sleeping with brides before their husbands can (early in the story he turns up at a wedding to do just that, but is distracted by a fight with the wild-man Enkidu). It's possible that the death penalty in Code of Ur-Nammu was aimed at preventing such droit de seigneur abuses by the ruling classes. Fouracross (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously people were given death penatly far before any recorded histroy exists. Some somarian tables that are 6500BC mention death setences.--58.111.133.169 (talk) 12:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6,500 BC is a trifle optimistic however: the earliest Sumerian language tablets date to very late in the 4th millennium/early 3rd millennium BC. Perhaps you are thinking of the legal code mentioned above (3rd millennium BC). Fouracross (talk) 13:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This Google search seems to indicate that living standards measure is a uniquely South African market segmentation framework. Is there any equivalent concept in other markets that can possibly serve as a redirect for LSM? If not I think LSM should be turned into a blue link, the first Google result seems like a comprehensive reference (I will try to get something started if I have time). There may be a few redirect targets in the market segment article, however I leave it to someone more economically-minded than I to make a recommendation. (Enter Zain Ebrahim, stage left. I hope) Zunaid09:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Queen of Iraq
Can anyone tell me about the queens of Iraq in 1920-1958? Their names are here in Wikipedia, but they have no articles. Did they play any official role, or did they live in traditional seclusion?--Aciram (talk) 10:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The use of the phrase "Queen of Iraq" somewhat begs the question of whether or not these women played a public social role at all comparable to European queen-consorts (which is what you're asking about). The word "queen" is not really very appropriate to refer to those wives and/or concubines of Muslim rulers who lived in "traditional seclusion"... AnonMoos (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is true. The time for the first "Queen" in this sense seem to differ in Muslim countries: Afghanistan in the 1920s (Soraya Tarzi), Iran 1930s, Egypt 1940s, Jordan 1950s, from what wikpedia say. How was it in Iraq? That would be interesting to know!--Aciram (talk) 12:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Madoff's life
How will Madoff live from now on? Will he be able to leave prison, at least for a couple of days? Could he commute his stay into home arrest?--Mr.K.(talk)10:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Barring appeals, Madoff will be incarcerated in a federal prison for 150 years (practically speaking, until he dies). There is no parole available for federal sentences. He's been jailed since March so I expect this means that there's no real change in his status. To be specific with your follow-up questions: again, barring appeals (or presidential pardon), he will not leave prison for any sort of vacation nor will his term be commuted. — Lomn13:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
His article points out that he was deemed a flight risk and therefore was not allowed to stay in his home. What makes you think that he would be allowed to stay in his home after being convicted? wow, no article for flight risk?Dismas|(talk)14:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I would imagine his pardon chances are zero out to 8 digits or so, since a granting such a pardon would be political suicide considering how unpopular Madoff is. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 19:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I thought about something related to bad health or his age (over 70). Incarcerated seniors will develop Alzheimer or other form of dementia someday (if they don't die earlier). What is the purpose of letting them in jail? They can't commit any crime and they don't even know where they are.Mr.K.(talk)09:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the rules in the USA are the same as the UK then it is possible that he would be allowed to leave prison for compassionate reasons, to attend a funeral or vist a dying relative. This would be a brief visit, and would normally involve being handcuffed to a guard (maybe two) so though he would technically be out of prison he would not be free in any normal sense. -- Q Chris (talk) 13:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, also call your insurance company. The insurance company will probably ask that you file a formal report with the police. The police will politely take your report, and of course if they actually find your hubcaps, they probably would return them. However, isolated incidents of petty larceny of this type are rarely investigated as strenuously as more serious crimes; unless there appears to be a pattern of similar thefts. You probably will not recover your hubcaps anytime soon, if ever. You may recover their value from the insurance company, depending on the level of your deductable. --Jayron32.talk.contribs14:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking for some information on where to get free legal advice so I can find out if the owner of the property on which the vehicle is parked might be liable. Wikivanda199 (talk) 14:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, are you for real? You parked your car somewhere, your hubcaps got stollen, and now you want to sue the owner of whichever random spot you decided to park your car on? I might be just an ignorant European, but that sounds awfully... well, stupid. No offence. Oh, you might want to check this out, might help you along: responsibility
Tomorrow, you might consider whether the parking lot owner might not have a responsibility to the people who leave their property in his care. I don't say that he necessarily should, but it's not outrageous to imagine cases where it would apply. In which case the original poster might expect compensation without needing to sue. --Anonymous, 08:18 UTC, July 1, 2009.
If the property owner bears any liability whatsoever, count on your insurance company to tell you, when you file a claim. Reason being that if the property owner is responsible, he pays, and the insurance company doesn't have to. -- 76.201.158.47 (talk) 01:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is the replacement cost for your hubcaps? Lawyers in the U.S. charge anywhere from $150 to $400 per hour. How many hours are you prepared to pay for in an effort to get the property owner to replace the hubcaps? If your parent or sibling or domestic partner is an attorney, that is the best way to get free legal advice. Everyone else pays, in general. A lawyer might not take a contingent fee case (on spec) if all he stands to earn is half of the recovered hubcaps. Edison (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The original poster asked for free advice, not $150 to $400 an hour advice. I've certainly heard of lawyers providing a free (and short) initial consultation, although this might vary from place to place. Probably the original poster should start by contacting the law society, bar association, or whatever they call it where he lives. --Anon, 08:18 UTC, July 1, 2009.
You're correct that small claims court often doesn't require lawyers, but you've asked where you can get legal advice -- that's something completely different, and requires a lawyer. At that point, as Edison notes, you're likely to get charged since the lawyer isn't going to gain anything from the case itself. On the other hand, you could continue to take your cues from television (note per our article that those are arbitration in the guise of court, not actually court) and take the property owner to court without knowing whether you've got any ground to stand on. There's probably a filing fee but past that, it's as close to free as you're likely to get. — Lomn14:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most UK car parks whether publicly owned or private have a disclaimer along the lines of "Vehicles parked at owner's risk. The owner does not accept liability for vehicles or contents." - Unless you can show a duty of care here and possibly negligence I doubt you'll get very far with this. You must also consider whether the card is worth the candle - I had a car hit by an uninsured driver and opted to simply scrap the vehicle rather than sue him for repairs - the value of the car wasn't worth the amount of time, effort and costs involved in litigation. Exxolon (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there have been several incidents of such thefts occurring, and the landlord has not done anything about it, you might have something, regardless of a disclaimer. Probably not worth the hassle though unless these were some seriously expensive hubcaps. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 19:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes, strongly worded disclaimers like the one Exxolon describes turn out to be less powerful than they seem when tested in court. If a duty of care is shown in one case, it becomes a precedent for other people's cases. This is exactly the sort of thing that the original poster would want to know by way of legal advice.
Once again, I am not saying that the original poster should have any expectation of being compensated -- that would be legal advice and in any case I do not pretend to know! I am saying that it is reasonable to want to get legal advice if you suffer a loss. --Anonymous, 08:18 UTC, July 1, 2009.
The Dutch were the colonial masters of Indonesia, and it wouldn't surprise me to learn that his mother was of Dutch descent, so making her white. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since his mother's maiden name (Van Beers) is Dutch, I would think she's at least part Dutch herself. The Dutch wikipedia refers to her as "Indische Nederlander", which probably means she's half Indonesian (Javanese in her case). I don't think that term is used for white Dutchmen who lived in Indonesia in colonial times though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
She could also have been of full white Dutch descent and still have been an Indonesian citizen. There are people of many different races who are citizens of many different countries. --Jayron32.talk.contribs17:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Theoretically that is possible, but historically it's far less likely; after Indonesian independence, a bloody affair, not many Dutchmen stayed around and took Indonesian citizenship. It's especially unlikely in this case because we know she was in Amsterdam in the fifties when she had her son Alex, Eddie's brother. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 18:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks can be deceiving. Or, more to the point, your preconception of what it would mean to look "half Indonesian" could be wrong. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 00:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tolkien -Turin's tale - dragon origins
In the various version of the tale of Turin and Niniel edited by C. Tolkien the dragon in the story twists the truth in its conversation with Turin. In a lot of the related work in clear that Tolkien has borrowed of been influenced by old myths, folk tales, and 'fairy stories' - but I don't know of any similar story in respect to the dragon conversation (clearly the killing of the dragon is much like that found with Sigurd).
My question is - does anyone know of an older tale which contains a character like the dragon - ie in its twisting of the truth in the conversation with the protagonist? Thanks83.100.250.79 (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, both links were useful - particularily in the wider context.
More specifically I was looking for example of two motifs:
One in which an oracle, or other type fortune teller gives a character a prediction of the future - which though technically accurate - turns out to be horribly fulfilled (eg in a very simple example "you will be reunited with your friends" today - leading to the character finding themselves in prison or as slaves with their friends)
Another in which a creature retells the past with a malicious spin to the protagonist (probably a doomed or tragic hero) - either as a taunt, or reveeling the fulfillment of a curse on the hero.
I'm sure I've read or heard of both these elements in stories (above example excluded) - though my mind is blank as to where - probably european or greek myth, possibly shakespear. It's not very important though if anyone can give an example I'd appreciate it. Thanks83.100.250.79 (talk) 20:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes thanks - it was Macbeth I was thinking of for the first one, for the second one the tale of Oedipus is close - but I was thinking of a story in which the protagonist is cursed (but does not understand the curse), and then later has the meaning of the curse explained by some evil creature or enemy, at which point the curse has already played itself out. I think in Oedipus the curse though like a riddle is understood (though not believed), and there is no evil enemy taunting the tragic character at the end? Any ideas? 83.100.250.79 (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The ambivalent prophecy is a mainstay of legend. Example: when King Croesus of Lydia asked the oracle at Delphi whether or not he should attack the Persians under Cyrus, he was told that if he did, he would destroy a great empire. Turns out the empire was his own.
A Roman noble asked the [[Sybil]° if he should stay at home or flee his enemies. The written reply: DOMINESTES. He interpreted it as 'Domine, stes' (Lord, stay), when actually she meant 'Domi ne stes' (don't stay at home). He was arrested. That Sybil-- what a card! Rhinoracer (talk) 09:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Andes flight disaster - Can someone please provide me with the exact co-ordinates of the Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571 crash site? Article has possible discrepency.
I'm trying to locate the exact crash site using Google maps, based on the given co-ordinates from the Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571 article on Wikipedia. However, if I look at the maps listed in the article, and refer to Google maps, it seems as though the crash site on Google maps is in fact more westerly than indicated on the Wikipedia map (34°45′54″S 70°17′11″W).
I say this because the border line dividing Argentina from Cile places the crash site on different sides of the border than indicated on the Wikipedia article maps (east), and it appears on the western border in Google maps.
This could very well be a geographical error on Google maps, but I would still like to know the right co-ordinates to use on Google maps to find the precise location. I fail to see how the airplane debris is located on the side of a mountain, where there is no snow at all (this also might be a seasonal influence, but the image in Google maps doesn't quite match the story line either).
I have also edited the discussions page on the article, but I was hoping to get a more immediate answer here.
Good luck with your search, but I am not sure if you can locate it using google maps. From what I understand, the resolution of the satellite imagery is rather good for many US cities, but is rather poor for rural areas. In a place like the Andes, the resolution might be so poor that even if you were looking directly at a object the size and shape of that airplane, it might not be recognizable. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 20:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above question refers to the actual location in terms of co-ordinates, and not so much trying to identify debris, because the debris has since been incinerated. Can anyone help here? This must surely have been recorded. There were reports of the daily sightings of the victims with regards to the terrain around them - so perhaps someone could indicate where on Google Maps these features are located? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dminnaar (talk • contribs) 09:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
International Society of Krishna Conciousness
Hi, this webpage is deceptively convincing. Can anyone provide a convincing list of anti-thesis? I am being led to believe that Prabhupada is most misleading and it is just difficult to find modern respectable adversion to his work and translations. All I can find when searching on Prabhupada is the highest esteem. There must be something to counter that...? ~ R.T.G21:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You meant criticisms of his translations or interpretations - I suppose you already tried searching for "Prabhupada criticism" and gave up in the sea of praise - keep trying - here's one http://www.iskcon.com/icj/7_2/72surya.html , there are a lot of hindus, many educated, there must be more.
Surely there must be other translations of the BG you could read and then see for yourself if there is something wrong with Prabhupada's work.
On a personal level I found the praise a little much for my taste - for what appears on the surface to be simply a very straightforward translation, but then I don't actually enjoy ancient literature, so any qualities it had would be lost on me :(
What I'm suggesting is that there is a natural bias at work here - assuming that his work is basically legitimate then those that enjoy/like/identify with the text will be appreciative of what he has done. To put it bluntly you may be looking at a lot of fan praise.
As far as I can tell the translation is consider good, but the commentary in general considered very dogmatic (or biased by some) (see [9] - maybe not the citable references you might have wanted). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.250.79 (talk) 02:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am concentrating on stuff that might make him appear non-notable and/or unreliable which I have to say (sniggering at the place where it was to be found) the "Critique" book you have shown is the most convincing yet but on its own, again, not all that convincing. ~ R.T.G07:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmh, I can't see much chance of estabilshing non-notability in the wikipedia sense - as the author/translator of a well known book..
Doesn't Sri Aurobindo's interpretation form the basis of a reasonable critique of his interpretations eg the quote in Bhagavad_Gita#War_as_an_allegory could be used (by someone with an ax to grind - not me!) itself as an attack on the interpretations used by Prabhupda?
As an aside I'm suprised nobody seems to have criticised the way the book (ie the "Bhagavad Gita as it is") has been formatted - chopping the actual text up renders the actual story practically unreadable - I could even decribe it as arrogant. Why wasn't it formatted as original on left page, translation on right page, with commentary after each chapter, or inserted as notes at the bottom? Is the original peppered with commentary?
You did do quite well, and thanks, although I still think that support for the Hare Krishnas outweighs their critiques. ~ R.T.G18:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did Tanzania pass a rule to only allow national leaders to run for two terms only? Because first one Julis whatever start term in 1960 and end in 1985. Ali Hassan Mwinyi was second PR from 1985 until 1995 (age 69 to 70), then he left office and hand the power to Benjamin Mkapa from 1995 until 2005 (age 57 to 67), then he left again when Jakaya Kikwete took over power when he was 55. Will he be able to run for 2015 election or he will have to hand the power to somebody else. Do some country once apon a time, allow leaders to stay as long as they want, then at certain day they change a law to only allow leaders to run for two terms maximum.--69.229.111.118 (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not as often as they want but as often as they get re-elected -- the U.S. used to be this way although only Franklin Roosevelt served more than two terms and the constitution was changed later to only allow two terms maximum. Rmhermen (talk) 00:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I beielve Mkapa and Mwiniyi will love to stay as long as they can. I beleive they will like to stay for over two terms If At Tanzania they are now only allow to sever two term only then Jakaya Kikwete will not be able to run for 2015 term. Abdoulaye Wade is planning to run for his 3d term in 2012. Hifikepunye Pohamba will probably run for his 3d term in 2013. Normally poeple won't give up the power unless they feel they are too old, or if they have term limit.--69.229.111.118 (talk) 02:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In a country with fair elections, it isn't up to them but to the electorate. At any rate the article you linked to only has four sentence of text, one of which is "They were also significant in that the incumbent President Benjamin Mkapa, who has served two consecutive terms, stepped down in accordance with the constitution." Tanzania apparently adopted a new constitution in 1984. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 23:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
July 1
Pirate Party
Based on historical precedent, how will the Pirate Party (of Sweden) fare without an 'illegal' The Pirate Bay? The party doesn't seem very capable of inciting much interest itself, since it is relatively new and is a single issue party. It does have some inherent support (maybe around 1-2% of the electorate), but without TPB, it seems like interest will fizzle away rather quickly.
On the other hand, I can see how the acquisition of the site can invoke some strong emotions, thereby increasing support for the party. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me!04:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder sometimes do they care less about green partys and other stuff unless they are showing it on TV all the time and if so, why don't they brainwash us all into the very best morals and health? If I then took them to court with treasures like The Exorcist, do I get my money back? ~ R.T.G07:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you say, the Party alone doesn't seem to have much success, but it is possible that the closing of the Bay could give them one last big publicity boost. Also, the 'Battle of the Bay' isn't over yet. The Pirate Bay is still running, and they will appeal the judgement, possibly successfully. Also, now they are in the EU Parliament they have access to substantial funds and resources there. Prokhorovka (talk) 08:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Based on historical precedent, they need to move to California to have any luck. In general, upstart parties with a single political stance that isn't a major part of the daily life for the majority of the citizens is doomed to failure - except in California. Strangely, in that state, the single political stance can be completely absent from any of the citizens daily life and somehow succeed. As an anecdote: Sonny Bono's restaurant was being heavily pushed around by Palm Springs city council. So, Sonny ran for Mayor of Palm Springs to have the power to tell the city council to shove it. Why would anyone vote for him when it was clear what his motive was? Well, he won. -- kainaw™11:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sonny Bono was a celebrity, celebrities have name recognition and unfortunately name recognition is a big part of getting elected. I don't think California voters are worse than other voters in that regard. -- BenRG (talk) 12:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the original poster is referring not to the court case but to yesterday's announcement that The Pirate Bay is about to get the Napster treatment ([10]). -- BenRG (talk) 12:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a crystalball, and it's impossible to predict exactly how the political developments will be in the future. That said, it should be clarified that PP and TPB are two different entities, and PP was never the 'political wing' of TPB. The TPB trial was a huge boost to PP ahead of the 2009 EU elections, but the media buzz around PP is not dependent on the continued existence of TPB. Also, the PP now has a political network of its own and is (with one full MEP seat and one MEP observer) economically self-sufficient to run an election campaign in 2010. --Soman (talk) 13:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To all to whom these presents shall come, greeting!
I've seen this phrase in various places, including the start of Royal Charters, but also on American documents. What does it mean, what is its significance, and where does it come from? Does it have a name? Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 06:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't answer any of those questions, but the phrase has been in use in legal documents since at least the early 15th century. (And Rhinoracer is correct; the phrase "these presents" is sometimes given as "these present letters"). Fouracross (talk) 10:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, even as a lawyer I never knew what it meant, thanks! I always guessed "these presents" meant "those present at the signing of this document." Meaning, in other words, those attesting to it would, by thaeir attestation, writing, etc., be delivering what was written to others. But, Rhinoracer's explanation also makes a lot of sense.Somebody or his brother (talk) 11:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In medieval Latin, one sense of presens was "a message or document." The English usage no doubt derives from that. Deor (talk) 11:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this is a standard formula in medieval Latin documents, something along the lines of "omnibus ad quos presens scriptum pervenerit", or "omnibus ad quos presentes litterae pervenerint", or other similar formulae. "Presens" in that case meant "the present document" or "the present matter". In the study of these kind of documents (diplomatics), I think this part is called the address, there's no fancier name than that. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, although my point was that presens alone was used to denote a document (my old copy of Baxter and Johnson's Medieval Latin Word-List dates the sense as far back as the eighth century in British sources), which would account for usages like "these presents" in English. Deor (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and definitely the formula occurs with "presens" as a substantive adjective alone. Another interesting thing about this is that "salutem" always occurs as a direct object without a verb, it is just assumed that the verb is "sends". Even ancient Roman letters left the verb out. In English "salutem" becomes an interjection instead, "greetings". Adam Bishop (talk) 17:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant (since no word corresponding to "present" is involved) addendum: This thread awoke a dim memory in me, so I dug out my old college diploma, which turns out to bear the line "Omnibus ad quos hae Literae pervenerint, Salutem in Domino sempiternam." Not just a greeting, but a sempiternal one! Deor (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
UN 6th Committee
There is a wiki article that needs an expert to fix. First the tittle is wrong! Second it needs serious expansion. It is a subcategory. to wikiUN. can some one direct me to the right people?
--Zakouma (talk) 08:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the 22nd Amendment were repealed during Obama's presidency, would Obama be allowed to run for a third term, or would it only apply to future Presidents? Or would this be decided by the way the repeal(presumably a new amendment itself) was written? 69.224.113.202 (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the repeal just said "The 22nd amendment is hereby repealed" then we would be back to the situation the day before it was passed, and the incumbent could keep running for reelection for the rest of his life, like F.D. Roosevelt. But to avoid it being too clearly directed at one person, it might exclude the incumbent, just as Truman was excluded from term limits as the incumbent when the 22nd amendment was ratified. Edison (talk) 16:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in practice I don't think such a repeal is very likely at all, so it is difficult to say. Something would have to happen to change public and political opinion on term limits and without knowing what that something is, we can't say how it would work. If it was repealed because people absolutely loved Obama and wanted him to be able to stay on then, obviously, he wouldn't be excluded. --Tango (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would depend on how it was worded. Some amendments have "activation" dates which are later then the date of passage, and others are considered to become valid the day they pass. Consider especially that the 22nd Ammendment specifically did NOT apply to anyone who was President when the amendment was proposed by congress, thus theoretically Harry Truman could have served an infinite number of terms (well, until he died) even though he was the President when the amendment was proposed. The first president it applied to was Dwight Eisenhower. Likewise, the 18th amendment went into effect 1 year after it was ratified. So we have examples of two with alterations on the starting time of the amendment being different from its ratification date; one based on the date it was proposed, the other based on the date it was ratified. However, most other amendments do not list "starting dates", and so they would become active as soon as they were passed. Presumably, if the 22nd amendment were repealed, whether it would apply to the sitting president or not would depend on how the repealing amendment (lets say the 28th) was worded. --Jayron32.talk.contribs18:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Miracles
Why is it considered a miracle when a single person survives a catastrophe? The most obvious example is the recent [Yemenia Flight 626] disaster where a teenage girl survived the crash while everyone else died. Why is it a miracle when hundreds die from the same accident as the survivor? I understand why people look for a silver lining but I don't see how someone can explain that God was great for saving the one person while he let everyone else die... TheFutureAwaits (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think often when people say "miracle" they just mean a very unlikely good thing, rather than literally meaning it was an act of god. --Tango (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alternately, if we want to stick to acts of God, let's determine whether you're asking "why is God saving one person out of 500 a miracle" or "why didn't God save everyone". Are you counterclaiming that it would be better for God to let everyone die rather than save one person? By most any measure, a miracle is a rare occurrence, so asking (theologically) why people die in the first place is a very different question. Of course, Wikipedia is well-equipped to start informing you along those lines, too -- you may be interested in our article on the problem of evil and related topics. — Lomn19:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's always the flip side of the "miraculous" outlier event—it indicates the relative lack of intervention in the mainstream events, and the question about why intervention only seems to happen at very rare times. I am not sure whether any serious philosophers or theologians would consider such actions "miracles" or not. It is not a very rigorous approach. In many cases (but not this particular example), the claiming of a "miracle" is often at the expense of those mere mortals who actually performed it (medical personnel often get somewhat discounted when someone has a "miraculous" cure). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it was more of a miracle when a passenger train I was on was unaffected by the derailment of a freight train while we were passing it at 70 miles per hour (it tipped over the other way from where we were) than if there had been a wreck and fire and I had been the only survivor. Ditto when a plane a family member was on was in final approach and another plane taxied across the runway in its path. My family member's plane managed to rise above the interloper, and no harm was done. More of a miracle than if the family member had been the lone survivor of a crash and conflagration. When no one is harmed and nothing is damaged, we discount the miracle. Edison (talk) 04:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its a miracle if one person survives, not a miracle if half the people survive, and a miracle when everyone survives, very confusing :P --Abc26324 (talk) 14:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is probably because the media is a poor judge on what a real miracle is, and tends to overuse to word because it sells more newspapers, ad-time, whatever. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oldest French Noble titles
What are the oldest French noble titles? I a title that had remain in the family for over a thousand years besides the Capetian kings. Like Count of Paris, it didn't remain in the same families throughout history but it is a really old title. I want to know the oldest continuous title from medieval France.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you checked List of French peerages? They don't seem to be continuous for very long; most of them were created in the Renaissance and they frequently died out, were sold, or were merged into other titles, and sometimes a new line is created with the same title. It's similar to what happens with the English peerage. Does any noble title ever remain in one family for a thousand years? Adam Bishop (talk) 18:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merovingian titles originally belonged strictly to an individual, in right of his appointment: comes was an inheritance/imitation of a late Roman title. The gradation to a heritable title was a process, strongest in outlying domains. Compare the Visigothic Duchy of Cantabria, also in a march--Wetman (talk) 20:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on a book which is largely mathematical, but I want to intersperse it with a few relevant historical examples. Right now, I'm looking for a particular example of a situation where a community of people had a clear goal in mind, but as the result of some serious misinformation, they all acted in a way that was radically counterproductive. It would be best if at the time there were people who knew what this group was doing was counterproductive, but the people in the group didn't listen to those people (either because they didn't believe them or because they didn't know them).
As an illustration, the recent scandal about the misperceptions of Florida teenagers regarding bleach as a preventative for HIV or Mountain Dew as a contraceptive would be a good example. But, I was hoping for something (a) more historical, (b) with a bit more meat so that a nice narrative could be written, and (c) a little less embroiled in politics.
China under Mao went into a few widespread counterproductive practices. These are anecdotes. You will need to dig into the history to make it as accurate as you want. The main example that comes to mind is steel production. Steel is required to build major cities and a strong military. So, Mao (or someone speaking for him) made the announcement that more raw steel was needed. The people took their good steel products, melted them down, and created heavily polluted, brittle, almost worthless steel (mainly because they didn't know how to recycle steel). Another more abstract issue is rice production. Mao asked how much rice production there was. As the question trickled down to the farms, it was expressed that it was important to grow a lot of rice. When the answer trickled back up, each person added a tiny bit to the amount produced. The final answer was far more than the amount of rice produced, so the government sold a lot of the rice that wasn't apparently needed to Russia and, as a result, many people in China starved. -- kainaw™
I was just about to recommend that very book when I saw that you had beat me to it. It is probably the best source for what the OP is asking, although of course because of its age it lacks more recent examples. A somewhat relevant book would be Wilhelm ReichsThe Mass Psychology of Fascism which attempts to answer the question: "Why did the masses turn to authoritarianism which is clearly against their interests?" (this is a quote from the article). --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to Guns, Germs, and Steel (Google book link), in the 1600s Japan abandoned the use of guns and rifles as part of its drive to let Japan stay in isolation. A few influential samurai were apparently convinced that guns were un-samurai and therefore counter-productive in defending Japan. The result was that when the USA's Commodore Matthew Perry showed up, Japan's military was woefully under-prepared to defend itself and stay in isolation. --M@rēino21:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's the misinformation in this situation? That the US was not going to roll up and threaten them? (I'd say 200 years of success at a policy is a pretty good track record, personally. Failing to adapt with the times is something different than being said to be delusional the whole time...) --98.217.14.211 (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Maginot Line in France, which was clearly opposed by people such as de Gaulle who knew that the military theory on which it was based was out of date. Basically, French generals thought that the next war with Germany would pretty much be the same than the previous one that they won : static, based on defence and artillery. So they built these huge system of defence, which diverted France from using its resources on the new weapons, planes and tanks, that made the Blitzkrieg possible. And in 1940, in three weeks time, they lost. --Gede (talk) 00:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this one so far is the most in line with the original suggestion. The rest are just poor policy decisions or economic bubbles, which are not quite the same thing at all. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 01:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At the beginning of the 1910's, the hobble-skirt briefly became a mainstream fashion. Elaborate and cumbersome women's clothes had long been used in order for families to effectively advertise for all to see that they were wealthy enough that they could afford to render their women unfit for practical physical labor (as famously analyzed by Thorstein Veblen), but even in that context the hobble-skirt was kind of extreme in restricting basic mobility, and it basically came and went in about two years (and at the end of that time, I bet a lot of women were asking themselves "What was I thinking?"). AnonMoos (talk) 02:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This may be an apocryphal tale - but you may or may not have heard of the 'rat temple' of Karni Mata at Deshnoke. Supposedly, when periodic outbreaks of rat-borne sickness afflict the monks there, their response is to go out and acquire more sacred rats to live and eat alongside them in the temple, as they believe that the sickness is some form of divine punishment for failing to sufficiently worship and protect the rats... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From 1the 1790's through roughly the end of the 19th century medical doctors would routinely bleed and purge patients, to "remove toxins" from the body. This was based on tradition and faith in the claims of such 18th century doctors as Benjamin Rush rather than on experimental evidence. The purging was by administration of a poisonous mercury compound called calomel. That plus the loss of blood from the bleeding hastened the deaths of many, and were of no therapeutic value. Their goal was to purify the bodily fluids, but they only weakened and poisoned the patient. In the mid 19th century, homeopaths and herbalists (some quacks in their own right, but more with placebos) wrote books collecting evidence of deaths caused by these practices, and even a few physicians denounced the practice of bleeding and purging, but it continued for decades as the standard treatment for every kind of illness or injury.Other harmful abuses during this era of Heroic medicine included blistering and emetics to make the patient throw up. Edison (talk) 04:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The practice of bloodletting is much older than the 1790s, in fact one could say that it was from the last half of the 1700s and onwards that the process of ending the practice began through more and more practical experiments in the field of medicine (although it is correct that it was not abandonded completely until the late 19th century).--Saddhiyama (talk) 09:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Smoking, and the theory of humorism, seem to fit the bill. See Smoking is good for you. As late as the early 20th century people thought that smoking would cure a bad chest. "Here, sonny, have a gasper, it'll do you the world of good and no mistake." Ericoides (talk) 08:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Challenger disaster is a very well documented incident that seems to meet your criteria:
"A community of people" - senior management in the Space Shuttle programme ...
"had a clear goal in mind" - wanted to demonstrate that the Space Shuttle was safe and reliable ...
"but as the result of some serious misinformation" - but a failure to communicate serious safety concerns up the chain of command ...
"they all acted in a way that was radically counterproductive" - led to a tragic loss of life and grounding of the Space Shuttle fleet for almost three years.
"at the time there were people who knew what this group was doing was counterproductive" - engineers at Morton Thiokol expressed their concern about the effect of the temperature on the resilience of the rubber O-rings on the evening before the launch ...
"but the people in the group didn't listen to those people" - but they were overruled by Morton Thiokol management.
There's a perpetual fad for skin lightening; venetian ceruse was certainly harmful, but it fails your "people who knew this was counterproductive" test, but mercury-based skin whitening preparations continue to be used in countries with poor regulation, although there's strong medical evidence that it's dangerous. 87.113.26.43 (talk) 12:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WOW!! I didn't check this for a day, and look what I got. Thank you everyone. I'm going to look through these and see how they fit with my overall project. If anyone has any more ideas keep them coming, but thank you everyone for your quick help! --best, kevin[kzollman][talk]15:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See Tragedy of the commons. Almost any example of over-exploitation of a common resource will work for you. This has been going on since before the invention of agriculture. Examples include hunting the manoth to extinction, the deforestation of the seats fo many great civilization ofthe past (Greece, Rome, Israel...) salinization of crop land in India, overfishing in lots of places, global warming, air pollution in London, air pollution in eastern europe and many more. In each case, the activity seems like a good idea to most folks, and at some point a few people notice that bad things are happenihg. -Arch dude (talk) 20:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Getting a deep bronze suntan to look healthy and fit, until the skin cancers pop up amidst the wrinkled ruins of the person's skin. Edison (talk) 02:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've been trying to poke around google and the various Iowa government sites to find this, but I'm having trouble. I'm trying to find the annual revenues earned by Iowa farms, broken down by crop. I've seen crops compared in terms of acres or bushels, but what I'm really trying to get a hold on is how much money is at stake, so I figure revenue is a better figure (or maybe net profits or appraisal value, but I haven't seen those either). Yes, I know that the ballpark answer will be "corn is really important, then soy, then some other stuff," but I'd really love to get a more exact economic picture than that. Thanks! --M@rēino21:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of hat is Garibaldi wearing here? There's a mention of a "Garibaldi cap" in one list of hats, but there's no more information than that. Does anyone know the name of this kind of hat? (Yeah, it's a dumb question, but it's driving me nuts.) Thanks. CSWarren (talk) 01:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is most definately neither of those, nor is it the Indonesian Peci, since Garibaldi was not North African, Arabic, or Indonesian, despite the similar brimless caps. Consider that the yarmulke and the zucchetto are considered different hats despite almost identical construction, cultural context is very important here! This is probably an Italian peasant cap of some sort; Garibaldi liked to style himself a "man of the people" and dress himself not as a military commander or politician, but as a commoner. The List of hats and headgear only calls it a "Garibaldi cap" as well, though I doubt it was exclusive to him. He may have picked it up as an affectation in some of his many travels; Garibaldi was essentially the Che Guevara of his generation, fomenting rebellion across several continents. It should also be noted that he is pictured wearing a few different hats in some other pics. He's wearing what appears to be a French musketeers cap in these two paintings:[12] and [13] and he has different floppy had in this sculpture in Brazil: [14]. --Jayron32.talk.contribs03:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may be a kepi (either with no visor, or the visor isn't visible at the angle shown in the picture); in George Macaulay Trevelyan's Garibaldi's defence of the Roman Republic he says "Garibaldi sometimes wore a cap (possibly sometimes a kepi), but his most common headgear at this time was his peaked hat," (ref). 87.113.26.43 (talk) 13:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a closer view of Garibaldi's decorative cap, and I'm pretty sure it has no visor. The Garibaldini sometimes wore a type of kepi, similar to the "chasseur cap" or "McClellan cap", see for example the images under Cacciatori delle Alpi or Nino Bixio. But I'm pretty sure the cap CSWarren is asking about lacks a visor and is not a kepi. ---Sluzzelintalk15:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, a Kepi seems to be universally a rigid cap with short visor. Garibaldi may have worn one at some time (especially seing the reference provided) but this one is clearly a soft, cylindrical, embroidered visorless cap, rather than the stiff kepi. --Jayron32.talk.contribs18:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Benjamin Franklin's Political Affiliations
Franklin didn't live long enough to see the first political parties, so I'm left with the question: Should Benjamin Franklin have lived long enough, what political party would have Franklin fought for, if any? 65.34.141.207 (talk) 05:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"At this time, many members of the Pennsylvania Assembly were feuding with William Penn's heirs, who controlled the colony as proprietors. Franklin led the "anti-proprietary party" in the struggle against the Penn family, and was elected Speaker of the Pennsylvania House in May 1764. His call for a change from proprietary to royal government was a rare political miscalculation, however: Pennsylvanians worried that such a move would endanger their political and religious freedoms. Because of these fears, and because of political attacks on his character, Franklin lost his seat in the October 1764 Assembly elections. The anti-proprietary party dispatched Franklin to England to continue the struggle against the Penn family proprietorship, but during this visit, events would drastically change the nature of his mission.[42]" 208.70.31.206 (talk) 07:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the original questioner was wondering whether Franklin would have more naturally aligned with the Jeffersonians (the "Democratic-Republicans") or with the Hamiltonians (the "Federalists" in the 1792 sense of the word). Of course, Franklin was a "Federalist" in the 1788 sense of the word, since he was involved in the constitutional convention... AnonMoos (talk) 12:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that Franklin would have been more comfortable with the Jeffersonians. It's hard to imagine Franklin in the camp of the anti-French Federalist party, and even harder to imagine Franklin the printer and political satirist making common cause with the party of the Alien and Sedition Acts. Of course, Franklin's protégé and grandson, Benjamin Franklin Bache, was a Jeffersonian and the scourge of the Federalist party, if that means anything. One way to think about the question is this: was Franklin more in tune with Jefferson or John Adams? Personal relationships perhaps provide the clue: Adams hated Franklin, while Jefferson idolized him. (P.S. I wrote that quoted paragraph above about Franklin & the anti-proprietary party. It's a pleasure to see it quoted, and to know that the paragraph hasn't yet been mangled into tripe!) —KevinMyers12:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, cool. I looked in the BF article expecting to find that BF was a member of the Whig Party (United States). I was very surprised to find that party wasn't formed until 1834. I knew that colonial separatists like Franklin called themselves "Whigs" but didn't realize that the Whig Party was different and came later. 208.70.31.206 (talk) 06:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Keep in mind too that the Whigs of colonial America were not really "separatists" until late in the game—1774 at the earliest, and usually not until '75 or '76. The American Whig movement, like that in Britain, was about resisting arbitrary government. Whigs like Franklin were very happy to be British right up until the American Revolution. —KevinMyers14:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thomas cook and son logo 1898
I have been trying to locate the 1898 logo of thomas cook and son, including writing directly to thomas cook archives, but have been unsuccessful. all internet references give the history or the recent logos. library books with images show only very pixelated images of the sign above the office.
help would be very appreceated. M1972 (talk) 06:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If possible (and if you haven't already tried it), see if your accessible libraries have copies (probably bound into volumes) of newspapers, magazines or journals from that period that would feature advertisements, and search for Thos. Cook ads, which would likely feature any logos. Something like Punch would seem a likely bet. 87.194.161.147 (talk) 12:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is the date 1898 significant? (I ask because that is when Thomas Cook funded Kaiser Wilhelm's visit to the Holy Land, and I remember reading that their logo was ostentatiously displayed everywhere, but I can't find any pictures of the Kaiser's trip). Adam Bishop (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Role Of Marketing in Network Economy
This is new topic and very difficult to find the information. Could you pl. help me.
Hmm, you'd think that article would say, but it doesn't seem to. Old and New London: Volume 4 by Edward Walford says of the area "About the time of Domesday Book, the manor of Eia was divided into three smaller manors, called, respectively, Neyte, Eabury, and Hyde. The latter still lives and flourishes as a royal park, under its ancient name, no doubt of Saxon origin". The Oxford Book of British Place Names says the various "Hyde" placenames, including Hyde Park, comes from the anglo-saxon unit of land taxation, the hyde. 87.113.26.43 (talk) 11:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, im trying to find a map to the level of detail of showing the Non-metropolitan districts of England (inc. Wales/Scotland etc if possible). Im struggleing and on Wikipedia can only find that level of detail one county at a time rather than on a whole map of England/the UK.
Have you tried looking at one of the UK government websites? The one that comes instantly to my mind is [www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk]. If not there, it has links to other government websites that may be able to help. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Economics makes my hair fall out. I'm fairly well-educated, but I've never been able to make head or tail of it. Simple language help please...
I'm bemused by this chart of supply and demand, which I've seen many times down the years in similar versions. The red lines make sense to me - as an item becomes more scarce, where Q is reduced, the price increases. But what the heck is the blue line about and what's the difference between "Supply" (S) and "quantity of good" (Q)?
"Supply" and "demand" in this context actually refer to the "supply curve" and "demand curve". They are functions of price. The higher the price the more it makes sense to produce (eg. you can afford to use more fertiliser so can grow your crop of less fertile land while still remaining profitable, so there is more total land available for growing the crop) and also the fewer people will want to buy it (they will decide it is a luxury they can't afford or that something else better value). In an efficient market the price of the good will become the price where the supply curve and demand curve meet. The "quantity of good" is simply the amount of the good produced and sold at that price. --Tango (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You did not get it correctly. You have to read it that way : at each price level (P), what is the quantity (Q) that buyers are ready to buy (D, red line) and sellers ready to sell (S, blue line) ? The more expensive the product, the smaller the demand, hence the red line is downward sloped. The more expensive the product, the bigger the supply, hence the blue line is upward sloped.
The whole idea of the chart is that, by a process of confrontation, error and trial (that never was really studied), supply and demand will reach an equilibrium, that is the price for which demand is exactly the same than supply. That's where the two lines cross each other. Gede (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for trying to help chaps, I'm squirming my way through this swamp. "The more expensive the product, the bigger the supply"? How does that work? There must be fewer Rolls Royces than Renaults for sale? Surely cheap products proliferate and expensive ones do not? --Dweller (talk) 23:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We're talking here of one and only one product : Renault and Roll Royce are two different products and have two (very) different markets. So : the more expensive the Renault, the bigger the supply of Renault. To know if and how much the demand of Renault goes up when the price of Roll Royce increases if another question that's going to make the swamp muddier, but you can see "Cross elasticity of demand". --Gede (talk) 00:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine an economy where everyone's on welfare, wondering whether they should grow cabbages or not (that's the only thing that can be produced). Let's say, theoretically, the government were to set the price of cabbages to be $20. Let's say 100 people would be tempted by this price and go and grow cabbages. But say tomorrow, the government declares that the price of cabbages is now $50. More people - let's say 200 - would be tempted by the profit they can make - and decide to grow cabbages as well.
That is to say, if the price increased from $20 to $50, the number of people willing to grow cabbages increases from 100 to 200, so the supply of cabbages will increase. The line that traces this change is the supply curve.
Now, in the kind of economy assumed in those diagrams, the price isn't set by the government, it's set by how many people out there are willing to buy cabbages, and how much they are willing to pay them -- that's the demand curve. For example, at $50, only a handful of people will be willing to buy cabbages, whereas at $20, more people are wiling to buy them. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article on demand curve actually makes a fair hack at explaining the graph (but I assume you've read that already Dweller in which case this comment is of little help). Rolls Royces may be a Veblen good where demand increases as price increases, so probably isn't the best example to superimpose on the model. Cabbages are better, though I always prefer potatoes. Fouracross (talk) 10:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that occurred to me when I finished typing... but please don't confuse the OP anymore. Might be better to just substitute "Widgets" for "potatoes"/"cabbages"/"rolls royces".... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: This is not a request for legal advice as I do not participate in cruelty to animals, merely an information-gathering exercise out of curiousity.
Rule of thumb: any animal that actually poses a danger to you is probably covered. Animals that are completely harmless, you can kill with impunity. --81.170.28.14 (talk) 08:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In 1996, Jose Serrano in NY-16 won 96.3% of the vote to 2.9% for the Republican candidate. That may be a record for a race between candidates of the two major parties. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 06:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Economics: Is it optimal to have different or equal tax rates?
Why Tax Rates Vary
Taxes on expenditure create deadweight losses whose size depends on the elasticity of demand and supply. If there is a choice between taxing two goods whose elasticities of supply are equal, then taxing the one with the more inelastic demand will minimize the deadweight loss from taxation.
Taxes and the Allocation of Resources
In an economy with no market failure, there will be an efficient allocation of resources. But if taxes are levied on some goods and not others, there will be an inefficient allocation of resources. Taxing all goods and services at the same rate could restore allocative efficiency.
(Parkin & King: Economics, 2nd ed., p. 541)
Are these two statements not contradictory? E.g. the petrol/gas tax is higher than most other taxes, and demand for petrol is inelastic. Would it be welfare-improving to smooth out tax rates or not, under perfect market assumptions? Jacob Lundberg (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"You can now see why taxing lemonade [highly elastic demand] is not on the agenda of any of the major parties. Vote-seeking politicians seek out taxes that benefit the median voter. So, other things being equal, they try to minimize the deadweight loss of raising a given amount of revenue. Equivalently, they tend to impose heavy taxes on items such as petrol, alcohol and tobacco where demand is inelastic." (ibid, p. 534)
So different tax rates is a government failure? Do politicians suffer from myopia when setting tax rates and do not see the whole picture – that they are distorting the overall economy? (Again, assuming away externalities etc.) Jacob Lundberg (talk) 09:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Real-world decisions have to take into account a lot more than the economic impacts of an outcome. Different tax rates are not a government failure, they are an attempt to balance the need to raise taxes with the desire of the general population to avoid paying more tax than they need to. Sometimes tax is set based on an agenda (e.g. high taxes to disuade use and turn people off that product/service) and sometimes they are trying to maximise revenue. The decisions of political parties are part economic, part social, part beliefs, part party preference, part marketing and countless other factors beyond. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 13:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying, but I'm not talking about the real world. ;) Am I correct in saying that in economic theory, assuming no externalities, perfect markets and all that, the best way to raise taxes is through a general tax, regardless of how elasticities differ? Jacob Lundberg (talk) 13:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the best way would be to tax the most inelastic things as much as possible (to raise a given amount of revenue). Then you would have the least deadweight loss per dollar (or whatever) of tax revenue. When the book says "if taxes are levied on some goods and not others, there will be an inefficient allocation of resources", I believe they mean goods of the same elasticity. Recury (talk) 16:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An economist would say that the most efficient tax would be a lump-sum tax. Say, a tax of $100 per person, regardless of income. This tax doesn't influence behavior in any way, and - in the partial equilibrium framework - creates no dead weight loss. It's just a transfer. People will still choose to work just as much, and the relative "bundle of goods" that they consume will remain constant (albeit there will be less per person; the mix will stay the same).
As soon as you use the word 'best' though, it's assumed that you'll be taking into account both efficiency and equity (equality). Nearly every policy trades these two things off against eachother. Economic theory can't tell us at what rate efficiency ought to be traded off for equity.
A fixed percentage tax on everything (a general tax), influences behaviour: for example, the labour-leisure tradeoff. This is, of course, unless the tax is also on "time spent not working" I suppose. This would be more like a lump-sum.
Also, many goods with inelastic demand are "sin" goods. Liquor, tobacco etc. Some would argue that these goods produce negative externalities and ought to be taxed at a higher rate to internalize that externality: to make the decision maker bear the social cost, not just the private cost. Oh. You mentioned, "no externalities." Sorry.NByz (talk) 18:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All taxes change behavior, even ones such as the flat-value tax you say don't. Consider the $100 per person tax; someone who is rich enough that they wipe their ass with $100 bills wouldn't think twice about changing anything in their lives to pay that tax; however someone living in a limited income may find such a tax a hinderance to spending in parts of their lives; they would most certainly have to alter their behavior to work $100.00 spending into their budget. --Jayron32.talk.contribs20:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I mean "best" as in "efficient". I am only interested in what the most efficient VAT policy would be on a perfectly functioning free market.
Recury, you seem to have changed your mind. Above, you wrote that smoothing out tax rates would be welfare-improving regardless of elasticities, while in your second post you say that the best way is to tax inelastic goods as much as possible. (You seem to contradict yourself in exactly the same way the book contradicts itself. How can different tax rates be most efficient (least deadweight loss, best welfare outcome) on a micro level while on a "macro" level it is best to tax goods at the same rate? Is it because the elasticities sum to one?) Jacob Lundberg (talk) 01:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering why is there no article on the current moratorium stopping the foreclosures in California? Usually current topics like this land on wikipedia very fast, but I can't find any relevant content. --Spundun (talk) 03:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are all the amendments of the US Constitution on display at the National Archives. I know that the Bill of Rights and a few others are, but what about the rest? Are they displayed elsewhere, or just not important enough to put under glass? Tiailds (talk) 09:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A note here: There is no single "original" copy of the U.S. Bill of Rights. According to United States Bill of Rights, Congress made 14 copies of the Bill of Rights, one to keep and one to distribute to each state. The copy in the National Archives is thought to be the one sent to Georgia or Maryland. It's possible that Congressional leaders as late as 1971 (when the 26th Amendment was passed) sent formal printed copies of proposed constitutional amendments to the states, even though today's communications technology means that isn't really necessary. If that's the case, those copies are probably in the hands of the states if they're still around. The National Archives keeps copies of old bills, which presumably includes proposed constitutional amendments. See ([18]). Since hundreds of copies of proposed legislation are printed, there's probably no single "original" copy of latter-day constitutional amendments, either. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 18:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't there be an official or "executed" copy of any legislation. signed by the officials who thus assert that it is enacted? This is true of many official acts. Otherwise, how is one to know that a supposed "bill" or "amendment" is not the random caprice of a printer? Edison (talk) 04:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any kind of speculation like this is pretty useless because little tics like that are influenced by culture and your upbringing in early life, which varies a lot across the world. See Tic, although I don't really care for that article as it currently mostly talks about them in the context of mental disorders. Tempshill (talk) 16:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Royal political involvement in a constitutional monarchy
I've long known that constitutional monarchs weren't supposed to be involved in politics. However, after reading Royal family, I was surprised, for its wording suggested to me that, in most constitutional monarchies, members of royal families aren't allowed to vote. Is this true, or is it simply that they can exercise political preferences but only at the ballot box? Nyttend (talk) 13:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some royal families of constitutional monarchies do not have the right to vote, others have the right but do not exercise it, as to do so would not be in accordance with the need for the appearance of neutrality. I can't think of a royal family that has the right to vote and exercises it, but I'd be interested to hear if there are any. Fouracross (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's somewhere in my memory that members of the House of Lords are not allowed to vote either. The theory, I believe, is that they are already represented in parliament, so they don't need a representitive in the Commons. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's kind of a distant relic of the old European "three estates" system (in which nobility, clergy, and commoners all had their separate consultative assemblies). The traditional mid-20th-century journalistic phrase was something along the lines that all except lords, lunatics, paupers and felons were eligible to vote... AnonMoos (talk) 19:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
crosses
If you are awarded the Victoria Cross, you get VC after your name.
If you are awarded the George Cross, you get GC after your name.
That's right. The use of a post-nominal is not authorized for a Commemorative emblem. It is only authorized for some decorations, honors and awards. --ŦħęGɛя㎥19:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Babenberg Ladies
I am creating a list of the consorts of Austria and I am currently on the Babenberg Margravines and Duchesses but I a little stuck with the images on Wikipedia commons. Some of the titles don't match up with the descriptions. Can someone translate these descriptions for me? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 22:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deutsch: Markgräfin Adelheid (Frowiza), Schwester von König Peter von Ungarn. (Babenberger Stammbaum, Stift Klosterneuburg)
Deutsch: Agnes von Meran, 2. Gemahlin Herzog Friedrichs II. (rechts), und dessen 1. Frau, hier unrichtig Gertraud von Braunschweig, in Wirklichkeit Sophia von Byzanz (links). Ausschnitt aus dem Babenberger Stammbaum, Stift Klosterneuburg.
Deutsch: Gertrud, Erbtochter der Babenberger, Markgräfin von Mähren und Baden. Ausschnitt aus dem Babenberger Stammbaum, Stift Klosterneuburg.
Deutsch: Markgräfin Agnes, Gattin Markgraf Leopold III. (Babenberger Stammbaum, Stift Klosterneuburg)
Deutsch: Markgräfin Mechthild, Gattin Markgraf Ernst des Strengen. (Babenberger Stammbaum, Stift Klosterneuburg)
Deutsch: Markgräfin Swanhilt, Gattin von Markgraf Heinrich I. (Babenberger Stammbaum, Stift Klosterneuburg)
English: Markgravine Adelheid (Frowiza), sister of King Peter of Hungary. (Babenberg pedigree, Klosterneuburg Convent)
English: Agnes von Meran, 2nd wife of Duke Friedrichs II. (right), and his 1st wife, here called Gertraud of Brunswick, but in reality Sophia of Byzantium (links). Excerpt from the Babenberg pedigree, Klosterneuburg Convent.
English: Gertrude, Heiress of Babenberg, countess of Moravia and Baden. Excerpt from the Babenberg pedigree, Klosterneuburg Convent.
English: Markgravine Agnes, wife of Margrave Leopold III. (Babenberg pedigree, Stift Klosterneuburg)
English: Markgravine Mechthild, wife of Margrave Ernst the Harsh. (Babenberg pedigree, Klosterneuburg Convent)
English: Markgravine Swanhilt, wife of Margrave Heinrich I. (Babenberg pedigree, Klosterneuburg Convent)
English: Rikhard (Agnes), wife of Heinrich the Cruel. (Babenberg pedigree, Klosterneuburg Convent)
Where Did Tolstoy, Live Around The Time Dostoevsky wrote crime and punishment.
Hello, my question is short and sweet I`am the aspiring screenwriter. Who wrote about the World War I solider on the miscellaneous page. I`m doing research on the two for a screenplay on crime and punishment. I want to know, where did Tolstoy live around the time Dostoevsky wrote crime and punishment.
For a 4th of July Parade tomorrow, I need to tune up a snare drum. The heads seem to be loose and the snares are woefully loose. I am filling in as a drummer. How would one determine when the upper and lower heads are at the proper tightness, and when the snares are properly tightened. This drum has a rotary adjustment for the snares as well as a lever to apply or loosen the snares. Normally a brass player, played snare many years ago for a bit. Thanks. Edison (talk) 02:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Parachutes for passengers in planes
why aren't there parachutes in every plane so more lives could be saved. Instead of life jackets of course. Any article?. I find it interesting. Thanks. --190.50.120.109 (talk) 03:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The logistics really would not be too feasible except in a very small number of situations. Maybe if the landing gear is out, but everything else is working, and the plane has plenty of fuel to fly low and slow for an extended period. Otherwise, parachutes probably wouldn't do too much except for a few highly lucky people and/or highly-trained parachutists in a rather unusual and rarely-occuring situation... AnonMoos (talk) 03:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a catastrophic plane failure, they're not going to have time to use the parachutes (those who bothered to listen to the pre-flight instructions). If it's something less serious, like what AnonMoos described, then the pilots would most likely try to land the plane. So either way, parachutes are pretty much useless. However, there are parachutes for entire small planes - see Ballistic Recovery Systems for an example. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
)... AnonMoos (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Deutsch: Markgräfin Adelheid (Frowiza), Schwester von König Peter von Ungarn. (Babenberger Stammbaum, Stift Klosterneuburg)
Deutsch: Agnes von Meran, 2. Gemahlin Herzog Friedrichs II. (rechts), und dessen 1. Frau, hier unrichtig Gertraud von Braunschweig, in Wirklichkeit Sophia von Byzanz (links). Ausschnitt aus dem Babenberger Stammbaum, Stift Klosterneuburg.
Deutsch: Gertrud, Erbtochter der Babenberger, Markgräfin von Mähren und Baden. Ausschnitt aus dem Babenberger Stammbaum, Stift Klosterneuburg.
Deutsch: Markgräfin Agnes, Gattin Markgraf Leopold III. (Babenberger Stammbaum, Stift Klosterneuburg)
Deutsch: Markgräfin Mechthild, Gattin Markgraf Ernst des Strengen. (Babenberger Stammbaum, Stift Klosterneuburg)
Deutsch: Markgräfin Swanhilt, Gattin von Markgraf Heinrich I. (Babenberger Stammbaum, Stift Klosterneuburg)
Deutsch: Rikhard (Agnes), Gattin Heinrichs des Grausamen. (Babenberger Stammbaum, Stift Klosterneuburg)
Deutsch: Markgräfin Sophie, 2. Gattin Markgraf Adalberts. (Babenberger Stammbaum, Stift Klosterneuburg)
![[12]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Attacco_garibaldino_contro_i_francesi_30_aprile_1849.jpg){kind=link}
![[13]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Giuseppe_e_Anita_Garibaldi_trovano_rifugio_a_San_Marino.JPG){kind=link}
![[14]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Azenha_-_Place_Garibaldi_02.JPG){kind=link}
