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

July 20

Did Britain ever try to take over Europe?

Seems like other major European countries have tried at some point to take over Europe like France or Germany, but did Britain ever attempt this? If not, why not? ScienceApe (talk) 03:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

They certainly tried to take over France (see Hundred Years' War), and they also conquered Ireland (see Tudor conquest of Ireland). Attempting to take over other countries would have been problematic due to the distances and transportation requirements. You'll notice that almost all of the Europe conquering was done in more-or-less a geographically contiguous way. England wouldn't have skipped over France and started to invade Austria, for example. Even trying to conquer Norway would have been problematic due to the long sea voyage. -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 03:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (first part reply to the OP) Depends on what you mean by "Britain". At one point, the ruling dynasty in England (the Plantagenets) controlled vast parts of France directly, and even laid claim to the throne of France itself. Maybe you've heard of the Hundred Years War? The term Angevin Empire (Angevin after Anjou, the region of France where the family originated.) is sometimes used for the continental possessions of the English Royal Family at this time; however this was long before the concept of the nation state ever existed, so speaking of "countries" as we mean them in the modern sense doesn't work here. (post EC reply to 140.142) Excepting that the Norse invaded and took over England, see Cnut the Great. There's nothing problematic about that, it actually happened, just in the other direction. --Jayron32 03:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It would seem that England, and later the UK, actively followed the colonial policy that many ascribe to them: let the foreigners bicker around on the continent, and focus on the colonial empire. Such a policy meant a natural double role for the navy: support the colonies, and prevent an invasion. This would have been supported by the fact that several French attempts at invading England and one very famous Spanish one had been unsuccessful. Similarly, Britain was often defeated on the European stage: the Seven Years' War, for example, saw several losses in Europe (and in general, the leaving-the-war-there-to-someone-else policy). Britain's personal union with the Kingdom of Hannover would have allowed European meddling, but the British clearly had no appetite for such complicated politics. So I think the story is of a line of thinking that became gradually reinforced; from the times the the Tudors lost Britain's remaining lands in France, and before that had spent vast sums attempting to maintain them, through to a colonial period characterised by the Seven Years' War where British colonialism was seen as a great success, and so a priority. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Building on some of the earlier comments, a long string English monarchs (some of whom were also British monarchs) would have perceived their claims over France as reconquest of what was rightfully theirs, rather than the POV-laden "take over" of the question. But I don't think any of them can genuinely be regarded as having made a genuine stab at taking much more than a bit of the continent at a time. The closest is probably Edward I. He owned England and a chunk of France, conquered Wales, came close to taking Scotland and at the time of his death, was trying to arrange for his son to not only get all of that, but also the norse inheritance of Margaret, Maid of Norway. But he failed. And that's still a long way short of "Europe". The OP should also consider that Britain, even in Empire days, has for centuries seen itself predominantly as a maritime power - see Britannia rules the waves. As an aside, User:Clio the Muse would have loved this question, if not my answer. --Dweller (talk) 10:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Article 5 of ICJ Statute

Article 5 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice prescribes:

"At least three months before the date of the election, the Secretary-General of the United Nations shall address a written request to the members of the Permanent Court of Arbitration belonging to the states which are parties to the present Statute, and to the members of the national groups appointed under Article 4, paragraph 2, inviting them to undertake, within a given time, by national groups, the nomination of persons in a position to accept the duties of a member of the Court."

Can anyone please explain this provision in normal language to me? I've read it repeatedly but I still don't clearly understand it. Especially, I don't understand why the phrase "by national groups" is there; not knowing what is the function of that phrase (to deal with the phrase "within a given time" in order to express the meaning that such time is given by the national groups?).

Thank you so much. --Aristitleism (talk) 19:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't really understand it either, but I'll have a go. My reading is that "by national groups" is independent of "within a given time", and it means the nomination is to be carried out by national groups. As best quick googling can tell, the national groups are the up-to-four people each state has on the Permanent Court of Arbitration or has appointed by Art 4 para 2 which basically says "exactly the same conditions apply". [1] is an Irish Foreign Ministry page sort of indicating that. [2] seems to be about the (proposed?) similar organisation for the Arab League, and section 3.2.1 is a discussion of the system of nomination to the ICJ. Does that make any more sense? 95.150.23.60 (talk) 00:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

But I understand that the Secretary-General requests both (1) the members of the Permanent Court of Arbitration and (2) the members of the national groups to make the nomination, isn't that correct? I also think that "by national groups" is independent of "within a given time" because there is comma between them. However, I still don't know the truly purpose/function of the phrase "by national groups". That's why I don't really understand this provision. --Aristitleism (talk) 07:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

No I think the national groups are the only ones who make the nominations. This includes the national groups who are part of the Permanent Court of Arbitration and some other national groups. Perhaps some of the confusion arises because of the part about 'members of the national groups appointed under Article 4, paragraph 2' which reflects the fact the article shouldn't be read in isolation. If you read article 4 paragraph 2 [3] it's clearly referring to national groups appointed by UN members who are not a part of the Permanent Court of Arbitration.

The 'within a given time' is I presume either instructing the SG to give a time frame or indicating that the national groups have a limited time to make the nominations and aren't supposed to try to hold up the process by refusing to nominate anyone.

Note that International Court of Justice also says it is the national groups who make the nominations. See also [4] which discusses the national groups in the PCA and how they can nominate members for the ICJ. BTW from the above linked article on the PCA, only 112 out of the current 193 (well I've included the newest member South Sudan for the 193 but not the 112 but it's possible they've already joined the PCA, Sudan was part) indicating somewhat why the Article 4 Paragraph 2 thing is needed.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

So, the function of the phrase "by national groups" (after "within a given time") is to merely emphasise that the "nomination of persons in a position to..." is to be made "by national groups" (those requested by the UN secretary-general according to such provision)? --Aristitleism (talk) 08:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Probably yes. This would be opposed to the nomination by the various members ambassadors to the UN or some other such person/s and would also be opposed to each member of the PCA giving their own individual nominations (perhaps the more important point). Note that since there are up to four members who are part of a national group, there is obviously a big difference between each member and each national group making nominations. And there are limits on the nominations (no more then four nor double the members that need to be elected and no two from one country). BTW I've made some minor changes to my above comment which I only saved after you replied. Nil Einne (talk) 08:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it's talking about the United Nations Regional Groups? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it has nothing at all to do with the UN Regional Groups. A "national group" is a group of individuals from one nation, as Nil Einne has explained. Mathew5000 (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

To understand Article 5, you first have to read Article 4 thoroughly. For each state, its "national group" is either (a) in the case of states who are parties to both the ICJ and the PCA, the group of up to four arbitrators on the PCA from that state, or (b) in the case of states who are parties to the ICJ but not the PCA, a group of up to 4 individuals appointed by the government of the state for this special purpose.

Now looking closely at Article 5 paragraph 1, it speaks of a written request. The written request is not addressed to the state governments, but rather to the individuals who are members of the PCA, i.e. to the arbitrators themselves. (Additionally, the request is sent to the individuals belonging to national groups, if any, appointed under Article 4 paragraph 2.) So all of these individuals have received this written request from the UN Secretary-General, requesting nominations of judges to the ICJ. But the nominations are to be undertaken "by national groups". So for example, suppose I am one of the four arbitrators from Canada who is a member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration. I would receive this written request from the UN Secretary-General, and I would then sit down with the other three Canadian arbitrators who are members of the PCA. Then the four of us (constituting the Canadian "national group") would collectively send back to the Secretary-General our nomination(s). That's the meaning of "by national groups" in Article 5 paragraph 1. Without those three words, I as an individual member of the PCA could just write back to the Secretary-General with my nomination for an ICJ judge, and some other Canadian member could write to the Secretary-General with different nominations. But since Article 5 paragraph 1 specifies that the nominations are to be undertaken "by national groups", the four Australians on the PCA must agree among themselves, the three Bahrainians on the PCA must agree among themselves, the four Cameroonians on the PCA must agree among themselves, and so on and so forth. Mathew5000 (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Forming one's own country

How to establish one's own country? --Mango0099 (talk) 08:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps Declaration of independence and Micronation will be of interest. 130.88.73.71 (talk) 10:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course, none of the Micronations are actually "recognized" as countries, they're basically composed of members of fringe political groups who decided that they didn't want to follow the laws of the countries they were residents of. --Jayron32 12:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The argument that I have heard some micronations make is that Article 3 of Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (an "accepted as part of customary international law," according to our article) states that "The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. " Ergo, "recognition" should not be required. However, in practice, I believe this tends to be overlooked by most countries. ^Avic_ennasis @ 06:44, 19 Tamuz 5771 / 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Queen proposing

Who made up the rule that Queen regnants had to propose to their husbands? And has all European queen regnant in modern age proposed to their husbands like Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II, ie. Portugal, Spain, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg (although only Grand Duchesses)? Did Queen Mary I propose to Philip of Spain or was it the other way around? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 11:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Do queen regnants have to propose to their husbands? A number of sources say Philip proposed to Elizabeth.[5][6][7] --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Although Elizabeth wasn't queen at the time, if that makes a difference. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Victoria's decision to propose marriage to her cousin Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha was anything other than her own personal sense of majestic responsibility. If she was observing any "rule" it was, rather, the pre-20th century custom that restrained persons of inferior but dignified rank from approach their betters to beg boons. The situation was awkward because by the time of their courtship, affection was expected to play a part in the betrothal, so it was no longer left to court ministers to simply negotiate an international marriage treaty. Yet it would have seemed importunate for a petty princeling to make a request of a powerful monarch that was at once so important, intimate and aggrandizing. Plus their mutual Uncle Leopold probably nudged her along. I've never heard of any other female sovereign, before or afterwards, doing likewise. But I admire her for it. FactStraight (talk) 05:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Aside: "Queens regnant" is better usage than "Queen regnants", since regnant is an adjective rather than the noun. Compare secretaries general. Brammers (talk/c) 08:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Philip of Spain had already become King of Naples when the marriage negotiations started and was thus equal to the Queen of England. Surtsicna (talk) 08:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

American liberals vs socialists

What is the difference between American liberals and socialists? --79df (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Liberals are generally linked with Democratic Party (United States); see Liberalism in the United States. The Socialist Party USA is socialist(!) and the article has a little info on its policies: widespread public ownership and workers' control of corporations are key, as well as publicly owned free healthcare; its official website has more details[8]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) "Socialist" is a very vague term nowadays, because many parties in Europe retain their names from a more leftist period. The OP should explain whether s/he means "socialists" as in the French socialist party, for instance (just left of centre, not too different from American liberals), or "socialists" in the sense of "proponents of socialism", i.e. proponents of an economic system different from capitalism, where factories, companies and land aren't private property (like Socialist Party USA). People who call themselves "socialists" in the USA are likely to be of the second type, I think.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

By socialist, I mean anti-capitalist people who advocate public ownership of key industries, public ownership of healthcare and education sector, free healthcare, free and compulsory education (these are controversial issues and I'm not interested in the debate whether these so-called "free" something are good or bad) for poor, and maximum "redistribution of wealth" by imposing maximum taxes on riches. Private business, if exist, according to them should be taxed heavily. They also advocate maximum "minimum wage", rigid labor laws, oppose hire and fire policy, opposed to property rights. Socialists also believe that owners of capital exploit the workers, this is why public ownership is the solution to stop "exploitation", as they call it, of workers. Do American liberals have these beliefs? --79df (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Your definition of "socialist" is a rather weird hybrid, an attempt to combine the two distinct types of "socialism" that I mentioned and seems to be influenced by right-wing propaganda. It doesn't exactly match any existent type of "socialist". Lumping together moderate positions such as high taxes and free education with radical positions such as the confiscation of all private property is completely artificial. A "socialist socialist" does not focus on taxes on the rich, because, in view of the public ownership of the economy, the rich wouldn't exist. Saying that taxing the rich to provide education is the same as abolishing private property is absurd.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 12:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The positions I described above are democratic socialist positions, as opposed to classical socialism (dictatorship of the proletariat). Classical socialists advocate forceful confiscation of private property, democratic socialists do not. Their means of achieving socialism and eradication of capitalism are different, but their fundamental view is same. --79df (talk) 12:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

A modern day "democratic socialist" is afraid of the very word "nationalization". I don't know what you mean by "forceful" confiscation - classical socialists were not united in wanting a revolution, confiscation or even buying by the democratically elected state could have worked, too (though I suppose that specifically Marx wouldn't believe in that possibility). The fundamental view is not the same - European "reformed" socialists and American liberals want to keep capitalism and inequality and just mitigate their negative effects a bit by occasional interventions of state policy. Classical socialists don't want any capitalism and any inequality. The difference is enormous, although if one is located in the opposite end of the political spectrum, both will seem like anathema to one. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 13:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Free health care and compulsory education are not socialist positions, except in the rhetoric of US right-wingers. They are entirely mainstream in most developed market democracies. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To OP's questions immediately above Stephen Schulz's response: In that case, no. On the political continuum, the Democratic Party (America's "Left-Center" party) comes closer to that than the Republican Party (America's "Right-Center" party) does, but that's not saying much. Generally, some of those issues are well supported by both parties, some by neither, but in general the Democratic Party comes closer. For example, both parties in general fully support free and compulsory education (A very small number of Republicans and some members of the Libertarian Party, a small "third party", oppose it) and both parties support major health and welfare programs like Social Security and Medicare. That is, even the conservative Republican Party has no desire to dismantle these programs, and supports them fully. Neither party supports completely free or government provided healthcare (though the Democrats support implementing Medicare-like programs for a greater number of people). Neither party AT ALL supports government ownership of major industrial sectors, or oppose property rights, and neither party supports "redistributing wealth", though the Democrats generally favor meeting budget shortfalls by increasing the government's income, usually through increased taxes, while the Republicans generally favor doing the same by reducing expenditures instead. --Jayron32 12:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The GOP has put forward certain proposals, which have been cited by its opponents in accusations that it wants to privatize both Social Security and Medicare, even though it avoids these exact terms.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 12:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)Part of the problem is that your assumptions about Socialism aren't actually Socialist views. They sound more like classical Communism, which no nation has ever actually achieved.

Some socialists endeavor to implement communism, but not the majority. The American brand of liberalism generally accepts our mixed-market economy, with more emphasis on social programs than conservative Laissez-faire economics. The majority of American liberals are still conservative by European standards. There are a few on the fringe who could be called actual Socialists, but the majority of American liberals are still pretty centrist with their policies. American politicians are very unlikely to be truly "anti-capitalist," nor are they for true "redistribution of wealth." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you have misconception on the meaning of communism. Do you know what does communism mean? Communism is a social system which is be both classless and stateless. The term "communist state" (which is widely used in popular culture) is an oxymoron because communist social order and the state can't co-exist.. Soviet Union was a socialist state. As Marx said, socialism will be the transition phase from capitalist social order (society divided among capitalists and workers) to communist social order (classless and stateless society). Classical socialism (USSR) is dictatorship of the proletariat (single-party rule by a workers' vanguard party), democratic socialism is socialist economic policies within a democratic political framework (multiparty electoral system). The positions I described above are democratic socialist positions, as opposed to classical socialism (USSR). --79df (talk) 12:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

79df, HandThatFeeds uses "socialism" and "communism" in the sense of political ideologies/groupings (of "socialists" and "communists"), not the narrowly Marxian use of the terms in the sense of different stages in the development of a society. The same applies to my response to him. Both uses of the terms are "correct", just in different contexts.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

HandThatFeeds, classical socialism was the same as communism. The current "pro-capitalism socialists" are a recent phenomenon. When the term "communist" came to be used to denote something distinct from "socialist", it was only to designate members of Lenin's Third International as opposed to other socialists. Both groups had public ownership of the economy as the ultimate aim, and that aim had been characteristic of all socialists long before Lenin.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Right, both classical socialists (violent overthrow of capitalism) and democratic socialists (gradual overthrow of capitalism) believe owners of capital exploit the workers. This is the main diagnostic feature of a socialist. Thus both classical and democratic socialists are two sub-species of the same species. Some democratic socialists advocate public ownership of all means of production, other democratic socialists advocate imposing high taxes on owners of capital, implementing rigid labor laws, and then redistribute the wealth among the workers as an alternative to government ownership. These two kinds of democratic socialists (advocate of absolute public ownership and advocate of moderate public ownership with strong redistribution mechanism) are phenotypically different, but genotypically similar. --79df (talk) 13:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @IP91, classical socialism was a step towards communism, but not one-and-the same. Yes, you're correct that public ownership of the economy was the ultimate aim, but socialism veered away from that very quickly. Hence, my distinction between socialism and true communism (which would be the end-product of those goals).

@79df you miss the distinction. Or, you're applying a very strict definition of socialism. If that's the case, American liberals have nothing to do with socialists as you understand them. They lean towards social programs & tighter regulation, but have no desire to sublimate all commerce & property into government hands. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

"Very quickly" is a relative term. The non-communist socialists didn't have to renounce the ultimate goal officially, since they could just postpone it constantly in view of their "reformist", gradualist strategy. I recall reading that as late as the beginning Mitterrand's presidency, the French socialists were seriously thinking of nationalizing industries. About that time, the great rightward change began, and now the European "socialists" are often even seen privatizing instead of nationalizing.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Do not American liberals have similarity with the second type of democratic socialists (implementing a "redistribution" mechanism by imposing high taxes on riches and then using that tax money for "social welfare" polices as an alternative to common ownership of property)? --79df (talk) 13:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Not really. Calling taxation "redistribution" is a bit of a stretch, as the taxes are used for far more than just social programs. And, under the current circumstances, it's revoking the tax cuts for the rich that are being discussed, not new taxation. The thing to keep in mind is that American liberals (and some conservatives) support social programs like federal parks, basic education and health inspection. But, there's no attempt to make "common ownership of property" at all. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

"Redistribution of wealth is the transfer of income, wealth or property from some individuals to others caused by a social mechanism such as taxation, monetary policies, welfare." BTW, progressive taxation is violation of equality before law because it discriminates against the riches. --79df (talk) 14:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Mainstream American liberals are not really interested in redistribution of income per se. They are interested in making sure that, in a rich society, nobody goes hungry or is denied needed medical care. They think that the cost of achieving those goals should be shared according to people's ability to pay. They are not opposed to inequality of wealth or to capitalism, per se. They do see a role for government regulation where the market has failed to meet society's needs, in areas such as financial intermediation or healthcare provision, but this hardly amounts to opposition to capitalism as an underlying economic system.

As for the notion that progressive taxation violates equality before the law, that is debatable. Everyone at a given income level is treated equally, according to law. Laws by their nature have to discriminate. Should children under the age of 5 be allowed to drive? Aren't laws preventing them from doing so a violation of equal treatment? The fact is that people over the age of 16 or so are better able to drive. Similarly, people over a given income level are better able to pay. Another example would be a law regulating a military draft during a time of national emergency. Such a law would target people within an age range best able to provide the service needed. Would the draft law's exemption of people under the age of 16 and over the age of 65 count as a violation of equality under law for those aged 16–65? Few people would make such an argument. Marco polo (talk) 14:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

False analogy. Barring children from driving is based on the harm principle with which taxation has nothing to do. Just as you can't fly an aircraft without proper training (because there is possibility of crash killing the untrained pilot and other innocent people), children can't drive and they can't be trained unless they reach maturity. And conscription is involuntary servitude, which is a more formal term for slavery. Proponents of conscription justify draft using social contract theory. "American liberals are interested in making sure that, in a rich society, nobody goes hungry or is denied needed medical care. They think that the cost of achieving those goals should be shared according to people's ability to pay." - it is also based on social contract theory. Whenever a government forces someone do something against their will (violates free will of an agent), whether it is draft, taxation, abridgement of personal freedom, anti-terror laws, or violation of privacy, they justify it using social contract theory. It is a matter of broader debate whether social contract a valid theory or not, but it is not the right place for that. --79df (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You're right that this is not the right place for debate. But, you seem to have made up your mind on certain things (ie. "conscription = slavery"), so I wonder what you're actually wanting us to answer. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Marco polo sums it up very well. There's no legal basis for the claim that a tiered or progressive tax is discriminatory, and the phrase "redistribution of wealth" has been turned into a pejorative phrase used by American anti-tax proponents. American liberals aren't anti-capitalist, but they are for regulations that protect consumers & workers. To pure Capitalists, I'm sure this appears to be an abridgment of freedom. Most Americans don't see it that way, though. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's sum it up: The traditional definition of socialism is belief in the public ownership of the means of production, like when the UK nationalized its steel industry. Nowadays, a lot of "socialist" parties, so named because they or their predecessors once advocated that position, no longer believe in it. Today's socialists sometimes say they believe in "a market economy but not a market society." In other words, they're just people on the left wing. It gets more confusing when you bring in the word "liberal." Originally, and to this day in most of the world, a "liberal" is one who supports a free market and human rights. In the U.S., a "liberal" is someone on the left (although probably not as left-wing as socialists in Europe, American politics generally being far to the right of other developed countries). For the U.S., we can say a liberal is a moderate left-winger and a socialist a more hardcore left-winger, but those definitions are not necessarily the only ones. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

So the conclusion is socialists are in the fringes of American political spectrum, right? --79df (talk) 01:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Generally speaking, yes, true "socialists", under any normal definition of the word, lie pretty far outside of the mainstream of American political thought, and the main platforms of the two major parties don't include a whole lot of socialist doctrine. Though both parties have a few tenuous connections to actual socialism, neither party would properly be described as "socialist". It may be better to think about both parties as essentially captalist, free marketers, with the Democrats favoring economic supports for labor, and the Republicans favoring economic supports for management: neither one supports socialism, per se, but both find their base in different parts of the free market. --Jayron32 02:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

However, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont is a Social Democrat (probably more social democrat) who runs as an independent, though he does caucus with the Democrats. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

However Sen. Sanders (Independent) thinks, acts and votes in practice, he's always called himself a socialist or democratic socialist. That doesn't, of course, exclude his being a social democrat, too. (I've always thought of myself as both a democratic socialist and a social democrat.) —— Shakescene (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Ramayana: Disambiguation

Recently I came to know about the largest Indonesian departmental stores chain called Ramayana. Since Ramayana is a Hindu epic and Indonesia is the world's largest Muslim country, I think it is of interest and a disambiguation could be relevant. I want to know about your decision in this matter.

Also, though I have done some editing, I don't know how to handle a disambiguation. Can some editors handle it if I send you the text (if the suggestion is Okayed)?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shillog (talk • contribs) 12:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

this question is really for the Wikipedia:Help desk instead of the reference desk. That said, it's really not necessary to do a new disambiguation page for it. If the store chain has enough references, you can create Ramayana (store) and use Template:Redirect at the top of the main Ramayana page to let people know about the other option, or just add it to Ramayana (disambiguation). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Where do scriptures say that ancestors' sins are inherited?

Some argue that aborted babies go to Hell because of the original sin. I haven't seen any verse saying that ancestors' sins are inherited? --70.179.165.67 (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Exodus 20:5,6 − "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD, your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments." (part of the Ten Commandments)

Ezekiel 18:1-3 − Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying, "What do you mean by using this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, 'The fathers eat the sour grapes, But the children’s teeth are set on edge'? As I live," declares the Lord GOD, "you are surely not going to use this proverb in Israel anymore. Behold, all souls are Mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is Mine. The soul who sins will die." —Akrabbim^talk 15:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you'll find any serious theologians espousing the view that aborted babies go to hell. The modern conception of original sin is more akin to "imperfection". Humans are created with free will and so have the ability to choose to be less than they were intended -- hence, we can choose to deviate from our divine origins and so to introduce imperfection (i.e., sin). As for "inheriting sin", the modern interpretation is not that sin is a genetic abberation, but that it is a socially commnicable disease. When one sins, one damages community and (by example) encourages others to do likewise. Wikiant (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Aborted babies may not go to Hell, but live-birth babies who die before being able to be baptised go to Limbo, not to Heaven. So says the Catholic Church's teaching on original sin. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no it doesn't. Some Catholics have taught that unbaptised babies and children go to Limbo, but Limbo for the unbaptised is not official Church teaching: it is not in the Catechism. There are been official statements stating that it is not official dogma. The Church actually says that we can't know what happens to unbaptised babies and children, although if their parent wanted them to be baptised they may have the so-called 'baptism of desire' at death. Since we know the ordinary situation requires someone to be baptised to enter Heaven ("No one can enter Heaven unless he is born again of water and the Holy Spirit"), but we also know God is not bound by his sacraments, we can simply hope, and baptise babies whenever possible to be safe. We do know (according to Catholic teaching) that God will make a just and merciful decision, whatever that is, so we can hope that the unbaptised children are in Heaven. 86.164.72.255 (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that correction to my long-standing misconception, which came from what I was taught by my Christian Brothers school and my priests, and reinforced by my parents. My sister was born very premature and was not expected to live, so she was immediately baptised in the hospital to ensure her passage through the pearly gates, as otherwise she'd have remained in Limbo for eternity, or so the family story has always gone. In the event, she pulled through and is very much alive. I must inform my mother that she and my late father are guilty of having unwittingly spread theological inexactitudes, and may technically be heretics. I doubt she'll lose any sleep over it, though. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The "unbaptised infants to Limbo" idea was commonly espoused and taught until recent decades. There was a TV documentary shown in the UK about people in Ireland who are trying to get the Church to help them find the unmarked and unconsecrated spots where their children and relatives are buried. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Itsyoujudith. I knew I wasn't mis-remembering what I thought I was taught. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The argument laid out by the IP is the Church's current teaching, much more humane. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't meaning to say Jack wasn't taught it (I thought that was clear in 'some Catholics have taught that...'). It was certainly taught as if it were dogma by certain 'enthusiastic' Catholics, but it wasn't actually dogma. It wasn't defined until recently, when the magisterium clarified that it wasn't official dogma at all (which isn't to say some don't believe it). A Catholic parent in Jack's parents' position would still be encouraged to perform the emergency baptism, because we can hope that unbaptised babies go to Heaven (although we cannot know for sure), but we know that a baptised baby definitely will. So the real change has been in emphasising our trust in God's mercy and justice, and clarifying that the extra 'location' wasn't dogma. When people bemoan the lack of factual (Catechism) learning in modern Catholic education, and the emphasis on loving God and one another, I think they forget how many wrong things were taught by over-enthusiastic teachers, and passed on down the generations, without the grounding of love. 86.164.73.177 (talk) 08:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-- Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." (Ezekiel 18:20) 99.2.148.119 (talk) 18:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It looks like you didn't get the update. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but interpretations of the NT vary, especially books outside the Gospels. Also, there's Jews, Muslims and other assorted religions based off the OT to consider. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a not-so-uncommon belief, especially in the Southern United States. People who hear this opinion espoused can be turned away from God, disgusted by this injustice. The matter of fact, though, is that God is "perfect... all his ways are justice" (Duet. 32:4). The Bible also promises everlasting life to righteous ones; even more so "a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous" (Acts 24:15). In a relatively short time period (Judgement Day (hint: it's not one day)) these righteous and unrighteous will have 'proved his or her worth,' so to speak, whence the unrighteous will be cut off, i.e. destroyed forever.
The point being here is that the belief in a torment in Hellfire teaches a perverted form of everlasting life, wheres The Bible teaches the exact opposite. Schyler (one language) 00:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

As has been pointed out to you numerous times, it is disingenuous to stealthily present JW doctrine as if it were consensus Christian doctrine. Per our Christian views on Hell article, hell rather than obliteration remains the theological majority view (if not literal "hellfire"; I've no real idea there), and the Watchtower bible has significant deviations from mainline translations. — Lomn 02:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Since the questioner didn't specify which scriptures they are asking about, we might as well have a variety of perspectives. 99.2.148.119 (talk) 07:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

@92.2.148.119: The problem here is not that Schyler is presenting the Jehovah's Witness perspective on the issue. That perspective is more than welcome. The issue is that he presents that perspective as though it were the only perspective, or presents it in such a way as to mask that he is speaking for a single faith, and instead represent that he is somehow speaking for all faiths. Its fine to present the perspective of different faiths, it is not fine to present those perspectives as if it were self-evident that all people should believe them. --Jayron32 17:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it traditional for religious people to speak as if their faiths are the only true faiths? I'm not saying it's not a problem, just that it's not unexpected or unusual in any way for persons of all strong faiths to do so. 76.202.153.93 (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe that my faith is the only true faith. However, I do not assume that others believe as I do. There is a distinction between knowing what I believe, and assuming that because I believe it, everyone else in the world does as well. I may think that they should believe what I believe, but that's a different issue. If they do not, I cannot speak as though they do. --Jayron32 20:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Traditional Jewish interepretation of the Exodus verse is that if you hate God, you get punished for your forefathers' sins as well as your own. If you love God, however, you're off the hook of ancestral sin. I have no idea if progressive Judaism has a different view or not, but it's an interesting counter-point to the Christian concept of Original sin. Does anyone know if there is a single Muslim view on the subject or if it is the subject of debate? --Dweller (talk) 10:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

July 21

Mark Anthony Stroman

Mark Anthony Stroman is set to die at 6 p.m. (7 p.m. ET) today. When and where will the execution (or a last-minute reprieve) be announced? 88.8.79.148 (talk) 00:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The criminal in question is being held at Allan B. Polunsky Unit (3872 FM 350 South, Livingston, TX 77351). Schyler (one language) 00:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I mean, would they announce the execution on one of these web-pages? 88.8.79.148 (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the TDCJ is very good at updating this web page, putting the name of the executed on the list the very next day. Schyler (one language) 00:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• You are right on that. The list was updated with the execution nr. 472. 88.8.79.148 (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't Texas twit about the executions? Come on, everyone is on Twitter nowadays. Otherwise, try CNN.Quest09 (talk) 00:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing the department has a spokesman or spokeswoman whom the media can reach in the evening. The AP would call, make sure the guy actually died and put it on the wires, at which point other media would see it. Or maybe the department sends out press releases on these occasions? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's an article from BBC about his execution. BurtAlert (talk) 05:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

He was executed at 9:53 p.m. Eastern. 99.2.148.119 (talk) 07:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Some might call it linguistic pedantry but I would like to insist that he wasn't executed. The sentence of death was executed. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is linguistic pedantry. "To put to death especially in compliance with a legal sentence" is the third of eight definitions Merriam-Webster gives for "execute." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Since the late 15th Century it has been used to mean 'inflict capital punishment on [someone]'. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Dictionaries record actual usage; they do not prescribe correct usage. To execute just means 'to actually do something you were preparing to do'. It is still the sentence of death which is being executed. I doubt you will find a usage before the late 19th century which uses the word 'execute' in connection with a sentence of death and doesn't state it was the the sentence which was executed. This may be a case where widespread incorrect usage has continued unchallenged so that few now recognise it as such, but I for one think it is still worth resisting and pointing out. Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

So, you acknowledge this usage has been widespread since the late 19th century, that is, for the past approximately 125 years, but still decry it as "incorrect". Can words never change their meanings or take on additional meanings? Language change is one of those strange phenomena that must be resisted with all possible force while they're happening, but clasped to one's bosom with all insensate speed when they've finished happening. This one finished happening a very long time ago. Time to do some bosom-clasping, methinks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Do not go gentle into that good night. Rage, rage against the dying of the light. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Gough Whitlam would be proud of you, Sam. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Franz Joseph I of Austria

Is there any photo or portrait of Franz Joseph I of Austria as a child or young man? It seems like all you ever see is the old Emperor with his handlebar beard.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 08:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The corresponding category on Commons has a couple of him as a young man, including this one. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 08:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Rationale of not letting people leave a socialist country

What explanation did (or do) socialist or communist countries gave to explain why they didnt let people emigrate? If it was paradise, it would be possibly a quite difficult idea to defend... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.8.79.148 (talk) 12:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

In the case of East Germany, you can read their explanation in the article Republikflucht. But note that forbidding people from leaving is a mark of authoritarian countries in general, not just communist ones (Nazi Germany was pretty strongly anticommunist, but it was as difficult to get out of as East Germany was a few years later), and some communist countries (like the PRC) have no problem allowing their citizens to emigrate. Angr (talk) 12:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that even freedom-loving democracies have denied passports for dissidents. During the McCarthy years it was not uncommon for prominent leftist scientists and activists to have their passports revoked so that they could not spread "anti-American propaganda" or "help the Communist cause" abroad. Examples of this that come to mind include Linus Pauling and Frank Oppenheimer (in the latter case, it essentially forced him to stop doing research science, as his admission to having once been a Communist kept him from being employable in a US university, whereas India and Brazil would have happily taken him; he had to become a cattle rancher, in the end, and wait out McCarthyism). Freedom of travel from the USA is not guaranteed — passports and exiting country are done at the discretion of the Department of State, and can be (and have been) influenced politically. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

In theory, I think, you don't need a passport to leave a country, only to be admitted somewhere else. The text starts out with the Secretary of State praying all those to whom these presents shall come to give all lawful protection yada yada yada. So if India had sent a ship for Oppenheimer and he had kayaked out to the three mile limit to meet it, I don't think any US law would have been broken. Can't say I'm sure though. --Trovatore (talk) 20:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

True... it is really a matter of scale. In non-authoritarian states, a specific individual may have the right to emigrate restricted or denied, but the norm is to allow emigration without restriction. In authoritarian states this is reversed... a specific individual may be granted permission to emigrate, but the norm is to deny. Blueboar (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course, "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country" (emphasis mine), according to the sometimes inconvenient Universal Declaration of Human Rights. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Paul Robeson was another that had his passport revoked. Has the legality of doing this under the US Constitution ever been challenged? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

This is not to say that it is applicable for the Paul Robeson case; but in general "universal rights" are revoked all the time in free societies as part of the due process of law, for example persons accused of serious crimes may be denied freedom of movement, everything from being placed under travel restrictions and/or placed in jail without bond until the trial. Such revokations of a person's individual liberties are not supposed to be taken lightly in a free society, but it is also expected that a person's freedom is not limited by his fellow persons either, and if a society does not restrict the movements of, say, serial killers and armed thugs and other elements of society, then who is left to be free? Again, nothing in specifics here, just that "universal" rights are never really "universal" in the sense of "every single person can do these things for their entire life from birth to death and no one can ever stop them for any reason." --Jayron32 17:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Comparing it with the restrictions on criminals and accused criminals is a straw man. The UNDHR does not stop people from incarcerating non-political criminals ("This right [of asylum from persecution] may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."). Anyway, in the case of US passports, it's not clear there is any due process involved in these cases. There are no organs for appeal, there is no overview, there is no transparency, there are not even any standardized guidelines about what disqualified one for a passport in these cases. It was an arbitrary political decision without any process whatsoever other than "He wants a passport? Fat chance!" As to the Constitutionality of it, courts have affirmed some recent versions of this (with more due process than the McCarthyism, and related to child support payments, not politics) as legal, claiming that international travel is not (!) a basic right guaranteed by the Constitution. But it is controversial. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Then there's the perspective that you may be able to leave, but not to go to certain places. Not aware of any such restrictions in my country, but I believe it's difficult for Americans to leave home if their plan is to visit Cuba. HiLo48 (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I once asked a Czech man who had spent the first 30 or 35 years of his life under communism how the authorities defended not letting people leave the country. He said, "You don't understand. They didn't need to explain. There was no debating under communism." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

That's certainly the experience of a citizen in the Soviet case as well. It wasn't just that people's movement outside of the country was controlled — during most of it, their movement within the country was also heavily regulated, proscribed, etc. It was just how things were. But there probably were elaborate theoretical justifications created by Party hacks — probably along the lines of the GDR article linked to above. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Cuba is the only country I know of that Americans are expressly prohibited by law from traveling to (by the Helms–Burton Act, though there are now a number of circumstances in which people can travel there legally, and it is not unknown to vacation there illegally by traveling first to Mexico). --Mr.98 (talk) 01:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly Mr.98. US citizens can travel to Cuba, but US companies are not allowed to make business with it (hence, no direct flights). Technically, the problem isn't that you can't visit Cuba, it's what you do with your money. There are no travel restrictions imposed by the State Department, or by Homeland Security. The restrictions are trade sanctions. 88.8.79.148 (talk) 12:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

No earnt income, but living off....?

According to this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14235330 he earns no income. So who is he living off? 2.97.212.150 (talk) 16:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

"Earned income" or "income from earnings" is a defined term in most tax systems. It refers (usually) to pay from employment. If Prince Andrew is not employed, if he doesn't have a job with a pay cheque, then he does not have earned income. He may, however, have income and/or dividends from investments, including real property, income from a family trust, an allowance from his parents, or off his wife's income. Please note: these are just possibilities. I don't follow the royals closely enough to know wherefrom he derives his funds. Bielle (talk) 16:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

He receives payments from the Civil list (which are then reimbursed by the Queen, so in reality he is supported by the Queen). --Tango (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

By the Queen? Your certainly mean by the UK tax payers... 88.8.79.148 (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

No, he means by the Queen. Please start your own thread for your trolling. DuncanHill (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The civil list article and [9] suggests you may be mistaken. Only the Queen (and possibly Duke of Edinburgh) receives payments from the civil list (there's some confusion over this, see my comment on the article talk page). Parliamentary annuities are used to meet office costs of the Duke of York although these are repaid by the queen from her private funds. In other words, the Duke of York doesn't receive anything from the civil list, some funding comes from parliamentary annuities (which are repaid by the queen) but these are only used for office costs, his other funds e.g. for personal expenditure either come from elsewhere I presume either his savings & investments (e.g. [10]) or the queens. (Well I presume some funding is met directly by government departments particularly in his former role as special representative (and actually I suspect most of the costs for that role including travel came from the government in some form). Nil Einne (talk) 22:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC) Note that this message was submitted at the time shown, however because of an error I accidentally removed the rest of the RD, sorry, so it was reverted and only readded at 08:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The confusion is probably just a matter of terminology. The annuities are provided for by the Civil List Act, but I may be incorrect to call them part of the civil list. --Tango (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

While Prince Charles has a large private income from his landholdings (Duchy of Cornwall, etc), Prince Andrew relies on money from his mother, reportedly around 250,000 GBP per year.[11] The Queen has a personal fortune of something like $500m, and does quite well from property and other investments.[12][13] --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Where did the Queen get her half billion fortune from? Update: the first link says shes worth $650M, the other $450M. If she's worth so much, why does she ask us for money to fix her roof? 92.28.254.185 (talk) 12:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Which roof? Remember that she does not actually own all the houses she stays in. She pays for the upkeep of the houses that are her private property (Balmoral Castle, Sandringham House, etc.) out of her own pocket. The "Crown" (ie the government) owns the others. Shouldn't the actual owner pay for fixing the roof? Blueboar (talk) 12:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Does she pay any rent? Does she pay any rent at the market value? 92.28.254.185 (talk) 13:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, in a way she does. Not in cash, but in services. Think of the Royals as being like advertising spokesmen (company mascots if you will)... All that riding around in carriages, waving, perform ceremonial ribbon cuttings, opening parliament, trooping colors, etc, is advertising for Great Brittan... it brings in lots and lots of tourist dollars and trade to Great Brittan. Their pay for doing all of that work is the right to live in a nice company house. The company pays for the upkeep. Only in this case, the company is the nation. Blueboar (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

"In a way she does..."?? So the short straight answer is "No, she dosnt". 92.28.254.185 (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The link by Nill Eine has some interesting points: we paid her £211M in 07/08 (no other years given) rather than the mere £7.9M people keep bleating on about. It says that no inheritance tax will be paid as a sovreign is unable to generate an income from business - but as Prince Charles is already worth hundreds of millions, and does indeed generate income from selling his branded goods, and similarly the Queen is a 1/2 billionaire and must generate a lot of income from her share portfolio etc, then does this mean that when Charles inherits, then inheritence tax will be paid? In fact looking at the Duchy Of Cornwall article, Prince Charles may already be a dollar billionaire. 92.28.254.185 (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, we must distinguish between personal wealth and "crown" wealth... between "The Queen" and "Betty Windsor". I would assume that Charles Windor will pay inheritance tax on that portion of the Betty Windor's personal wealth that he inherits (and other members of her family will pay tax on the portions they inherit)... but King Charles will not pay tax on the crown wealth when he becomes King. That is because that wealth has not legally changed hands. It will still be owned by the "crown"... its just that "the crown" has a new face (think of it as "corporate" property vs. personal property... a corporation doesn't pay inheritance tax on its factory buildings, just because the CEO dies in office and her son take over as the new CEO). Blueboar (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

You "assume" that they will pay tax, but the black and white print on the Royal website says they won't pay any tax at all. 92.28.254.185 (talk) 15:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Not quite... the black and white print (well... blank and purple print) says: Although The Queen's estate will be subject to Inheritance Tax, bequests from Sovereign to Sovereign are exempt. So... those funds that are included under a "Sovereign to Sovereign" bequest, those will be exempt... but not her entire estate. The unanswered question is: which part of her estate will be bequested "Sovereign to Sovereign"? Blueboar (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Er, that's bequeathed. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

So the part that goes to Prince Charles will be tax free. And then Prince Charles can keep on giving "gifts" to the rest of them. Hmmmn, does the Queen give regular tax-free gifts to her family and friends which they don't pay any income tax on? 92.28.245.233 (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's clear if all that goes to Prince Charles would be sovereign to sovereign even if he is the next sovereign. I presume anything she leaves to 'my children' or 'my son Charles' or whatever will not be sovereign to sovereign. Nil Einne (talk) 09:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to continue to rant about the royalty on the RD, please get your facts correct and read refs correctly. The refs I provided don't show £211M was the cost paid to 'her'. £211M is the (gross according to other sources) revenue of the Crown Estate surrendered to the Treasury in exchange for some of her costs being met. The total expenditure from the financial summary provided in the PDF linked on that page is £40.0 million for 2008 and £41.5 million for 2009 although it excludes security costs as well as some costs funded from other sources. As I am not British and I'm a republican kiwi I don't have a bone in this argument but I strongly dislike the RD being used for rants particularly continously by the same person and based on false claims. Nil Einne (talk) 09:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The Times newspaper emblem/crest

Can anyone direct me to a website or source discussing the emblem or crest used by The Times newspaper in the UK? I've not managed to find anything on this topic... ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 17:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for stating what you might already know - the motto Honi soit qui mal y pense and the lion&unicorn heraldry is in common with the Order of the Garter. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 17:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

A Times article about its use, including the lack of official status for the arms, is on their own website here -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 19:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Aha, that's exactly the sort of thing I'm looking for. Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 11:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Advertising of Habitat (retailer) UK

Did Habitat advertise itself in recent years? I cannot remember the last time I saw an advert for Habitat, and had forgotten about it even though I had shopped there in the past. Does anyone know if the amount of advertising for Habitat was less than what it was when it was well known? 92.24.138.86 (talk) 19:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

This story talks about a new campaign they were going to run in 2009; so they apparently were advertising. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 19:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

List of 16 major world currencies

On the radio today I heard a news report referring to "the 16 major world currencies". I couldn't find any such list in Wikipedia. Searching Google News I found recent articles talking saying, for example, "The dollar depreciated against 14 of its 16 most-actively traded currencies" (source: San Francisco Chronicle) and "The UK currency dipped against 13 out of the 16 most actively traded currencies" (source: moneyex) so does that mean there is some standard list of 17 currencies? Or are there only 16? And what are they? Mathew5000 (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

this page groups the most traded currencies into three classes: Major, Minor, and Exotic as follows, based on volumes traded in the FOREX markets:

• Major:

• Euro
• US Dollar
• UK Pound Sterling
• Japanese Yen
• Swiss Franc

• Minor:

• Australian Dollar
• New Zealand Dollar
• Canadian Dollar

• Exotic (top exotic currencies listed there, actual list would include anything not listed above)

• Russian Ruble
• Chinese Yuan
• Brazilian Real
• Mexican Peso
• Chilean Peso
• Indian Rupee
• Iranian Rial

That's 15 currencies. The sixteenth probably comes from the nation with the highest GDP not covered by the above, which according to List of countries by GDP (PPP) is probably South Korea, which would make it the South Korean Won. Other possible candidates would be Turkey (the Turkish Lira), Taiwan (the Taiwan Dollar), Indonesia (the Indonesian Rupiah), or maybe the Hong Kong Dollar. If I were pressed to make a guess, I would put South Korea and Hong Kong as the most likely, given the amount of manufacturing and international business that goes on in those places. --Jayron32 20:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Our Currency pair article lists the 15 most actively traded currencies, as of 2010. The data apparently come from this report, which gives a more extensive list on page 12. Looie496 (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The article you mention is a Bloomberg News article. Bloomberg has a list of 17 "major currencies." They are those of: South Africa, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Brazil, Mexico, Australia, New Zealand, UK, Canada, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Japan, Switzerland and the U.S. as well as the euro. Bloomberg News articles are intended foremost for users of Bloomberg terminals, who might be able to get that list and find out how the currencies are all performing by clicking a link on the article on their terminals. -- 174.116.177.235 (talk) 23:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Mathew5000 (talk) 07:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The Hong Kong dollar is not on this list because it has a fixed exchange rate to the US dollar and is therefore not a freely traded currency with a floating exchange rate. The same is true for the other top "exotic" currencies listed in the first list, including China's yuan or renminbi. Marco polo (talk) 13:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the Chilean Peso floating and without any real exchange controls? (The Russian Ruble, Indian Rupee and Iranian Rial have a managed float and/or currency controls I believe). Nil Einne (talk) 19:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Horn of Africa famine

Reading about this Horn of Africa famine, I have to wonder: What are the underlying causes that perpetuate this? The awful climate? The lack of industrialization? Corruption up the wazoo? Terrorism?

A related question: When one thinks of Africa they can't help but think of tribes immediately. What has caused these people to continue living like this? What has caused Somalia to have so much trouble with piracy? How many other countries have this problem? -- 150.135.91.203 (talk) 20:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Poverty plus drought plus overpopulation plus lack of effective government. Looie496 (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say Somalia has so much trouble with piracy, it's more that it makes trouble with piracy. It all started when Somalis were trying to defend their fishing industry, and continued when they discovered how much well paid piracy is. 88.8.79.148 (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a lot of useful information at Economy of Africa. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The proximate cause is drought and that crosses national boundaries. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The main cause isn't the drought: States with effective and responsive governments are able to deal with stresses more effectively. The high level of corruption means there is little safety net, and problems in getting relief from non-drought areas. Countries with stable, trustworthy, democratic, and effective governments experience droughts, but don't necessarily experience famine on the levels that occur with some regularity in this part of the world. --Jayron32 23:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

As in many other African countries, the end of colonial rule left Somalia with very weak civic institutions and no tradition of stable indigenous government. Like other African countries, this left Somalia vulnerable to autocratic rule. Furthermore, the decision of European powers to give the overwhelmingly Somali Ogaden region to Ethiopia led to a series of bitter wars, such as the Ogaden War, between the two neighbors, further fueled by the Soviet Union and the United States, which treated the two countries as Cold War proxies. This led to the militarization of Somali society. Meanwhile, as a result of women's lack of education and strongly patriarchal traditions together with modern medicine and hygiene lowering the infant mortality rate, the population frankly outgrew the ability of Somalia's semiarid, drought-prone land to reliably support that population, while a lack of political stability and security hindered the development of a commercial urban economy that might have been able to earn the income needed for food imports. These economic stresses led to a loss of legitimacy for Somalia's autocratic government during the 1980s, which led to the Somali Civil War, which in a sense has not yet ended, and which has condemned the country to a downward spiral of economic decline, desperation, and vulnerability to famine.

Note that the drought also affects neighboring Kenya, but without the same dire consequences. Marco polo (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

All of those are excellent points, which add some historical context to my statements. I had a professor once who said "Famine is a man-made disaster", in that nearly all modern famines have been caused not by natural events, but by the inadequacy of the government and food-supply system to respond to natural events. In some cases (as in the Stalin famines in the Soviet Union) they are entirely created by the government in charge, and have no natural cause. Your explanation of the situation in Somalia (and the counterexample of Kenya) provides additional support for this. --Jayron32 16:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

What I said about "proximate cause" is perhaps not accurate. It's one factor, but I'm grateful for the informative posts about the Somalian political situation. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I agree that famine is a man-made disaster. At least not all the time. True political factors can greatly exacerbate a famine or transform a minor drought into a major famine, but surely there are cases where famines occurred which were reduced by human action rather then the opposite. Googlemeister (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding. The point is not that famines occur because of poor management. It is not people cannot stop or prevent famines — it's entirely the opposite of that. Famines in modern times essentially only occur because somebody is not running things well enough. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

A famine is a widespread scarcity of food, and has always occurred naturally in many areas, worldwide, for various reasons, many of them not the fault of local people or governments. Whether it leads to regional malnutrition, starvation, epidemic, and increased mortality depend on the ability and will of the people and governments of the affected area and of surrounding areas. Dbfirs 07:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Suetonius: The Lives of the Twelve Caesars

I notice here that Suetonius: The Lives of the Twelve Caesars seems to be in 8 books. Was there a Preface to this at one time?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 23:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The version at Project Gutenberg has a preface, but it appears that was written by the translator and not the author. It appears that the extant work just "dives right in" at Julius Caesar. Also, the Project Gutenberg version doesn't have the "8 book" divisions noted in yours; I don't know what Suetonius' original had. --Jayron32 23:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

July 22

Duty to try to make a profit

I thought that in the UK, directors etc of plcs had a legal duty of having making a profit as their overriding goal. So how come News International keeps The Times running at a loss? Wouldnt this be unlawful?

I heard somewhere that Rupert Murdoch only owns 7% of News International. So how come he is in control of it, and can run it as a family business with his children being given top jobs? 92.24.138.86 (talk) 00:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The owners of a corporation are its shareholders. The directors of a corporation are employees of those owners. The shareholders in general are going to be interested in profitmaking, but AFAIK there is no legal requirement that the shareholders cannot decide on other goals. In particular, it can be beneficial for a company to have some divisions which, on paper, lose money if the entire company makes more money as a result. If The Times individually runs at a loss (and I don't confirm that it is true what you say, I only take it as a "what if"), it may still provide value to the company by raising the overall prestige of the company, or in other ways. Lets simplify it by an analogy: If I run a company, and look at the books, and see that the Purchasing department is always in the red, it doesn't make sense for me to just divest my company of all Purchasing! The purpose of purchasing is to spend money, not make it. The money it spends hopefull provides me with value in other ways. So think of the Times as a division which may lose cash, but still provide value in other ways. As far as the second part of the question: The CEO of a company needn't be the majority shareholder. He just needs to be someone who is able to command the confidence of enough of the shareholders to keep the job. --Jayron32 00:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

News_Corporation#Shareholders indicated the Murdoch family owns more than 40% of shares; and I recall that figure from recent press coverage. They may also have a larger percentage of voting share. Per Jayron, companies may elect to run loss making venture if their board and shareholders and content to do so. Currently t appears that they are. Companies certainly are not constrained to maximise profits - that's a popular myth which doesn't bear a moment's scrutiny: who exactly - apart from the board and shareholders - is in a position to balance current versus future profits: taking a snapshot or viewing a particular period in the life of an asset (or liability) such as the Times is merely to posit an arbitrary timeframe for analysis. The board or shareholders may be working to an entirely timeframe. Shareholders have mechanisms open to them to eject a board with which they are not satisfied. That, rather than mythical legal duty, is the means by which shareholders keep their company doing what they want it to do. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

According to today's The Observer the family own 40% of the shares with voting rights but only 12% of the overall equity shares. Such dual types of shares are increasingly discouraged by stock exchanges - I don't think they are permitted for new quotation launches in London, but they still exist. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The duty referred to is called Fiduciary duty and is indeed a legal duty but as correctly noted above, is not to be interpreted crudely. Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed - the best long term interests of the company may well be different to the short term effect on liquidity. Chief Executives are paid their money to perform that kind of balancing act. The original poster may however have been somewhat thinking of the legal proscription on trading while insolvent, which is considered a form of fraud and rather frowned on by law enforcement agencies. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Directors have a legal duty to avoid bankruptcy (and leaving piles of debt behind) normally, that's connected to making a profit someday, but not always. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.8.79.148 (talk) 12:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

What is your source for the statement that directors have a legal duty to avoid bankruptcy? One can easily imagine a business plan where bankruptcy within three years was likely — let's say, roughly a 60% probability — but the other 40% of the time the company's capital would increase tenfold. As long as this business plan was disclosed to the shareholders, surely it would be legal in most jurisdictions for the directors to adopt it. Mathew5000 (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

That makes no sense. Bankruptcy is a legal process, not necessarily a financial one. The first step is often bankruptcy protection - which can often lead to higher profits when complete than the company made before going into the bankruptcy process. If it was a "legal duty", the courts would be full of stockholders suing every director of every company that has ever filed for bankruptcy protection. -- kainaw™ 18:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, there is a thing called bankruptcy fraud, which mainly consist in faking documents, hiding assets, inventing bills to bleed the company and many more things to cheat creditors and investors. Directors have a fiduciary duty towards these groups of people, which do not make them criminal if they do not generate profits or if the company goes bankrupt. It's about how it happens nor if it happens. Quest09 (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

What is a "civil magistrate" in Virginia?

In Virginia, what is a "civil magistrate"? How does someone become a civil magistrate? --173.49.11.21 (talk) 08:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Is Magistrate#United_States any use? 130.88.134.214 (talk) 10:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Virginia does not have "civil magistrates" and "criminal magistrates" but just "magistrates" (who have both civil and criminal jurisdiction). In what context did you see the phrase "civil magistrate"? In 1974, Virginia replaced the office of justice of the peace with the office of magistrate. Since July 2008, magistrates are appointed by the Executive Secretary of the Supreme Court of Virginia in consultation with the chief judges of the circuit courts having jurisdiction within the region that the magistrate is appointed to serve. Eligibility requirements include a bachelor's degree, US citizenship, Virginia residency, and lack of felony conviction. Source: Magistrate Manual. See also map showing regions linking to lists of the magistrates in each magisterial district and generally Magistrate System. Mathew5000 (talk) 15:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

(I am the OP.) Friends of mine got married in a civil wedding when they were living in Virginia. The officiant's title was "civil magistrate". That was some years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.13.190 (talk) 05:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Was it before 1974? Mathew5000 (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

In any event, the term "civil magistrate" for someone empowered to perform a civil marriage ceremony would not seem to be official. According to Virginia's Office of Vital Records, "the court in each city and county has appointed persons who are eligible to perform civil marriage ceremonies." So if you want to become such an individual, I suppose you should contact your local court. If you want to search on Google there are a variety of terms you could use: "marriage commissioner", "wedding officiate", "civil officiant", "civil marriage celebrant", and so forth. Try Googling some of those, or variations, along with the keyword Virginia or the name of your county, for example marriage celebrant fairfax county or marriage officiate virginia. Mathew5000 (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Simple. You take lessons from Miss Manners. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

End of don't ask, don't tell

Does it mean the army can ask recruits again whether they are homosexual? Quest09 (talk) 23:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

irrelevant to answering the OP's question
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Which army? HiLo48 (talk) 23:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Don't be tiresome. The reference to don't ask, don't tell nails it down perfectly well, and if you've been living under a rock and haven't heard of it, a simple search would clear it up. --Trovatore (talk) 23:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC) I believe that getting more people to accept that this is a GLOBAL encyclopaedia is worth making you tired. Thank you for the link. HiLo48 (talk) 02:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC) I believe that you have a bug up your butt about Americans. You really need to just drop it. Sometimes you get downright uncivil about it. This was a minor case in itself, but the pattern of behavior is unacceptable. --Trovatore (talk) 03:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC) I believe that your paranoia and appalling manners are showing. Maybe it's behaviour and attitudes like yours that keeps me on my toes. Why do some people from the most powerful nation on earth have to act like they're under some sort of threat all the time? HiLo48 (talk) 03:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC) You're one to talk about manners!! --Trovatore (talk) 03:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC) I'm sorry, but I'm not going to stop trying to get all editors thinking more globally. Peace for now. HiLo48 (talk) 03:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC) I don't buy that that's your real motivation. You don't seem to notice, for example, when UK editors do it, and they're almost equally if not equally guilty. Aussies, I'll concede, somewhat less. Your entirely unprovoked and unacceptable musing that you "suspected" the question about half-black celebrities was "very American" doesn't fit into your claimed paradigm at all. --Trovatore (talk) 03:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC) It's a valid point. The world does extend beyond the US coast, and the question shouldn't need someone to go and do some work themselves to work out what it's on about. The US military might like to think it's the only game in town, and from experience it generally does, but there are others out there... ALR (talk) 23:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC) But seriously, is there any other country whose military has/had a policy generally known as "don't ask, don't tell"? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 00:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC) I've worked with a couple who still have homosexuality regulations, but tend not to actually apply them. Colloquially DADT. ALR (talk) 08:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC) As Trovatore originally put it: "don't be tiresome." --Mr.98 (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Merely pointing out that the assumption that the US is the only country to have the policy is inaccurate. But since nobody else actually matters clearly it's not an issue. ALR (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC) He specifically mentioned a noteworthy US law by name. Are there really non-us armies bound by that law? If so you should probably update that article, because that sounds fascinatingly unusual and I look forward to reading about it. APL (talk) 01:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It means that they can ask, but aren't allowed to take any action on the response.

The more practical issue is that perfectly competent servicemen and women aren't now going to be discharged on the basis of their sexuality being inadvertently exposed.

ALR (talk) 23:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

So why would they ask in the first place? The end of the policy acknowledges that the sexual orientation of individuals is and always has been irrelevant to their capacity to be members of the military. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has really come to grips with the question. Unless ALR actually knows something; his/her response struck me as a guess.

A lot of people seem to have forgotten that DADT was a fairly major step in the direction of tolerance. Clinton had promised to end the ban on homosexuals in the military altogether, but ran into too much opposition on that point and backed down, accepting DADT as a compromise. Had it literally been repealed altogether, presumably that would mean that the military could go back to sending gay servicemen to Leavenworth. Not sure how much of that they actually did, but I am fairly sure it was a criminal offense before DADT.

So what is the new law, actually? I don't really know. It may or may not forbid recruiters to ask that question. --Trovatore (talk) 00:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I've read the prior legislation, and the DADT guidance as it applied to an individual under my command at the time.

While I haven't read any of the supporting material for the removal of the caveat I have been involved in discussion about it.

ALR (talk) 08:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, that helps. You didn't mention any of that in your response (and your user page doesn't mention you being in the military) so it sounded like a guess to me. --Trovatore (talk) 08:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, there is now no need to ask the question. Prior to DADT there was an explicit prohibition with an explicit question, when DADT cam in the prohibition remained in place but there was no explicit statement from the individual. The result was that if information came to light that an individual was breaching the prohibition they were discharged.

My understanding is that the prohibition is now to be removed, so there is no mechanism for discharge therefore no purpose in asking the question.

From a UK perspective, since we altered our legislation 11/ 12 years ago, it means that asking the question itself is now prohibited as it has no value in any recruitment or HR context.

ALR (talk) 08:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I would just note that there are medical reasons to ask the question, at times (I have been asked in relation to assessing various STD risk factors), and in the military, there is no doctor-patient confidentiality. (This latter point was one of the reasons DADT was so awful.) --Mr.98 (talk) 01:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

One consequence of this new policy is that if the draft is revived, gays will no longer be able to use the fact of their being gay to avoid the draft, as they could during the Vietnam era - in which it was at least jokingly (as in the song Draft Dodger Rag) claimed that straight men might pretend to be gay for that reason. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

July 23

Iran's HDI

Why does Iran have a "high" HDI (according to the most recent data in the article)? --134.10.114.238 (talk) 00:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you read "Human Development Index"? It defines the factors that go into determining a country's index. Gabbe (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but doesn't the Iranian regime keep almost all of the country's money to themselves, forcing the people into continual poverty and starvation? --134.10.114.238 (talk) 00:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

No. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 April 12#Iran's HDI for this exact conversation. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Why do so many people assume that Iran is poor, uncivilised and uncultured? The people there belonged to a highly developed and civilised country long before the home countries of most readers of Wikipedia knew much about civilisation. Dbfirs 17:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Because American knowledge of Iran is limited to "desert country near Afghanistan and Iraq that has militant fundamentalists in charge who are making a nuclear bomb." Actual knowledge of Iranian culture, history, governmental operation, or people is pretty limited. But I must say that appealing to historical civilizations is quite misleading — a lot of empires have risen and fallen over time. Just because a place was historically important doesn't mean it is today. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how a country with a population of 75 million people could be 'unimportant'. But yes, the general point is that Iran is a large, complex 'developing' country with a diverse economic structure, a reasonable-ish standard of living (compared to the world average) and a political system that is a lot more complex than the simplistic propaganda put out by sections of the western media. Its claims to be a democracy are somewhat questionable, to say the least, but it is no worse than a lot of other countries in the area, and considerably better than some (though these tend to be allies of the west, so nobody says much about this...). Regarding the OP's question about 'starvation', our Health care in Iran article tells us that if anything obesity is a greater problem. Evidently they are 'developing' western-style health problems too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't implying Iran was unimportant. Just that the historical importance/prestige/relative development of a nation does not necessarily mean it retains importance/prestige/relative development today. Invoking ancient Persia to discuss modern Iran is as misleading as invoking ancient Greece to discuss modern Greece. A lot has changed between then and now. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The article on economy of Iran (which is rated a "good article") goes into some detail about this. Iran has very significant oil and gas wealth, but the economy is also somewhat diversified, accounting for a relatively high HDI. Neutrality^talk 22:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Traffic ticket for a non-local

There's a type of situation that's been a bit of a curiosity to me for quite a while. Say a person (in the United States) is taking a road trip for whatever purpose (for example let's say via this route). The person leaves point A and while on the way to point C receives a speeding ticket from the Greensburg, KS police (point B). Assuming that the person will not be back in Greensburg anytime in the near future, how does the person take care of the ticket they received passing through Greensburg, given that it would (I assume, perhaps wrongly?) need be taken care of in the Greensburg Municipal Court? Would it require a trip back to Greensburg for the express purpose of (depending on which the person chose to do) fighting the ticket in court or pleading guilty and paying the fine? Basically, if a non-local is ticketed, do they have to make a trip back to take care of the ticket in the jurisdiction's municipal court, or is there some other way that tickets of non-locals can be taken care of in US municipal courts? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 06:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the particular situation in Greensburg, KS, but as a general rule, you can take care of routine traffic violations by mail — provided you're pleading guilty (or "no contest" or "forfeiting bail" or what have you). If you want to contest it, you probably have to go back to Greensburg. I cynically surmise that this is the reason traffic cops in small towns proverbially look for out-of-towners to ticket. Of course I don't really know whether they actually do that, but it wouldn't surprise me. --Trovatore (talk) 07:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I live in the Bridgeport area of Connecticut (not in Bridgeport itself), and we've been getting calls from the Vermont police about a traffic ticked my mother supposedly got in 1994 (e weren't even in Vermont in 1994, but somehow they think my mother has an unpaid ticket). In these calls, they've said that she can either mail it to them or contest it, in which case she would have to go up to the traffic court in Vermont. Some places are more tenacious about it than others; Vermont is notorious for not letting these things drop. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

(Note:This isn't a direct response to Northern Light's quandary. I just happen to live in VT and know a bit about our courts.) The Vermont courts allow you to pay your fines online with a credit or debit card. I'd imagine that most states have similar online systems nowadays. Dismas|^(talk) 01:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I got an out of town ticket once from a state trooper. On the back of the ticket, it provided an address to the courthouse in the county seat for where I got the ticket. You sign the ticket, put in a check and mail it there. Or you check the other box and ask for a time for a hearing to plead your case, but you have to go to that county seat to argue in person. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

American debt compared with Greek debt

See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14258888 Is American debt something to worry about like Greek debt? How did the richest country in the world get itself into debt? 92.28.254.185 (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

America doesn't have the same problems with respect to debt as Greece does. Plenty of people, institutions and governments want to lend money to the US. Everyone is very wary of lending money to Greece, because there are doubts over whether it will actually be able to afford to pay its debts. The US economy is doing reasonably well, compared to the Greek one, and the US debt as a percentage of GDP is much lower, so there aren't similar doubts regarding the US. (There are, however, fears that the US may default for political, rather than economic, reasons because of the whole debt ceiling thing.) As for how the US got into debt - it happened in exactly the same way that anyone gets into debt. It spent more than its revenue. --Tango (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

While the immediate threat of US default is political, I believe the long-term threat of US default is likely, regardless of politics. That is, raising taxes and cutting benefits to levels which would seem to prevent the debt from rising further would so hobble the US and world economy that tax revenues would still not keep pace with the debt. In other words, the US debt has passed the point of no return, even though the actual default may yet be decades away, as long as others remain willing to loan the US government money. After all, how long did Bernie Madoff manage to keep his Ponzi scheme afloat ? StuRat (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this a long-term result of low inflation? Higher inflation would I presume melt the debt away. 92.28.245.233 (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

No, because those lending money to the US gov would then just insist on higher interest rates. StuRat (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

They cannot insist on a higher rate, they are stuck with their contract. 92.24.180.158 (talk) 23:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

StuRat probably means higher interest rates for new contracts. Flamarande (talk) 07:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and also investors that predict higher inflation in the future may insist on shorter terms and/or higher returns than the current inflation rate would indicate, especially if government officials start talking about using inflation to wipe out the debt. StuRat (talk) 04:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

They cannot "insist", they either take the best deal available or walk away. 2.101.4.222 (talk) 08:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

And if enough people walk away, then bonds would not get sold and the US would improve the terms. Googlemeister (talk) 14:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I doubt the US could default for more than a week or two. The government is too big to fail in a way that any given corporation is not. In the 1950s the US paid down the much larger debt from World War II (as a proportion of GDP) without ever running a surplus because the economy was growing so fast. It wasn't because of inflation, it was because trickle down supply side economics was rightly consigned to the dustbin of that era and the top bracket tax rate reached 88%. Greek corporations do not have this privilege because Greek corporations can threaten to leave (capital flight) more credibly than US corporations on balance. If there was a multilateral tax haven treaty in effect, then capital flight would not be a problem. 99.2.148.119 (talk) 23:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

From what I understand, I don't think the Constitution allows the US to default on its debts (I guess we would have to if revenues were less than the debt payments, but that has not happened yet). The problem is that the Constitutional provisions mean that debt payments must be given priority over other expenditures (paying for the military, entitlements, roads, salary checks to Congressmen, etc). The US actually has more than enough revenue to meet its current debt payments (so no default... the creditors will get paid), but making those payments will not leave enough to cover all of the other things the government wants to do. (the remaining revenue can cover some of it... but not all of it). The hard question is... what will be cut from the budget? (I doubt it will be Congress's salaries) Blueboar (talk) 23:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Unless it can be turned over into paying deposit account receipts instead of debt. Why shouldn't anyone keeping their money on deposit with a government instead of in the economy have to pay for the privilege? The market seems to agree. Once again, the US proves that even if you screw up, if you're clearly capable of doing the right thing, even the investors looking for the lowest risks will let it slide. 99.2.148.119 (talk) 00:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Our article List of sovereign states by public debt gives comparative information. Most economists believe the difficulties created by debt are best measured by the ratio of debt to GDP. For Greece the ratio given in the table is 144%; for the US it is only 59%. The country with the worst debt problem by this measure is Japan, with a ratio of a whopping 226%. Note that these are unofficial estimates by the CIA and Eurostat; the IMF gives somewhat different values. Looie496 (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

In that article, I assume that the 50% higher USA estimate by the IMF includes the debts of each individual state in the USA. For the UK figure, are local council debts included? Dbfirs 07:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

John Hancock's ships

Do lists, engravings, paintings, letters, or any other documents survive which identify the ships that John Hancock used to create and maintain his wealth?75.82.160.175 (talk) 16:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Certainly. This book (1898) has some extensive business correspondence of Hancock's including ship references. We even have an article on one of Hancock's ships, which was involved in a 1768 incident: The sloop Liberty. Another ship of the Hancocks was the Lydia (see here), perhaps named after Hancock's aunt Lydia (Henchman) Hancock. The Lydia was engaged in transporting "a valuable load of Spanish wine" (see here) when it was involved in the same 1968 incident as the Liberty.

What other goods did John Hancock, his uncle Thomas Hancock, and other relatives carry? Pretty much everything: Thousands of pounds of tea; food; tools; clothing; rum (see here); whale oil and baleen (or whalebone) (see here); and on one occasion "a handsome new carriage for himself and expensive table linen, fraudulently listed as canvas" (here). Neutrality^talk 21:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Take the "fraudulently listed as canvas" charge with a grain of salt: that was a claim made by Tory writer John Mein in an attempt to weaken the Patriot nonimportation movement.

I've never seen a list of Hancock's ships. He bought and sold quite a few of them. He bought a vessel that he christened the Last Attempt in 1768. He had a brig at the time of the Boston Tea Party called the Hayley, presumably named after British politician George Hayley, with whom Hancock did business. Hancock's famous sloop Liberty was named in honor of Hayley's brother-in-law, John Wilkes, the "friend of liberty". The Liberty was of course confiscated by the British, and then burned by colonists in 1769. The brigantine Lydia was wrecked in 1772. Hancock shipped relatively little tea, but he did have a vessel in the 1770s called Undutied Tea. Another was called Whalebone. Both were sold in 1776, bringing Hancock's shipping career to a close. After that, real estate transactions and collecting old debts were his primary sources of income. —Kevin Myers 14:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Poking around Google Books reveals more ship names. Hancock owned a brigatine named Harrison in 1766, when the Stamp Act was repealed. He had a brig named Paoli, after Pascal Paoli. —Kevin Myers 14:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Renting floor trading privileges and exchange memberships

The Steve Fossett article says this is how he made his fortune. But the sources cited for this do not actually mention it. How exactly did renting exchange memberships or floor trading priviliges work? 92.28.245.233 (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Stock exchange#ownership touches on this. Securities exchanges' members are allowed to charge a commission for the transactions of their clients. Often there are a limited number of "seats" which the members may buy, sell, or lease. If a member holds at least one seat, they can generally make trades without commissions. 99.2.148.119 (talk) 23:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Morphine-A Soldiers Disease

I have been trying to find information on the uses of morphine in the civil war and the ill effects it had on the soldiers at the time. Is there documentation that the uses of morphine created thousands of addicts? I am looking specically for information supporting the theory of "A soldiers Disease"Hpersons (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not unique to soldiers or morphine, as all opiates used as pain-killers can be addictive, although to varying degrees. Heroin was specifically intended to avoid the addictive effects of morphine, but had the same problem. StuRat (talk) 20:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This Straight Dope article might be useful. It suggests that morphine was very widely prescribed during the war, and addiction to opiates was widespread in the US in the late 19th century, but the two facts were not directly linked: for example, the majority of opium addicts were women. --Colapeninsula (talk) 00:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Lots of soldiers used hard drugs during the Vietnam war but only a small fraction continued used them after coming home. People don't seem to automatically become addicts if it is used to treat a real problem and then the environment changes and it isn't needed. Dmcq (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I suspect that genetic factors cause some people to become addicted, while others do not. It would be nice if we could determine if those factors are present in each patient, before choosing to use a particular opiate. For those patients at the highest risk for addiction, other options, such as comas imposed by medication for the most severe cases, might be considered. StuRat (talk) 04:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Authors and LLCs

Since it's so easy and inexpensive, in most states in the US, to form an LLC, I was wondering how often authors of books (particularly authors of tell-alls or unauthorized biographies) form an LLC (with a single owner or not) to act legally as the author of their book. The author would transfer all rights to the LLC, or would even write the book whilst in the role of the manager and a member of the LLC, such that the LLC is the author of the book, legally. Whenever the LLC receives revenue, the author performs a draw and gets the money right away. If the author is sued for something like libel or possibly even something like copyright infringement, then the LLC (the legal author) is who's liable, so if there were a large court judgment, the author would fold the LLC and future lawsuits would only be able to challenge the empty husk of the defunct LLC. The author's historical revenue could not be taken from him.

Assuming there were no fraud involved such that there could be a piercing of the corporate veil, the only disadvantage I can think of is that I think a natural human author has much lengthier copyright benefits. Do any authors do this? Who? (I do expect a full explanation to be longer than a normal Reference Desk answer, so any pointers to articles are welcome.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Court cases are decided by jurists and juries, who may or may not act as if the corporate veil is open for any corporation comprised of one person. Books are often commissioned in advance from publishers. While what you suggest may seem fair to you, as someone trying to answer your questions, it seems a lot to me like you are trying to solicit legal advice. I am sorry this answer is not as comprehensive as you might like, but if you want an authoritative answer you will have to ask an attorney. Also, would the LLC and the individual both pay income tax? 99.2.148.119 (talk) 23:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

You are jumping to conclusions when you write that I think it's fair, and that I'm looking for legal advice. I just want to know whether this rather obvious strategy is a strategy that any authors currently use, and why or why not. To answer your last question, in the US, an LLC normally elects "S" taxation, which means that the LLC is not directly taxed by the IRS; rather, its revenues "fall through" to the individual tax returns of the partners, proportional to their capital interest in the LLC. (Both LLCs and (most) corporations in the US can elect "S" taxation, as above, or "C" taxation, in which the company's income is taxed, and owners pay ordinary income tax when they receive dividends or other payouts.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't give statistics, but as a voracious reader and lifelong book collector, and former bookseller and later publisher's editor, I glance at the publishing details on the Title page verso of every book I buy and/or read, and as OR can say that a book's being copyrighted to a LLC rather than the author's name has not been uncommon over the last half century - I'd guess at about 1 author in 30. It's more usual when an author has become particularly prolific and successful, presumably because making the author the employee of the LLC, which may also have other employees such as secretaries and researchers, has more tax advantages when the revenue from the writing is greater, though I'm unfamiliar with the details: one example is Isaac Asimov, whose later works are "© Nightfall Inc".

Sometimes, of course, writers are merely commissioned by the owner of an intellectual property to produce for a fee 'work for hire' that remains the copyright of the owner, who may be another author (see Ellery Queen) or the publisher, the estate of a dead author (see for example V. C. Andrews), or a corporation (frequent with novelisations of media properties such as Star Trek). Such works may appear under the real writer's name, the late author's name, or a House name (aka Collective name) depending on the circumstances. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.33 (talk) 00:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Great answer — thanks! The Asimov copyright may be a fruitful place for me to research next. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

If it would be of further help, I can (but not before Monday) check and confirm some other writers I half-remember as having done the same thing; I'm fairly sure that Robert Silverberg, John Brunner and "Ed McBain" do/did so, for example. I'd also suggest that a dedicated writers' forum such as Absolute Write would be likely to repay exploration and querying. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.193 (talk) 10:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean that 29 authors out of 30 keep the copyright over their work and only in 1 case in 30 the copyright holder is an LLC? I got the impression that, in almost all cases, the author has to cede the copyrights to the publisher. 88.8.79.148 (talk) 23:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

No, the author does not usually cede their copyright to the publisher. While IANAL, my clear understanding over some years of employment in (and many more of interest in) the 'Book Trade' is that ordinarily (i.e. my vague estimation of 29/30 cases) the copyright remains with the author as an individual, as demonstrated by the author's name (or pseudonym) following the "©" on the verso - a legal declaration. That copyright holder then grants the publisher the right to publish and market the book in specified territories (which may be "worldwide") and within various other parameters specified in their agreed contract: in some cases (my notional 1 in 30) the author themself forms an LLC of which they are the main (and possibly only) "employee" - the publisher then pays the advance and royalties to that LLC which in turn pays the author, this being advantageous for tax reasons in certain times, places and circustances.

Retention of copyright by the writer may however not apply if the writer has been commissioned by someone else to produce the work. To take the Star Trek example I introduced above, Paramount own the copyright to the general franchise, and retain copyright in the books (etc) they pay writers to produce within it (and which in this case appear under the writers' own names rather than a 'house name').

All this reflects relatively modern practice. I believe however that in the 19th century and earlier, it was quite common for an author to sell his copyright in a work to the publisher outright for a one-off fee. Further pertinent information might be found in the Copyright article.{The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.154 (talk) 12:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Oddly enough, the exact opposite standard works in the field of songwriting; songwriters rarely own the copyright on their songs personally, most often the copyright is held by a Music publisher; sometimes this is done in cases where there is a songwriting partnership, or when a band writes songs collaboratively (for example, Northern Songs was the official holder of the copyright on Lennon-McCartney songs). However, even in cases where there is a single songwriter, the copyrights are usually held by a company; and sometimes you will see where collaborators will still maintain seperate publishing companies for songs written jointly. For example, I'm looking at the liner notes to Mighty Like a Rose, and tracks written by Elvis Costello (usually credited under a variation on his birthname of Declan MacManus) solely are copyrighted to his publishing company "Plangent Visions Music Inc.", while those he wrote with Paul McCartney are copyrighted jointly to "Plangent Visions Music Inc./MPL Communications Ltd." The same arrangement exists on his previous album Spike. Presumably, Costello could still personally own the copyright on his songs (like most authors do), and yet he doesn't, rather like most songwriters he assigns the copyright to his publishing company. --Jayron32 05:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Faith

Is it possible to define faith without reference to doubt? 99.2.148.119 (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Well... most of the definitions here don't reference doubt. So... yes, it is possible. Blueboar (talk) 23:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

In Christian doctrine the concept "faith" is never separable from the concept "doubt" because the desireable attribute "faith" is expressly defined as a grace that is superior to a simple resolution of doubt by physical evidence. John 20:29 expounds this as follows: Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.. This carries an implicit criticism of Thomas for having doubted by comparing him to those whose faith is unwavering. The name of "doubting Thomas" is omitted from many manuscripts and translations. Here I quoted the KJV. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

And yet, because faith is a grace, no personal credit should be attributed to him who has faith and no criticism should be made of him who does not, because neither of them has any control over it. According to the dogma, faith is given by God, not created by humans. So it's not Thomas's fault that he doubted, and the ones who did believe are not the snowy-haired boys of the scriptures. But people have always been looked down upon for "losing or abandoning their faith", as if it was somehow their personal responsibility. And they've been rewarded by God for having faith (like one of the thieves crucified alongside Jesus, who got immediate entry into Heaven), when faith itself was a gift from God in the first place. This has always confused and troubled the child-like brain that I was always exhorted to retain. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a Christian, but I believe the canonical answer is that personal credit has nothing to do with the matter: people are granted salvation not because they have earned it, but because Jesus earned it for them via his sacrifice. Looie496 (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Right, so all humans born after the crucifixion are automatically saved, and Hell has had no new visitors for 2,000 years and will never have any. But that's not exactly the message the church has ever given out. Quite the opposite. One has to earn the right to get to Heaven by remaining in a state of grace by being virtuous and not committing sin. Death could come at any time, and if you're not in a state of grace when that happens, bad luck, you're off to the fires of Hell or at least a very long stay in Purgatory. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like Catholic soteriology. I thought you were Orthodox, Jack? --Trovatore (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Was this really meant to be about Christianity? HiLo48 (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

True, it has drifted off-topic and we should call a halt. Tks, HiLo.

But no, I'm not Orthodox, Trovatore. I was raised as a Catholic, then decided organised religion of any description was not for me. I was married in a Russian Orthodox church but I was not required to convert. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

If you're interested in where I think you got confused, from a Catholic perspective, I'm pretty sure you've confused grace and faith. If I capitalise the special cases it might help: if you say faith is a grace, you are using a different meaning of the word 'grace' to the usual one in this case, and hence confusing yourself. For God's grace, I will write 'Grace': this means the Grace from God that is made available to us through the Sacraments, and which allows us to find favour with him. It can also come in other ways (God is not bound by the Sacraments), but we know that the ordinary way to receive Grace is through the Sacraments left to us.

Faith, then, follows from Grace, but not automatically. This is where free will starts to play a role: Grace allows us to choose faith, but we can still reject it because we have free will. And our faith must involve doing right things, according to Jesus's teachings, or it is dead faith: and, doing right things can lead us to a deeper faith. And it should lead us to the Sacraments, where we can receive more Grace which makes our faith stronger, which leads us to do more right things, but we can still reject it. For example, Adam and Eve in the garden were supposed to be without sin and full of Grace, but they still rejected God's instructions and sinned. This is an example of the difference between Grace and faith, and they were punished for their actions.

So, there you have it. I'm not meaning to follow you around, spouting Catholic dogma! It just looked like you were genuinely missing something because of a bit of word confusion, which seemed silly to leave. 86.164.65.192 (talk) 23:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

July 24

Fully licensed restaurant in the UK

Lately, my wife and I have gotten into watching Gordon Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares show on Netflix. A detail of one episode caught my eye. The sign above the restaurant of the week included the words "Fully Licensed". What does this mean to have an eatery that is fully licensed? Is there such a thing as partially licensed? Dismas|^(talk) 01:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Alcohol licensing laws of the United Kingdom#On-licence answers that nicely for you--Jac16888 ^Talk 01:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Yup. This is licensed as in 'licensed to serve alcohol': they can sell you wines, spirits etc with a meal - but you can't buy alcohol to consume off the premises. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I see. So it doesn't have to do with the food at all, just the alcohol. Interesting. Here in the States it would be strange to see a restaurant use this as a selling point. Thanks!! Dismas|^(talk) 01:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It isn't so much a selling point as a requirement. I'm no lawyer (blah, blah, etc), but I think that a notice regarding the license has to be displayed. I'd certainly expect a restaurant to be licensed, but not the local McDonalds etc - so it is probably in the interests of the proprietor to make indicate this anyway if there might be any doubt. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

"Fully licensed" is also distinguished from "BYO licence" - bring your own - whereby patrons are welcome to bring their own alcohol, which will be opened and served to them by the staff, and there may be (an exorbitant) corkage charge, but they generally cannot purchase alcohol there because the restaurant is not licensed to sell it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 02:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps my use of the term "selling point" was a bit off. The sign in the episode was for a nice sit-down restaurant and the words were painted on their sign. I understand the "displayed prominently" bit of the law, after all bars over here in the States have to have their liquor license displayed prominently as well. It's just that the sign had three pieces of info on it. The name, "fully licensed", and the telephone number. That seems a bit over the top for the prominent display provision.

I'm not trying to turn this into a discussion but the only places that I've seen where you have to BYO here in the States were at places that had relatively restrictive blue laws in the city/county. Of the examples that I can think of, all of them were strip clubs. The local laws said that you couldn't sell alcohol if there were strippers performing there. Dismas|^(talk) 02:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Well if you're looking to have wine with your meal, it helps to know that you can buy it on the premises or that you have to bring it with you! So putting it in big letters I would consider to be a plus point. --TammyMoet (talk) 07:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Different cultures, different customs, different laws. Vive la différence. HiLo48 (talk) 08:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It's possibly worth pointing out, that in the UK, something like 99% or more of "nice sit-down restaurants" will sell you alcohol, and will object to you bringing your own (or at least, inflict a "corkage charge"). McDonalds and similar establishments, along with generic pizza or fried chicken places and so on, don't serve alcohol and also don't generally expect you to bring any. I've only been to two "proper" restaurants (the sort that have table-cloths) that didn't have alcohol available for sale, and both had that arrangement because of their adherence to Islamic principles. (Though I think the smaller of the two also had an eye on the cost savings.) Of those two, one encouraged you to bring your own, and one, allegedly, did not want any alcohol on the premises. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

McDonalds, generic pizza, and fried chicken places are the same here. I think this topic has been run to the ground though. I feel it's something that would be expected for a nice sit-down place and therefore not worth mentioning in such a prominent way. As HiLo said, vive la différence. Dismas|^(talk) 08:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

This topic is done to death, but I thought I'd just mention that it's a similar situation in Australia. I think most restaurants here are BYO and always have a prominent sign, many are "beer and wine only", and the restaurants that sell booze will also say fully licensed. Vespine (talk) 05:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Legal majority for women - when where they no longer minors?

When did women in Britain attain legal majority? I have difficulty in finding the answer for this question, and the expression I get is often contradictory. Normally in European countries, women where minors up untill about second half of the 19th-century.

Unmarried women where under the guardianship of the closest male relative no matter how old they where, and married women under the guardianship of their husbands. They where, for example, not allowed to handle their own money, and could not take out their own money from the bank withouth the signature of their guardian. Only widows where their own guardians. My question pertains about the unmarried women. In Sweden, for example, unmarried women attained legal majority in 1858, but I have found no such year for Great Britain.

I have heard that Great Britain (and the Unites states) was different then all the other Western countries, and that unmarried women where in fact of legal majority by old English law already in the 18th century. But, despite of this, many films and novels, such as for example Affinity (novel), states that unmarried women where not allowed to handle their money and take out their own money from the bank withouth the signature of a male guardian. This is confusing and contradictory.

If unmarried women where not allowed to handle their own money, then the term legal majority could not have had the same meaning in Britain as it had in other countries. When, in that case, was the law regarding legal majority changed to give women the same rights as men?

I heard some one mention that it was in 1873, and that the reform was completed in 1893, but it don't remember where I heard that. Does any one have any knowledge of this? I have not found this anywere in wikipedia, though perhaps it should be mentioned here, as it is an important question. It seems strange that such an important thing is so hard to find an answer to. I would be most gratefull for any information of this! Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

See Married Women's Property Act 1882 and femme covert. I don't know if those articles will answer your question, but at least they're a place to begin. Dickens' novels describe several women (e.g. Betsey Trotwood in David Copperfield) bound by moribund marriages and separated or reappearing husbands. —— Shakescene (talk) 16:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I think a time frame is needed here... the legal rights and status of women have changed over the years... So what era are we talking about? Anglo-Saxon Times? Middle Ages? Tudor Age? Victorian Era? Blueboar (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The question, I would say, pertians to the unmarried women of the early modern age, say 1500-1900. --Aciram (talk) 14:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

New York City under British occupation during the American Revolution

I am looking for accounts of life in New York City while British forces occupied it, from early in the American Revolution, in November 1776, until Evacuation Day November 25, 1783, when the British left and George Washington rode in, quite a while after the end of fighting in the war. My preference is for period accounts, by American or British writers, such as books, diaries, or newspaper articles, or reminiscences written years later, but I am also interested in historical fiction. Have there been comprehensive books about the period, in which historians have incorporated and evaluated all the primary (and self-serving) sources? I have recently read some of the Alexander Kent novels about British Navy officer Bolitho, some of which are set during this period. Novels set in the period would also be of interest. After the war, I expect that people remaining in the US who had resided in New York 1776-1783 claimed to have always supported the revolutionary cause, and to have spied on the British and sabotaged their every effort, like Frenchmen who were in Paris during the Nazi occupation. During the war, many of the same individuals were doubtlessly declaring their undying loyalty to the King. Outside the city, in nearby US held zones or in the "no-man's land" of Westchester County were raiders or bandits called "Cowboys" and "Skinners" who preyed on farmers in the neutral territory, or on civilians in "enemy" territory, and robbed them of cattle and other goods. Cattle from neutral areas got sold to the British in New York City. Did each share with the local military authorities, and did they hold high level summits like modern gangsters? [14] says that "The two parties often operated in concert, the Cowboys bringing contraband from New York to exchange for the property plundered by the Skinners." While researching Revolutionary War era original documents at the Westchester County archives, I found evidence that the "patriots" who captured Major Andre were likely Skinnres, outlaws or highwaymen. They were later highly honored as heroes of the American Revolution, and given pensions, but originally they said they had agreed to share all the loot they got, and they hid until a horseman rode along, and pounced on him like common highwaymen. Who did law enforcement and investigation of crimes? How did the criminal courts function? What types of corruption existed? Has anyone written mystery novels set in this interesting setting? It would be a fascinating setting for detective novels. I have read the relevant Wikipedia articles. Edison (talk) 21:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a specific question. I'm guessing HMS Jersey (British prison ship)#American Revolutionary War might give you some keyword leads if you haven't already read that one. [15] has a few NYC mentions, and I suspect years '77-'82 do too. Some books are at [16] and [17]. This seems like a job for a university library. 99.2.148.119 (talk) 01:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

science and religion

I have read the book " autobiography of yogi " by paramhansa yogananda which contains his own experiences which can not be explained by science.It contains bi-location of a yogi ,a women which eat nothing for many years ,the charater of mahavatar babagi,a person rama raised from the dead , Resurrection of his guru yukteswar etc . is it mean that there may be some truth in religious stories although religions have many false ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.187.4.118 (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The most likely explanation is simply that the events described in the book aren't true. Either he's mistaken or lying. It is possible that they really happened and that science is completely wrong, but it's not likely. --Tango (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Not using these books as proof, no. Since they are autobiographies, the authors can claim whatever they want and claim it as things they experienced. The problem is that there is no proof that any of these events actually happened other than on the author's word. Like wikipedia, you can't take it all on faith (unless you want to, at which point it is religion, but that doesn't make it true). You need well-documented, reliable third-party sources to back it up. Now, some of the events of the book could be based on true stories, but have been exaggerated for exactly the reason to make them seem like miracles. For example, eating very little can look like not eating at all if you do it right. And people can be raised from a state that appears very much like death. Mingmingla (talk) 22:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

David Hume had a good rule of thumb: "When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion." --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The Emperor's New Clothes is a helpful allegory applicable to many cases in both religion and science. Schyler (one language) 23:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Names of the Utoya victims

Where can I find a list of the names of those killed? (This is NOT for any article.) Bielle (talk) 23:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Given that Norway is a modern liberal state with decent privacy laws, I'd expect nowhere. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

At least as of the BBC news at midnight, the names have not been released. The police seem to think there are likely to be bodies remaining undiscovered on the island and maybe in the damaged buildings. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 23:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

One could hope that you are right, Steven, but there will likely be memorials that will list the names. (I went to check, but Norway is not listed in the article you link.) Does anyone have Norwegian sources? Names of some of the survivors are given, I note, but perhaps they are all of major age. Bielle (talk) 23:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Why would someone want to keep the names private? 88.8.79.148 (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

E.g. to protect the families from unwanted attention. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, in general is understandable. But in this case, you'll get the the attention divided by many families. And it can be that they want what you call unwanted attention, that could be a healing process for the families. 88.8.79.148 (talk) 00:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

What's the sentence for killing >90 in Norway?

It's clear that you won't get executed, but does Norway has an upper limit for maximum time in prison, like many European countries? 88.8.79.148 (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

According to the table here, Norway has no life imprisonment, and the maximum sentence is 21 years in prison. I don't know they handle multiple offenses and concurrent service, though, but I would not be surprised if 21 years is the actual maximum, regardless of legal wrangling. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I have read otherwise, in a discussion among Norwegians and others, in which the circumstances do apparently allow for consecutive sentence terms, but I can cite no authority confirming this. 99.2.148.119 (talk) 01:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

We have an article on Life imprisonment in Norway.

Speculation: From the sparse information on the motives of the suspect one can conclude that the defense may claim insanity of the perpetrator (or the Norwegian equivalent). It seems that he has immersed himself in a paranoid world of a crusade against the forces of cultural Marxism who destroy the fabric of a Christian Europe. The little I know of his voluminous manifesto implies that he sees himself as a combatant against these conspiratorial forces whilst being perfectly aware that nobody else will.

The prosecution may even support this plea if it were the only possibility to detain the suspect for a period exceeding 21 years. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 02:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

(moved from below) Returning to the original question, there is an apparently authoritative article here which suggests that, in theory (but regarded as unlikely in practice), the sentence could be extended beyond the 21-year maximum, for periods of up to five years at a time, if the inmate is deemed to be a high risk of repeating serious offences. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Justification for mandatory short sentences ?

I find the 21 year limit difficult to comprehend. By what logic do Norwegians believe that any crime, no matter how heinous, should be fully forgiven in 21 years, and the perpetrator released and left to his own devices ? I certainly understand objections to capital punishment, but the thought process here baffles me. StuRat (talk) 04:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant Forum discussion WP:NOT#FORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Not to say I disagree with you (and saying that is also not to say that I agree with you), but just to play the devil's advocate here for a second, one could imagine a Norwegian similarly claiming "By what logic do the residents of the (insert country name here) see any crime as heinous enough that one would want to remove a person from society forever (either by death or life imprisonment without posibility of release)." Expressing incredulity doesn't imply anything more than you come from a different culture with differing standards of punishment and retribution. People tend to have a form of confirmation bias which holds that their own culture's standards are somehow the "normal" for the world, and other cultures whose standards lie outside of their own are somehow "wrong". Thus, a culture that imprisons a serial killer for 21 years maximum is considered dangerously light on punishment, while one which issues the death sentence for simple theft would be cruel and inhumane, but only when viewed from a culture whose standards lie between those extremes. People who live in those cultures probably (on the balance) see their standards as, well, standard. I could see the arguement for relatively light prison sentences as being justified if prison isn't seen as punishment, but rather as rehabilitation. If a culture does not value retributional punishment in any form then life imprisonment makes no sense to them. This is not to say that the Norweigian system is right, or that it is wrong, but merely that it is different, and without objective evidence as to its effectiveness, we really shouldn't express incredulity solely on the basis of its being different than what our culture values. --Jayron32 04:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC) You fail to address the "...and left to his own devices" though. A prisoner locked up for the rest of his natural life cannot go back out at age 53 and do it all over again, and again at age 75. Nothing to do with retribution or rehabilitation but simply deterence. Rmhermen (talk) 05:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Well, there are many reasons to imprison a mass-murderer longer. Here are a few: 1) As noted above, they might kill others, if given the opportunity. 2) Presumably there is a risk that they will be harmed by the families of the victims, once released. 3) There's the Old Testament "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". Or, more broadly, doesn't a punishment equivalent (although not necessarily identical) to the crime seem appropriate to most cultures throughout history (noting that, at times, punishments were vastly disproportionate to the crime, as well) ? 4) The risk of long sentences presumably might discourage at least some future mass murderers. So, I'm looking for arguments like these, but that reach the conclusion that letting mass-murderers go is the best way to handle the situation. There is Jesus' advice to "turn the other cheek", but that seems to be aimed at individuals dealing with minor insults, not to nations dealing with mass murderers. Then there's the liberal concept that once a person is reformed, healed of their mental disorder, or perhaps attains salvation, that they should be completely forgiven. However, why would an assumption be made that this will always occur within 21 years, or, indeed, at all ? StuRat (talk) 05:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Actually, what I am saying is that there is no reason to be anything except perfectly equivocal on which system is better, in absense of actual evidence one way or the other. That is, you can't claim "life imprisonment is better than the lighter sentence". Of course, you can't claim the reverse either, but that was the point of my comments. You can't just say "My way is better because its my way", which is so far all you are saying. You've proposed lots of hypotheticals, which I suppose could be ways to grant some objective way to measure "better", but the hypotheticals you propose don't necessarily encompass all the ways that one could measure "better". You've presumed that someone wouldn't be rehabilitated in 21 years, but have provided no evidence that they wouldn't be. Again, that's not to say that evidence might not exist to prove your assertions correct. You just can't assume them correct without at least some evidence one way or the other. --Jayron32 06:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Pope John Paul II forgave his attempted assassin, but that has nothing to do with whether he should be kept behind bars. Life imprisonment is not so much "punishment" as it is "permanent removal from society", for the protection of society. Which is also what capital punishment does too, except that it's truly permanent, with no legal loopholes (except for the one around the murderer's neck). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC) The question becomes whether "permanent removal from society" is justifiable. Certainly, one could issue the exact same "protection" for things like petty shoplifting; i.e. steal a pack of gum, get life imprisonment without the possibility of release. After all, the incarcerated shoplifter can no longer steal gum from stores anymore! To merely describe the definition of "life imprisonment" doesn't in itself provide justification for its practice. People in prison cannot, by definition, commit crimes on society outside of prison. To state that fact is meaningless in solving our dilemma here, which is "what level of incarceration is appropriate." So far, no one has proposed any evidence one way or the other, other than making supposedly self-evident assertions that life imprisonment for mass murderers is somehow "better" in some non-defined way than a shorter sentence of defined length. I've also not claimed that the shorter sentence is better. I have just claimed that no one has presented any evidence either way. We don't even have a defined metric by which to measure "betterness" in this case. Again, for those advocating that Norway's system is somehow inadequate, I am not arguing that you are definitively wrong, I am just arguing that you can't claim yourself right without presenting some evidence (like data would be nice) to support the stance. --Jayron32 06:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC) My comments weren't directed at you, but I wasn't sure where to put the proper indentions. The question comes down to whether society has the right to permanently protect itself against murderous predators like the guy in Norway. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC) "But mercy is above this sceptred sway, It is enthroned in the hearts of kings, It is an attribute to God himself, And earthly power doth then show likest God's, When mercy seasons justice." DuncanHill (talk) 08:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Sure, and that's why we use lethal injection now, instead of drawing and quartering. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Bugs, that was poor even by your standards. It may that nothing would give you greater pleasure than torturing someone to death, but please allow for the possibility that such feelings are not shared by the rest of mankind. DuncanHill (talk) 09:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC) At least my comment makes logical sense, as opposed to the quotated gibberish in your previous comment. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Bugs, your comment above sounds like a non sequitur to me. What do you mean? What does using lethal injection have to do with mercy? It's not as if execution by lethal injection is less barbaric than execution by drawing and quartering. Such a double standard certainly doesn't apply to the so-called "murderous predator", does it? (Using dehumanizing terminology makes it so much easier to treat perpetrators of crimes as monsters rather than people.) After all, the guy in Norway shot his victims quickly, and most of them died immediately. Does that mean he should get off more lightly than if he had tortured them to death slowly? Pais (talk) 09:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Lethal injection is a much more humane execution method than drawing and quartering. As to showing mercy to the killer in general, perhaps the killer can figure out a way to undo the grief he caused. Then he could ask for mercy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Bugs, the thing about mercy is that it is given - it isn't deserved or earnt or whatnot. It is given, and as pointed out in a more famous section of the "quotated gibberish" above "It is twice blessed; It blesseth him that gives and him that takes". Dehumanising the person you want to kill is probably exactly what the culprit in the current case did - and it certainly appears that he believed the killings were necessary for the good of society. Do you really want to stoop to his level? DuncanHill (talk) 09:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) But you brought up lethal injection in response to a reference to mercy, not a reference to humaneness. Pais (talk) 09:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Apparently you're unaware of the term "mercy killing". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Oh, is that the latest euphemism for the death penalty? Pais (talk) 09:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC) A lot of folks think the death penalty is much less of a punishment than life imprisonment would be. They miss the point that it's not about punishment, it's about permanent removal. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC) And permanently removing people is so much easier and cheaper than rehabilitating them. Then why bother putting people in prison for 10 or 20 years first before executing them? Why not just take them out behind the courthouse after sentencing and dispatch them quickly with a bullet to the back of the head? Pais (talk) 09:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Because it gives them the opportunity to exhaust all legal remedies. Taking them out back and stringing them up is indeed how it used to be done. Now the convict is given a much better shake. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC) How long have you entertained these desires to kill? DuncanHill (talk) 09:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC) You're funny. How long have you entertained these desires to return murderers to the streets? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC) You really don't get it do you? Are we to strive to be better humans - more merciful, less hate-filled, and do we try to fashion society to support that, or are we to obsess over vengeance and live life according to our basest instincts and fears? Do we try to build the New Jerusalem here on earth or just sit back and let the cycle of hatred continue? DuncanHill (talk) 10:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC) It is you who don't get it. We are not robots. We choose our actions. I'd like to hear your theory on how someone like this character in Norway could be "rehabilitated", i.e. to somehow magically change his views that (1) Islam and multiculturalism are evil; and (2) his own countrymen must be killed for tolerating and supporting those things. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Sorry, but the fact that you haven't changed an opinion in the last 20 years does not mean that nobody does. We don't have a completely reliable method for changing personal views, but then we also don't have a completely reliable method of getting people into orbit and back again. Errors can kill people in either case, but we still do both. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Since this is a Reference Desk, not an Opinion Desk, let's take a look at some facts. Incarceration rates - US: 743 per 100,000 population; Norway: 71 per 100,000. Intentional homicide rates - US: 5.0 per 100,000: Norway 0.60 per 100,000. The evidence is that long prison sentences and the death penalty do not reduce the rate of serious crime. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Long sentences and capital punishment are not about serving the needs of the criminal, they are about protecting society from that criminal. The criminal chooses to commit his crimes. He thus also chooses his sentence in the process. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Bugs, so you'd rather have long sentences and a high crime rate than shorter sentences and a low crime rate? DuncanHill (talk) 09:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Bugs - my point is that the statistical evidence shows that long prison sentences and the death penalty do not act reduce the rate of serious crime, and so clearly do not act as a deterrent. If your "rational choice" model of criminal behaviour was correct then serious crime rates in the US would be lower than those in Norway, not 8 times higher. If you know of facts that suggest the contrary, rather than just opinions, then please show them. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Bugs, if that were the case, equivalent crimes would serve equivalent sentences in different societies. Since that clearly is not the case, the society plays a major part in the decision. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) Another non sequitur. The point is that long sentences and capital punishment do not protect society from criminals. You're also creating a false dichotomy: it's not as if "criminals" and "society" are mutually exclusive groups. Criminals are a part of the society, and if society wants to protect itself from crime, it should work harder on preventing the causes of crime in the first place rather than waiting for the crimes to be committed and then either locking people up and throwing away the key or simply executing them. Pais (talk) 09:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC) It has long been argued that these things are not a deterrent to crime. That's not what it's about. It's about protecting society from these characters. I recall a prison warden talking once about the value of criminals aging. They are much less likely to be violent when they turn 60 or 70 than when they are in their youth. Your argument seems to be that society does not have the right to protect itself against these folks. That's what I call "liberalism gone mad". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC) You say "it's about protecting society from these characters", but the fact is it doesn't protect society at all. Your argument is proved wrong by the facts, and yet you stick to it. That's what I call "conservatism gone mad". (Well no, not gone mad, it's conservatism as usual.) Pais (talk) 09:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC) You're wrong. John Gacy freely chose to kill 33 victims. Once he was incarcerated, his murders stopped. And once he was executed, there was no possibility he would kill again. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC) And yet society was not one iota safer for it. Pais (talk) 09:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC) How do you figure? Society became temporarily safe from Gacy once he was behind bars, and permanently safe from Gacy once he was snuffed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Safe from Gacy ≠ safe. It's not like he was the only killer out there. Pais (talk) 10:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC) So? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC) So executing Gacy made no one safer. Pais (talk) 10:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Sure it did. It took a murderer out of the populace. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC) And made a murderer out of whoever executed him. Lose one, gain one. Pais (talk) 10:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Wrong. Murder is the unlawful taking of life. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC) So the guards at the concentration camps weren't murderers, since Nazi Germany had no law against killing Jews? Pais (talk) 13:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Bugs, which do you prefer - 5 murders per 100,000 people or 0.6 per 100,000? DuncanHill (talk) 09:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Neither. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Unless, of course, the murder victims are themselves murderers, in which case you prefer 100,000 per 100,000. Pais (talk) 10:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Meaning what?? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC) That's the difference between us, I prefer there to be fewer murders. That's what I call "Liberalism". DuncanHill (talk) 09:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Stats don't commit murder, individuals do. And stats mean nothing to the actual victims. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC) You honestly don't think that a high murder rate is worse than a low one? You honestly don't mind seeing more victims? More families torn apart? You disgust me. DuncanHill (talk) 10:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Yes, it's worse statistically. But a rate doesn't matter to a victim. With those status, you've offered a fool's choice. I would prefer a rate of ZERO. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Of course he doesn't. The more murders, the more executions he gets to exult in. Pais (talk) 10:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC) You have no clue. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC) I think this is disintegrating now. Bugs, you have been flailing without a valid or consistent argument for a while now. Everybody else, please assume good faith at least on a general level. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC) My argument is consistent, you just don't agree with it. Meanwhile, I'd like to know how the mercy-ites would rehabilitate a guy who thinks of himself as a modern day John Brown or something. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC) I agree that Bugs' argument is consistent. "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" is a consistent argument. Pais (talk) 10:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC) My argument is that society has the right to protect itself. Sorry you don't agree. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Of course society has the right to protect itself, but when its method of protection is both morally repugnant and demonstrably ineffective, it should try something else. Pais (talk) 10:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC) The Norway shooter claims he has not actually committed any crime. Maybe you agree with him? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC) He's just like you Bugs - he thinks it's legitimate to kill in order to protect his view of what society should be. And like you, he's wrong. DuncanHill (talk) 11:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Bugs these views are unpleasant in the extreme! What would have happened if the UK had capital punishment in the case of Barry George? Your argument may well be 'consistent', but so are the arguments of a load of froth-mouthed psychopaths! I am so happy we have never met because if we did I might accidentally stick a rusty nail in your foot. Jeremy Wordsworth (talk) 11:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC) So in conclusion, if you want to go on a crime spree and want to get off light, go to Norway and do it. Googlemeister (talk) 13:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Back to the topic, please

Some comments:

1) The comparison of murder rates between the US and Norway would only be valid if the two nations were identical in every way except for prison terms. There are other major differences, though, like the availability of handguns, which make the conclusion that "long prison rates don't prevent crime" invalid.

2) About recidivism: Do you really need statistics ? That's like asking for proof that a melted down handgun kills fewer people than one on the street. As long as their is any recidivism, then imprisonment MUST eliminate that, with some possible exceptions:

2a) Some crimes may still be committed from jail, like telephone fraud.

2b) Other crimes may be committed in jail, against other prisoners or guards. However, I'd expect that this is universally preferred over crimes committed at large (except by the prison victims).

2c) Others may "take up the cause" and commit crimes on behalf of the imprisoned person. I could see this in the case of bin Laden, for example, had he been imprisoned (or perhaps hostages taken and killed if he wasn't released). For some types of crimes, like dealing illegal drugs, the removal of one dealer may create an opportunity for another to fill the vacuum. However, none of this seems to apply to your average murderer.

For items 2a and 2b, those seem like arguments for improving the prison system (such as adding the disclaimer "The following is from a prison inmate" before each call or letter, in the case of 2a, or isolating prisoners more, in the case of 2b). 2c is an argument for the death penalty, in the case of the bin Ladens, and addressing society's underlying problems, or perhaps legalizing drugs, in the case of drug dealers. StuRat (talk) 13:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

2c is hardly an argument for the death penalty, since others may "take up the cause" and commit crimes on behalf of an executed person as well. Perhaps even more so since an executed person will be seen as more of a martyr - and more in need of avenging - than a merely imprisoned person. Pais (talk) 13:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Stu, can I just ask you never to change my indents or otherwise refactor any comment of mine in any way ever again. Especially do not refactor hats to end a discussion on a point with which you happen to agree, as you did earlier in this thread. It is frankly rather dishonest of you. DuncanHill (talk) 13:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• I didn't. I merely broke the question in two. Others added the hats (see the talk page) and removed them (was that you ?). StuRat (talk) 13:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't lie. You actually moved where the hat started. I then removed it altogether with an appropriate edit summary (something you seem incapable of). DuncanHill (talk) 13:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not lying, I neither added nor removed the hats. My question was in the hat, so I took it out, along with some helpful responses, but left the bickering between you and Bugs in there. That belongs on your talk pages, not here. Also, while I didn't, you need to learn to use {{outdent}}, since your prolonged fight with Bugs has run clear off the edge of the screen. StuRat (talk) 13:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I never said you added or removed them, I said you refactored it by moving it, which you did. DuncanHill (talk) 13:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I moved stuff out of the hats, not in, so if your complaint is that your stuff was inside, your complaint is not with me. Also, please don't put complaints like this on the Ref Desk, it all belongs on talk pages, not here. StuRat (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You moved what suited you out of the hat. So yes, my complaint is with you. As I made clear in my edit summary at the time, hat all or none. DuncanHill (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

So, what I'm looking for here are links to articles (or the text itself) where Norwegians (or others) argued for shorter prison terms for serious crimes, preferable translated into English. There's just some POV I don't understand here, and I want to, even if I disagree with it. (I also read Mein Kampf, not because I agree, but because I wanted to understand the thought process behind it.) StuRat (talk) 13:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

On (1), see List of countries by gun ownership. No other country in the world comes even close to the US gun ownership figure of 88.8 guns per 100 residents. However, Norway has a similar tradition of private gun ownership for hunting and recreation purposes, and is 11th in the table, with 31.3 guns per 100 residents. And yet if we look at List of countries by firearm-related death rate, we see the US rate is 7.07 firearm-related homicides per 100,000 population per year, whereas the rate for Norway is only 0.3 per 100,000 per year. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)For #1: that would also mean that the need for differing standards regarding prison rates would also, by necessity, be different. Norway, (hypothetically, just for the sake of arguement) may have more resources availible for intensive rehabilitation of criminals, so it is able to lower its recidivism rate solely because it can better rehabilitate those criminals. That is, insofar as cultural, social, and other differences may be responsible for the difference in crime rates, the same exact reasoning could also fully justify distinctions in sentencing standards. That is, the Norway sentencing standard works fine in Norway, but it would never work in the U.S. and visa-versa. Furthermore, we have no idea how they deal with issues of non compos mentis, for example it may allow for involuntary commitment to a secure mental facility for life, which would allow for reasonable exceptions to their 21-year maximum sentence. About #2: Yes we do need data. Like I said above, stating that lifetime imprisonment eliminates recidivisim (with your caveats about internal prison crime, etc.) doesn't in itself justify its own existance. You've merely stated a corrolary of what the concept "life imprisonment" means, without justifying its existence. We can imprison someone for life for stealing gum from the corner store; such a person wouldn't ever steal gum again. Such a fact does not itself justify the need to imprison them for life. Regarding 2c specifically, there is no distinction here; since one may take up the cause from the dead as well; there is little distinction between taking up the cause for an imprisoned comrade vs. taking up the cause for a martyr. --Jayron32 13:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I really should have divided 2C into 2Ci, the terrorist case, and 2Cii, the drug dealer case. For 2Ci, after the results of the imprisonment of some of the PLO terrorists from the 1972 Munich attacks, Israel decided that targeted assassinations were the better option. The US seemed to reach the same conclusion regarding bin Laden. Yes, murders may be committed to commemorate a dead martyr, but most dead martyrs fade quickly, unlike an imprisoned martyr, which can continue to attract new generations of followers for decades. StuRat (talk) 14:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Murder to avenge murder. DuncanHill (talk) 14:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

If you don't want your indents changed, you need to do a better job yourself. You neither placed your comment after my relevant comment, nor indented it to show it was a response to mine. As written, it appears to be a response to Jayron.StuRat (talk) 14:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You changed your indents, apparently at the same time as I was posting. This is how it was indented when I posted. DuncanHill (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, but please change your indent now, and, since you didn't place your response after my relevant post, I will move my subsequent posts. StuRat (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not changing them as no dount you'll come along and change yours again (as usual, with no explanation) just confusing things even more than you have already done. I don't know what weird kick you get from fucking things up. DuncanHill (talk) 14:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Geez, will you assume good faith, please ? I made a mistake by not indenting my response to Jayron enough, and then immediately fixed it. Had your response to me been placed after my relevant comment, which was properly indented, it never would have been an issue. Also, can't you at least make your text small, when it has nothing to do with the topic ? StuRat (talk) 14:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

As for the death penalty or life imprisonment for stealing gum, there was a time when such extremes were the norm, but those do seem to violate the Judeo-Christian norm of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". StuRat (talk) 14:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Now, Jayron, I'm still trying to decipher your argument. Is it that, if the recidivism rate is low enough, that the risk to society is better than continuing to punish the criminal ? StuRat (talk) 14:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• First of all, understand that I am not endorsing one system as better than the other. What I am arguing for is some standard more consistent than the argument from emotion; that is before we can properly say "The Norweigian system is inadequate" and "The U.S. system is better", we need to first define a) what is meant by "better" and b) allow for a metric to measure "better".
• To provide a counter the arguement made by Bugs in the collapsed section (which I think was inappropriately collapsed), his standard seems to be "no murder is acceptable". I agree with that, but to then define a policy which reduces the murder rate to literally zero murders is a literal impossibility. One may only prevent all murders always by imprisoning all persons in solitary confinement from birth until death. To allow two people to interact socially is to allow for the non-zero possibility that one may murder the other. Once you realize that you cannot prevent all murders, you need to define a system which is based on other standards. You need to decide how much you are willing to sacrifice your own very humanity to ensure your own security. Bugs's standard of "no murder ever" isn't reasonable. Is he willing to personally, himself, spend the rest of his life in solitary confinement just to ensure that no one else may commit murder? I would suppose not, since I think he does occasionally interact with other people face-to-face.
• Our goal should still be to prevent murder, but that needs to be counterbalanced with not imprisoning someone who would not have committed murder had they not been in prison. After all, lets say that I have a non-zero chance that I will murder someone. If I am walking free, and it can be determined that some other individual has a smaller chance of committing murder than I do, it would be unjust to imprison that person. That is, if you stand less of a chance killing someone than I do, by what right do I have to keep you in prison while I walk around free?
• If we allow that the right to imprison someone is based solely on preventing future crimes (which I have seen several times as an arguement) and I simultaneously demand justice in the sense that we should not imprison people who are not going to commit a crime (for any given minimum standard of "are not going to") then we need to allow for the possibility that merely committing a crime in the past does not automatically mean that I am guaranteed beyond any doubt to commit a crime in the future. That is, people seem to be arguing that "once someone has killed, they have a higher chance of killing again", and they are arguing that without presenting any evidence that such a fact is inevitable.
• If we allow for all of the above, then there is at least the possibility that murderers in Norway who are released after 21 years in prison kill less people than the general population at large. If the only justification for keeping someone in prison is to prevent murder, then how can one justify keeping people in prison who are actually shown to be less likely to commit murder than other people who are not imprisoned. I am not arguing that this fact is true, I am merely arguing that if it were shown to be true, then Norway's system could be then said to be working. I am perfectly open to the possibility that such evidence may present itself to show the exact opposite (that Norway's system isn't working) but I am not open to the idea of declaring Norway's system somehow inadequate based solely on the "We don't do the same thing here" standard, which is so far all that has been presented by those which are attacking it as such.
• Of course, all of that still doesn't mean that the Norway system is universally better. We also need to allow that:

• a) One may reasonably define other justifications for keeping someone in prison, which have nothing to do with justice, OR have nothing to do with keeping society safe. For example, one merely needs to redifine that which is just, and the Norway system can be invalid under those standards even if it released murderers kill less people.
• b) One may also reasonably argue that even if the Norway system works in Norway, that it may work in no other place on Earth. That is, insofar as societies are different, they must respond to crime in different ways.

• All of my above arguements can be summed up simply. Before one can say "The Norway system is unreasonable" one must first a) define what reasonable looks like b) define a way to measure it. and c) show evidence that it does not meet that definition. So far, with the exception of some statistics above regarding murder rates (which may or may not be valid for proving anything yet) no one has yet presented any actual objective arguement one way or the other. --Jayron32 14:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm bit puzzled by the argument here about Norwegian system. If you look at the article Life_imprisonment_in_Norway than you can see that Norway does allow for imprisoning people for life, if they are considered a danger to society. The maximum sentence served as punishment is 21 years, but after that the prisoner is judged whether he is a danger to society and can get his sentence prolonged by 5 years. Meaning that dangerous people can be kept of the street in Norway.94.208.67.65 (talk) 15:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

July 25

Capital punishment in Venezuela

Did Hugo Chavez reintroduce capital punishment when he took over? --134.10.113.106 (talk) 01:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Our article on the subject is only a year or so old, So I'd think that it would have noted this if it had happened. Was there any particular reason why you asked? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

How would Chavez keep power if he couldn't execute dissenters? --134.10.113.198 (talk) 03:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I've no idea. How did George W. Bush do it? Please use the reference desk for its intended purpose, not as a soapbox. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You don't have to kill people legally to get rid of them. 88.8.79.148 (talk) 11:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a completely different topic than the one you asked. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a nice summary of human rights concerns in Venezuela compiled by Amnesty International. It does not look like Chavez has murdered anyone or had them executed. It is alleged that various governmental bodies have arrested, threatened, and occasionally beaten up dissenters. As far as official repression goes, that's pretty good for Latin America, historically speaking. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

schist disk

I was watching a film entitled "The The Pyramid Code" It mentions the "schist disk" discovered by British Egyptologist Walter Bryan Emery at Saqqara, Egypt in 1936. I have searched to find out more factual information, but only weird websites have some information. I want to know the facts about it and more details of it's history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.128.211 (talk) 03:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia articles on Saqqara do not mention the artifact, neither does the article on Walter Bryan Emery. However, the Walter Bryan Emery article does contain a bibliography of his writings; if you have access to a good library, you may be able to find these books and be able to see if he wrote about it himself. I tried a search for "schist disk", but really schist is a rather common stone, so I don't know if the term "schist disk" was a formal name for the artifact or just a description of it. Good luck! --Jayron32 03:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

They are called the Hemaka discs; Emery found three of them. Brief description here, photo here (they are each about 10 cm in diameter).--Cam (talk) 04:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Why was Anders Breivik exempted from conscription in the Norwegian military

I heard about this guy in the news and came to Wikipedia to read the article on him, and saw reference #21 there, but I don't read Norwegian. Thanks. 20.137.18.50 (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, other sites (e.g. the BBC) are saying he did normal military service, and I'm not convinced by the translation used - I suspect it means he was released form military service, not exempted. We need a Norwegian speaker. DuncanHill (talk) 12:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Translation of article[18] by Oddvin Aune et. al. from NRK (Norwegian Broadcasting) 23rd July 2011
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
32-åringen skal tilhøre høyreekstremt miljø 32-year old allegedly belongs to extreme right-wing movement (Translation of article[19] by Oddvin Aune et. al. from NRK (Norwegian Broadcasting) 23rd July 2011) 32 år gamle Anders Behring Breivik, som er siktet både for eksplosjonen i Oslo og skytedramaet på Utøya, skal tilhøre et høyreekstremt miljø og har hatt verv i FpU. Anders Behring Breivik, 32, who is charged with both the explosion in Oslo and the shooting spree at Utøya allegedly belongs to an extreme right-wing group and has held office in FpU (Progress Party of Norway). Dødstallene etter skytemassakren på Utøya har steget voldsomt, sier politiet i natt. Minst 84 mennesker er nå bekreftet drept. I tillegg er sju personer drept i Oslo. Tonight the police announced that the death toll after the shooting spree at Utøya has risen drastically. At least 84 people are confirmed killed. Additionally 7 people were killed in Oslo. Anders Behring Breivik er fra Oslo, og er bosatt på Skøyen. Boligen hans har blitt gjennomsøkt av politi med skuddsikre vester i fredag kveld. Anders Behring Breivik is from Oslo and lives at Skøyen. Police wearing bulletproof vests searched his house this Friday evening. Politiet opplyste lørdag morgen at 32-åringen siktes både for angrepet på regjeringsbygget og skytedramaet på Utøya. The police announced on Saturday morning that the 32-year old is charged with both the attack on the goverment building and the shooting spree on Utøya. Dette anses som en terrorhandling, og er den mest alvorlige straffeparagrafen politiet har til rådighet, sier visepolitimester Roger Andresen. This is regarded as an act of terrorism, and is the most serious legal clause available to the police, stated Vice Police ChiefRoger Andresen. Han skal ha vært iført politiklær og være sett på begge åstedene. Mannen er fraktet til Oslo, og skal avhøres formelt av politiet i løpet av lørdagen. He allegedly wore a police uniform and was seen at both crime scenes. The man was taken to Oslo and will be formally questioned by the police during Saturday. Har bakgrunn i FpU Has background in Progress Party Behring Breivik meldte seg inn i Frp i 1999 og betalte sin siste kontingent for året 2004. Behring Breivik joined the Progress Party in 1999 and last paid his due for 2004. Han var medlem av lokallaget på St. Hanshaugen i Oslo i perioden 2001-2003 og en kort periode i lokallaget på Frogner i Oslo i 2003. I 2006 ble han fjernet fra registrene, skriver Aftenposten. In 2001-2003 he was a member of the local group at St. Hanshaugen in Oslo and for a short time in 2003 of the group at Frogner in Oslo, according to Aftenposten (newspaper). Han var dessuten engasjert i Fremskrittspartiets Ungdom (FpU) fra 1997 til 2007. Han meldte seg aktivt ut i 2007. He was also active in Progress Party Youth (FpU) from 1997 to 2007. He resigned in 2007. I FpU hadde Anders Behring Breivik to verv, det første som formann i Oslo Vest fra januar 2002 til oktober 2002, det andre som styremedlem samme sted fra oktober 2002 til november 2004. The two positions he held in FpU were firstly as leader in West Oslo from January 2002 to October 2002 and secondly as committee member at the same place from October 2002 to November 2004. I et innlegg på Document.no skriver Anders Behring Breivik selv at han «i flere år» har arbeidet for Frp. In Anders Behring Breivik's own words at Document.no he worked "for several years" for the Progress Party. Jeg ble i dag tidlig gjort kjent med at han har vært medlem hos oss. Det er aldeles forferdelig å vite, sier Siv Jensen til Aftenposten.no. I heard early this morning that he had been a member with us. That is utterly awful to know, said Siv Jensen (leader of the Progress Party) to Aftenposten.no. Høyreekstremt miljø Extreme right-wing movement Etter det NRK får opplyst, har ikke den pågrepne noen yrkesmilitær bakgrunn. Han ble fritatt fra verneplikt, og dermed har han ikke spesialutdanning eller utenlandsoppdrag for Forsvaret. NRK has no indication that the arrested person has any professional military background. He was not conscripted and so has had no special training or foreign service for the Defence. Den pågrepne skal tilhøre et høyreekstremt miljø på Østlandet og skal ha registrert to våpen på navnet sitt: Ett automatvåpen og en Glock-pistol. Utover dette er han ukjent for politiet Allegedly the arrested one belongs to an extreme right-wing movement in the East region of the country and has two guns registered to his name. An automatic and a Glock pistol. Other than this he is unknown to the police. Behring Breivik står som medlem i Oslo pistolklubb, og han skal også være medlem av en frimurerloge. Behring Breivik is listed as a member of Oslo Pistol Club and is also said to be a member of a masonic lodge. Anders Behring Breivik skal i en periode ha bodd på Rena, og står registert med å ha drevet et firmaet som bedrev dyrking av «grønnsaker, meloner, rot- og knollvekster» - en bransje hvor man også kan få tilgang til store mengder kunstgjødsel. Dette kan brukes i sprengstoff. Anders Behring Breivik is said to have lived at Rena for a while and is registered as operating a firm that grew "vegetables, melons, root- and bulb crops" - an industry that also gives one access to large amounts of artificial fertilizer. This can be used in explosive. Tungt bevæpnet politi tok seg i natt inn i huset på gården. 10-15 politifolk gikk gjennom gården for å sikre spor etter den antatte gjerningsmannen. Heavily armed police tonight entered the house at the farm.10-15 Police combed the farm to secure traces of the assumed perpetrator, Da vi kom hit natt til lørdag, virket gården øde, forteller NRK's reporter Kurt Sivertsen. The farm seemed deserted when we came here Saturday night, relates NRK's reporter Kurt Sivertsen. Bare et enkelt lys var på inne i bolighuset. Senere kom tungt bevæpnet politi, og vi fikk beskjed om å fjerne oss, forteller han. Only a plain lamp shone in the house. Heavily armed police arrived later and we were told to go away, he reports. Aktiv i nettfora Active in Internet forums Mannen har én twitter-melding fra 17. juli som sier «One person with a belief is equal to the force of 100 000 who have only interests», et sitat av den britiske filosofen og sosialliberalisten John Stuart Mill. Den pågrepene har allerede fått en hatside på Facebook. His single twitter post from 17th July is "One person with a belief is equal to the force of 100 000 who have only interests" which is a quotation from the British philospher and social liberal John Stuart Mill. The arrested one has already gained a hate page on Facebook. Han skal også ha markert seg som enn flittig debattant på flere islamkritiske nettsteder, blant dem Document.no, der han i flere innlegg ga uttrykk for nasjonalistiske holdninger og framsto som kritisk til et flerkulturelt samfunn. He allegedly also distinguished himself as a regular debater on several anti islam websites, among them Document.no, where he expressed nastionalist views in several posts and was seen to be sceptical of a multicultural society. Document.no valgte lørdag å publisere alle Breiviks innlegg på nettstedet. Der framgår det at Breivik ikke har skrevet noen innlegg siden 29. oktober 2010, men at han i en periode var svært aktiv. On Saturday Document.no chose to publish all of Breivik's posts to the website. It shows that Breivik made no post since 29th October 2010 but was very active for a while. I innleggene han skal ha skrevet kommer han blant annet med grove karakteristikker av tidligere statsminister Gro Harlem Brundtland. Among the posts he wrote he gives crude characterisations of former prime minister Gro Harlem Brundtland. Han har også vært aktiv i en debatt på Minerva, hvor han kommenterer et innlegg fra Høyre-nestleder Torbjørn Røe Isaksen. He was also active in a debate in Minerva (Norwegian periodical) in which he commented on a post by Vice-leader of the Right party Torbjørn Røe Isaksen. Nasjonalistisk i debatter Nationalist in debates VG Nett skriver at 32-åringen fremmer svært konservative meninger, som han også kaller nasjonalistiske, i nettdebatter. Her viser han motstand mot at kulturelle forskjeller kan leve sammen i et samfunn. VG Nett write that the 32-year old advocates very conservative views, which he calls nationalist, in Internet debates. In these he expresses denial that cultural differences can exist together in a society. Til sammen er minst 87 mennesker drept etter angrepene mot Regjeringskvartalet i Oslo og på AUF-leiren på Utøya utenfor Oslo. Altogether at least 87 people killed after the attacks on the government quarter in Oslo and on the Labour Youth camp at Utøya outside Oslo. Politiet har funnet en bil som inneholder eksplosiver på Utøya. Bilen tilhører trolig den antatte gjerningsmannen. The police have found a car containing explosives at Utøya. The car probably belongs to the assumed perpetrator. Translated by Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Terms of Loan Guarantees

Hi, this is a purely theoretical question, with no practical implications for me ATM.

When writing up loan guarantees (private ones, not government or corporate), how do they write the terms to ensure that the guarantor can only be called upon when the debtor can't pay, and not merely because the debtor won't pay? Is there usually some clause stating that the guarantor only becomes liable if and when the primary debtor declares bankruptcy and all his seizable assets have been liquidated by the trustee? Otherwise, what would stop debtors simply deciding not to pay, knowing that the creditor won't bother chasing them (given that the loan is anyways guaranteed)? If I were to be a guarantor, I'd want to ensure that the creditor did the heavy lifting in chasing the debtor, not me. (I'd accept liability if the debtor had been stripped of all his assets, and truly didn't have the money). How would I achieve that? And will those demanding loan guarantees (e.g. banks and other financial institutions) accept such a "limited" loan guarantee as sufficient to extend credit?

(Note: No one is asking me or anyone I know for a loan guarantee. It's just that this question has bugged me for quite some time). Eliyohub (talk) 13:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The answer is that very often loan guarantees don't ensure that the guarantor is only called upon when the debtor can't pay. Private guarantees are required as a condition of a loan, and the loan company has an interest in protecting its money. They word the guarantees so that the guarantor is responsible in the event of non payment for any reason. The guarantor and debtor can take it or leave it. I have previously acted as guarantor for my daughter and made sure that she understands that if she misses a payment they will come to me. -- Q Chris (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I hope you at least expect her to pledge whatever assets she has as security for the loan, leaving you a reduced (unsecured) amount to "cover" with your guarantee? That will at least reduce the moral hazard of your daughter being tempted to default. If you guarantee the whole loan, I think you're being foolish. Eliyohub (talk) 14:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Did the seclusion of women in ancient Greece also include royal women?

Usually, people associate "Ancient, Classical Greece" with the Republic of Athens, but my question is about the ancient Greec kingdoms. I know about at least two ancient Greek Kingdoms: Macedonia and Epirus. I have heard about the seclusion of upper class women in ancient Greece. They were not allowed to mix with men outside of the family, and the social life was gender segregated. My question is; did these rules also pertain to royal women in Macedonia and Epirus? My impression is that women were more free in the Greek kingdoms than in the Greek republics, at least the royal women. Was the queens secluded, or did they have official ceremonies to attend to? Were they present at official occasions? Thank you.--Aciram (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)