Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

December 29

Catholic Communion Practices

My spouse maintains that, in the Catholic rite of communion, only the bread is distributed to the participants; the wine is drunk only by the priest(s). I know that both are distributed in those protestant churches that use the rite (in Canada, in the Anglican and United churches, for example). The WP article on the Eucharist suggests both are distributed. Does anyone know for certain? If the answer is that both are distributed, has this always been the case? Bielle (talk) 01:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

My family is Catholic and whenever we went to church here in the UK we only received the Host and never the wine. I was always told b my parents that when I grew up I would be old enough to receive the wine, but to be honest, I had noticed that it was only the priest who took it and nobody else. I do not have any sources for this, so I guess I can only offer this as OR. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

See Communion under both kinds. At one time the Roman church reserved the cup to the clergy, although this has been changing over the past century or so. (I have been to RC services where the laity were given bread, and where they were given both bread and wine.) Anglican canon law requires both the bread and wine to be distributed to the laity, as a reaction to the practice of reserving the cup to the clergy (see Article 30 of the Thirty-Nine Articles). Finally, this Anglican would like not to be called a Protestant, if it's all right with you. Marnanel (talk) 02:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Having been raised in the 1980's in American Roman Catholic churches, the laity were given both the bread and wine. I believe the practice changed for many (but of course, not all) Roman Catholics after Vatican II. --Jayron32 02:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, all. If we have a source for Jayron32's suggestion that the practice changed with Vatican II, it could be an addition to Eucharist. The dates are right for his thought to be an answer to my original query; my spouse's memory would have been rooted in his teen and pre-teen years, prior to the early 1960s, when he last had a consistent relationship with formal religion.

And in response to Marnanel, an Anglican "who would like not to be called a Protestant", so be it. You are not a Protestant. I had no idea that there was any controversy to the inclusion. (There is yet another topic I need to add to my "falling behind the times" list of readings.) Bielle (talk) 04:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

To respond to Bielle's question on Anglican being not protestant: Protestants are members of Christian sects/denominations who derive their origins from Martin Luther or John Calvin or Huldrych Zwingli or similar reformers as part of the protestant reformation; they sought to reform the church and had serious theological and practical differences with the Catholic church. Anglicanism (known as Episcopalianism in the U.S.) arose primarily as a church governance issue (whether or not the Pope served as the head of the church or not). Anglicans, in their origin, had very little objection to Catholic theology or liturgy (indeed, many of the practices observed in Anglican/Episcopalian churches would be very recognizable to any Roman Catholic) and are not really "Protestants" in any definition of the word, since the Anglican church didn't arise from the tradition that produced the Reformation. --Jayron32 04:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

"Many of the practices" and words of the liturgy of the Eucharist in the Lutheran church would also "be very recognizable" to Catholics. Edison (talk) 04:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

True, but the Lutheran Church has a strong historical connection to the Reformation; the Anglican church does not. The Anglican church didn't start out in protest to anything theological; rather it was mostly about the right of governance of the Church. The English church went through a wild roller coaster ride during the reigns of the Tudors and Stuarts. Still, on the balance most of the theological positions of the Catholic church (with the notable exception of the right of priests to marry) were retained by the Anglican church. The two have drifted further apart theologically over time, but initially the intent was to keep the English church basically "Catholic minus the Pope". It is the fact that the early Anglican church had no origins in the Reformation (though later developments were influenced by it) that may lead a member of the Anglican Communion to object to being called a "Protestant". Its a simplistic view that holds that Christendom exists in 3 strains, "Orthodox", "Catholic", and "Protestant". In reality, it is much more nuanced than that. --Jayron32 04:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Jayron32 gives one useful and valid definition of Protestant, but it's not the only one; in British legislation the Church of England is clearly classified as Protestant (the Bill of Rights 1689 calls the nation "this Protestant kingdom" and requires the monarch to be Protestant and to take a coronation oath to maintain the Protestant religion, and the Act of Settlement 1701 requires the monarch to be a Protestant descendant of Princess Sophia. The Protestant religion here is, of course, Anglicanism. - Nunh-huh 05:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Very true; many Anglicans, including apparently Parliament at various times, has no problem with considering the Anglican church to be a protestant one. However, it is clear that some Anglicans (at least one above) does have an objection to such a classification. I was merely providing some background as to why an Anglican may object to being called a Protestant. It was not an attempt to say that they definitively were, or weren't, merely an explanation of one side of the issue. As I said, its a nuanced issue, as much informed by each persons individualized theology as anything. It is best to say that some Anglicans think of themselves as protestants, and some do not. I was merely trying to provide a background as to why one would not. --Jayron32 05:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree with anything you've said, I'm just pointing out that since the Church of England is an established church (by acts of Parliament), one can't simply ignore that the body that established it says it's protestant. - Nunh-huh 05:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I would also add that the view that the Anglican Church was really founded simply so that the King could be in charge, rather than the Pope, is consistent with the version I learnt in an English Catholic primary school, whereas the view that it was part of the Protestant movement, and was a popular uprising by the people, is consistent with the version I learnt in an English (supposedly secular) secondary school. I was forced to conclude at a tender age that neither was entirely consistent with all the facts I had to hand, and that the truth had to be some combination of these. Oddly, the (at first glance, more biased) Catholic version seemed to include more facts that were absent from the 'establishment' version than vice versa. At least this taught me to be wary of my textbooks.

Oh, and the wine with communion is largely a Vatican II thing, but there's an element of individual parishes, priests, bishops, diocese and archbishops making decisions, as well as more Vatican-led changes. For example, about 15 years ago the bishop for my diocese visited us to carry out confirmations and told us that if any of the girls wanted to be altar servers, let him know (previously, we had only had altar boys, and our priest was opposed to female altar servers). Globally, this decision had been made much earlier. Similarly, maybe about a decade ago, there was a crackdown on the wording of the parts of the Mass, and previously popular sung arrangements which altered the words (even just by repeating them in a non-standard way) were completely removed from practice unless used as hymns. About the same time, communion was changed to include wine for the laity, and many more extraordinary ministers were trained to allow for this. I am unsure if this was a Vatican-led crackdown, or if it was just that we got a new bishop, or quite what happened. But, in brief, these things change for a number of reasons, and they tend to propagate out to parishes at variable rates. 86.164.67.8 (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

More OR: I was an "attending" Catholic as a child in Perth, Western Australia, and I recall in the late 1970s and early 1980s that for most weekly masses, the wine was only drunk by the priest, while the laity received only the Eucharist. However at masses for some significant event (Christmas, etc) - and/or possibly only at some specific churches - the laity received wine as well. I'm uncertain of the details, because it was a long time ago, and also it was usual from me to attend the small local church most weeks, but attend a larger church on "special occasions", such as Christmas, funerals, Catholic school annual masses etc, so any distinctions in my mind may be due to selection bias. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

In Canada we never get the wine (at least since the 1980s), although I did get to drink it once in an Anglican mass. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I am an Argentinian Catholic, and I recently got married. We had a mass (not just the wedding ceremony) and both my spouse and myself had Communion under both kinds. I remembered once before, as a teenager, we had also Communion under both kinds in a mass inside a stadium. So communion in both species is admitted, but not widespread (at least in here). I must remark that the deacon also has the wine, not just the priest (after all, the deacon is in charge of the chalice). Sometimes, also the (extraordinary) ministers of communion recieve both species.
Lastly, I've seen coeliac sufferers (or people suffering from similar conditions) receive communion under the species of wine, from the chalice, just after the priest drinks from it. Pallida  Mors 19:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all; this has been a wonderfully entertaining read. Bielle (talk) 03:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

(Interesting idea for coeliac sufferers to receive under the species of wine only. I have seen special wafers used for this.) Marnanel (talk) 16:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem with special wafers if that "Pastors and the faithful are reminded that for bread to be valid matter for the Eucharist, it must be made solely of wheat; contain enough gluten to effect the confection of bread; be free of foreign materials and unaffected by any preparation or baking methods which would alter its nature. The amount of gluten necessary for validity in such bread is not determined by minimum percentage or weight, though hosts which have no gluten are considered invalid matter for Mass. In the Roman Rite, the bread prepared for the Eucharist must also be unleavened." [1], so it is a bit tricky: there are low gluten options, although you need a dispensation and it can't be gluten-free, so only receiving the wine (if possible) is easier for most. It gets harder for priests, who must partake of both species when carrying out Mass: I've had a coeliac priest who broke the smallest possible bit from the wafer for himself. 86.164.67.8 (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

legal

i need a copy of the fourth amendment and related materials, uch a search warants, surreptitios entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.65.68.8 (talk) 02:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is the text of all ammendments to the U.S. constitution, from www.house.gov: [2]. I'm not sure what you mean by "related materials", but search warrant is a Wikipedia article which covers that. The Wikipedia article Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution has lots of background info on the 4th amendment as well. --Jayron32 02:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

2nd Book on History of Roosevelt NY

I am the author of One Square Mile please advance data with addition of Beyong the Wishing Well- Sheldon Parrish —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.236.25 (talk) 03:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't parse that. Could you, as an author, please elaborate your question so we can answer it intelligently? Thanks! --Jayron32 03:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is a book called "One Square Mile: The History of Roosevelt NY from an Autobiographical Perspective" by Sheldon Parrish [3].

Are you writing now a second book from that perspective, Sheldon? Could you clarify how you would like us to try to help you with that? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

why Parliament?

why we need a Parliament? I think, it slows down government. whatever politicians want to discuss they could do so through public forums or through multiple radio / tv channels. I don't think, one guy speaks and others listen, is not a wise thing these people are doing. what is the rationale behind this entire Parliament and discussions? how this can be justified in this Internet era? --V4vijayakumar (talk) 04:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

If humans had perfect prescience, and the ability to forsee the best way to solve all problems, governance would be unneccesary. The fact that we have problems, and that those problems do not have obvious solutions, requires people to deliberate over how to best solve those problems. The solving of "big problems" requires the existance of a deliberative body to work through the various proposed solutions and to arive at a sort of consensus way to approach them. While different modern societies have arived at subtly different ways to approach this deliberation, they all seem to require some sort of body, be it Parliament, Duma, Knesset, or Congress, to discuss, debate, and deliberate over the best way to solve problems. The danger in letting one person make all of the decisions without confering with anyone (totalitarianism) is if the person makes the wrong decision, or is more likely, as motivations less honorable than "the good of the nation". --Jayron32 05:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Question is about neither favouring totalitarianism nor against Parliament system. It is about Parliament's inherent nature of discussion. why we need system like one guy speaks, and others listen? what is stopping us to embrace new(?) technologies (like tv, radio, internet) and make use of other efficient methods? Governments are using these mediums, why not ditch parliament, in favour of these ways? --V4vijayakumar (talk) 05:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about the use of Parliamentary procedure like Erskine May: Parliamentary Practice for governing how a Parliament operates? Or over the very concept of requiring an actual group of people to meet in one room to discuss issues of the day? --Jayron32 05:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

second one. "the very concept of requiring an actual group of people to meet in one room to discuss issues of the day" --122.172.41.118 (talk) 06:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The answer is that they by-and-large do not. What you see in the actual chambers of parliament is the end bit of a process that is largely done exactly as you describe. Most of the text and specifics of bills are hammered out in committee meetings of small groups of MPs, and often they will use technology, even including such things as email and videoconferencing, to work out the details of bills. MPs make frequent use of the media to build public support for (or against) various bills as well. The final bit of actually voting on the completed bill does go on in the actual chamber, accompanied with some debate and discussion, but this is actually only a VERY small part of the legislative process. They don't literally write the bill from scratch through parliamentary debate; its often some very small tweaks which are being discussed among the "committee of the whole"; most of the major work is done by the exact methods you describe. --Jayron32 06:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I think more pertinent links would be representative democracy and direct democracy. Small city states, like those in ancient greece, could get everyone together in the agora and everyone permitted a say could have one. Once states became larger a representative would be used to stand in for the views of the people in a region, and they would convene in a parliament or such like. Technology now allows for e-democracy to permit direct democracy over a potentially global scope. As to why we are not at that state of affairs yet, I don't doubt our representatives are less than keen on making themselves redundant but there are lots of attendant problems with such a system: the fact that many are still disenfranchised from modern communications and the problems of ochlocracy. meltBanana 14:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I would come at this from a different angle. It's true that government decisions could possibly be made remotely through an internet forum, though we would still need clear rules on who gets to vote, assuming we want to be democratic, since it would be unfair to let those who have the skill and inclination to spend time on the forum to make decisions that affect others. Also, it would be difficult to have a meaningful discussion if the forum had to accommodate 10,000 different opinions on a subject. Still, technically, it should be possible for elected representatives to make decisions in an online forum or a videoconference. However, this leaves out a very important element. The fact is that we are human beings, primates, and social interactions are much more effective when they happen in person, because of all of the nonverbal cues (body language, the physical environment, perhaps even pheromones) that can't be captured effectively even in a videoconference. Part of the usefulness of parliaments (and particularly of committees and hallway conversations where members meet for more informal discussions) is the rapport and the sense of trust that members are able to build with each other when they meet in person. These qualities are tremendously helpful in achieving the compromises that democratic government requires. Marco polo (talk) 15:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

it would be unfair to let those who have the skill and inclination to spend time on the forum to make decisions that affect others — to be fair, we already have that to some extent with the current system. Marnanel (talk) 19:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean here, Marnanel. Formally, only elected representatives get to make decisions in a parliamentary system. If you are trying to say that those people act at the behest of a moneyed oligarchy, at least in the United States, I won't argue with you, but formally the oligarchy don't vote in the parliament. This is a bit of a tangent. Marco polo (talk) 02:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

David Miller (in his book A Very Short Introduction to Political Philosophy) discusses exactly this topic, namely, why the Internet revolution has not yet made elected representatives redundant or superfluous. He argues (citing Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy by Joseph Schumpeter) that people are simply not competent to make many of the decisions currently entrusted to politicians, and that it is therefore in the interests of people to "outsource" governance and law-making to representatives with whom they broadly agree. Gabbe (talk) 10:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Quote

Once, James Madison said:

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.

By that statement, he meant that humans are imperfect and capable of wrongdoing so government, controls on government, and democracy is necessary.

But did he mean it in a Christian or religious sense? Did he mean it in a Christian or religious context? Was he talking about or referring to original sin or the Fall of Man? Was he talking about or referring to the Christian belief that humans and human nature are sinful? Was he talking about or referring to Christianity or religion? Did he mean all that?

I am asking you all this because I first heard about this statement in Chapter 34: Biblical Christian Politics of the book The Battle for Truth: Defending the Christian Worldview in the Marketplace of Ideas by David Noebel. The chapter said that that was what the statement meant. It also said, "Government became necessary because of the Fall. Since each man is inherently sinful, these sinful tendencies must be kept in check by laws and a government capable of enforcing these laws." and "This Christian understanding of human nature helped pave the way for a more just government than a government founded on a faulty view of human nature.". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.63.234 (talk) 05:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought we covered this issue exhaustively a few weeks ago. To sum up the previous discussion: Madison isn't overly concerned with being scrupulously correct in his use of "angels" as an analogy. He's merely noting the reasons why a) government is necessary and b) government must itself be governed. Any attempt to analyze Madison's quote for religious significance is misguided. It misses the point. Later analysts, such as the one you quote, may have been attempting to draw an explicitly religious or even Christian viewpoint, on the point Madison was making. Lets be clear here: This was not part of Madison's initial quote, these are later additions by later analysts. It may be fine to discuss such concepts on their own; whether, for example, Christian theology requires the existance of government for the exact reasons that Noebel provides in your quote. However, I seriously doubt if Madison's quote has that background to it, however. As I said before, Madison was making a statement about Government, not about Religion. In other words, Madison may accept that government is necessary because people will do bad things; but I am not sure he is thinking about these "bad things" except in the very general sense. He's not thinking of them as "sin" in the sense of being religious proscriptions, merely as the fact that government is necessary to prevent people from being bad, whatever your definition of "bad" is. --Jayron32 05:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's an idea for a fruitful discussion: just how many angels can dance on the top of a pin? And is there any difference if these are Roman Catholic angels or Protestant angels? TomorrowTime (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

In some Protestant denominations, angels don't dance. How many angels can stand on the head of a pin and tell the other angels to stop dancing? —Kevin Myers 00:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's the article: How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? What would it mean for an intelligent being to have no spatial extent (in our 3-space anyway)? If it must have spatial extent, what and where is it? What if angels can "dance" the way we can "focus attention" – how many people can focus their attention on the head of a pin? Does that awareness in some sense "occupy" that space, without having any physical extent in that space? Etc. Who knows? Good question, though. :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The answer to the head-of-a-pin question is: "Either all of them... or none of them." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Golden Jubilee guest lists

Does anybody know who was on the guest list during Queen Victoria of England's Golden Jubilee in 1887? I interested in foreign dignitaries and kings and queens. I heard Emperor Guangxu and Empress Dowager Cixi were invited, but obviously they didn't go in person.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Some "50 foreign kings and princes, along with the heads of Britain's overseas colonies and dominions, attended the feast. The widowed queen was escorted for the evening by Christian IX, King of Denmark. On her other side at the table sat King George I of Greece, whom Victoria knew as Willy...[later] she received a long procession of diplomats and Indian princes." Neutrality^talk 08:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Does anybody know about those who didn't attend but were invited? Also any non-European kings and queens since most of Europes kings and queens were her grandchildren or relatives at the time.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 10:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Supposedly the future Kaiser Wilhelm II spent the Golden Jubilee being his usual obnoxious and arrogant self, insisting on being given an extra high-degree of formal precedence, and making derogatory and racist remarks about some of the non-European royal individuals present (among other things), which is why he wasn't invited back for the Diamond Jubilee... AnonMoos (talk) 13:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Official Guests for Golden Jubilee

King of Denmark King of the Belgians Queen of the Belgians King of Saxony King of the Hellenes Crown Prince of Austria Crown Prince of Germany Crown Princess of Germany Princess Victoria of Prussia Princess Sophie of Prussia Princess Margaret of Prussia Crown Prince of Portugal Crown Princess of Portugal Crown Prince of Sweden Duke of Sparta Infante of Spain, Don Antonio Infanta of Spain, Doha Eulalia Grand Duke Serge Grand Duchess Elizabeth Grand Duke of Hesse Princess Irene of Hesse Princess Alix of Hesse Grand Duke of Mecklenburg-Strelitz Heriditary Grand Duke of Saxe-Weimar Heriditary Grand Duchess of Mecklenberg-Strelitz Duke of Coburg Duc d'Aosta Prince William of Prussia Princess William of Prussia Heriditary Grand Duke of Hesse Prince Henry of Prussia Prince Ludwig of Bavaria Hereditary Prince of Saxe-Meiningen Hereditary Princess of Saxe-Meiningen Prince Philip of Saxe-Coburg Princess Philip of Saxe-Coburg Prince Herman of Saxe-Weimar Prince Louis of Baden Prince George of the Hellenes Prince of Leiningen Princess of Leiningen Prince Louis of Battenberg Princess Louis of Battenberg Prince Hohenlohe Lagenberg Prince and Princess Edward of Saxe-Weimar Prince of Wales Princess of Wales Duke of Edinburgh Duchess of Edingburgh Duke of Connaught Duchess of Connaught Prince Christian of Schleswig-Holstein Prince Victor of Schleswig-Holstein Princess Louise, Marchioness of Lorne Marquis of Lorne Duchess of Albany Princess Beatrice, Princess Henry of Battenberg Prince Henry of Battenberg Duke of Cambridge Duke of Teck Duchess of Teck Princess Victoria of Teck Prince Frederick of Anhalt Prince Ernest of Saxe-Meingen Some others in the procession were: Sultaneh of Persia Prince Komatsu of Japan Queen Kapiolani of Hawaii and Princess Loluokalani Prince Devawongse Varoprakar of Siam The Thakir Sahib of Morvi Maharaja and Maharani of Kuch Behar Rao of Kutch Maharaja Holkar of Indore Monsignor Ruffo Scilla was the envoy of the Pope Any errors in the list are probably mine, all from the Times.MilborneOne (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Can we make this an template on her page?(Lihaas (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC));

US VP.

When was the last time the VP was called upon to vote in the senate? i imagine its been quite awhile, but then again i could be wrong.(Lihaas (talk) 13:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC));

For the sake of clarity I guess the OP means the Vice President of the United States. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

We've got an article on that... Seems like the Cheney did it a number of times. This list goes up to 2008; I don't know if it has been updated since. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

That senate page must be updated. it hardly has any delays and by "de facto" law it cant.

One should also add a "total" section to that wikipage(the senate page says 244)

Thanks.Lihaas (talk) 13:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean it can't be un-updated? That's silly. It certainly can be out of date and probably is. The Senate Historical Office, who maintains it, has neither infinite resources nor infinite time, and I think it's pretty clear that they did that report on it in March 2008, which is when it ends. (Note that a number of links on the page are also, as of this moment, dead.) Now, it might be that simply it hasn't happened since then. But I wouldn't trust that page to necessarily be up to date on the matter. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Given the dynamic of the last two years, it doesn't seem implausible that Joe Biden has never been called on in that capacity. There have been lots of close issues in the Senate, but the close vote has usually been cloture, not the bill itself. It's certainly not impossible that there's been some less-noticed bill where a reasonable number of Dems voted with the GOP, but that wasn't important enough for the GOP to force a cloture vote, but I haven't heard about it. --Trovatore (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I guess another possibility would be a 50/50 vote with the Republicans on the "aye" side. Then the Democrats wouldn't need to filibuster; they could just call in Biden to vote "nay". --Trovatore (talk) 20:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I recall it happen routinely. Certainly not on every bill. It is after hours now but Thomas, Library of Congress,should have ready figures as should the VP's Office at the White House.gov — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75Janice (talk • contribs) 23:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The pagan festival of Saturna (not Saturnalia)

The Saturnalia article says towards the end: "The Mishna and Talmud (Avodah Zara 8a) describe a pagan festival called Saturna which occurs 8 days before the winter solstice. It is followed 8 days after the solstice with a festival called Kalenda."

Where can I find more about this Saturna (repeat, not Saturnalia) festival please? After a half hour of Googling, all I've found are dozens of copies of the Wikipedia article, pages where people confuse or fuze Saturna with Saturnalia, and two extremely brief mentions here http://www.ajula.edu/Media/pdf/u6%20-%20chanukah.pdf and here http://onefootwalking.wordpress.com/ Thanks. 92.15.4.201 (talk) 21:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure these are not the same festival, just varient spellings on the same event? --Jayron32 21:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Not according to the Wikipedia article. 92.15.4.201 (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It does seem like the Jewish sources were confused about the name of the festival; "Kalendae" is the name of the first day of any Roman month, not really a specific festival, so they were slightly confused about that too. It probably means Saturnalia. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

A search through this version of Avodah Zara 8a only seem turns up "Saturnalia" and no "Saturna" so it is probably a misspelling that I will now fix. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 22:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, no, it looks like "Saturna" is used in this source (cited in the article). WikiDao ☯ (talk) 22:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The original Hebrew says Saturnura סטרנורא not Saturnalia or Saturna (although that doesn't mean they are not the same). Ariel. (talk) 22:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

[e.c.] At any rate, it looks like an attempt to rationalize some Roman customs by fitting them into the framework of Jewish historical tradition. Iblardi (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

December 30

Giants Ninepin and Thunder

When I was a very young kid someone told me that thunder came from Jesus bowling in the clouds and hitting a strike ever time he threw. I always assumed he made this up to mess with me, but recently someone told me that they thought they remembered a legend somewhere of thunder coming from giants in the sky playing ninepin. If so, then I find it interesting that this story eventually came down to me, with the giants replaced by Jesus.

Does anybody know of any such legend? If so, where does it come from? Thanks. 67.158.4.158 (talk) 05:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

You said pool in your first sentence, but you meant bowling, right ? StuRat (talk) 06:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Err.. yes. Fixed it now. 67.158.4.158 (talk) 07:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Supposedly an old Dutch legend about the ghosts of Henry Hudson and his crew creating thunder by playing nine-pin bowling was incorporated by Washington Irving into his story "Rip Van Winkle", so the idea goes back a ways. (Don't even think about asking why they picked on Hudson.) Clarityfiend (talk) 06:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

When I was a kid the story was "angels bowling". Adam Bishop (talk) 07:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

This was referenced in The Simpsons just recently, a show or two ago. A strike every time? Man, that'd be some boring bowling partner. TomorrowTime (talk) 07:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

According to my grandparents (relayed humorously by my father), it was God having his coal delivered, a domestic-supply reference that would probably baffle most of the current generation. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 10:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Now why would God need coals? The guy bellow I can understand, I mean gotta take care of those fires, they wont keep themselves burning, but I'd imagine God didn't have to take care of heating suplies in heaven... Or does it get chilly in heaven in the winter? TomorrowTime (talk) 14:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Evidently. Marnanel (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, my mother always said it was the Almighty rolling his barrels across the floor of his celestial beer cellar. Seems reasonable enough to me. Marnanel (talk) 13:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

...and my Dad assured me it was God pushing his wheelbarrow down his garden path. I guess we'll never know for sure.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I would say I'll ask him when I get there, but it'd only be thrown out for breaking WP:OR. Marnanel (talk) 14:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Gosh! They're even writing Wikipedia in Heaven and the other place. Explains a lot about Lucifer, the Original Troll. And this user. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Haha, I love how three fourths of the guy's user talk is "dude, change your user name or else!" Absolutely love it :) TomorrowTime (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It's especially funny that he hasn't edited in five years, but is still getting the comments. User:Jesus, on the other hand, was indefinitely blocked for his name, despite the fact that it's a not-uncommon name. Buddy431 (talk) 02:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

American descendants of English royalty and nobility

How many Americans are descended from English royalty and the old Anglo-Norman nobility? Which of the US colonies was a scion of the nobility most likely to have settled? Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Your first query is an example of the sort of anthropo-mathematical question still being researched (by Joseph T. Chang of Yale University among others - see this) in connection with topics such as Coalescent theory and Most recent common ancestor, but probably "the large majority of those with any British descent" is not too wide of the mark. (Yes, I know, frantic hedging.)

According to Richard Dawkins in Chapter 0 [sic] of The Ancestor's Tale an initial theoretical model (see Spherical cow), known to be an unrefined first approximation but nonetheless a starting point, suggests that 80% of the population of Britain in 1000AD would be ancestors of everyone in Britain today, if Britain's population had always been isolated. (Dawkins looks in more detail at the numbers for Tasmania, whose population was entirely isolated for about 15,000 13,000 years up to 1800AD.) Adjusting for immigrations over the intervening millennium, the numbers and date-span of Britain->New World emigrations, the proportions of Anglo-Norman nobles and 'English royals' (do you mean pre-Norman Anglo-Saxons?) in the population, and doubtless many other relevent factors, I will gladly leave to others. To provide some perspective, Dawkins also explains that the most recent common (not 'sole', of course) ancestor of everyone in the World today probably lived only about 30,000 years ago (see the above-linked Most recent common ancestor for more details, though that article seems to ignore minor isolated populations such as the Tasmanians; see also Identical ancestors point).

Your second query I cannot address except to say that my gut feeling is that there would be no particular preponderance, and I await enlightenment from others along with you. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 11:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I met someone on an unrelated online forum who referred to the upcoming royal wedding as "my cousin's marriage", and then added that her nearest common ancestor with the groom was born in the early 1600s. I don't think she was being intentionally facetious. Marnanel (talk) 13:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't answer directly, but if you have an Ancestry subscription, you can access The Plantagenet Roll of the Blood Royal and the Tudor Roll of the Blood Royal, either of which should give you leads as to possible answers to your question. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Jeanne -- Many remote descendants of nobility or royalty can be found in the U.S., but very few people who settled in the British North American colonies were actually aristocrats of any kind at the time that they crossed the Atlantic. In the mid-19th century, some people in the southern U.S. liked to claim that the "cavaliers" who settled Virginia were of higher social standing (and better represented old chivalrous ideals) than the "puritans" or "roundheads" who settled New England, but I don't know how well that would hold up in the study of 17th-century history... AnonMoos (talk) 12:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe quite a few younger sons as well as illegitimate offspring of the English gentry settled in Maryland and Virginia. I have a few direct ancestors who were from landed English families and were given land grants in Virginia by Charles II in gratitude for various services rendered not sure if pimping was one of them. I have read in newspaper articles that in most US presidential elections the candidate with the most noble ancestry normally wins, except in the case of Abraham Lincoln.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

According to this book, which many people accept as truth, it is rare that anyone with any ancestor from Europe is not descendent from Charlemagne. -- kainaw™ 13:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

"Ancestral Roots of Certain American Colonists Who Came to America Before 1700" by Frederick Lewis Weis might be useful, although I have an instinctual urge to remove it from Wikipedia articles when it is listed as a reference... Adam Bishop (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Whence the instinct? It's certainly a more reliable book than the Redlich/Langston/Buck/Beard Charlemagne books (mentioned by Kainaw), if only because it doesn't rely on self-reported pedigrees and has been frequently revised and corrected... - Nunh-huh 21:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

According to a genealogical book which some have claimed to be a hoax (it was written by Gustav Anjou), I and my paternal line are descended from Harold II of England. And Bryan Fairfax, 8th Lord Fairfax of Cameron was a Virginian. Corvus cornix_talk 23:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

poems' unknown authors

I'm trying to figure out who wrote the poem, "The Ship That Sails." I'm also trying to find out who wrote these patriotic poems below;

"I AM THANKFUL TO BE AN AMERICAN"

I am thankful to be an American,

To live in the greatest land of all.

In a nation blessed, it's the very best,

I can stand with my head up tall.

I am thankful to be an American,

To be born in a land that's free.

I am thankful to God for allowing me to be,

An American.

"I LOVE YOU SO"

America, America.

How can I tell you, How I feel?

You have given me many treasures,

I love you so.

America, America.

Land of hope and liberty,

Freedom Rings from every mountain,

From sea to sea.

If more information is out there, please let me know. Thank you.24.90.204.234 (talk) 08:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Hm, that second song sure pops up a lot on the Internet, but none of the pages I opened have an author. This one comes closest by saying "unknown". Well, as hackneyed as it is, it could have been written by anyone old enough to hold a pen, really. Heck, it wouldn't even have to be a person - I remember way-back-when I was still growing up in Yugoslavia and I had a piece of software for my shiny new apex of computing hardware, the glorious Commodore 64 - it spoofed Yugoslav politico speeches by browsing through a database of random jingoisms and arranging them in sensible sentence patterns and what you'd get was a lot of noise that seemed to make sense but was really just empty bantering. This song reminds me a bit of what that software would throw out... TomorrowTime (talk) 08:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - if the "American" was replaced by any of a whole range of other country names, I would have said it sounded like it was churned out by a machine at the central propaganda department.--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It reminds me of that bit from Pinafore, except without the irony. Or is it? It's always hard to tell.

He himself hath said it

And it's greatly to his credit

That he is an Englishman

He iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiis an EngLISHman --W. S. Gilbert

--Trovatore (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Is "The Ship that Sails" the verse that begins "I'd rather be the ship that sails/ and rides the billows wild and free; / Than to be the ship that always fails/ to leave its port and go to sea"? The earliest citation I can find (from 1969) is credited to "Anonymous", so I suspect it may not be easy or even possible to find the author. (That "to" in the third line really grates, and there's one in the third line of every damn stanza.) Marnanel (talk) 13:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one. I just found, "The Set of the Sails," another nautical-related poem by Ella Wheeler Wilcox. When was that one written?24.90.204.234 (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It's proper English, ain't it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Price of infinite goods

How does a seller of infinite goods (that means, software, audio-books) put a price tag on its product? Theoretically, the offer is infinite and could meet any demand of it. Quest09 (talk) 13:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't most software say that it's "licensed, not sold"? Also, as a practical matter, it will become obsolete well short of infinity, more like a decade or less. As for the actual price, presumably it's market-driven: they find the price that will optimize their revenue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) You've defined "infinite goods" as "software, audio-books", but I'm afraid I'm none the wiser. In what sense are these goods "infinite", and what is this infinite offer to which you refer? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 13:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs: licenses are still infinite (for all practical purposes).

Jack: Well, you can serve as many clients as you want. If you were selling something with a physical dimension (like cake or beer) you have n units and try to sell them to the higher bidders. But, in the case of software you could sell infinite licenses if you had to, there is no upper limit. You could sell to the higher bidders, to the middle tier and to the lower tier of the market. You could sell license to anyone how would pay you $0.01 or more. Quest09 (talk) 13:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

There is usually a different license agreement/price for multiple-user or server-level-user licenses than for individuals. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Bugs: I meant you can produce as much licenses as you want. There is no physical limit to it. Quest09 (talk) 13:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, the price is market-driven, i.e. they charge whatever they can get away with to optimize their revenue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

OR, but when I have sold e-books, this is indeed how I've done it. It's all relative to the prices everyone else is charging. If you price it too low, you'll make less, but more importantly nobody will take you seriously (perception of value is an odd thing). If you price it too high, nobody buys. It's quite a juggling act. Marnanel (talk) 14:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The market mechanism will work here too, as in the case of other products or services. Even if licenses are not limited, I wouldn't say they are infinite, since the seller of them has an absolute monopole over them. He can start offering n license at the x price, if things don't work out he offer them at a lower price. Your source of confusion is that licenses are indeed not really infinite, they are limited by the producer, who makes the price go up or down as he pleases. That makes it impossible to get a license for $0.01. You end up paying what they can charge you. Mr.K. (talk) 14:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I'm sure Microsoft would love to charge a million dollars for every Windows 7 license. But no one would buy it, and users would flock to Linux or something (which illustrates the importance of competition in a free market). However, if they charge 99 cents for it... very few, if any, would buy it, out of suspicion. Hence they try to "optimize" their revenue by finding out "what the market will bear". I don't know how else to explain it to the OP, beyond Econ 101. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Calculating the right price (=where the producer earns more) follows the logic above, but might be trickier to calculate, going beyond the Econ 101 knowledge of Bugs. But this optimized price exists, depends on both demand and psychological factors). Mr.K. (talk)

You can start by estimating how many you realistically expect to sell, not how many it's technically possible to sell. That should give you an idea of your cost (to develop the software or write the book) divided by how many you've sold. Add to that all your transaction costs, and the cut the various dealers will take (Amazon doesn't sell books for free!) and you've got your cost per unit.

This cost per unit will change a lot depending on your estimates of how many you'll sell (Which will be tied to what you're proposing to charge, etc.), but that's not as different as you might think to physical goods. Physical goods still have set-up and design costs that must be spread over every item you sell, and physical goods will cost different amounts to manufacture depending on whether you need a hundred of them(Expensive western hand labor) or a hundred million (Highly mechanized factory in china).

I'm not saying it's easy for them to find the right price, but it's not as crazy as you might think compared to, say, the price of an iPod. APL (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

See also Obsolescence. You may have an infinite supply of copies of what you're selling, but you do not have infinite demand. Who would want to buy a copy of Windows 3.0 any more? Also: market saturation. You basically have an infinite supply of air, but no one is selling it because everyone's already got it. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The technical phrase for what the OP is calling "infinite goods" are "goods exhibiting zero marginal cost" -- that is, the cost of producing one more unit of the good is zero. Market price is determined jointly by the marginal cost of production *and* the demand. So, WikiDao is quite right, if demand is finite at a price of zero the fact that the goods exhibit zero marginal cost does not imply that the market price will fall to zero. Wikiant (talk) 17:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

You've left out the fact that Microsoft (and many others) also actively participate in market segmentation. That's why there are fifty flavors of Windows to choose from every time around. The goal is to say, "how much are you willing to pay for my product?" and adding a few bells and whistles to the expensive ones. It's not a "single" price for Windows 7; there are lots of different prices for Windows 7, with more or less arbitrary differences in the product between them. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

You are describing price discrimination, which is a separate phenomenon from zero marginal cost. For example, you see market segmentation in car pricing where marginal cost is not zero. Having said that, it tends to be the case that firms that produce zero marginal cost products also engage in market segmentation, but that is due to a third factor -- lack of competition. Zero marginal cost firms tend to be monopolistic. Monopolistic firms, because of reduced competition, find it possible to engage in price discrimination. Wikiant (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

See also natural monopoly. Jørgen (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

interesting geography/GK question

Which (endangered??) animal is not eaten by the locals since they consider it as emblem or guardian. Still populations of the animal have declined here in the last 15 years due to farmland expansion, illegal logging, poaching and mining.

would appreciate any help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.211.172 (talk) 17:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Aaand it's another of the World Atlas inane geography quiz questions... [4] TomorrowTime (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

If you know the answer, please don't post it here. Go to the worldatlas.com website and post the answer there. Then please donate the prize money to Wikipedia. Marco polo (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Elephant, Rhino? 92.24.183.19 (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

"Elephino!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Turns out the answer was chimpanzee. TomorrowTime (talk) 10:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess they don't know about bushmeat. Googlemeister (talk) 16:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

AIDS may have jumped from apes to humans via the ingestion of infected chimp meat. Corvus cornix_talk 23:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

economy versus society

what is society? what is economy? Are they two things? Are they two ways of talking about one thing?193.135.2.129 (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

They aren't the same thing. Society refers to the sum total of interactions among humans. Economy refers to the interactions among humans that involve buying and selling things. Society is a superset that includes (among other things) economy, polity, and religion. Wikiant (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

These terms are used somewhat differently in different academic disciplines, but in general you can say that a society is a group of people who share a common political structure, an economy is the collective set of economic interactions of a defined group of people (and a culture is a group of people who share a common set of traditions, understandings, languages, etc). The are often overlapping terms - a society can me mono- or multi-cultural, and usually has its own economy, but is often part of a larger global or regional economy or culture. The best way to think about this is to note that each term focuses on a different aspect of normal human social behavior, and every group of people can be looked at through the lens of each term .--Ludwigs2 18:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

In broad terms, economics can be thought of as the study of value, whatever that means. While traditionally, this means money, it doesn't have to, and some economists (like Freakonomics co-author Steven Levitt) study non-monetary value. Basically, what economists do is to study how value affects behavior; that is how people will behave when making decisions based on value of "things", even if "things" are abstract concepts. --Jayron32 18:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I think one could argue that it is really pretty impossible to talk about economy without some notion of society, and vice versa. They are thoroughly entangled. I am not sure they can be considered one and the same, though. But they do have aspects which are very, very intermeshed. Both are also very broad definitions that encompass extremely fundamental aspects of human interaction. I don't think one could argue that they could be considered independent in any way, or that one could talk about something which was wholly social without having an economic component, or vice versa. A simple example: we might think that I could go spend some time with a friend, without exchanging any currency or anything like that, and it would be something that might fall purely in the social realm. But as even our metaphors allude to, time itself is a resource with value, and the choice to spend it one place versus another gives it a deeply economic aspect. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

In 1987 British PM Margaret Thatcher, who paid an awful lot of attention to the economy, declared "There is no such thing as society". Make of that what you will. HiLo48 (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

... well what she actually said in that interview was ...

I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand "I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!" or "I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!" "I am homeless, the Government must house me!" and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people, and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation and it is, I think, one of the tragedies in which many of the benefits we give, which were meant to reassure people that if they were sick or ill there was a safety net and there was help, that many of the benefits which were meant to help people who were unfortunate—" It is all right. We joined together and we have these insurance schemes to look after it" . That was the objective, but somehow there are some people who have been manipulating the system and so some of those help and benefits that were meant to say to people:"All right, if you cannot get a job, you shall have a basic standard of living!" but when people come and say:"But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!" You say:"Look" It is not from the dole. It is your neighbour who is supplying it and if you can earn your own living then really you have a duty to do it and you will feel very much better!"

She later added "My meaning, clear at the time but subsequently distorted beyond recognition, was that society was not an abstraction, separate from the men and women who composed it, but a living structure of individuals, families, neighbours and voluntary associations." Dbfirs 09:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

cap tossing at graduation

I'm looking for information on the tossing of the mortarboard during or after graduation ceremonies. I read the mortarboard and academic dress articles, and the graduation article mentions it once, in the caption of a photo.

thanks, WhiteDragon (talk) 18:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed a similar phenomenon at military academies, where graduates toss their hats into the air. StuRat (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Hm, never happened at my graduation. This page said it was happening there in 1912. Marnanel (talk) 22:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

As a foreigner (i.e. not American) it's always looked to me like one of those silly American customs. I'm suggesting that it's maybe exclusively American. It's not an Australian custom. HiLo48 (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

You may be correct, because it happens at my high school's graduation...not every student participates, but around 50% do...our school also provides confetti-shooting things for each student to shoot at the conclusion of the ceremony, at the same time as the caps are thrown. --Ks1stm (talk) ^{[alternative account of Ks0stm]} 23:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

A little speculation as I don't have access to the drill handbook, but it may be derived from the tradition doffing ones hat whilst cheering, from the period when gentlemen wore hats as a matter of course. In the military environment that has become a formalised drill movement when the uniform cap is removed in advance and then raised in the right hand.

As mentioned above it's something that happens at Passing Out parades for officers of all three services, although given that ones uniform cap is worth about £200 (c $350-400) then it pays to keep hold of it or not throw it too vigorously.

I've not seen it happen in the UK at university graduation.

ALR (talk) 09:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I remember being told a story about a gathering of Cub Scouts in London in the 1950s (well before my time), where the organizers thought it would be a great idea to finish the event with three cheers and everyone to throw their caps in the air. Right on cue, 2,000 small boys threw their green snd gold caps skyward which looked impressive but it took an hour to unite the right cap with the right child. Alansplodge (talk) 01:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, though, that Cub Scouts generally own their own caps, whereas academic dress these days unfortunately tends to be hired once-off for the occasion as though it was a clown costume. There's no particular problem if you throw a cap that isn't yours in the air and return with one that was previously worn by someone else, as long as the gown hire company get all their caps back by nightfall. Marnanel (talk) 02:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Throwing headgear in the air as a public display of enthusiasm was not uncommon in Britain during the first few decades of the 20th century (when most men usually wore hats or caps in public). It can be seen in old newsreels of crowds cheering Royal processions, goals and final whistles at football matches, and the like. (See also the opening sequence of The Mary Tyler Moore Show, not to mention that of Rhoda.) I believe that one usually attempted to throw one's hat/cap in a frisbee-like manner so that one could catch it again, but I too, have wondered how often headgear was thus lost or damaged. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 10:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Which English queen consort had the noblest pedigree?

I am curious as to which English queen consort had the most royal blood?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Define "Most royal blood". Several queen consorts were daughters of monarchs, notably Catherine of Aragon, who was a daughter of TWO ruling monarchs (Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile). --Jayron32 19:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

There was also Isabella of France, whose parents were both monarchs. I was thinking of consorts who were the daughters of monarchs rather than dukes, counts, etc.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

After looking over List of English consorts, it seems that the daughter of a Holy Roman Emperor Judith of Flanders might have fit that role. Her article mentions that the custom of how the wife of the king was addressed changed with her because she was a "high ranking princess," the daughter of an emperor among kings. 24.38.31.81 (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Tangentially, what kind of transformation did the blood of Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte undergo between 20 and 22 August 1810? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 10:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

What does Bernadotte have to do with English queen consorts? BTW, he was not the only non-noble monarch. Look at the 19th century Serbian rulers for example.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I was using him merely as an example to question (though not explicitly to deny) the validity of the concept "royal blood" and what it means to have more or less of it. Incidentally, I now see that the article section Royal descent#United States partially addresses one of your other recent questions. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

House names

Resolved

All the schools I've ever encountered which use the house system have named the houses after objects, famous people, or in the case of primary schools, easily-recognisable concepts such as colours (so that the younger kids can easily remember that Blue house's house colour is blue, rather than having to remember some more abstract mapping). Most of this is also mentioned in our article. However, I'm currently reading the first of the Psmith books, a school story, to my daughter, and I noticed that the two houses primarily mentioned are named after their current housemasters: Outwood's and Downing's. Was this ever a common practice? Marnanel (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

According to our article on Eton, "Each House has a formal name, mainly used for post and people outside the Eton community. It is generally known by the boys by the initials or surname of the House Master, the teacher who lives in the house and manages the pupils in it." AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I should add that these houses, and presumably those in the Psmith stories, are actual houses, usually within the precincts of the school, where the pupils live in term-time, rather than the system of 'put pupils into some arbitrarily-named divisions called "houses" so that we can run sports competitions between them' that applied at my (grammar) school (ours were British imperial heroes). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed so— and thank you for finding that. (Ours were kingdoms of the Heptarchy, but I believe they have been changed since.) The article House system notes its origin in, and its abstraction from, physical houses, but doesn't mention any habit of naming or nicknaming houses after their housemasters: perhaps we should add this? Marnanel (talk) 20:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Charterhouse School names its houses (which are separate houses) after former masters who were the first housemasters (with '-ites' added to the name). Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

E F Benson's novel David Blaize, which our artcle says was published in 1916, certainly exhibits the system you are asking about. --ColinFine (talk) 00:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

English universities: teaching in cosy private rooms

I've seen a number of movies set in English universities of days gone by, where a typical scene is of a group of maybe half a dozen students gathered in what looks like the teacher/professor's private room. There'll be books on shelves, and a small fire going. They might be having tea and cakes, while they're discussing some philosophical/language/history issue. It looks terribly cosy and intimate. I've often wondered whether these scenes accurately reflect how teaching actually occurred in those places, or whether it's just a Hollywood/Pinewood invention. I mean, for only 6 people to be taking that particular subject, out of the thousands at the university at any one time, seems a little odd. Were these the teacher's "special students", the cream of the crop so to speak, or were they the entire class? Was there really a ratio of one teacher to every 6-odd students? Or was this just one of a number of tutorial groups into which the entire class was split? In other movies they'll show an entire lecture hall full of students, with one teacher in charge, which is much more like my experience at university. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 23:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Oxbridge prides itself on the tutorial system. In the past, it wasn't half a dozen students, but one student and one tutor. The student would read their essay aloud and the tutor would comment on it. There were also lectures, treated as less important. But even at Oxbridge it has slipped, and tutorials are more likely to be for two or more students. In other UK universities, students have classes of different sizes depending on the subject, with a definite trend towards ever larger classes. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It happens sometimes at the better universities, if not necessarily in quite such comfort. Oxford and Cambridge get much higher funding per student, so can do the sort of thing that Itsmejudith describes. In some other universities, in some subjects, tutorials with maybe 10 students in attendance, together with a lecturer are common enough (or were 10 years or so ago), though it is more likely to be a cramped office than a posh study, and if you want tea and cakes, you'd best bring your own. I'm sure this will vary greatly with the subject though, and is probably getting rarer. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Itsmejudith has hit the nail on the head. To expand a little: supervisions (at Cambridge, called tutorials at Oxford) are part of the reason for the survival of the collegiate system at Oxbridge. All the students are (generally) members of the same college as the fellow who is teaching. (The exception is that the combination of small colleges and small subjects can make this impossible, but it's generally true.) This means that you're taught within a very small community (even the largest college only has a thousand-odd undergrads) and that your supervisor/tutor has an incentive to teach you well, because your exam results affect his college's academic standing and therefore to some extent his own. Supervisions/tutorials are mandatory; exams are mandatory; lectures, which are organised by the university and not the colleges, are optional. I have studied both at Cambridge and at a more modern establishment, and I can confirm that nothing like this goes on at the latter. Marnanel (talk) 23:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Durham has tutorials very similar to the ones described here, except they are organised by departments, not colleges (colleges in Durham handle residential, social, pastoral stuff, not academic stuff). Their usefulness depends on the tutor. --Tango (talk) 23:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to note that even in gigantic American universities — like UC Berkeley, for example — there are often tutorials or seminars that are a couple of students and a professor. It's not incompatible with the "giant lecture hall" model. When I was an undergraduate, I had classes as small as three students, and classes as large as 500, all in the same department. (They were, of course, at different ends of the curriculum. The big ones were the "feeder" classes that everyone had to take; the small ones were "honors" classes or on more specific topics.) There were never any tea and cakes or fireplaces, however. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

In my own experience at Cambridge, tutorials (we usually called them "supervisions") had between two and six students. I would like to see a reference for itsmejudith's claim that they were originally one student at a time: I can certainly see advantages in having a small group rather than just one, and I have always supposed that that was the norm. --ColinFine (talk) 00:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I will vouch for Mr. 98's observation that this sort of thing happens in the advanced courses at the more prestigious U.S. universities. I experienced it at UC Berkeley and Brown. There were even cookies (biscuits for non-Americans) on occasion, but people brought their own (non-alcoholic) drinks. Typically, though these classes were in austere classrooms. Though at Brown, some departments occupy former private houses and have seminar rooms that are comfortably furnished. Marco polo (talk) 01:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

So, they weren't making it up after all. Thanks to everyone for their responses. And Happy New Year to one and all. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 06:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

No, and there are a number of literary references to cosy tutorials. Seminars were also originally supposed to be quite small groups - when they came into the UK plate glass university in the 1960s they were regarded as an American innovation. I was asked for a reference for one-to-one tutorials: here is an academic discussion of the changing pattern (at Oxford). Itsmejudith (talk) 22:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

December 31

Weddings on a Sunday

I've just finished reading Around the World in 80 Days and it mentions not being able to get married on a Sunday. And now that I think of it, I can't remember ever attending a Christian wedding on a Sunday. So, was/is this some sort of custom? Am I suffering from confirmation bias? Is it because priests/ministers/reverends/vicars are too busy with regular services on Sundays that they just don't perform weddings on Sundays? Dismas|^(talk) 09:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not very good with searching the archives, but we had this same question here a couple of months ago. TomorrowTime (talk) 10:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

In 1872, when the story is set, there were a lot of things that were not permitted on a Sunday. In any case, all the churches (in olden days people got married in churches) would have been fully occupied with other services.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

This site gives information for Church of England weddings in the UK, noting that Sunday weddings are not ruled out but are rare, apparently because ministers - even now - usually have several other services to perform on that day. However, this article points out the number of weddings that took place on 10/10/10, which was a Sunday. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe that Anglicans were once much more puritanical about what could be done on sundays than now. My father remembers (in the 1920s) not being allowed to play with toys on a Sunday, unless they had a religious significance - a toy Noah's Ark was permitted for example. My guess is that a wedding celebration would not be considered suitable for the Lord's Day - I'll see if I can find a reference. Alansplodge (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that the wedding itself was probably OK, being a religious event itself. The reception, however, is another story. Dancing, singing, and drinking are not exactly favorite activities among religious conservatives. And presumably there will also be people working that day, such as caterers, and that's also forbidden. StuRat (talk) 23:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

No, no. Fogg gets engaged and immediately sends Passepartout to see the minister and arrange a marriage for "tomorrow, Monday". When Passepartout returns, he informs Fogg that the marriage is impossible tomorrow because tomorrow is Sunday. We're not talking about a wedding planned far in advance, that would include a fancy reception; just the opposite. --Anonymous, 09:13 UTC, January 1, 2011.

Well, I was married on a Sunday. We had chosen the Saturday, but the Russian Orthodox priest told us that day was unavailable due to some religious feast. That church is very conservative and quite inflexible in some of its attitudes, compared to some other Christian denominations, but there was no problem at all in being married on a Sunday. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 01:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

If the church was conservative and inflexible, I take it you married a woman that day, then, and not a man ? StuRat (talk) 07:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I'm not aware of any Christian churches that solemnise same-sex marriages even in countries that permit it, which doesn't include Australia. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this has just been legalised in the UK, and Quakers and Unitarians now carry out such ceremonies, as does Liberal Judaism, which recently became the first religious organisation in the world to publish a special liturgy for same-sex commitment ceremonies. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 10:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a good news story to start my year off on the right foot. Lovely. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Yup, it's great news, though I am pleasantly astonished that it was the House of Lords which initiated the idea. Clearly they're not a bunch of elderly white heterosexual British upper-class males as one would expect :) ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 10:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm tickled (pink) that the person who instigated the change to permit British Christian churches (and other religious venues) to marry gay people is a Muslim. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

That would be Waheed Alli, whose article I've worked on. (London's other gay Muslim Labour politician, Pav Akhtar, may have contributed.) Some of the impetus for the marriage equality bill came from Newington Green Unitarian Church, which also happened to have radicalised Famous Dead Bisexual Mary Wollstonecraft all those years ago. Whether Unitarians and Quakers still count as Christians I leave to others to debate. The Metropolitan Community Church and the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement might be able to say more on whether any unambiguously Christian churches conduct same-sex marriages. It looks like the Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto does, for example. BrainyBabe (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

In the US, the United Church of Christ's synod supports gay marriage, though not all its congregations. Unitarian Universalists have supported it for decades, but haven't called themselves "Christian" for some time. The US Episcopalian church is at least on the edge re ssm. PhGustaf (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The difference is that the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that marriage cannot be restricted to a man and a woman. Gay marriage is legal throughout Canada, so religious establishments that wish to can solemnise marriages. It's not a question of supporting the idea, but of using the right. BrainyBabe (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Ned Flanders: "The Bible says marriage is only between a man and a woman."

Homer Simpson: "If you love your Bible so much, why don't you marry it ? Seriously, if you give me $20, I'd be glad to perform the ceremony." StuRat (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Buying a set of pencils for artists

If you buy a set of pencils for artist, composed of whatever number of color pencils, it is highly probable that you run out of a specific color (you could be using green more often than pink). What are you supposed to do after that? Can you buy single matching pencils or do they really expect that you buy the whole set again? Are manufacturers forced to provide single pencils, in the same way that manufacturers are forced to deliver spare parts? Quest09 (talk) 21:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

High-end pencils are typically available in singles, and a decent art store (commercial link given as example) will stock them thusly. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 21:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you've discovered the real reason for the end of Picasso's Blue Period. :-) StuRat (talk) 23:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, fortunately, he discovered some left over pink pencils. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 00:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Types of conservatism

What's the difference between conservative, nationalist, fascist, and reactionary? --75.28.52.27 (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

You may be interested in conservative, nationalist, fascist, and reactionary. Unfortunately, the differences are subtle and complex, and labels are simplifications of this complex political ideology. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

In the United States, the term conservative really does not refer to an ideology at all, per se. Rather, it's an uneasy alliance of ideologies that don't naturally belong together, but that have had some common enemies for the past fifty or sixty years. In particular libertarian conservatives and social conservatives really don't like each other at all. --Trovatore (talk) 22:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The same thing applies to the word liberal, doesn't it? Michael Hardy (talk) 01:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. The popular myth since the mid 1900s, both in the US as well as in most of Europe, is that "conservativism" is the pragmatic and undogmatic opposite of utopian liberal ideologies and has been so since 1789, while the truth is it is actually a very elaborate ideology with some very definite political objectives (as per the conservatism article). --Saddhiyama (talk) 02:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) That wasn't what I was saying at all. There are lots of ideological conservatives. But conservatism is not an ideology, or at least not a single ideology. It's a coalition among very different ideologies. How long that coalition can hold together is an open question. My hope is "not very long", because I'm aligned with the libertarian side of the conservative movement, and see much more in common with the libertarian left than with the social right. --Trovatore (talk) 02:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is going to work. The American poor and lower middle class could hardly be convinced to vote for the preservation of economic inequality (as decreed by the omniscient and omnipotent Free Market) without the help of God and tradition. Free Market worship is a cult suited for the elite (economic and intellectual), it just doesn't work for the rest of society; if you have to sell such a deity to the others, it has to have a beard.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

There are such parties that are politically relevant in some countries, for example the Free Democrats in Germany. Granted, that's in a proportional system; it would be harder here. But in any case all I'm saying is I'd be more comfortable in a party with Bill Maher than in one with Pat Buchanan. Whether that sort of coalition could have electoral success is a question to be answered by experiment. --Trovatore (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Want to be confused? Come to Australia. Our major conservative party is called the Liberal Party. Does that help? HiLo48 (talk) 02:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing strange about that. Among the major Australian parties, they are indeed the most liberal, at least in the classical sense of the word. In a liberal country, it is conservative to be liberal. --Trovatore (talk) 02:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

To simplify a little: "Reactionary" is basically the opposite of "progressive". What is seen as 'reactionary' and what is seen as 'progressive' depends entirely of the context. 'Reactionary' is almost always used as a pejorative. 'Fascist', in a strict sense, refers to a follower of the Fascist movement as modelled by Mussolini. Nationalism and corporativism are key concepts of fascism. However, today 'fascist' is generally used as a pejorative, generally directed what is perceived as repressive and authoritarian. --Soman (talk) 11:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It general,

Conservatism seeks to preserve the status quo

Nationalism creates the concept of national identity. Nationalism comes in two broad forms- liberal nationalism and fascism.

Fascism is an extreme form of nationalism which views the nation as an organic entity and the citizens as part of that organic entity (just as the body cells constitute the human body, fascists believe individual citizens collectively compose the organic entity called nation). Thus fascists equate "national interest" with individual rights. In fascist political system, the individual is complete subordinate to the state. --LibertarianWarrior (talk) 14:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

LibertarianWarrior: that's close, but a bit skewed. let's lay out the definitions in historical relation, to see some of the odd ideological bedfellows in this termonology:

• Liberal (16th-18th century - often called Classical Liberalism): promotes individual property rights, generally to secure the wealth of individuals from seizure by nobles/aristocrats whose coffers were running dry. this asserted a number of inviolable individual personal rights, and rested in an early form of scientific rationalism. Liberalism developed along two different paths: social liberalism (progressivism) that focused on the expansion and maintenance of individual rights, and free market capitalism that focused on economic progress through individual competition.
• Conservatism (17th-18th century): basically a traditionalist movement that opposed rapid change. early conservatives were environmentalist and elitist, wanting to preserve nature against the ravages of unbridled technology and preserve the social order against the too rapid and too wide dissemination of individual rights. This developed along several lines: environmentalism merged into social liberalism (basically by casting the environment as public good to which all individuals had an equal right); free-market capitalism developed both into industrial/corporate capitalism and (believe it or not) into Marxism; social conservatism re-grounded itself in religion and/or in racial/ethnic/national heritage, the first leading to a slew of morality movements, and the second leading to a number of right-wing political positions
  • Side point, for interest: Marxism proper was rapidly absorbed into social liberalism - it's hard to find an academic paper on social justice that does not in some way trace its roots back to Marx - but Marxist derivatives like Socialism were largely absorbed by conservative nationalist movements. Both Stalin and Hitler were leaders of socialist parties, and both went after Communists and Marxists with extreme prejudice.
• Reactionaries and revolutionaries are the extremes of these ideologies, wanting to (respectively) preserve or destroy the status quo, by violent means if necessary.
• Nationalism (20th century): a form of conservatism that is based in national heritage (or if you like Aldous Huxley can be extended to any form of group identification) which promotes the collective group interests of a purportedly insular and identifiable group. it's explicitly exclusionist, usually elitist, and often reactionary. Nationalism often uses the language of social liberalism - empowering and defending the common man, and the like - it just restricts the application of those principles to members of the group.
• Fascism (20th century) is a particularly strong form of nationalism - call it industrial scientific nationalism. unlike garden-variety nationalists, who are pure conservatives (merely wanting to rehabilitate the values of their group), fascists use technological means both to root out problematic elements within the group and to expand their influence and ideology outside the group. Thus, where nationalists are content to identify a problem group rhetorically and call for them to be removed (e.g. the modern US anti-immigrant kerfluffles, or the somewhat dated and racist calls to send African Americans back to Africa), fascists historically applied science to the problem (trying to identify members of the problem group genealogically or genetically and deal with them with industrial efficiency), used mass media to sell their ideology proactively (propaganda and other forms of social manipulation), and then reached out beyond the borders of the group militarily to destroy the "problem" once and for all. --Ludwigs2 16:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, you said "social liberalism (progressivism) that focused on the expansion and maintenance of individual rights". Social liberalism or welfare liberalism is a concept in which state interventionism plays a crucial role (in the form of taxation) and this goes against the concept of sovereignty of the individual. So how does social liberalism focus on expansion of individual rights??? In fact social liberalism is close to social democracy. And free market capitalism do not simply argue for "economic progress through individual competition", they argue something else. Anyway, I don't think this is the right place for this broader discussion. --LibertarianWarrior (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

LibertarianWarrior: in all forms of liberalism (except those that rest on philosophical anarchy), the purpose of the state is to intervene to protect the rights of the individual. Different strains of liberalism present different ideals about how this should be done, depending on what presumptions they make about the state of the world, but the basic idea is universal. even on your end of the spectrum (assuming that the 'Libertarian' part of your name is meaningful), the state exists in a limited form to adjudicate between conflicting interests of different individuals, or possibly to provide communal public goods - such as sewer systems and roadways - that would be difficult to maintain by individuals. Wherever you have the existence of this kind of collective action, you necessarily have some form of taxation or revenue collection - roadways don't get built for free. Most Libertarians I've talked to are not averse to taxation of some sort, so long as there is complete transparency of expenditures and thorough control of the process by the citizenry. They want to be able to get together and say: "We need a road - how much will it cost, how will we divide the cost amongst ourselves, who will we hire to build it...", etc.

Of course, Libertarianism starts with a strict assumption of middle-class (and usually cultural) homogeneity - it's an Adam Smith vision of the world. Libertarianism has no effective mechanisms for coping with impoverished classes, for restricting the actions of exceedingly wealthy individuals or corporate entities, or for coping with disasters. What could Libertarians do about something like the Bhopal disaster (where an exceedingly wealthy corporation accidentally released a toxic chemical that killed thousands of impoverished foreigners and poisoned their land and water for generations)? Would they have a town meeting about it? Liberal ideologies that are concerned about those kinds of problems (social liberalism, welfare liberalism, progressivism, and etc) usually call for stronger government oversight and proactive policies and structures aimed at preventing and alleviating such things. They also usually call for deep public transparency, though they usually accept that these structures will generally act without supervision in the interests of timeliness - e.g. we want FEMA to jump immediately into a natural disaster, and not wait for the public to give it a mandate to do so. The more extensive and independent these kinds of intervention structures become, the more expensive they become, and so budget-centered taxation becomes more of a necessity; we want to give FEMA a regular budget, because we don't want to wait until a disaster strikes before providing FEMA with money. The problem with budget taxation is (again) a transparency problem - the more abstract and opaque the budgeting process becomes, the easier it is for waste and corruption to sneak into the system.

So really, liberal systems (as theory, anyway) all rely on a balancing act: how much of their own wealth and property do individuals want to allocate to collective projects, and how much control over these collective projects (and those allocated funds) do individuals exercise? Libertarians take a very (no pun intended) conservative approach, allocating very little and demanding extensive control; other forms of liberalism are willing to allocate more and allow the people running those collective projects more autonomy. I personally lean more towards the latter approach for pragmatic reasons (libertarianism is too idealistic for my tastes), but I recognize the problems that occur when those collective structures get the bit in their teeth and people lose control over them (which is where the US has been heading for a few decades now...). --Ludwigs2 18:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I have a view that a lot of political groupings are negatively motivated, being based on a dislike (sometimes a hatred) of what someone else is or does. One could argue that Conservatives just don't like change. Nationalists don't like foreigners. Fascists don't like anyone. And Reactionaries just want to find someone else to blame, and then fight them because of it. (Don't worry about my possible biases being on display here. I could do the same for other groupings. I'm pretty cynical about all people who feel such simplistic labels are much help. I've just restricted myself to those groupings in the original question for now.) HiLo48 (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Benedetto Croce once argued (talking strictly about conservatives and liberals) that politics is motivated by aesthetics: conservatives find the world they live in pleasing and don't want it to change, while liberals find an ideal world pleasing and want the real world to change to be more like it. Unfortunately, cynicism is the death of democracy - you have to assume that most people are trying to do the right thing, even if they have a twisted idea of what 'right' means, otherwise there is no possibility of communication and change. so, chin up, eyes forward, love your fellow man, and all that! Or to mix and mangle aphorisms, if you're trying to catch flies, use honey, not vinegar; if you're trying to catch bears, use honey and a club. --Ludwigs2 20:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Funny, most libertarians I've talked to (which is several, since I am one) advocate private roads. That's not a terribly impractical or idealistic concept, since so many of them exist already and it's kind of the default. (I'm amused to read in that article that two thirds of roads in Sweden are privately managed.) You might have picked a poor example with roads; the really tricky problem is funding the police. Also you seem to have arrived at the idea that the absence of government equals anarchy and therefore all libertarians must be minarchists, but that's not the case; you're probably just struggling to imagine how chaos can be avoided without force. The general idea is to substitute goodwill. The old chestnut, which worked better in the days of the iron curtain, is to point out the conceptual struggle a communist typically has with the idea of a free market - without central management forcing people to do right, how can the correct goods possibly be manufactured? It's mind-boggling! I'll dismount this massive soapbox now though. :) 213.122.67.112 (talk) 12:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

As you will... It may be that Libertarians talk differently to other Libertarians than they do to others, or it may be that the Libertarians I meet are usually academics and have a different perspective on the ideology. None of which really gainsays my point. a few things:

• I didn't say that things like private roads were impossible, I said they were difficult to manage. I have a hard time imagining a private individual sponsoring something like Boston's Big Dig. Not just because of the expense, mind you, but I can't imagine why a private individual would do such a thing. as a private effort, it would either be a magnanimous gesture of unbelievable proportions or a profit-making enterprise that would be eminently unlikely ever to show a profit.
• If libertarianism were going to work anywhere, it would work in Sweden. Sweden is (if I recall correctly) culturally and racially homogenous, largely middle class (with very little entrenched poverty), and highly socially liberal (strong emphasis on fair and equal treatment for all citizens). note however that Sweden actually has phenomenally high tax rates.
  • For comparison, consider cities in the US south east during Jim Crow. It would not be uncommon to start in the heart of a bustling modern city like Memphis or Atlanta and find yourself in hard-packed dirt roads and squalid conditions when you crossed over into African-American sections. Privatization would entrench differential treatment of that sort (unless you also assume that all citizens are broad-thinking, moral, and highly egalitarian)
• I understand philosophical anarchy perfectly well (including the Libertarian variety). I understand that the ideology wants to replace political/governmental bonds with social bonds, encouraging a sort of 'family-feeling' among citizens so that they interact with each other in pleasant, pro-social ways. I like the ideal, but I believe it is an incredibly naive set of assumptions, even under the best circumstances possible. I only need to point to a recent occurrence I read about to make my point: a woman who (on Christmas eve) picked up the family Christmas tree and attacked her parents with it. go family-feeling!
• Please don't present the US-standard high-school level, anti-communist strawman argument as though it's what Marxists (or etc.) actually think. In fact, If one reads Marx carefully, it's evident that Marx is not actually anti-capitalist; he's against class-driven capitalism. hopefully you understand the distinction.

I don't want to get into an argument about Libertarianism (or Marxism) here. I'm not actually anti-Libertarian, and I respect the fact that Libertarians are generally more politically thoughtful than the rest of the US population. If you'd like to continue this, lets do it on my talk page so we don't hijack this thread any more than we already have. --Ludwigs2 15:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Types of Marxism?

Ludwigs, not sure I do understand the distinction between anti-capitalism and anti class-driven capitalism. Marx wanted to see the advent of "the society of associated producers". That wouldn't be capitalist? Might be libertarian in some sense.... Itsmejudith (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, keep in mind that what follows is my own OR. Marx obviously read both Smith and Locke (not just because any scholar of his day would have, but because you can see traces of Both in Marx' work). Marx' early work is largely a critique of a particular (then dominant) form of capitalism, rather than a refutation of capitalism outright. if I can put his argument in a nutshell, it runs something like this:

1. Goods have an intrinsic value based in the amount of labor required to make them (labor-value)
2. Changes in production form (including technology and different forms of social organization), can have an impact on labor-value.
3. Capitalism has evolved to a form (industrial capitalism) where a small portion of the population (the capitalist class) controls highly efficient production means.
   • Highly efficient production means are expensive, and require the investment of large amount of capital - free wealth that is spent in expectation of future gains
4. This capital is accumulated and recouped by the collection of surplus labor-value: basically, where a laborer could previously invest X amount of effort to produce a single good using his own tools, he can now produce Q goods of the same type with the same amount of effort using the capitalist-owned production system. the laborer then gets paid some value greater than the value of one good and less than the value of Q goods, the surplus goes to the capitalist, and everyone is (for the moment) happy.
5. Problems arise because the capitalists see themselves as a social class, and see the laborers as a resource
   • capitalists constantly try to improve their standing in their class
   • therefore they constantly try to increase their portion of the surplus labor value
   • therefore (among other cost-cutting efforts) they constantly reduce the potion of the surplus labor-value that goes to laborers
6. Eventually, laborers collectively receive less than they would have would have under the previous less efficient means of production, to the point where they are required to work full time just to make a subsistence living.
7. When it gets worse than that, you'll have bloodshed - few people starve to death gracefully.

Marx' critique was really in the nature of "Let's not let it get to that point, shall we?" He really wanted to find some balance between Smith's free-market capitalism (the original "society of associated producers") and the obvious productive power of corporate entities (Smith, incidentally, railed against corporations as destructive forces as well - I always found that interesting). Marx' idea - vaguely, because he never developed it fully - was to somehow remove the class distinction between the capitalists and the laborers, so that social forces would guarantee that the surplus labor-value of high-efficiency production was never exploited the way it would be in truly degenerate forms of capitalism.

The problems that Marxism has suffered all stem from that fact that most of his followers forgot all about the capital/labor-value/efficiency aspect of the theory and focused purely on the social class issue - it boiled down in most people's minds to various means of ridding the world of an oppressive super-class. Even Marx fell into that trap for a while - if you read the 18th brumaire you'll see that it's mostly a description of the socio-political manipulations that the old French ruling class used to transform itself into the new French ruling class and subvert the democratic intent of the populace. So, a warning about the inevitability of revolution in a degenerate system got twisted into a call for immediate revolution against the current system, and everything went to hell in a handbasket.

I'm actually surprised that Libertarians don't use Marx more frequently - Marx could be used to give a brilliant analysis of (for instance) the mortgage crisis and subsequent events in the US that would highlight some of the problems with big government and its relationship with big business. but... their loss. --Ludwigs2 18:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this interpretation can be reached by "reading Marx carefully". Rather, one can arrive at it by carefully ignoring almost everything Marx actually wrote and then applying one's gift of telepathy + time travel in order to establish what Marx was really thinking despite writing, in some cases, the exact opposite.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

There are many 'types of Marxism'. Ludwig's version, however, isn't one of them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you read Marx and get back to me on that. That was (for the most part) straight from Capital, with (as I pointed out at the start) a bit of inductive reasoning and opining near the end. Capital is freely available online, along with many of Marx' other writings; I'll find a link to good translations for you if you'd like me to.

I don't mind running a mini-seminar in Marxist theory if it comes to that - it's not really my specialty, but I can do it justice. But don't argue with me from the perspectives found in threadbare punditry. If you think something I said is wrong please counter it analytically, with proper referents and clear arguments, so we can have a decent discussion. anything less than that, don't bother - it will just annoy me and embarrass you.

I swear, no one ever learns on Wikipedia... --Ludwigs2 03:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I started the sub-thread in order to learn more, and indeed I have learnt something, even if others haven't. I liked the idea that the "society of associated producers" can be found in Smith. I'll go back to Smith to look at that, because I agree with Ludwigs' implication that Smith is often read wrongly. Specifically, he is not read in the context of the contemporary debate on the reform of English (not Scottish) social welfare (Poor Law). Itsmejudith (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Wealth of Nations is an over-detailed tome, and you should really skim it rather then try to slog your way through the full text (unless you like that kind of thing, of course). I find Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments much more useful - it's more philosophical, and you get a better sense of where he was coming from intellectually. just my 2¢. --Ludwigs2 13:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I read the Oxford World Classics abridged edition of WoN, which has material from all the volumes, and a great introduction by Kathryn Sutherland. I do want to read the whole thing though, or at least dip into some lesser known bits. I also read ToMS, useful to read it alongside Locke. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

immigration

Wikipedia gave me approximate answers to the question of how many legal immigrants the U.S. has yearly, but I would like to know what the average length of time is for a person who applies for legal immigrant status to be granted it. What are the conditions to be granted immigrant status? I know there is a lottery for a green card (friends from Holland have tried for 3 years) so is it purely luck or can you "wait in line" and eventually get to immigrate? I believe quotas by region of the world have been eliminated. Is that still true? Thank you.75.15.87.165 (talk) 22:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you looked at any US government websites on the subject? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The question about the average length is maybe impossible to answer, since many people might try it one year and again in 5 years and others, might try it once and get it.

The conditions are very diverse, so you'll have to check the US gov. web-page. There are several routes: to marry, to invest, to study, to work (for a company that sponsors you), to take part on a working holiday program.

Some countries are excluded from the lottery, so it is not only luck. If you don't have a high-school diploma, you are also excluded. Equally excluded are all those which do not have the means for immigrating and covering their own expenses. Quest09 (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The "length of time" depends very much on under what conditions the alien applies for (or, more often, is sponsored for) lawful permanent residence, and in some cases also on his nationality. Various categories of migrants are outlined in the article Permanent residence (United States), complete with the typical "visa backlog" times. The data are based on the US State Department regularly publishes Visa Bulletin, which states the current priority dates for various categories of employment-based and family-based migrants. The current bulletin's numbers are summarized here. As you can see, there is no visa backlog per se for, e.g. the immediate relatives (spouses and minor children) of US citizen, or the 1st ("extraordinary ability") employment-based category. Meanwhile, say, for the 3rd (general skilled) EB category, it is people whose applications were approved in 2002-2005 who may be receiving their immigrant visas or green cards today; for, for example. Philippine citizens who applied in the 4th family-based category (brothers and sisters of US citizens), the current "priority date" is stated as 1-01-88, meaning that applicants whose application was approved in 1988 are now eligible to receive their visas. This is because there are, presumably, lots more Filipinos with siblings in the US than the quota set for that category.

Of course, the visa waiting times (backlog) set in the Visa Bulletin is only part of the story. For the EB categories, typically, it would make little sense for an employer to spend time and money sponsoring a person for permanent residence unless he is already working for them (on a non-immigrant visa). So a somewhat typical timeline preceding permanent residence may be like this:

1. A foreigner spends a few years in the US on a student visa (e.g. F visa), gets a bachelor's or master's degree, and gets hired by a US company upon graduation.
2. S/he works for a US employer under the "practical training" provisions of the student visa (something like 12 or 18 months after graduation).
3. That time gives the employer an opportunity to sponsor the employee for a long-term employment permit, such as H-1(b) status. That is still a "non-immigrant visa", meaning that it only authorizes limited stay (normally, up to 6 years in total). but it has a "dual intent" provision (i.e., the fact that the person is being sponsored for PR at the same time is not an impediment for him having the H non-immigrant status). An alternative situation is the L-1 visa, available to people who initially worked for a multinational company's foreign office and then were transferred to the US.
4. Based on the need to retain the foreign worker permanently, and the eligibility under various legal criteria (such as the ability to "prove" that they "cannot" find a suitable US worker for the job), the employer may sponsor the alien for permanent residence. This is a major commitment (total costs usually way over US $10K), and involved a number of fairly lengthy legal steps. The process may perhaps be accomplished as fast as in a year or two, but in practice takes significantly longer; this is why the law has special provisions for e.g. extending the H status beyond the normal 6 year maximum for persons whose PR application is in progress, but a visa number is not available yet.

-- Vmenkov (talk)

January 1

Bahá'í religious choice

A Bahá'í woman once told me that every Bahá'í reaching the age of 15 is called upon to choose a religion to follow thereafter, and the Bahá'í religion requires the parents to respect the choice.

I don't find this mentioned in the article titled Bahá'í Faith. Where can I find an account of it? Michael Hardy (talk) 01:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you unable to find anything about it in Google or perhaps on a Baha'i website? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I googled

Bahá'í "15 years old"

I found various items on other topics related to that religion. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I found this bit on Yahoo Answers. It was written by an adherent, who was asked why they chose the faith. Their answer, in part, was "My father and some of his family members became Baha'is in the 50's and 60's, so I was essentially born into it (in 1973). However, as with all Baha'is I had to specifically choose to remain a Baha'i once I reached maturity..." which seems to speak to what you're asking about. I'll see if I can dig up some more, but a quick tip: it doesn't seem to be related to 15 particularly, but rather to maturity. Matt Deres (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC) ps - Ah, maybe I was wrong. This site specifically mentions 15 as the age of choice. Sorry I can't seem to find something more authoritative. Perhaps Bugs, with his superior Google and Baha'i website searching skills, can find something for us. Matt Deres (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Not really authoritative sources, though. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks similar to the Christian practice of Confirmation in the West, which takes place at the age of reason (actually pre-adolescence, I don't know why some people call that age of reason). Quest09 (talk) 11:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

....No, I don't think it's comparable. A baptized Christian reaching the "age of reason" who decides to become Buddhist, Muslim, polytheist, or whatever, would probably be considered guilty of apostasy. I don't think there's an rigid rule in (most versions of) Christianity requiring the parents to respect such a decision in the same way. The Catholic church explicitly says that the mark of Christian baptism is indelible. (Although they do recognize such a thing as defection from the church.) Michael Hardy (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

What actually caused me to think of this again is that I came across the German concept of "Religionsmündigkeit" — the age at which a person in Germany acquires full legal freedom of religion, so that their parents can no longer require them to attend the church of the parents' choice, etc. 14 years, I think. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

1810

Does anybody know the date or time of the year King Kaumualii of Kauai ceded his kingdom to Kamehameha the Great in the year 1810. I think it should be known since the start of the kingdom of Hawaii can be dated to May or the Spring of 1795.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Quote from "Shoals of Time" by Gavan Daws: "Early in 1810 his ship carried Kaumualii and his retinue to Honolulu...and after several days of celebration the diplomatic issue was broached and settled." Not very precise...--Wrongfilter (talk) 10:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Here it says: "At last, in 1810,..., Kaumualii consented to go to Honolulu... Kamehameha came out with a fleet of canoes to meet him at Honolulu Harbor. The time was late March or early April." --Wrongfilter (talk) 12:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

However, here: "Intermediary in the agreement was the American sea captain, Jonathan Windship, who in the summer of 1810 brought King Kaumualii and his court to Oahu where the compact was made and the little kingdom formally ceded...". --Wrongfilter (talk) 12:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Female immigrants to the US

From which country did most female immigrants to the US arrive from the 17th to the 20th centuries? My educated guess would be Ireland seeing as many unmarried Irish females came to the US on their own, especially in the 19th century.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

An interesting question. Mitochondrial DNA studies might tell you a little, but I'd think you'd probably do better looking at ships passenger lists etc. I'm not sure about the Irish case, as the women might have been matched by an equal (or even greater) number of unmarried Irish men. Certainly the general trend for most migrations if for the early arrivals to have a greater preponderance of males. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually what made me ask is the fact that many celebrities who are considered Italian-American, such as Liza Minelli, John Travolta, and Robert De Niro actually have maternal Irish DNA. I hate to sound weasly but I recall having once read that at some period in the 19th century, Irish female emigrants surpassed males.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I think England has to be a contender. From our article: "An estimated 3.5 million English emigrated to the USA after 1776." My knowledge of English history (mostly gleaned from reading around, e.g. The Last of England (painting)) leads me to believe that by this point a large number of the emigrants were women (and children). Ireland may have sent a higher proportion of its population, but England was more populous to start with. In 1855, apparently 2% of England packed its bags and left (350 000 out of 18m). Statistics for Wales are bundled with England, for historic reasons; Scotland is separate, and sent a lot of emigrants (Highland Clearances); again, my instinct would say that a lot of these were women, but I have no hard data to back that up. Obviously, not all of them went to the USA, but a substantial wave did. -- If by 20th century you mean up until 1999, then perhaps Mexico might be in the running? BrainyBabe (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

voting

The current representative system was developed at a time when people required representation for a number of reasons such as expertise, the need of a congress to permit relatively immediate decisions, etc. Today we have the Internet so is there a system that would allow everyone to represent themselves by default and to be represented by only the person they deferred to per issue? --Inning (talk) 16:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It's been experimented with on shows like American Idol and Dancing with the Stars, which should give a sense of how well direct democracy would work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that most people don't have the time to inform themselves properly before voting on complex issues. Lets say there's a vote coming up on a trade treaty with Romania, or on funding research into a certain type of cancer, or on immigration quotas. Most people spend most of their time working and feeding themselves and their family. They may have opinions on these issues, but how informed are these opinions? How well do they know the potential consequences of voting "yea" or "nay" on a piece of legislation? Wouldn't it be better if there were someone whose full-time job it was to do this sort of thing? --Jayron32 16:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

...er ah that why I said, "...represent themselves by default and to be represented by only the person they deferred to per issue..." --Inning (talk) 16:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that people believe themselves to be well enough informed rather than actually being well enough informed about these issues. People are likely to make malinformed decisions rather than to give their vote by proxy, as you suggest, to an expert or representative. Someone may believe they know the optimum tarrif levels for quail eggs imported from Romania. But that they don't, but would still have an opinion on the issue, is the problem. --Jayron32 18:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Fully agree about the part where people "believe" rather than "actually" being well enough informed about public issue to vote wisely. Just take a look at the Vaccine controversy - the hard science is clear, yet the controversy remains. A default self-representation + deferral voting system will probably result in disaster. Royor (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Definitely - and the vaccine crap is just the tip of it. Just think about how many bullshit factoids you've ever been sent by well-meaning friends who think they're well-informed because they know the truth about - hell, forget the big stuff like conspiracy theories and Obama birthers - how many of us "learned" that October 2010 was so strange for having three Fridays, three Saturdays, and three Sundays in it? I got that forwarded to me from a couple of people. If they consider themselves informed about how the calender they use every day works, I shudder to think how well they'll handle something more complicated. Matt Deres (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that particular "oddity" had been doing the email rounds (but it doesn't surprise me). My local paper published it breathlessly for the "enlightenment" of the populace - so I wrote and explained to them just how commonplace and ordinary it is. The editor at least had the grace to publish my rejoinder. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 22:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Tyranny of the majority. schyler (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not practical for large groups to govern. That's why organizations' conventions, or for that matter legislatures themselves, appoint committees to look at issues in-depth and only vote on matters that have already been crafted and vetted in committee. Full legislatures in the U.S. do vote on hundreds of bills each session, but at least they can say that because legislating is their full-time job during the session, they have time and expertise to study each bill before it comes up for a vote. (In reality, that's not the case, and legislators will often vote on bills without reading them.) Most people, on the other hand, are too busy to look at dozens of highly technical pieces of legislation every day. So the logical thing to do is appoint others (legislators) to do that for us, then vote them out of office if they don't do what we want. Now there are some times when the issue is simple enough, or important enough, for people to be able to vote on the matter themselves. This is why some jurisdictions have referendums. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that representatives protect us from that, at best they substitute tyranny of the ruling class (if that ruling class happens to differ from the majority). StuRat (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

"Ruling class" is a fairly vague and problematic construct. Who is the ruling class in the United States? I'm not sure there is one "ruling class" unless you take refuge in either shadowy conspiracies or gross generalizations. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

WASPs. Yes, occasionally someone outside the group gets in (like the current President), but a good 90% of the members of both houses of Congress, Supreme Court Judges, and Presidents and VPs have been WASPs, historically, even though this group may even be a minority, by numbers, these days, especially if you exclude women. StuRat (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The idea that the OP is describing would basically meaning governing the USA in the same way that Wikipedia is governed. Need I say more? Looie496 (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Crime cost effectiveness study

I'm wondering if anyone has done any crime cost effectiveness studies. Using some kind of algorithm that quantifies potential gain vs chance of detection vs chance of conviction vs potential penalty and used it to work out the most cost effective criminal activity.

For example a bank robbery has a high initial potential gain in direct cash, however the chances of being caught and convicted are probably fairly high too and the jail time is heavy. Shoplifting might only net a small amount each time but the chances of being caught are lower and the penalty is likely to be a fine.

Anyone know any studies along these lines? Exxolon (talk) 17:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

No, but I bet that white-collar or corporate crime would have the highest cost-benefit ratio... AnonMoos (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe copyright infringement related crimes have an even better ratio, since the cost is quite low.Quest09 (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Law and economics is probably a good place to start. --GreatManTheory (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that criminals do this type of analysis, particularly in organized crime. They often try to keep "just under the radar", meaning that they try not to draw police attention, or even worse, the attention of the FBI or equivalent. So, even if this means their take is less, it worth it to avoid the increased risk that high-profile crimes bring, especially if they are in it for the long run. StuRat (talk) 00:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Nuclear War

I remember hearing about the US president giving an order to use nuclear weapons, but then withdrew the order. I think it was in the 1960's or 1970's. If I recall, an American plane was shot down. It might have been during the Arab-Israeli war, and it could have been the Egyptians that shot down the plane. I'm not sure. Can anyone enlighten me? — Fly by Night (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Cuban Missile Crisis? ¦ Reisio (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

A U-2 spy plane, piloted by Francis Gary Powers, was shot down by the Soviet Union, but this didn't cause the same high alert status as the Cuban Missile Crisis. StuRat (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

You may also misremembering this with the increase of DEFCON 4 to 3 during the Yom Kippur War#Soviet threat of intervention. Flamarande (talk) 01:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

World War III has a nice, short list of a few of the "greatest threats" moments. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Besides the close calls in that article, wasn't there an instance of a US general not responding per policies when someone ran a "test tape" simulating a Russian ICBM attack, and the general doubted the radar indications were real because of other factors, similar to what the Soviet general did? Edison (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

There was also Ronald Reagan's famous "We begin bombing in five minutes" radio announcement in 1984: "My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes," which caused "the Soviet Far East Army [to be] placed on alert after word of the statement got out, and [...] the alert was not withdrawn until 30 minutes later." WikiDao ☯ 03:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

In 1945 the US was prepared to continue attacking Japan with nuclear weapons, but President Truman called a halt the day after the second attack. (Cite: Rhodes, The Making of the Atomic Bomb, page 743 in my copy, a few pages from the end of chapter 19.) --Anonymous, 07:17 UTC, January 2, 2011.

Former Governor of California

1) Why is Arnold Schwarzenegger stepping down as governor of California? Is it simply that he was outvoted in an election, or some other reason?

2) From this side of the pond, it seems rather odd that actors/celebrities are thought fit to run a state or even the country. I understand that California was in a financial crisis when he took office. Did he actually manage to solve the finance problem?

3) In general did he make a good job of running California, or was it just effective public relations without much substance? Thanks 92.29.119.95 (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

(2) I've often heard that sort of criticism of actors/entertainers going into politics, but who might be better qualified? Is a lawyer, a corporate executive, a farmer, a civil servant, a scientist, a salesman or a sportsman necessarily any better equipped? I say no, in general. By "this side of the pond", I assume you mean the UK. Look at Glenda Jackson. Then look at the House of Lords, which remains entirely unelected despite recent reforms; its members can include actors (Olivier), composers (Britten), sportspeople (Coe) and others from every possible field of endeavour. Virtually none of them (except defeated members of the House of Commons who are kicked upstairs as compensation) have ever studied the ways of government, yet they all have the right to influence the law of the land. How "odd" is that? At least the Schwarzeneggers of the world put themselves up for election and get tested against the only criterion that ever really matters - the ballot box. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 23:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Schwarzenegger is not "stepping down"; he's termed out. Whether he did a good job depends on whom you asked. In my opinion he did OK; I certainly preferred him to either Gray Davis or Pete Wilson. --Trovatore (talk) 23:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

See also List of actor-politicians. The Kaczyński twins, former President and former Prime Minister of Poland, are listed there, though they were only actors in their childhood. When Peter Sodann ran for President (not an office that runs the country), the German media did indeed compare him to Reagan and Schwarzenegger, but they didn't take him seriously. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Sluzzen) I think that Schwarzenegger is generally respected as a governor. He retained generally high poll ratings for most of his two terms, though his approval rating took a nasty slump in early 2010 [5]. He certainly was dealt a pretty awful hand, and California is regarded as being fairly ungovernable anyway (California is notoriously politically divided, and the Initiative and Referendum process makes it easy to pass laws that help certain segments of the population in the short term, but are economically unsustainable in the medium to long term. See List of California ballot propositions). California Proposition 13 (1978), for example, severely restricts how much property taxes local governments can collect to raise revenues. Schwarzenegger leaves California still in a pretty dire economic situation. He has passed some environmental legislation, which many in the environmentally conscious California approve of. He has seriously tried to address the economic issues, but in many cases been stymied by political gridlock. I would not characterize his election as a public relations stunt. I think that in general, Schwarzenegger did act in good faith, and with California's best interests in mind. I will be interested to see what he does with the rest of his life. 174.20.220.94 (talk) 23:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit: Heres an interesting, brief end of term assessment of Schwarzenegger's time as governor. 174.20.220.94 (talk) 23:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Remember that Arnold was not elected in a normal election, but rather simultaneous with the recall of Gray Davis. It was a very abbreviated campaign with 135 candidates. So there was a tremendous advantage to already having a lot of name recognition, and who had more name recognition than Arnold? Also keep in mind that elections in America are usually about individuals more than parties as in a parliamentary system. Many people take pride in voting for the person rather than the party. In that environment, name recognition is a huge advantage. A wishy-washy independent voter may be far more likely to pull the tab for the ex-quarterback whose name they recognize than some lawyer who they've never heard of. And of course, someone like Arnold is going to have a lot of money and a lot of rich friends, which is important for running for office in America. That said, while there are quite a few examples of celebrities-turned-politicians in America, most major elected officials in the U.S. got their start as lawyers or business people, and most celebrities don't run for office. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the entertainers as politicians question: There are two dentists in the House of Representatives. By your measuring stick, are dentists any more qualified than entertainers? There are some very smart people in entertainment. Dismas|^(talk) 03:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Mick Jagger would be very unsuited to being a member of parliament. 92.24.185.225 (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Schwarzeneggar's ratings are in the 20% range. I don't think he is "is generally respected". Corvus cornix_talk 05:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think he is. Liberal voters have generally been surprised that he wasn't as bad as they'd feared he might be. And although Bush sabotaged Davis (and California) by refusing to intervene in the electricity con so that they could get a Republican elected, then promptly intervened as soon as Aanold was in office, Schwarzenegger never played Republican party games, and often spoke out against them. I think he's generally seen as having the country's best interests at heart even by those who think most Republicans do not. — kwami (talk) 09:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

And for most of his time in office, as I already pointed out, his approval rating was quite high, at some points very high (at least by California standards). There are a lot of people who don't agree with what he did, but I think that most people think that he really was trying to help California out. California sucks to govern, and I certainly wouldn't want the job. Buddy431 (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this is about right. California itself was probably going to be a muddle either way, but Arnold showed himself to be more thoughtful and more independent than his detractors had suspected he would be when he was elected. (I was one of said detractors.) --Mr.98 (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The Mercury News article linked to above says that when he started there was a $10.2 billion deficit, but now there is a $25.4 billion deficit. So on that, he failed. The cancellation of the increase in car tax (losing $4billion a year) seems like expensive crowd-pleasing ("bread and circuses"), so I'm inclined to think that although he was able to get the voters to see things including himself in a positive light due to his acting experience, when assessed by the figures alone he did a poor job. 92.24.185.225 (talk) 11:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you're ignoring the little matter of the worldwide economic collapse in the mean time. Personal income tax revenues tanked. Presumably, so did property tax and sales tax. That wasn't under the Governator's control.

The best thing he did was get himself hated by the horrible union of the prison guards. I want to clarify that I'm not criticizing individual prison guards themselves; it's a terrible job that, unfortunately, someone has to do. But their union has been just appalling, daring to oppose measures that keep people out of prison in a state with an unbelievably high incarceration rate, apparently on the grounds that they would mean less work for their members. To me that's utterly inexcusable. --Trovatore (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

But politics is more than cherry-picking figures, of course. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

He managed to get himself hated by the nurses' union, the teachers' unions and the state employees. He got himself hated by the right, by the left who supported the unions (and voted down his long series of ridiculous propositions). I still see nobody who supports him. Corvus cornix_talk 21:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Being hated by the prison guards' union is a really big plus. --Trovatore (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2

Unusual given names of movie characters

Yesterday I watched a re-run of Parrish, a 1961 Troy Donahue/Claudette Colbert/Karl Malden movie, which I’d heard of but never seen. I’m not at all sure I’m any better off for having done so. But anyway, my question is about names of movie characters.

Dean Jagger played a man named Sala Post (Sala pronounced like a non-rhotic Sailor). The only Sala I’d ever heard of is a surname (pronounced Sah-luh). I checked and found there are three Wiki-notable people with the first name Sala, but one’s a woman, one wasn’t even born till 1976 (the film was based on a 1958 novel), and the other was hardly well-enough known to have influenced the novelist. So, we have a character with a particularly unusual given name (nothing wrong with that per se).

Now, unusual given names are things that people in real life notice and often comment on or ask questions about. There would be a point in having a character with such a name if the name itself played some role in the plot, or at least there was some acknowledgement in the movie of its oddness. But if it’s treated as if it were a perfectly normal name like Bill or Harry or Mary or Jane, then what actually is the point of going to the trouble of giving the character such a name to begin with? The title character Parrish Maclean is another case in point. Maybe in this particular case the novel went into the name issue but that explanation got lost in the translation to the screen. Nevertheless, I’ve often noticed this tendency, particularly in American movies, of characters with given names that virtually nobody has ever heard of but everyone treats them as perfectly normal and never asks how they're spelt. I could probably produce quite a long list if I had the energy.

I can see some sense in making a character stand out from the crowd by giving them an unusual attribute – but to then treat it as if it was not remotely unusual is sort of giving out a confused message.

So, what am I missing here? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 03:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not that uncommon for people to have uncommon names. "Parrish" sounds like one of those last names used as first names, like with the real-life people McGeorge Bundy, Jefferson Davis, Anderson Cooper, Jackson Browne, Turner Gill, Brooks Robinson, etc. Perhaps if you had 300 pages to discuss someone, it would make sense to explain the origin of the name, but in a 90 minute film it might be a distraction. Come to think of it, did they ever explain the origin of the title character's name in any of the 247 episodes of Murphy Brown? And The Simpsons has never given an in-universe explanation, as far as I know, for Homer and Bartholomew Simpson's unusual first names. (Fans know Homer was Matt Groening's father's name and "Bart" is an anagram of "brat."). -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me that Homer and Bart are uncommon names but not unusual ones, which is a bit different from the original question. They're familiar enough names so as not to require any explanation. Not so with "Sala Post", of course. Google tells me that "Sala Post" was the name of a real person in Connecticut history, where the film and novel was set, and where the author was from. Maybe the author was familiar with the name and picked it for historical reasons, or just liked the oddness of it. Maybe the novel explains the name. That said, I think movies characters are sometimes unusually named just to be offbeat and memorable. Examples abound, as Jack says. One of my favorite movies, Bottle Rocket, springs to mind. A main character is named Dignan, perhaps a first name, which is unusual. Another character is called "Future Man", with no explanation given -- or needed. Just go with it. —Kevin Myers 05:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Hermione Granger stood out, but she was in a book first. HiLo48 (talk) 05:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Context is pretty significant. Hermione is uncommon in middle class Britain, but it's a name I have heard a number of times in an upper class context. Equally I'd consider many given names in the US slightly unusual, given my own experiences.

ALR (talk) 06:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Mwalcoff's made a good distinction. There are many names that are unusual as given names, but very well known as surnames and so are not uncommon per se. For example, if I were to meet an Anderson Jones or a Smith Johnson or a Cartwright Kennedy, I'd have no doubt how to spell their names. But watching that movie yesterday, every time I heard someone say "Say-lah", I was thinking "Sailor", forgetting that they'd be pronouncing that word rhotically if it were really Sailor. But even if that had dawned on me, I'd still be wondering how to spell this "Say-la" name. It seems to me that's an unreasonable burden to place on a viewer. It's one thing to have a list of the characters and players at the end (this movie didn't do that), but for reasonably intelligent viewers to have to depend on seeing such a list to work out how characters' names were spelt seems a bit much. This movie was made decades before google. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 06:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Sala is a Biblical name. Americans have always had weird Biblical names, and that was especially true in old-timey sepia tumbleweed days. Perhaps obscure Biblical names are less common in Australia, but the minute I saw the name "Sala", I thought to myself, that's gotta be some leper or shepherd or something. 90% of weird American forenames are from the Old Testament. American history is full of Gomers and Jethros and Zebulons. People must have been used to it, either from familiarity with the Bible or simply from dealing with lots of Biblically named people. LANTZY^TALK 08:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

By definition it's only weird if you are not used to it. I'm sure there are tons of names that sound normal to you and weird to me (or any of the other editors here). Ariel. (talk) 10:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Lantzy -- Such American naming habits were heavily influenced by those of 17th-century English puritans. At least names like "Unless-Jesus-Christ-Had-Died-For-Thee-Thou-Hadst-Been-Damned Barbon" stayed on the other side of the Atlantic... -- AnonMoos (talk) 12:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Dickens gave his characters unusual nasmes - I wonder if that was done to reduce the chances of libel actions. 92.24.185.225 (talk) 12:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

JackofOz -- for many years I had great difficulty parsing the name "St. John Rivers" in Jane Eyre, and wondered whether this was some bizarre British naming practice... -- AnonMoos (talk) 12:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, "sinjən" is bizarre. But the British have a national obsession for bizarre pronunciations and rituals and traditions, so that's part of the deal. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Would the movie have been better if it had had Sallah in it instead of Sala? Matt Deres (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Not really, nothing could have saved it. That's the miracle of TV, though: they can take a movie that died at the box office, and bring it back to life 50 years later. (Or even 6 months later, rebadged misleadingly as "comedy smash".)  :)

I guess they couldn't have called him Shelah (one of the alternative forms of Salah (biblical figure)) - I'd be thinking "What's a bloke named Sheila doing in this movie. Johnny Cash, this is obviously where you got your idea for a A Boy Named Sue from". -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Traditionally English-speaking Protestants have given their children first names from the Old Testament and family surnames as first names, to avoid the names of saints.--Wetman (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Old children's story

Resolved

I once owned a set of books called the Blue Books which were volumes of children's poems, fairy tales, and stories. They were published in the USA in the 1950s. I recall one of my favourites was a story called Little Diamond and the North Wind. Does anyone have any information regarding that lovely tale? Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Could it be the same as At the Back of the North Wind? ---Sluzzelin talk 09:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

That's it, Sluzzelin! The Blue Book had an abridged version of the story. Thank you. Once again, the ref desk has come through and provided the right answer.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm now curious about the blue books. Were they Blue Book (magazine), or are they perhaps not featured at all under blue book disambiguation page? ---Sluzzelin talk 11:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I think they had another name. My mother always referred to them as the blue books due to their blue binding, but after Googling blue books and coming up zero, I believe they had another name. I recall there had been at least 12 volumes, with the first ones dedicated to nursery rhymes. I do remember Andersen's Snow Queen was in volume seven. The illustrations were beautiful.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Eureka! They were called My Book House and were edited by Olive Beaupre Miller. My set was published in the late 1930s, rather than 1950s. Here is the external link: [6].--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

"American" style wedding

During episode 4 of series 6 of Top Gear, Richard Hammond describes an outdoor wedding as an "American style outdoor wedding". I'm American and I wasn't aware that we had pioneered the concept of the outdoor wedding.  ;-) Seriously though, what was meant by this? What's particularly "American" about this? Dismas|^(talk) 12:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the fact that it's not performed in a church? Dunno, just guessing, but I can say that a Christian wedding that's not performed in a church is a somewhat odd concept for the part of Europe I live in. TomorrowTime (talk) 12:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

British weddings are almost always held indoors, whether in a church or a registry office. The idea of standing around in some garden wearing a dinner jacket to get married is usually only seen in American films, hence Hammond's remark. 87.112.177.117 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC).

(ec) The large majority of weddings in Britain are held indoors either in churches or registry offices. Since the passing into law of the Marriage Act 1994, approved premises may also be used (Castles, Football grounds, hotels, country houses etc) but are seen as an extravagant option. Nanonic (talk) 12:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Pedantry alert: the official name is Register office. There are less-extravagant alternative venues than castles etc: I recently attended a fairly low-key ceremony in a Cambridge college. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The official name may be "register office", but "registry office" has been widely used for at least a century, according to the OED:

1911 G. B. Shaw Getting Married 236 Marriages gave place to contracts at a registry office.    1931 J. S. Huxley What dare I Think? vi. 205 The marriage ceremonial among most primitive peoples‥contains a religious motive, just as much as does a Christian wedding ceremony (and just as little as does a wedding in a registry office). 87.112.177.117 (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The British weather is too unpredictable to arrange weddings outdoors. I don't agree that hotels and country houses are seen as an extravagant option; they are the norm these days for people who don't want to get married in a church or registry office for whatever reason.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

"This never would have happened if the wedding had been inside the church with God instead of out here in the cheap showiness of nature!" Adam Bishop (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

If you're a regular Top Gear watcher I hope that you have noticed that part of their approach to humour is, in effect, sending up the tendency of the British (and the people of many other countries) to condemn what those strange foreign folks do. They make fun of the French, the Australians, the Japanese, and not surprisingly, Americans. All the while they are really sending up themselves, because the "attacks" are so silly at times. In this approach Americans are usually identified as being over the top in lavishness and the size of their vehicles. Could the line in question from the show be part of this approach? HiLo48 (talk) 23:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm well aware of their joking about other countries, like when Jeremy claimed that a German sat-nav system would only give you directions to Poland or James pointing out the large seats in another car, which was designed in America, saying that the seats would have to be big to fit the large butts of overweight Americans. But in the case of the wedding, it was the fact that it was outdoors that was stressed. I'm satisfied with the answers provided above. And I think it's interesting that a government would mandate not only who performed a marriage ceremony but also where they had it take place. Thanks for the responses, all! Dismas|^(talk) 00:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Mechanical copyright

In Britain, mechanical copyright on recorded works exists for a term of 50 years from that work's creation. This means that music recorded in 1960, for example, is currently out of copyright in Britain – and therefore that the earliest recordings of the Beatles will come out of copyright in just a couple of years.

However, the entire Beatles catalogue has recently been remastered. Are these remasters a last throw of the dice by the copyright holders to maximise their revenue before the expiration date, or is it understood that the remasters count as "new recordings" under the law, thereby conveniently extending the mechanical copyright by another few decades? 87.112.177.117 (talk) 12:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know British copyright law. But in the US context, the originals would still be their same old copyright, and the new material (including remastering, studio work, etc.) would be copyrighted as a new recording. That means that if the former did fall into the public domain, it would truly be in the public domain, but the new versions (with whatever new art/decisions/what have you) would not be. To use a concrete example, the Mona Lisa would be in the public domain, but the moustache would not be. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Which raises the question of who the new copyright falls to in such a situation. Does that mean that the copyright on the new remasters would by held by EMI (whose engineers made the necessary decisions when remastering), rather than the Beatles themselves (who only contributed to the original, soon-to-be-public-domain versions)? 87.112.177.117 (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

If the original isn't in the public domain when the work is done, then the subsequent masters are a derivative work (the engineers have some copyright credit, but the Beatles' copyright credit precedes them). No problem or surprise there. If the original works are in the public domain, then they're effectively "authorless" for the purpose of copyright law, and the copyright goes to the engineers only, no Beatles required. (Or, put with the analogy above, there is never a need to pay any money to the Di Vinci estate, whomever they are at this point.) At least in basic US copyright law, as far as I understand it. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

When did January 1 become a bank holiday in England?

When did January 1 become a bank holiday in England? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.226.65 (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

1974 [7].--Shantavira|^{feed me} 21:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

House of Reuss

How do the males in this family refer to each other when they have family reunion when they are all named Heinrich? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Presumably they all have personal names or nicknames which they use to distinguish each other. Maybe just numerically. You could ask the sons of George Foreman how they do it. --Jayron32 20:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

January 3

Federal reserve comic books in public domain?

I recently ordered some comic books from the Federal Reserve [8]; are these works in the public domain? I can't find any copyright information on them. Thanks! 69.207.132.170 (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)