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.
This page says it was Queen Tuarii of Raiatea. I'm guessing it is the same Tuarii pictured here with Teraupoo (the original name of that image means "Chief Teraupoo and Queen Tuarii [at] Avera").--Cam (talk) 16:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear that recent history would show that entering into a dialogue with various communist/totalitarian regimes has proved successful in moderating and even toppling them. USSR, China, Vietnam, Burma etc. With these successes loudly proclaimed by the US Government, who do they continue to insist on the absolute isolation of Cuba? Surely if they want to change the status quo on that island, they should copy previous models and open dialogue, trade links, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.72.161.190 (talk) 08:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obama has moderated what his administration considered to be stupid sanctions (such as stringently limiting visits to Cuba by people who have relatives living there), while keeping in place the basic U.S. overall carrot-stick policy -- which means the regime doesn't get the rewards until it commits to substantial reforms. It really has not been too different with Burma. The USSR and China were/are major world powers that the U.S. has to deal with whether or not we like their governments, but that's not the case with Cuba... AnonMoos (talk) 13:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding, perhaps wrong, is that the entire difficulty of the Cuba problem comes down to the political power of Cuban exiles in Florida, and the role of Florida as a key "swing state." If Florida was not up for grabs every Presidential election, we'd probably have a more sensible Cuba policy by now. As it is, Florida has a lot of anti-Castro Cubans, a lot of electoral votes, and a lot of variability from election to election. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How in the world did it prove "successful" that the U.S. entered into dialog with the USSR and China? Did Mikhail Gorbachev and Deng Xiaoping want to reform their countries because the US said so, and not because they genuinely thought socialism could be reformed and went for it? I think you're giving the US too much credit for domestic regime changes forced by economic malaise.
I highly doubt that the US cares about changing the status quo island, considering how much respect for democracy it has shown in the past. Most recently, it was on the wrong side of history in the Middle East, as a long-standing ally of Egypt's dictator. Its blockade of Cuba is also a policy that the rest of the world condemns. In 2011, for the 20th year in a row, the UN voted to lift the embargo, this time by 186-2. Those 2 were, predictably, the US and Israel. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So you mean to imply that even with a vote like 186-2, even when almost every country in the world votes against the US, including the most loyal NATO allies, that's not representative of world opinion? Somehow a conspiracy is afoot that forced those 186 countries to vote against their will? I'd like to see your justification for that. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The UN General Assembly is place with a rather more squalid and ignominious history than seems to be contemplated by you (such as still going through the motions of a number of meaningless annual rituals dating from the bad old days of the 1970s alliance of petty despots and tin-pot tyrants against democracies, and the hegemony of "third-worldist" ideology -- two ways of saying pretty much the same thing). The whole idea of the United Nations Parliamentary Assembly has been partially motivated by some of the structural hypocrisies of the General Assembly, and a desire to insert some much-needed democracy into the UN (because the General Assembly certainly has nothing to do with democracy...). AnonMoos (talk) 02:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course in a world where most countries are tinpot tyrants, you're going to get a General Assembly that's dominated by tinpot tyrants. I'm not sure where I expressed surprise or ignorance about this. This still does not change the fact that world opinion is overwhelmingly against the embargo, especially because nearly every country, including tinpot tyrants, democracies, and everybody in between, voted against it. And if you think condemning the US over the embargo every year is a "meaningless annual ritual", that's a value judgement which is irrelevant to the question. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My advice is, if you want to take the moral high ground, or in fact appeal to moral concerns in any way whatsoever, then you should not try to support your position by reference to the UN General Assembly, because you only end up sabotaging yourself... AnonMoos (talk) 04:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All 140.180 stated was that the 'rest of the world' condemns the policy. Pointing out that virtually every government in the world (more specifically, every widely-recognised government except the US, Israel, and some tiny Pacific states) has repeatedly expressed opposition to the policy in General Assembly votes is a perfectly valid way of demonstrating that - I don't see what your feelings about the General Assembly have to do with anything. 130.88.99.217 (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The US opening talks with communist/totalitarian regimes doesn't have that great of a track-record. The USSR is gone, true, but Russia seems to be only democratic in name. Similarly, China now has much greater economic, political, and military power, but is as anti-democratic as ever, and continues to occupy Tibet and threaten Taiwan. The US also tried negotiations with North Korea, with rather poor results. They remain an enemy and now have nuclear weapons, too. It's too early to determine if Vietnam and Burma will ultimately become democratic, or even respect basic human rights, in the case of Burma. StuRat (talk) 03:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also keep in mind how unimportant Cuba is to the US. Cuba isn't a military threat, and if they ever tried to develop nuclear weapons, the US would just invade. The benefits of a renewed trading relationship would be much greater to Cuba than the US. Politically, Cuba doesn't have much pull, either. StuRat (talk) 03:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"...how unimportant Cuba is to the US"? I ask again "So is the USA still more interested in hurting a regime they don't like than in helping the people of Cuba?" Especially a country that now has quite a few relatives of its citizens in the USA. HiLo48 (talk) 05:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The official US position is that the best way to help the people of Cuba is to keep pressure on their government to reform, such as by allowing real elections. StuRat (talk) 05:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And again, all of this is mediated through the realpolitik of domestic American politics. It's not about Cuba anymore; it's about Florida. Nobody with half a brain thinks that the embargo has achieved its original goals or has any chance of achieving them. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, right. I'm not sure it did that at all. Cuba still got to trade with everybody else, was able to field troops in foreign wars, and managed to put together a pretty crackerjack foreign intelligence service. They're still a big power in Latin America. For a country of their population size, I'd say they're pretty powerful in their own sphere. They are (and were) a primarily agricultural island with only 11 million people on it. I'm not sure how powerful you'd expect them to be if there wasn't an embargo. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cuba, being a large tropical island right off the coast of the US, would be a tourism gold mine if the US allowed it, which would provide billions of dollar to the Castro brothers to foster communist revolutions throughout the Americas, Africa, etc. If you haven't noticed, Cuba's not been all that successful in doing so with it's current, rather limited, economy. StuRat (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so the US has no problems with cooperating with the USSR or giving 1.2 billion Communists in China MFN trading status, but somehow its top priority is to oppress people on a small island. That might have made sense during the Cold War, when Cuba could have served as a base for the USSR, but it doesn't make sense now. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that a trade embargo on Russia or China wouldn't have worked, owing to their sizes, distances from the US, different economies, etc. StuRat (talk) 23:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder how much of this agenda is actually domestic. Legalizing tourism to Cuba would mean that many Americans would fly right over the expensive beach resorts of Florida and visit pristine beaches a short distance southward instead. I suspect the embargo will remain until Cuba is perfectly capitalist, and by perfectly capitalist I mean, "when those beaches are owned by Disney World". Wnt (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Placing the right hand over the heart during the playing of a national anthem?
I saw a video of the Singapore national football team in a match against Malaysia, and during the playing of their respective national anthems, both teams placed their hands over their heart. But according to our article on Singapore's anthem, they are only required to stand. Indeed, the audience members were only standing and waiving banners. Here in my country, we are required to salute the flag either with the military salute or the civilian salute (hand over heart) and most people follow that rule, but in other countries, are the salutes of civilians consistent? I'm not saying they should not though, but shouldn't it either be all will stand only, or all will salute? Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew10:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the UK, if anyone didn't stand for the National Anthem they'd be roughly hauled to their feet by their neighbours. Conversely, if they put their hands over their hearts, they'd get some funny looks. We don't do such things over here. It's bad form to publicly display that sort of emotion, only colonials do it... --TammyMoet (talk) 10:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would also be assault and battery in the UK - or more accurately in England and Wales as Scotland has no specific battery offence - (on the basis of the contents of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 article - I am not a lawyer). I'd also add a definite "citation needed" against TammyMoet's comments. In my experience, the National Anthem is very seldom played in public in the UK nowadays except at very formal events where the attendees have already bought into going along with the ceremony so it's quite hard to gauge what the reaction of the average Briton would be to a person who did not stand up. However, I'd expect that even most ardent patriots would do no more than tut loudly. Valiantis (talk) 13:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really seen as a display of emotion in the States. It's just what you do, because they taught you to do it as a kid. For most people I think it's a fairly empty gesture, which is not to say that most Americans don't love their country, just that they don't really put that much meaning in these rituals. I could be wrong; maybe most people are more affected by it than I think. --Trovatore (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here in Australia any government that tried to tell the public how to behave during the national anthem would be laughed at. Most people stand when it's played. In fact, I think more stand now that we have our own than used to in the latter days of using the one the Brits still use. Some sing along but a lot don't know all the words. Never seen anyone salute or put their hand on their heart. HiLo48 (talk) 10:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I actually associate the practice with the U.S., it doesn't seem to be common in other countries (although I have seen videos of football players from Vietnam, Nepal, Malaysia and the aforementioned Singapore do it). My country (the Philippines) seems to be the exception not the rule, although we were once an American colony. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew10:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would have said putting the hand over the heart was actually quite common in Australia. FWIW here's a photo of Socceroos Mark Schwarzer and Lucas Neill doing it, here's one of almost the whole team doing it, and another image hit on Google images with a broken link shows an Olympic squad doing it. I believe many in the crowd do it these days as well, and I'd say it's getting more common, especially if the hands aren't otherwise occupied. No one would salute though (except perhaps military personnel, and I can't say that for sure), and as HiLo says there certainly isn't any compulsion for civilians to do anything. An announcer may request that "All rise...", but if you wanted to stay firmly planted on your seat, keep playing with your iphone, or even drop a one fingered salute, then that's your business. --jjron (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously don't watch enough soccer. And I know this will annoy some fans, but I don't think what soccer players do can be said to be representative of the rest of a country like Australia where it's not the top football code anywhere. Again, from this thread, is this practice more of a soccer player thing than a national thing? HiLo48 (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Checking some anthems on Youtube from AFL Grand Finals etc you could have a point about it being a real soccer thing. And given that almost all Socceroos players are based in Europe there's some validity to the notion that it's not entirely representative. Going on the videos it's actually less widespread than I thought, like I knew that most/all AFL players didn't do it, often standing with arms around each other's shoulders, but I thought a considerable number of fans did it these days. However in the rather brief shots of the crowds from several events I couldn't actually notice anyone with hand on heart. I'm sure I've seen it at times at the Olympics with medal winners, but maybe my memory is also biased from watching too much Socceroos and World Cup, and from watching American sports. --jjron (talk) 11:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, in context of this discussion I was also interested to hear that the announcer at the Grand Final actually says: "Ladies and gentlemen, we invite you to stand..."; sure most people do, but there's an answer as to whether it's considered compulsory. --jjron (talk) 11:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When I hear the term "underground warfare", I do not actually think of literal underground warfare, but rather, warfare done in secret. Nevertheless, if it is what you are looking for, then the above articles may be of interest to you. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew13:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why aren't non-Muslims allowed to make the hajj?
The infamous "Christian bypass"
I know that non-Muslims aren't allowed to enter Mecca and Medina, and I do know it was because of Muhammad declaring them holy cities, but why are only Muslims allowed to make the hajj? I know before Muhammad's time, people of all races and religions made the pilgrimage. I respect their decision because I'm tolerant of all faiths, but what if a Jew or Christian wanted to make the hajj? Not as a publicity stunt or for fun, but as an actual act of faith, to encourage good relationships between religions? Christians and Jews are People of the Book, and they have a special place in Islam (even if they have not always been in good terms with each other). Besides, non-Christians may visit the Vatican anytime, and they will be welcome there. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew12:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure I understand your question - you started by saying you know why only Muslims are allowed to enter Mecca and Medina, but then you asked why only Muslims are allowed to take part in the Hajj (a pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina among other places). Perhaps you interested in some of the other places that Muslims visit during the pilgrimage? Anyway, I don't think this kind of restriction is unique to Islam, for example, Mount Athos only allows male visitors for religious reasons. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 12:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure your question is sincere, but it would not at all be likely to be looked on favorably by the Saudi authorities. In any case, some Christians who take their religion seriously would object to the fact that the Muslim pilgrimage ritual includes elements taken over wholesale from former pagan rituals (such as stoning the "devils" etc.)... AnonMoos (talk) 13:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice, but the things you mention are decorative folkloristic accretions to Christian holy days, and not a central part of actual Christian worship ceremonies on either Christmas or Easter. By contrast, pagan survivals are an obligatory part of the official Muslim pilgrimage rituals. Whether or not you think that it's hypocritical for Christians to complain about it, it's a fact that some Christians have complained about it.[2] -- AnonMoos (talk) 16:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can't make the hajj if you can't enter Mecca and Medina. You can't enter Mecca and Medina if you're not Muslim because they are considered holy cities. Ergo, you can't make the hajj if you are non-Muslim. What's the confusion, here? If you're asking, "isn't this a bit discriminatory on the basis of religion?," the answer is, "um, yes, explicitly so." If you're asking, "why don't they ease up a bit in the name of tolerance?," the answer is, "um, well, they obviously don't value that form of religious tolerance enough to make that change." Nearly all religions have limits to how much tolerance they actually have, despite any lip-service. Ditto societies in general. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree wholeheartedly with Mr.98's answer but that said, it's not that hard to convert... If you are really and strongly interested in visiting the cities for a legitimate reason you could spend some time (=months or years, not days) learning about the religion, learn to say the Shahada, convert and make it formal at a government office in a more tolerant Islamic country. If you decide you don't like Islam you can always convert back, or just keep your credentials in case you want to give it a second chance. 24.92.85.35 (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, a Christian holy experience that is forbidden to non-Christians that would be a (very) rough equivalent is the Eucharist. Specifically the case of the Catholic church, where not even Protestants can share in it, let alone Muslims. Also, non-Mormons are not permitted in Mormon Temples. Heck, practically no one was allowed in the Holy of Holies, Jewish or not. It's not exactly rare. Mingmingla (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the OP is thinking not just about the destination, but the whole journey from wherever he lives. Even though international travel is much quicker now, the hajj is surely still just as much about the journey as it is about the destination. Traditionally this would have taken many months in some cases, which is why it was only required adherents do it once in their lives. If he lives in the USA, for example, he could do whatever an American Muslim would do, in terms of travelling to Saudi Arabia, and go as far as he could, as long as he accepts he's barred from entering the holy cities. -- Jack of Oz[your turn]19:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why does the OP think is the reason for racism, sexism, apartheid, slavery, genocide, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, or The Inquisition? It's simple: ignorance and hatred, and religion, which justifies the worst human tendencies and shields them from critical examination. Even a trained torturer might feel sympathy for his victims, until he justifies to his own satisfaction that he's doing something holy and that God commanded the persecution.
It's important to note that Saudi Arabia is much more fundamentalist than most other (all other?) Muslim countries. See Saudi Arabia#Women in Saudi society. Women are treated not just like second-class citizens, but like slaves who can't even get admitted to a hospital without her guardian's approval, and can't freely mix with men. On the issue of religious freedom, non-Muslims are forbidden from worshipping in public, and have even been beaten and threatened with death while worshipping in their own homes. Distributing non-Muslim material like the Bible is illegal, while converting to another religion carries the death penalty. I hardly think not being allowed to make the Hajj is even comparable to these other restrictions on religion. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't the Old Testament include prophesies that people from all over the Earth (and not just converts to Judaism) would come and worship the God of the Jews in the Jerusalem Temple? And during Jesus' days in Jerusalem, weren't foreigner (non-Jews?) allowed in an outer courtyard of the Temple? Edison (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the Jewish temple, there were a series of spaces each less widely accessible than the previous one (the outermost was for everybody, then one for Jews, then for Jewish men, then for Levites, then for priests, until the innermost holy of holies was only visited by the High Priest once a year). Jerusalem was not forbidden to non-Jews, but there were constant frictions with the Romans about the Romans publicly displaying what the Jews considered to be symbols of heathen idolatry there (such frictions seem to have contributed significantly to bringing on the First Jewish Revolt). -- AnonMoos (talk) 02:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Heh @ "obscure thespian". That neatly allows me to share what John Gielgud once said, ostensibly about Burton, but actually about someone else: I don't know what's happened to Richard Burton. I think he married some terrible film star and had to live abroad. -- Jack of Oz[your turn]10:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would note that nowadays it's not like it's always easy for Muslims to make the Hajj. Quotas means some may have to wait years [3]. Considering that, even if we ignore intolerance and all that, I don't think it's particularly surprising if non-Muslims for who it usually won't have religous meaning have great difficultywould be very severely restricted. Nil Einne (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is flawed in Ely Cathedral ?
According to Joseph M Reagle, Bill Thompson, BBC digital culture critic, wrote “Wikipedia is flawed in the way Ely Cathedral is flawed[4]. So I tried to read Wikipedia's article on Ely Cathedral, but could not find anything particularly flawed, so what does Bill Thompson mean ? Teofilotalk19:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the full quote reads "Wikipedia is flawed in the way Ely Cathedral is flawed, imperfect in the way a person you love is imperfect, and filled with conflict and disagreement in the way a good conference or an effective parliament is filled with argument". I'd say that there is strong evidence that Ely Cathedral has had its imperfections - the tower collapsed at one point - and it seems to have received a bit of a battering during the Dissolution of the Monasteries. Architecturally, it is thus somewhat of a mixed bag, and arguably, even a work in progress. An affectionate metaphor, and on we should take as a complement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(after EC) Cathedrals are big churches, designed to impress. Ely Cathedral rises astonishingly out of the flat and dreary fens. The comparison, as I read it, is that Wikipedia is an amazing creation, which has arisen out of seemingly nothing (ten years ago). Compare (in auto-antonym):
An apocryphal story relates how Charles II (or sometimes Queen Anne) described St Paul's Cathedral as "awful, pompous, and artificial", meaning in modern English "awe-inspiring, majestic, and ingeniously designed."
Tower collapses seem to be more of a rule than an exception. However, if the simile is architectural, it's worth pointing out that not only is the building stylistically inconsistent, but that it isn't symmetrical. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are a couple of architectural woes that aren't mentioned in our article: "Apparently inspired by the octagon (the lantern that replaced the fallen main tower), the Norman west tower was expanded by the addition of an octagonal belfry with four turrets in 1392. Its great weight soon caused the tower to sink significantly, and has proved a challenge to architects ever since. It was also around this period (the date is not known), that the northwest transept fell down, giving the cathedral's west front a lopsided appearance. It has never been rebuilt."[5]. So the "flawed" argument does seem to have a grain of truth behind it. Alansplodge (talk) 11:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is this website a reliable source ? I am suprised not to find any mention of this leaning tower in 'City of Ely: Cathedral', A History of the County of Cambridge and the Isle of Ely: Volume 4: City of Ely; Ely, N. and S. Witchford and Wisbech Hundreds (2002), pp. 50-77. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=21891 Date accessed: 16 January 2012 . I found The Norman west front of Ely Cathedral overhangs its base several inches in an old book (1861). Teofilotalk15:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The case of the Great West Tower is admitedly less straightforward, but I found Handbook to the Cathedrals of England by Richard John King, 1862: "The tower, originally the work of Bishop Geoffry Riddell (1174‑1189), was much altered and strengthened during the Perpendicular period; when the transition Norman arches were contracted by those which now exist. The zigzag moulding above marks the extent of the original arches. The work, after the erection of the upper or Decorated story of the tower had probably shewn signs of weakness; and the fall of the central tower in the preceding century no doubt led the monks to apply a remedy to this one in due time." (pp 177-178). Some later strengthening is recorded in Ely Cathedral Handbook by CHARLES WILLIAM S TUBES, D.D., DEAN OF ELY... 1904"1870 Restorations continued under Dean Merivale... Western Tower braced with iron bands." (p.22) Alansplodge (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not really a primary source, but this newspaper article says of Ely: "Imagine a huge dreadnought that has survived a dozen battles and emerges from the smoke with part of its superstructure shot away and its hull a patchwork of running repairs: from some angles it seems about to sink, from others it's a vision of beauty and power. This is the story of Ely Cathedral - an extended chapter of dramatic accidents, excessive ambition and the struggle against time and the elements.". Alansplodge (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. This last quote explains Bill Thompson's idea about Wikipedia quite well doesn't it? I've added one sentence about the north-western transept in the article diff. Teofilotalk02:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I like this 'Dreadnought Wikipedia' idea. With Admiral Jimbo on the bridge looking smug, if not entirely sure why he got the job, the admins yelling orders (usually ignored), and a motley crew (Shanghaied from every port the ship has visited) she steams once more into battle - with the stokers piling verifiability-not-truth into the boilers, the gunners ramming rounds of reliably-sourced armour-peircing citations into the breeches of the guns, and the inclusionists and deletionists running around below decks polishing the brass and stealing the fittings. Behind, in the wake, lies a trail of deleted articles, vandalism and grammatical errors. Nobody knows quite where she is going, or who the enemy is, but we're darned sure to put up a good fight when we get there - if we haven't sunk on the way... ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
During my trawl of the web for sources about the stability or otherwise of the West Tower, I came across something in the "Quite Interesting" category: the unfortunate cae of architect George BaseviFRS"He died on 15 October 1845, aged 51, after falling through an opening in the floor of the old bell chamber of the west tower of Ely Cathedral while inspecting repairs. His remains were buried in Bishop Alcock's chapel at the east end of the cathedral under a monumental brass."Alansplodge (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Liberal convention Canada
Which cities of Canada have previously hosted the Liberal Party of Canada convention, either leadership convention or conventions dealing with proposals? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.64.57 (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) There are many. Each state and the federal government have at least one. There are lots of specific laws concerning murder, murder of political leaders, murder of police or of court officers, murder of witnesses, murder in pursuit of a continuing criminal enterprise, murder in a large-scale drug operation, etc. Rmhermen (talk) 23:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, because of federalism, it's typically not the U.S. government which criminalizes and prosecutes murders/homicides, but rather the State governments. The Federal laws pertaining to murder aren't against murder/homicide per se, but rather things like "crossing state lines to commit a homicide", or "homicide of a Federal official" (e.g. FBI agent or the President), or "homicide in a non-State jurisdiction" (RudolfRed's linked section only applies "within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States", which, as I understand it, wouldn't cover most of what people think of as the U.S.). This is typical; the vast majority of criminal acts are prosecuted based on violations of State, rather than Federal, laws. The Feds typically only get involved when a crime involves multiple states, the federal government, or foreign countries. (Though the Commerce Clause gives it quite a bit of leeway in defining "involves multiple states".) -- 71.35.113.131 (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not odd. It's the concept of state sovereignty, a fundamental building block of the USA. It's not one country divided into provinces or departments; it's a collection of individual states united into a federation. It's kind of like what the EU wants to be. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 13:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some would say we live in an odd place legally, in the UK. We have several fundamentally different legal systems, with no separate overarching legislature (the UK Parliament can legislate for any or all of the constituents of the Union, though in recent years it has devolved some powers to subordinate assemblies), we have no written constitution, and many of the laws (of England and Wales anyway, I don't know about Scotland) have never been codified in statute but exist only in common law. --ColinFine (talk) 10:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really true to say we don't have a written constitution. We don't have a single written document that is called "the constitution" but a lot of consitutional things are written down. Magna Carta, the Act of Union, etc.. A lot of constitutional things are handled by unwritten conventions, though, so it is a bit confusing. See Constitution of the United Kingdom for details. --Tango (talk) 12:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that § 1111(a) is a definition of murder (that reads like a bar review course... it's the classic common law description). The statues that criminalize it follow. § 1111(b) criminalizes maritime murder (which is specifically under the purview of the federal government); § 1114 applies to federal employees; § 1115 applies to negligent ship operators, etc. Due to federalism, Federal criminal law is limited in its scope to things that are within the enumerated powers of Congress. That definition is today quite broad, but at least in theory there are some limits on it. Typically most murders are prosecuted at the State level. I hope the IP's comment of what "[a]n odd place you live in" is glibly joking... let's not get sidetracked on trans-Atlantic one-liners. The 71.* ip gives an excellent answer. Shadowjams (talk) 07:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Using Illinois for an example, Illinois Compiled Statutes[7], section 9, defines first degree murder; second degree murder; Voluntary Manslaughter of an Unborn Child; Involuntary Manslaughter and Reckless Homicide; Involuntary Manslaughter and Reckless Homicide of an Unborn Child; Drug-induced homicide; and Concealment of homicidal death along with aggravating factors for many of those crimes. Note that only Drug-induced homicide and reckless homicide are called "homicide" (it consists of killing someone while doing something dangerous but possibly legal with a automobile while involuntary manslaughter is the same type of thing done - without a car.) Rmhermen (talk) 14:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
January 16
Getting a checking account
Another dumb question from a dumb blonde. If one writes out checks knowing that there is no money in their account to cover them, does that effect getting a future checking account from another bank in another state. Is there a way that when a bank opens a checking acccount for a person, that they check somehow on one's history of passing bad checks?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the UK, at least, knowingly writing bad cheques is illegal, and I expect the same is true in the US (which I'm guessing is where you are, judging by the way you spell "check"). Therefore, I wouldn't worry as much about getting a bad credit score as I would getting thrown in jail... If you have issues involving bad cheques, I suggest you talk to a lawyer. --Tango (talk) 12:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In this article why it said the crisis ended in 2009? It's 2012 now and according to what i think it's getting worse. The unemployment rate keep increasing or stay the same. We haven't get out of the crisis yet, have we? If not i wonder why it said the crisis ended in 2009?Pendragon5 (talk) 04:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is still debated if the recent events are in fact a seperate crisis. The events of the last year are caused by governments becoming unsolvable, rather than by banks becoming unsolvable. But I agree the 2 are linked. Historians will probably make it one crisis, but in 2009, the banks were back into a good state (although many of them had been bought up by various governments), which is why the financial world considered the crisis it to be over and anything after that is a different issue. Also the current economic recession is different from a financial crisis, see both articles to see why the financial crisis is considered to be finished, although it is clearly followed by an economic recession. --Lgriot (talk) 09:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't a very helpful answer was it? Every Google result shows 15 November but nearly all of them seem to have Wikipedia as their source. The usually reliable Google Books has no matches for "Battle of Te Feipī". I'll have another search later on, unless anyone else comes up; with something. Alansplodge (talk) 13:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This book Trading Nature: Tahitians, Europeans, and Ecological Exchange By Jennifer Newell has a fairly detailed account of the battle (which she renders as "Fe'ei Pi") on page 171 beginning: "On Sunday morning, 12 November 1815.... ". Also Tahiti Nui: Change and Survival in French Polynesia, 1767-1945 by Colin Walter Newbury has a snippet view: "Indeed, the battle of Fei pi, as it came to be known, is rich in interpretations and short on facts. We cannot even be sure of the date— given as 12 November in missionary sources, a Sunday in December in Moerenhout, and May 1815 at one ..." (page 40) is all I can read. Turning Tide: The Ebb and Flow of Hawaiian Nationality also a snippet says "It is interesting to note that in Tahiti King Pomare II, who for political reasons decided to support the Christians among his people, had won a resounding victory in the battle of the temple of Nari'i (or Fei-Pi) on November 12,1815..." (page 97). Tahiti: Memoirs of Arii Taimai by Henry Adams and Arʻii Taʻimaʻi says: "The destruction of Papara by the Tiarapu people in December, 1768, was the first of a long series of disasters and miseries which ended with the death of our granduncle Opuhara, at the battle of the Fei-pi, November 12, 1815" (page 71). So it looks as though there is some doubt, but most printed sources that I can find go with Sunday 12 November. This online calculator confirms that 12 Nov was indeed a Sunday. If the cause of the battle was a provocative act of Christian worship, then a Sunday sounds a likely day to do it! Alansplodge (talk) 14:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone tell me which of the various Herods it was who was friend to Emperor Claudius and his family before his became Emperor? I tried fixing it by date but there seem to have been a few Herods whose life spans would fit.
Gurumaister (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thank you Finlay. I have been watching (again) the old television series "I Claudius" by Graves. I'm not sure of how historically accurate it is but it has Herod as a family friend of Claudius' family for several years prior to both both Claudius and his nephew being emperors in their respective turns. Is that Herod Agrippa? Gurumaister (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm thiking about reading Great Expectations. There appear to be about fifty different published versions of the book. They all probably read the same. However, I would like to read the one that everyone else generally reads. The version on Amazon that appears to have the most customer reviews is ISBN-10: 1613820763. Is that the most popular version of Great Expectations or is there one that those who typically read such books are more likely to read. TIA -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The best reason to suspect the Penguin Classics is that those are usually what are used in high school and college courses. (At least in my experience they are more or less synonymous with "public domain classics used in school".) --Mr.98 (talk) 21:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Amazon cross-index their user reviews, so that edition aggregates reviews from almost all of them. (I don't know why some seem to have more than others if they all draw from the same pool!) Simon & Brown are not a major publisher - in fact, I believe they may just be a digital-printing organisation turning out low-quality reprints - and that edition is nominally dated last month, so it's very unlikely it's the most widely read edition!
That said, almost every "classics" edition from virtually any publisher will probably use a standard edition; it's unlikely that there will be any major textual changes. There are two known variants (different endings) but it looks like most published editions use the "second" ending; you're unlikely to find the first unless you buy a scholarly edition, or one which explicitly refers to itself as a reprint of the original version. So, all in all, it doesn't really matter... Shimgray | talk | 22:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of good reasons why you might prefer a dead-tree copy, CBW. For one, on Gutenberg you can't write marginalia or underline stuff or circle misspelt words or words you have to investigate - see [8]. -- Jack of Oz[your turn]07:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a decent ebook reader (hardware or software) you can do all those things - that isn't to say that there aren't reasons you might prefer a hard copy, but I don't think those are necessarily good ones. To the OP - in case you weren't aware, Dickens wrote two different endings to this novel. I don't know which ending most editions go with, but you might be interested in looking up the other ending after you have finished. 130.88.73.65 (talk) 10:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jack even back when I was still using a m130 you could do all those things. If you had a dictionary installed then you could look up words from the book you were reading without exiting the program. For books in the PD it makes sense to check them out online before handing over cash. If you only have a desktop then it's much harder to read but with a laptop or ebook reader it makes sense to see if a certain book is going to hold your interest before paying. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 14:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but it's never the same experience as picking up a pen and writing on the pages of the book. That is, for those of us who still remember how to write. -- Jack of Oz[your turn]19:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, that doesn't work. The only books I ever throw out are those I haven't "vandalised". Anyway, what's all this talk of vandalism? It's my property, to do with as I please. It's not the exceedingly rare and fragile Zanzibar Polka-dot Butterfly. Or even a First Folio. I was raised in Cambridge Bay Weather's tradition of treating books like precious objects that must not be marked in any way, the pages must not be dog-eared or creased, the cover must be protected with another cover, and a coffee mug stain or a cigarette burn would be unmitigated disaster. I later abandoned that policy. Books are indeed precious, not because of the paper or the ink or the cover or the replacement cost of the thing, but because of the information or the ideas they contain, which are utterly impervious to external markings. Maintaining a book in its pristine original state is certainly a mark of respect, but to me it's respect for something transient; of far more moment is respect for the imperishable intellectual contents, and margin notes etc indicate there's been an engagement with those ideas in situ. Which is a very good thing. My LP record sleeves (which is where all the best information about composeres and their works comes from, obviously; none of this Wikipedia rubbish :) are replete with underlinings, circlements and question marks; and my music scores are full of markings, not all in my own hand, either. I wouldn't have it any other way. -- Jack of Oz[your turn]07:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it's true you've never in your many years of life thrown away a book you've marked, that's fine for now but remember to designate in you will the requirement to burn all books you've defaced. Nil Einne (talk) 18:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Boy meets girl. Boy assumes he gets girl. Boy loses girl, whom he never had in the first place. Boy gets girl back (in one version). The end. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hope & folly: the United States and Unesco, 1945-1985 by William Preston, Edward S. Herman, Herbert I. Schiller (pp67-8, on Google Books) has some details. In 1950 Joseph McCarthy attacked various Americans working with the UN and UNESCO as being communists. UNESCO's education programs were criticised as indoctrinating children with "daily doses of Communism, Socialism and New Idealism". There was widespread suspicion of internationalist movements (due partly to the start of the Cold War, which made taking sides seem necessary), and concerns about UNESCO promoting issues from birth control to world government to atheism. The American Legion, Daughters of the American Revolution, the US Chambers of Commerce, and many other patriotic or right-wing organizations joined in the criticisms. Through the 1950s Eisenhower appointed various committees which found no truth in the complaints.
At the same time, some more liberal people in the US (e.g. William Benton, Dean Acheson) saw UNESCO as a tool to spread anti-communist messages, for instance involving it in Korea. This led to UNESCO being regarded with deep suspicion in the Soviet Bloc too. (pp59-60)
UNESCO was a hotbed of liberal activism in the late 1940s and early 1950s. They espoused things like the fact that racism had no scientific merit, and other causes that were considered subversive by the anti-Communist right in the 1950s. See e.g. The Race Question, Ashley Montagu. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
High quality answers, so I can only add a side comment. Some long time ago I read much of Sociological Theories: Race and Colonialism by M.O'Callaghan (ed.) and published by UNESCO. I was constantly surprised by how much it owed to Marx, even to the point (in some articles) of saying that a theory was at least partially justified because Marx would have thought similarly if he had been alive today. Perhaps this is exaggerated, because it is based on memory, but sometimes it did seem to be making a point that depended at least on showing that Marx may have disagreed, but only because he didn't have the same information. As a result, the point appeared to be, a true Marxist need not disagree on the sole grounds that Marx didn't say it. But I don't know what the role of UNESCO is as a publisher (ie. their degree of control over ideology), so I just thought I'd share it. I was pretty far to the left at the time, and even I was a bit knocked out. IBE (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Marx isn't quite as controversial amongst the international milieu as he is in the United States. Anyway, it's an international organization — even if you just chose articles at random from scholars in the top 15 nations at the time (1980), you'll probably end up with a pretty lefty bent to things, especially if you're choosing from sociologists. (And since one of the few Americans on there I recognize is Troy Duster, even your US chapter was probably pretty lefty). --Mr.98 (talk) 02:23, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a "social scientist" who uses (a little bit of) Marx, and a lot of theory and concrete work inspired by Marxists—sociologists don't look Marx-y enough to me. You've got American instrumentalism, Mass Observation, Durkheim, Bourdieu and Weber as alternate conceptions of the basis of sociology. Now history, there's hardly a historian alive who hasn't had to react and incorporate major findings developed by Marxist historians... oh E.P. Thompson, you're so dreamy.Fifelfoo (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many delegates to the newly-created Unesco were convinced that they had an historical role in setting up a "world governement", based on an "universal culture", an "universal civilisation", etc. Many thought that, as world-level intellectuals, their first task was to discuss and draft a world constitution - 1786-1787 again, but on a world scale (a fascinating story, by the way). This would have implied the end of dominant role of the U.S. By the mid-50s they had shifted into the opposite direction and were promoting "cultural diversity" and the like. I don't have ready references in English, but you may glance through Chloé Maurel "L’UNESCO de 1945 à 1974" (html or "Le rêve d’un “gouvernement mondial” des années 1920 aux années 1950. L’exemple de l’Unesco", Histoire@Politique. Politique, culture, société, n°10, janvier-avril 2010, 20 pp. Touchatou (talk) 00:31, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Query on the booklet 'Reiterfestspiel das Dragoner Regiments "Konig" '
Hi,
I have reviewed and searched not only Wikipedia but other webs sites as well to find out more about the above Centenary celebration of the above mentioned booklet which celebrated the 100 years of the "Dragoner Regiments "Konig" 1805-1905. I have a copy of the original book given to my Great Grandfather who was in the Regiment. Do you have any further information on this?
My Great Great Grandfather, Franz Anton Stiglitz (who was born in Augsburg) is said to have been a Major in the (probably) Prussian army. But I can find no source to verify this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.227.178 (talk) 11:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could you elaborate what kind of information it is you are seeking? You seem to have much information already, that it is a booklet published in connection with the centenary celebration of the dragoon regiment König December 6 1905. Regarding the regiment itself, this page has some information and the German Wikipedia actually has an article on it. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How many times has wikipedia engaged in political activity
I was curious about this banner accross wikipedia today declaring that wikipedia is shutting down to protest American legislation. I was wondering how many times has wikipedia officially sanctioned other protests, donated funds to political organizations, or engaged in other American political activity? Gx872op (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly OT as I don't know the answer (though I suspect it's "never before"), but if proposed US legislation threatened, albeit unintentionally, to make your world-wide (though US headquartered) web-based activities effectively impossible, would you consider your reaction to be "political activity"? {The poster formerly known as 87.81;230.195} 90.197.66.252 (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to the 'letter' linked from the black banner "This will be the first time the English Wikipedia has ever staged a public protest of this nature...". Make of that what you will. The letter is hazy on many details. --jjron (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WMF is not allowed to partake in political matters as a 501(c)(3). This blackout is clearly illegal and they should lose the 501(c)(3) status. Will they? No, of course not. -- kainaw™17:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The IRS has the following to say: "In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates" ([9], emphasis mine), and points to a paper that cites case law determining that spending 5% of overall expenditure on lobbying does not constitute "a substantial part", but that ~20% does. I seriously doubt that the blackout will consume even 1% of Wikipedia's budget for the year. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also one more thing, you do know the WMF hired an organisation to advise them on the process behind the bill, and initially to develop contacts with those involved in SOPA/PIPA right (Wikipedia:SOPA initiative#"Lobbying" and Government Affairs)? If blacking out wikipedia is forbidden, it would seem this hiring is far worse. (EC with above) Incidentally, even if you don't trust the WMF's lawyer, you could try reading the links he provided [10]. As it turns out the IRS's website isn't full of lawyer gobblygook. In fact, it seems to make a clear cut distinction between the prohibited political activities, where it specifically and only mentions supporting or opposing a candidate in some way [11]. And legislative activities which it says is 'attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying)' and isn't forbidden but can't be a substanial part of its activities [12]. So I guess not only is our lawyer wrong, but the IRS have provided highly misleading advice. Nil Einne (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even though WMF is relatively small in terms of budget and number of staff, Wikipedia has a huge impact on the culture. For a non-profit 501(c)3 organization, particularly one with the influence of WMF to work to influence legislation that is relevant to its mission - either through hiring a lobbyist or becoming a paid member of a trade group - is completely normal. Usually they do it behind the scenes, and often its to secure grants but there are plenty of non-profits that launch campaigns for or against a particular piece of legislation. GabrielF (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given that we poor non-US citizens are going to be left in the dark by the blackout, don't leave us in the dark by using ridiculous US-centric jargon, too. What the hell is 501(c)3 supposed to mean? 31.185.35.82 (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Um this is Wikipedia, we have an article on (almost) everything: 501(c) organization 'Colloquially, a 501(c) organization or simply "a 501(c)" is an American tax-exempt, nonprofit corporation or association'.. It even tells you what the '3' stands for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first time. It is highly controversial, editors such as myself do not like it because even though SOPA is a terrible piece of legislation it risks politicizing Wikipedia and establishes a precedent for future such action.AerobicFox (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
501(c)3 organizations engage in lobbying legislators and the public all the time. What they can't do is, for example, tell members to vote for a particular candidate, from what I understand. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think the "risk of politicization" argument is weak. Wikipedia ought to be politicized when it comes to legal or technical restrictions that would inhibit its own functioning. That's its only legitimate area for overt political activity. I see no inclination that this is a slippery slope. I voted for the blackout, but I wouldn't vote for any other political activity that wasn't somehow directly related to Wikipedia's mission, even if it was something I agreed with. I suspect most of the voters feel similar. It's clearly making a big statement, in any case — it's been covered in every major news source since it was announced. I'm impressed by that and proud of the Wikipedians and the WMF. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:11, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really "impressive" for Wikipedia to get a lot of coverage when ever it does something on a large scale, it's really just what you would expect considering the size and influence it's grown to. The argument that we shouldn't worry about politicizing Wikipedia on matters that directly affect us takes for granted the image of impartiality that Wikipedia tries to maintain, and which is ultimately far more important to Wikipedia than the vast majority of political issues which may affect it.AerobicFox (talk) 02:38, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's impressive when a free, non-profit, volunteer-based project gets front page, above-the-fold coverage in the New York Times when they make a political statement of that sort. There are a million web petitions and whatnot per year; rarely do they amount to anything. Anyway, I think we can agree to disagree on the last part. I think defending one's own existence is worth being a little impartial about, from time to time. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a waste of time arguing over whether something is "impressive" or not. Person A was impressed by an event, Person B wasn't - end of story. Same for "interesting", "beautiful", "attractive", "remarkable" and most any other subjective adjective. My recommendation is to have as little to do with adjectives as possible when talking about subjective impressions of events in the real world. Talk about what you experience, not about what the thing "is". -- Jack of Oz[your turn]19:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. I would just note, as a final point of mine, that one of the major objections voiced on the vote page was that it wouldn't matter, nobody would change anything, why be inconvenient for no reason, etc. That seems to have been thoroughly found to be false. The pro-SOPA lobbyists have all gone on the record saying they were blown out of the water by the backlash. I think that's significant. Everything looks inevitable once it works. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Circle of politics
Please can anyone point me at (preferably non-US centric) references to support the idea that politics is not a straight line, but a circle where the extreme left and the extreme right actually meet? I learnt about this over 30 years ago when I studied politics at University, but because I wasn't very interested then, I can't remember where I found it.--TammyMoet (talk) 16:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I'd found political spectrum and the Horseshoe theory seems similar to what I was taught. But not the same! I wonder if there's anything else out there? (at least I don't think I dreamt it, or that it was the result of what I'd had to drink in the bar before the lecture...) --TammyMoet (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the left and right branches of Hegelianism, where the two extremes are considered to be variations on a single theory of the coming perfect state, and how is it going to be created. 148.197.81.179 (talk) 10:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This[13] isn't exactly the one, but it's the same general idea. I googled [circle communism fascism totalitarianism] and this was the first thing that came up. The circle I recal was inverted, and said "totalitarianism" instead of "lunatic fringe". ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Military Law - what would this soldier be charged with?
So let's say we have a soldier (enlisted, not officer) who committed the following offenses on the battlefield / in a wartime situation:
directly disobeyed the orders of his superior officer;
shared classified intelligence with unauthorized persons;
used military funds without authorization from the chain of command;
deserted his post after battle -- i.e. went AWOL.
So these actions are obviously asking for a court martial. What would be the specific charges? And what would be the likely penalties or punishments? Anyone know? --Brasswatchman (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All SDF personnel are technically civilians: those in uniform are classified as special civil servants and are subordinate to the ordinary civil servants who run the Ministry of Defense. There are no military secrets, military laws, or offenses committed by military personnel; whether on-base or off-base, on-duty or off-duty, of a military or non-military nature, are all adjudicated under normal procedures by civil courts in appropriate jurisdictions.
List of countries by size of police forces suggests that there are no countries that don't have a police force (even the Vatican has police). Likewise, there don't appear to be any countries with no armed police; our Law enforcement by country claims Norway is one, but by the looks of it they just don't carry guns routinely; they still have them locked in their cars for emergencies. New Zealand, Ireland and the UK (to a lesser extent) do something similar - uniformed officers aren't armed, and if guns are needed the firearms squad is called in. Smurrayinchester19:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In England officers mostly don't carry guns (Police use of firearms in the United Kingdom). I guess the North Pole, though slighty inhabited and not an official country doesn't have police. I think you have to dig deep into history for countries not to have a police-like agency. You might like this article about the situation in the "Wild West" with hardly any official law enforcement. Joepnl (talk) 00:54, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article you link covers this. Essentially they don't operate outside parts of Mogadishu (where there's been a small force since 2005), the main forces having been disbanded in 1991. Probably the more established Islamist areas have some form of Mutaween. There's also the Puntland Maritime Police Force, and the article on Somaliland says they have a police force too. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As for armed police forces, let me note that Erich Kästner's Die Konferenz der Tiere talks about an utopic fiction when all firearms are destroyed, and police forces are armed with bows and arrows only. (Hey, this is the humanties desk, so literature in on topic?) – b_jonas11:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How to learn Sri Lanka Tamil?
Hi,
I'd like be able to read newspapers or webpages about Sri Lanka in Tamil. It's unclear to me whether the books or the learning material available online is useful for this task (i.e. how close oral and written variants of Tamil are, or if there are significant differences between Sri Lanka and India). Are usual Tamil language resources (like Teach Yourself, the Colloquial series, Assimil...) suitable for this task or is this a waste of time and should I rather concentrate on Sri Lanka-specific manuals or grammars (which ones?).
A theory: for whatever cultural reasons, a disproportionate number of late 20th century comedians in the United States have been Jewish. A disproportionate number of late 20th century people of Jewish descent are somewhere on the atheist/agnostic spectrum. Ergo you could imagine some correlation there. But this is just a theory based on the intersection of two general cultural tropes. I don't think there's likely any link between atheism and "comicalness", but I do think there are cultural contexts (specifically American Judaism) that produces both. (I say this as a quasi-Jewish atheist with a reasonably good sense of humor.) --Mr.98 (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to happiness studies, believers in whatever religion are happier than atheists & agnostics (at least, they state higher life satisfaction). Any link with "comicalness" ? By the way, I have never heard of a statistical mesure of "comicalness". Touchatou (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pure OR, but it is possibly due to a positive correlation between intelligence and atheism. (Yeah, I know, citation needed - I'm sure I've seen it somewhere...). AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is you can find a positive correlation between intelligence and almost any non-mainstream intellectual movement, just because more intelligent people are more likely to think about such things in the first place, and find a wide variety of answers.
As a rule, comedy works by poking fun at social conventions. as a rule, religious people are strongly conventional. It's not impossible - I've seen a few good Christian comedians, for instance - but it's not an easy line to walk. --Ludwigs218:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Religious people believe that there is a purpose to life, in terms of reaching standards set by some outside entity, and ultimately feel that they should live up to those standards. That, often, constrains their behaviour. Irreligious people don't have those constraints - though they may have different constraints, which they set themselves. Often, irreligious people feel that life is here for us all to make the best of, ourselves - and believe that laughing at ourselves and at each other, at the ridiculousness of life, is an important part of that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why doesn't the US start a war against North Korea or Cuba?
Compared to North Korea and Cuba, Iraq and Libya are holiday resorts. In North Korea even the birds are filled with grief over the death of their great and benevolent leader and inhabitants are sent to concentration camps for not being sad enough. I don't want to get into a discussion, but what official reason is given by the average US politician, who did endorse the war in Iraq, not to invade North Korea (I don't want an answer like 'They have no oil' or 'We have no business with them')? There is a huge Elephant in the room isn't there? Are journalists asking about this and what do the politicians say? Joepnl (talk) 01:27, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
North Korea has nuclear weapons within striking range of key US interests in that part of the world (South Korea and Japan). The USA promised Russia — a country of some standing — that it wouldn't invade Cuba, as part of the resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Both of those seem like pretty good realpolitik reasons to me to not invade those countries. I don't think there's much of an elephant in the room there — just a few facts that journalists who work the foreign beat surely know. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your factual statements are dubious; but, let us consider that any person may decide that it is desirable that one country invade another and proceed. The United States is currently at war with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, James D. Thurman oversees US forces and UN forces in relation to this war, which is currently in a state of armistice and ceasefire. The United States does not wish to activate this war for the reasons that Mr.98 mentioned; but, additionally, the Korean War wrecked the US economy, the US currently has 1.5 wars going on and its economy is hindered by the war. Why the US has not previously reactivated the war related to Soviet and Chinese nuclear weapons, a changed UN Security Council make up, the previously mentioned economic effects of war, and the continuing economic effects of the Great SocietyUS space program and the economic and military effects of the US involvement in the Vietnam War while trying to maintain a conventional deterrent or aggressor force in Europe. Invading North Korea would not allow for war powers, as these are already available (and have been since 1991 largely). Similarly, unlike the Afghanistani people or the Iraqi people (and former state), North Korea is organised to militarily oppose a large conventional invasion by known hostile threats immediately to the south. The DPRK is prepared for war.
In relation to Cuba, apart from the considerations about past military failures, the economic cost of war, the current availability of war powers, and the complexion of the UN Security Council and General Assembly as being opposed to wars of aggression; invading Cuba would satisfy a small group of US constituents while irritating a much larger group of US constituents. In addition to this, after two recent invasions opposed by world public opinion, the United States would be viewed as an imperialist pariah state (much as the DPRK is viewed as a pariah state) by many countries not firmly welded to the bosum of the US political and industrial complex.
As far as the ideological justifications for this by US politicians, I suggest you write them directly. They change so often, and have so many apologetics available to them for maintaining policies in contradiction of their professed ideology that you'd get more "accurate" information by directly asking them. I believe that your direct representatives have an obligation to write back to you (they do where I live, but your mileage may vary). If you're not a US resident, I suggest you write to the nearest US embassy. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
China doesn't want a US ally on their border(South Korea), they therefore would go to war with us if we went to war against North Korea. That's pretty much the reason.AerobicFox (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you read People's Republic of China–North Korea relations you will understand that their relation is not so great. In the event of a war between the US and North Korea, China would not jeopardize its economic dependence just to save its "spoiled child". Likewise the US would not invade North Korea for the same reason.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:42, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe "China doesn't want a US ally on their border(South Korea)" indicates that I think China and North Korea have a good relationship. There have been plans now for a while for a South Korean led united Korea which some Chinese officials may be leaning towards since North Korea is such a problem. However, if you believe that China would allow its biggest rival and perceived threat, the United States, to invade and occupy a neighboring country on its border without responding with military backing of the North Koreans than I think you underestimate their paranoia.AerobicFox (talk) 04:25, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The United States does not invade other countries because they are human-rights abusers. The U.S. invaded Iraq on the grounds that it was in violation of the ceasefire from the first Gulf War and subsequent UN resolutions. (It also cited human-rights abuses but would not have been able to go to war citing that reason alone.) The U.S. did not invade Libya; it helped out rebels in a pre-existing conflict from the air. North Korea has engaged in conduct that might lead to invasion (such as shelling South Korean territory and sinking one of their ships) if it was a less-dangerous country. However, invading North Korea and attacking its huge army would lead to massive death and destruction to soldiers and civilians, as well as the opposition of China and Russia. There would be tremendous opposition in the U.S. to an invasion of Cuba and almost no support internationally. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:13, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just a small note - the US did not provide airstrikes in the Libyan war - they were involved at the very beginning, but pulled out very soon for unrelated reasons. It was all done by European nations, most notably the UK and France, both of which also provided Special Forces ground troops to train and (and arm, in the case of the French) the rebels. The US was not involved, besides providing logistics and command support to the European forces. The whole thing wasn't really anything to do with NATO (though NATO was involved by name). It was a coalition of European and Arab nations (Jordan and Qatar specifically). KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK)15:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Remember: invading Cuba wouldn't really have any substantial benefits for the USA. We don't have some sort of economic dependence on them, they're not attempting to conquer us or talking about attacking us any time soon, and it's been quite a while since they actively participated in warlike preparations against us that could have had substantial results. Nyttend (talk) 03:42, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ruth Wedgwood, a former adviser to Donald Rumsfeld, has been quoted as explaining why the USA opposes military action against North Korea.[14] Wedgwood said "You haven’t seen the glint in the eyes of the South Korean military ... They’re desperate to get hold of the North’s nuclear arsenal. That’s unacceptable ... Because if a unified Korea becomes a nuclear power, it will be impossible to stop Japan from becoming one too and if you have China, Japan and a unified Korea as nuclear states, it shifts the relationship of forces against us." Any successful action against the North would involve South Korea, and would end up in reunification, quite possibly with South Korea having access to North Korean nuclear technology. Hence the USA prefers to keep North Korea isolated, to try and persuade it to disarm, and prevent nuclear proliferation that way. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd stress the point made above that the main reason the US doesn't invade North Korea is surely the wanton death and destruction that would result from taking on a slightly crazily governed (from a Western POV), armed to the teeth nation with strong leadership and no obvious signs of internal dissent. All other options have not yet been exhausted. (With regard to Cuba, I would agree that it's not a strategic target in nearly the same way. Also, Castro's almost dead, so it's a wait and see period.) - Jarry1250[Deliberationneeded]18:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as far as I remember, they haven't participated in bombing aircraft recently, and they've not had any substantial armed revolts in recent years that would have reasonable chances at overthrowing the current government. Nyttend (talk) 00:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Korean People's Army has over 1,100,000 soldiers, and is described in that article as "the fourth largest army in the world". Plus the possibility of nukes, and who knows what other nasty little surprises. While the U.S. demonstrated in Iraq that it can tear apart an apparently large military force pretty quickly, it also demonstrated that the remaining weapons and personnel can remain a big problem for a long time afterward. But Cuba is much more mystifying - why the U.S. attempted nothing but the half-witted Bay of Pigs invasion, a fabled series of bizarre assassination attempts on Castro, and a never-ending embargo. Even facts on Cuba seem difficult to get, being split between hardcore apologists for Castro, and Cuban exiles with financial motives ... I'm never sure whose propaganda distorts the truth more. My guess is it must all trace back to the Cuban missile crisis and some kind of secret treaty. Wnt (talk) 23:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Kennedy apparently made a quite non-secret commitment after the crisis not to attack Cuba, according to Cuban_missile_crisis#Crisis_ends: "The US will make a statement in the framework of the Security Council in reference to Cuba as follows: it will declare that the United States of America will respect the inviolability of Cuban borders, its sovereignty, that it take the pledge not to interfere in internal affairs, not to intrude themselves and not to permit our territory to be used as a bridgehead for the invasion of Cuba, and will restrain those who would plan to carry an aggression against Cuba, either from US territory or from the territory of other countries neighboring to Cuba." --Roentgenium111 (talk) 01:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Corporations testifying
A bank has been on trial in Liberia recently; this article discusses the case slightly and observes that the bank has refused to testify on its own behalf. I'm familiar with the idea of corporations being tried in criminal cases in the USA, and I suspect that the situation would be comparable in Liberia — but how would the bank testify? A press release? An executive takes the witness stand? I've never heard of corporations testifying: I've only ever heard of officials testifying. Nyttend (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Best guess of what they mean by "refuse to testify", is that they refused to call any of their employees as witnesses during the trial. --Lgriot (talk) 09:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Best way to get lobbying money out of Congress?
So, bills like SOPA/PIPA, the Research Works Act, and the treaty harmonization of Golan v. Holder capitulating to the copyright term length extension lobby in France instead of further treaty negotiations, are all seen by Lawrence Lessig and other authorities as symptoms of the same root problem: the influence of lobbying money over US congresspeople who have to spend 85% of their working hours fundraising because the greater campaign spending predicts election winners with 94% accuracy. Other problems like patent term length and other reform, fossil fuel and renewable energy subsidies, universal health care, sentencing reform against the prison guards' unions, defense industry and contractor abuses, and even teacher pay in poor school districts are other manifestations of the same pay-for-play politics exacerbated by Citizens United v. FEC which allows unlimited anonymous campaign contributions from 501(c)4s through super PACs. However, so far the only proposed solutions have been public campaign financing, but that would require a constitutional amendment, and those are remarkably difficult to enact.
So, what if congressional and presidential salaries were indexed to inflation from the 1700s, or at least to some amount larger than their current campaign spending, like $10 million per year? Would that effectively prevent the influence of donations on access to congresspeople and the predisposition of their votes? What are the advantages and disadvantages to raising congressional salaries to $10 million per year? If it was good enough for the Founding Fathers, on an inflation-adjusted basis, is it good enough to solve the problems of today's dysfunctional lawmakers-for-hire? (Hat tip to User:Slakr for this idea.) 67.6.133.90 (talk) 06:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is a core problem in the US. The source of the difficulty with banning political contributions (and replacing them with public campaign financing) seems to be the Supreme Court decisions (Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission) saying "money equals speech", and therefore many attempts to limit contributions were limiting free speech. Frankly, that's just totally wrong. I would hope that will eventually be overturned, much as Plessy v. Ferguson was overturned in Brown v. Board of Education. Just how bad things will get before that happens, I do not know.
Another problem is the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, which required "equal time for the opposing POV". This allowed news organizations to abandon neutrality and pick sides, resulting in a level of polarization of the nation which has led to total deadlock. StuRat (talk) 07:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Historical precedents can be of some use in situations like this. The first Polish republic had a similar problem (one the founding fathers were trying their best to avoid repeating), could look at what they did about it for advice. 148.197.81.179 (talk) 10:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have a link, on me: First Polish Republic#Shortcomings. The last paragraph seems the most applicable, although it isn't bribery by foreign powers that's the problem in the US, but rather powerful domestic special interests. In the terminology of the time, perhaps guilds would have been the term for those then. StuRat (talk) 05:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you indexed congressional pay to their first annual salaries, they'd only be making about $70,000 which is much less than they make today. Increasing their salaries to campaign spending levels is a terrible idea because it would only fund incumbents when the idea behind exclusive public campaign finance is to put incumbents and challengers on a level playing field without regard to campaign contributions. The drawing board, back to it. Selery (talk) 16:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. How about simply awarding the incumbent and the top-polling challenger $10 million each six months before the election? Or, the top two contenders if the incumbent isn't planning to run? 67.6.133.90 (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You might be interested in reading Voting With Dollars, a proposal for public financing of campaigns by a couple of Yale law professors. It's a few years old, but the ideas are still pretty applicable and interesting. Meelar(talk)01:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The undue influence is largely due to re-election campaign contribution seeking. This is why I think having a term limit of one term has merit. No looking for a career as a legislator. There are definitely problems with this approach (not least of which is it ain't gonna happen), but would help some of the kowtowing to monied interests. -R. S. Shaw (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an SEC law that says CEOs can't say profit?
I was in a conversation with a stranger today and he said that the CEO and members of the Board of Directors of a publicly traded company are barred by the SEC from saying the word "profit." Instead they must say something like "revenue exceeded expenses." I found that hard to believe. Is this true? If so can someone point me to the actual rule? DGDRigger (talk) 11:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I thought there was case law where someone got in trouble for abusing the ambiguity of "profit" which doesn't distinguish between e.g. pre-tax and post-tax earnings. It's one of those "abundance of caution" advisory things which is not strictly a regulation or statute but can get you sued by vulture securities lawyers easily enough that it's apparently worth the effort to avoid. I'm not sure so citation needed. Selery (talk) 16:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously doubt that there is any law barring anyone from saying the word "profit". However, it can sometimes be adventitious for a company to hold back a chunk of their revenue, and not declare it as "profit". This could be what the CEO or Directors are talking about - excess revenue that is not being declared as profit, but instead held aside in some other legal/accounting category. Blueboar (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That seems at least as likely to me. I've read so much about "forward-looking statements," quarterly "blackout" periods, and pre-IPO "quiet" periods that it's all a blur now. Selery (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure exactly, but I'm guessing there are official SEC definitions for terms like "net income," "operating income" and "EBITDA" in earnings statements but maybe not "profit." As Selery says, this may lead to legal issues. For example, say a CEO says the company expects "profit" of $100 million to $120 million. Then the company reports net income of $50 million and the CEO says, "Well, when I said 'profit,' I meant operating income." The shares plunge, and soon class-action lawyers are on their tail. The CEO's "profit" comment could theoretically be used against him in court as evidence he misled investors. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An aside questtions: in the US, can you call something decided by an organisation like the SEC a law? I thought only Congress or states or local authorities like a city could create laws, all other organisation could only create "regulation", but even though they are enforceable, they are not usually called "laws". I guess it is more of a language issue, not really a legal one. --Lgriot (talk) 09:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such requirement. If you look, for example, at the SEC's Beginners' Guide to Financial Statements, you will see that it uses the word "profit" several times, distinguishing between "gross profit" (aka "gross margin"), "operating profit" (aka "income from operations"), and "net profit" (aka "net income" or "net earnings"). I expect that the misunderstanding comes from some particular company that is insistent on its employees and directors using the exact terms that are in its financial statements in order to avoid any ambiguity.
As to Lgriot's question, yes, the "laws" are the statutes that are enacted by Congress or by state legislatures. The SEC adopts "rules" and "regulations," which are enforceable only to the extent that they draw authority from some federal statute. John M Baker (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They all come under the heading of legislation. Laws made by the legislature directly are the principal legislation; and rules, regulations etc that are promulgated by other hands on the authority of a law, are the subordinated legislation. -- Jack of Oz[your turn]19:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "subordinated legislation" concept does not exist in the United States, where it is understood that only a legislature can enact legislation. Things may be different in Australia and other Commonwealth countries. John M Baker (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe in the U.S. the term is "regulation", which is to say that the SEC is empowered by Congress to enact and enforce regulations. The rules that the SEC passes are not called "laws" (only Congress may make laws), however they do have the "force of law" insofar as laws passed by Congress say that what the SEC does is enforcable. But the term for such rules passed by bodies of the executive branch (as opposed to the legislature) is "regulation" in the U.S. (and just as a minor point, we're talking about the Securities and Exchange Commission and not the Southeastern Conference, which has no regulatory power, despite their dominance of college football). --Jayron3221:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the UK, the terms are "primary legislation" and "secondary legislation" (which redirects to "delegated legislation", so apparently there are lots of names for it!). It's very common for Acts of Parliament to say things like "according to such rules as the Secretary of State may determine from time to time". That gives the Secretary of State (which, in the UK, means whichever cabinet minister has that area in their portfolio - it's always referred to in law as though it is one person, but it isn't) the power to create secondary legislation to handle the details. --Tango (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think any government rule can be called a "law." It's not technically true that only Congress can pass a federal law, as we often hear. Only Congress can pass a statute, which is what a law is called when Congress passes it. But violating an SEC regulation is violating the law. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 06:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such rule or law. Corporate officers are cautious about the words they use because misleading information can be the basis of a shareholders' derivative suit. It is the threat of a suit that ties the tongue of an executive, not an SEC regulation. Gx872op (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the most famous Tahitian was the immigrant artist Paul Gauguin. I couldn't name 9 other people who spent any significant time there, but Gauguin and Tahiti are inextricably linked in many people's minds. --Jayron3216:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to find a list of upcoming inaugurations at US colleges and universities - how might I be able to find that information? Thanks, Bob — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.2.176.99 (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have traveled China, Australia, Great Britan, France, Italy, Greece, and the United States and have seen what I call the "architectural squiggle" in all the countries. I describe the squiggle as a decoration, a horizontal band of interconnecting lines. The squiggles all seem to be sraight lines, no curved lines. It can be seen on the facade of a building, on an interior wall decoration, on cabinets or counters, or as an integral part of an iron fence. I have searched Wikipedia and other sources without results. Some people I have talked to think the origin may come from Greek, Chineese, Japaneese art or architecture.
HELP PLEASE!!! Petedocdad (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide a link to an image of it? It would help enormously in identifying exactly which architectural ornament it is you are asking about. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know of a license plate with such a statement on it? This is not one of those special centennial or sesquicentennial plates, but would be the main license plate slogan. DCItalk23:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Governors of Rashidun, Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates
What was the purpose of the governors in those caliphates and is there a list of governors of those caliphates? was Governor the only political that serve as the representative of the caliph? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.35.110 (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rashidun_Caliphate#Political_Administration has some information on specific subdivisions of the Caliphate; so you know what districts there were, though it does not list who each governor was. The title for governor appears to be Wāli, and the English Wikipedia appears to be sparse on the subject, perhaps another language Wikipedia, like Arabic, may have better information for you, if you speak Arabic. Umayyad_Caliphate#Umayyad_Administration is pretty sparse, only noting the existance of such governors. Abbasid Caliphate unfortunately has no information on the political organization of it. Again, let me recommend trying arabic language sources, like ar.wikipedia.org, if you speak or read arabic. It may have more info for you. I don't read it at all, perhaps someone who does may be along to help. --Jayron3202:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Blame for WWI
I'm apologize ahead of time, but this question has been bugging me for a while. If Austria-Hungary had started World War I by attacking Serbia, why did Germany "take the blame" for the war and pay reparations? I mean, sure Austria pulled out of the war before it ended but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have to own up to the war and the lives lost. So what was the reason that Germany took the blame anyway? 64.229.180.189 (talk) 04:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Austria-Hungary really couldn't have afforded to take an aggressive stance if it hadn't been backed by Germany. Even more importantly, Germany aggressively attacked Belgium and France... AnonMoos (talk) 07:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Austria-Hungary also paid a hefty price for the war: it was dismantled into many smaller coutries. I guess all the losers paid, not only Germany. --Lgriot (talk) 09:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But the size of German reparations were a question of politics and in particular France's desire to punish Germany; France was the country that pushed most strongly for reparations. German reparations to France were seen as a recompense for French reparations to Germany after the 1870-71 Franco-Prussian War (see Treaty_of_Versailles#Reparations). Germany wasn't allowed to attend Versailles, so it didn't take the blame willingly. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would hardly say that the Austro-Hungarian Empire got off "scott-free". Insofar as the state essentially ceased to exist, and was broken up into a half-dozen new states, while Germany remained largely intact (excepting the loss of the Polish Corridor and Alsace-Lorraine), I'd say that Austria-Hungary ended up far worse than Germany. Certainly Germany payed a high financial and political price for the War, but at least it wasn't reduced to a bunch of smaller countries. --Jayron3215:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Blackness
Most cultures seem to associate the color black with darkness, despair, hopelessness, and evil, and the color white with the opposite qualities. Do the cultures of black people share this association? I don't mean African Americans, who are immersed in Western culture, but indigenous Africans, South Asians, Melanesians, Australians, and the like. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 06:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the root cause is that we are diurnal, and thus have eyes not well suited to night. This means we are vulnerable to predators in the dark, or to other people who mean to do us harm. Thus, a fear of the dark, and, by extension, all things black, is natural. I would expect the same is true in black cultures, with the exception of fearing black people, since they obviously can't fear themselves. StuRat (talk) 06:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As one example of how it plays out in race relations, the minority lighter-skinned Tutsi were the victims of the majority darker-skinned Hutu in the Rwandan Genocide. The Wikipedia Article specifically states that "Skin color was a general physical trait that was typically used in "ethnic" identification." This could indicate that there either were not the same associations with these colors, or that the associations were irrelevant in the scope of this awful time. Not sure if that helps. Falconusptc07:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that it is relevant but on the plantations, the darker skinned slaves were furthest from the house and the lighter skinned were nearest. Kittybrewster ☎07:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The characteristic is "black-and-white" (i.e., unnuanced categorical) thinking, aka splitting—it has nothing to do with race. - Nunh-huh14:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to this table, black as a bad colour is fairly global - they cite it as meaning "impure" in Nigeria, "ominous" in Ethiopia, "evil" in Thailand and Tibet. The exception is parts of Oceania - notably New Zealand, of course - but I think that's more likely to be because black and dark red dyes are easy to find there. I can't find any particular justification for why New Zealand's national colour is black, though. Black as the colour of death/mourning isn't universal, but that seems to have little to do with skin colour. Even in European countries, there are places where white traditionally symbolises death. Smurrayinchester10:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
White = daylight, brightness / Black = nighttime, darkness. Definitely a strong association in western culture at least. Jesus associated with the Roman sun god. And in the song, "...He will bring us goodness and light." Satan called "The Prince of Darkness". That kind of thing. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 10:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to Color in Chinese culture, white is the color traditionally associated with mourning there, while black has a more preferred place as the color of the Dao. I don't know these things myself, or how well-founded the article is. Wnt (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That dataset is interesting, though. Half the time when one culture assigns black to some quality named, any other culture giving that quality a color also assigns black to it. This is true 63% of the time for red. But black and red have zero overlap - if one culture assigns one, none of the others assign the other. Either the authors have bent the data, or that indicates a less than random emotional impact of the colors over great cultural distances. Wnt (talk) 07:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After toying with a spreadsheet for a bit I've gotten this dataset into a Wiki form at [15]. (I haven't included it here because the table still takes up way too much space as coded) Provided that this study, which I haven't examined, doesn't project a common bias onto the data, it looks like either there's something to the idea that colors suggest certain broad meanings, or else those meanings have been conserved since truly ancient times, or else global communication has aligned them already. Wnt (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Insurance
A large US insurance company went bust a couple of years ago. I don't remember which - it wasn't Freddy Mae or Freddy Mac. Q1: What was it called? The US Government stepped in to bail it out. Q2: Why did they do that? Kittybrewster ☎07:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because they were concerned about the wider impact on the economy if AIG were to default on its obligations. As a major reinsurer (that is, an insurance company that other insurance companies get insurance from), AIG going bust could cause a lot of other insurance companies to go bust. That would leave lots of companies and individuals having to pay for their own losses on all sorts of things, which would bankrupt them. That would cause the companies they used to do business with to go bankrupt, and the domino effect would continue on and on causing a major depression. (It's not certain if that would have happened, but the government feared it could happen, so they bailed AIG out.) --Tango (talk) 16:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What nations that have financial troubles would be keen to enact a "Verbal Morality Statute?"
Of course it would not be the United States; too many of us would be up in arms to invoke the first amendment right, even though we are deep to hell in debt.
As depicted in this clip, a "verbal morality statute" helps generate revenue for the future city of San Angeles:
Now, what countries would be more likely to favor a "verbal morality statute" wherein the fines generated would help quell their financial troubles?
In said countries, would it be practical to put in listening devices specifically meant to pick up swear words? What would it take to set up the infrastructure for this, and for auto-debiting the fine amounts from the verbal offenders' assets?
If you visit such countries, Jay, you'd best replace that word with "plucked." Moreover, for the environmentalists out here, everyone needs not worry about paper waste being printed as depicted in the film; a text message about the fine and offense would get sent to the phone. (Given that the film was made in 1993, the writers of the movie had not envisioned the smartphones coming along, with apps, texting, and what-not.) --129.130.217.116 (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think something like that would help solve financial problems. The money has to come from somewhere. Economically speaking, it is really no different to a tax increase, and all the things that are stopping such countries just putting up taxes would stop them implementing something like this too. --Tango (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Tang. This is that other IP on my home's network. If it costs too much to put up the infrastructure for swear word-listening and fine-debiting, then would they supposedly put it in the cities that have the most problems? (For example, if it was in the US, which it likely won't be, they'd place such devices in East St. Louis, Compton, Camden, and Detroit.)
Moreover, your reasons are why the countries the experiment starts in would need to not have democracy as the stronger influence there, because too many would protest against it otherwise.
So as a "trial experiment," why not put it in the places with the most crime and moral issues? Then if it generates serious revenue there, the project spreads to more cities?
(And why can't the damnedSMS: You've been fined one Simoleon for violating the Verbal Morality Statute. Definition of word sworn: A. Adjective 1. god-forsaken. 2. Variant of the profane intensifier. B. Adverb 1. Vulgar form of "very." C. Verb 1. Simple past tense and past participle of to condemn to the Outer Darkness. er, um, danged, video embed code work? It seems to many other places. Oh well, you can still click on it to watch.) --70.179.174.101 (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You need to be clearer about what the goal of this idea is. Is it to stop people swearing or is it to make money? What I'm saying is that if you are a government wanting to make more money, you can just put up taxes. I don't think this idea would be more effective at raising money than a regular tax. --Tango (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's to both. With taxes, it's involuntary. With swearing and being fined, it is by choice. Hence, since people can control how much they get fined for swearing, it would not be as derided as higher taxes are. --70.179.174.101 (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That argument strikes me as fallacious. The government would set the fine arbitrarily, so the level of the fine would be set to accumulate some amount of revenue, equal to that which would be raised by some other tax. While some lucky individuals might reduce this tax to some extent, on average just as many would pay more. So it's not that people are "voluntarily" paying this as opposed to the other tax - rather, they pay the same tax on average, plus suffer the indignity of additional impositions on their freedom. (plus enforcement costs etc.) Wnt (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The enforcement costs would not be as high as would have been with San Andreas's methods; it costs quite a bit to constantly supply the listening devices with paper to print fines on: The cost of the paper itself, delivery from a warehouse, to pay the deliverer the labor in which to travel to each listening device to load in said paper, etc.
On the other hand, to wirelessly transmit a text-message to the offender's phone or email would come at a tiny fraction of that cost. The only remaining costs beyond initial installation would be maintenance, but in this future, sturdier materials would make this less often of a necessity anyway. --70.179.174.101 (talk) 04:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'tiny fraction of the cost' is a moot point when you're talking about an insane cost. Few cities have even managed to make a city wide publicly accessible wifi, and you're talking about something which is going to need many more nodes, not to mention by nature they will need to be exposed, so an an easy source of vandalism. It's also impossible anyway since speech recognition is still way too crap. (Adding humans to the mix just makes your cost more insane). Nil Einne (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Teuira Henry
Was Tahitian writer and historian Teuira Henry of Native Tahitian descent? And is there any other information on her that can be present other than the information I have here?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For a variety of reasons. One of them is that American politicians pontificate about and make policies affecting the institution of marriage. So when a politician who has vocally opposed marriage equality, and opined that "marriage is between one man and one woman", it strikes some people as hypocritical when it becomes public knowledge that he asked his second ex-wife to have their marriage consist of a man and a woman and another woman. For that matter, it strikes some American voters as odd that their politicians claim to value the "sanctity" of marriage in order to get votes, when those same politicians have been through one, two or three divorces. - Nunh-huh23:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Americans have rather conservative "public" sexual mores. (In terms of their actual, private practices, they break almost all of them.) They weigh it quite heavily as a sign of character for public figures. That's not really an answer — it's just a tautological reframing of the question. Where do these mores come from? That's a very hard to answer question, for any country. Why do the French have their mores? It's not like any one of these is the "default" or "natural" position — no social stance is any more or less "natural" than the other.
If you're asking about Gingrich in particular (who has been in the news relating to this lately), the attention is in part related to the fact that his policy stance is one that pledges to defend the ideals of "traditional marriage" (that is, he is against gay marriage and abortion) but he's not very representative of the ideals of "traditional marriage" himself, which of course opens him up to charges of hypocrisy. Of course, any potentially controversial fact — whether actually resonant with the American public/voters or not — is going to be in the news at the moment, and that's more a reflection both on the political process and the nature of the 24-hour news culture than it is necessarily about American political thinking. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the answers. No, I was not thinking about Gingrich, but his recent press exposure made me aware of this basic difference between Europe and the US. I'm sure there is no universal default position, but the US is, from a religious perspective, Christian like Spain, the UK, or France, (thou maybe with a bigger Jewish population), so, there is a source of morality there, that should make both sides more similar. 88.14.196.211 (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect the difference between private sexual behavior is probably not that different between the countries. The public perception though is definitely different. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is an innate human tendency to think of a leader as a surrogate for the whole people of a country. If a leader behaves badly, people feel that the guilt carries over to them. Frazer's book The Golden Bough discusses this behavior pretty extensively, from a quasi-anthropological point of view. Looie496 (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But this doesn't explain at all the observed differences among countries, in and of itself, much less the different views on public vs. private morality. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looie's observation really just reinforces the question. Why does Looie describe extra-marital affairs as behaving badly? The OP didn't put a judgement on it. In many countries it's obvious that voters know about politicians' marital indiscretions, and largely ignore them when it comes to the ballot box. But not in America. HiLo48 (talk) 07:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To put your question another way, the ideal in the US seems to be fidelity during marriage, while some, like the Italians, seem to actually have an ideal of a married man who cheats on his wife every chance he gets, preferably with underage girls. Why is the US ideal different ? It probably goes back to the Puritans, who were, well, puritanical. To some extent, Puritanism is just an extrapolation of Protestantism, which was formed as a protest to the perceived lax morals of Catholics, and the Pope/Church in particular, at the time. As to why northern Europeans seemed to object more than Southern Europeans, perhaps it just came down to geography, with them being far enough from Rome to get away with it, while anyone in what would become Italy who criticized the Pope was risking his life. And, as it happened, the first immigrants to what would become the US were mainly northern European (British and Dutch), so they were able to set the moral tone for the nation. StuRat (talk) 08:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the US there is a strong sense that if a politician does not act morally in his or her personal life, the said politician's immorality will carry over into his or her political dealings. Basically, if the President cheats on his (or her) spouse, then we feel we can't trust that president to lead the country in an ethical manner. I know that this contrasts severely with the French view on matters, which I have had explained to me loosely as "what the President does in his or her personal life is between the president and the president's family; it's not really of great public concern." Also, as others have said, if the politician proclaims "The problem with this country is the breakdown of the traditional family", and proceeds to have three divorces and an affair, then the politician is a hypocrite, and nothing they say can really be trusted from that point on. Falconusptc08:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is the North American stereotype to say that Europeans don't care about this...but in France and Italy at least, everyone is interested in the personal life of Berlusconi, or Sarkozy, or Strauss-Kahn, as much as Americans are interested in the lives of non-political celebrities. Berlusconi's affairs certainly do impact his ability to govern, although in that case it was because he himself seemed unable to separate his public and private life. True, nobody really cares that Sarkozy left his wife for Carla Bruni, that has no effect on his ability as a politician. But the Strauss-Kahn problems were different...opinion polls and such showed that many people would no longer have voted for him (if he had been able to run). It is a bit different, but it's not like people don't care at all. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strauss-Kahn didn't just have an extra-marital affair. He was accused of rape and spend some time in jail followed by house arrest. Berlusconi is also a kind of similar case. It was not just cheating on his wife, getting a divorce and so on. They were suspects of the involvement in some criminal activity here. 88.14.196.211 (talk) 13:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Berlusconi still had excellent opinion poll ratings during all the sex scandals. It was the economy that did it for him, not his personal life. The fact that he owns most of the Italian media can't have hurt, but I think it is true that Italians are more tolerant of that kind of thing than other nationalities. --Tango (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To the excellent answers above I would like to add that many people consider someone who would cheat on his wife to be a scumbag, and may say that scumbags don't deserve to be rewarded with a big job. Although it's worth remembering that many U.S. politicians have survived sex scandals, like Gerry Studds, Steve LaTourette and Jerry Springer (yes that Jerry Springer, who was mayor of Cincinnati before becoming a talk-show host). When Bill Clinton got in trouble, the prevailing opinion was that it wasn't his infidelity that bothered people so much as his lying and weaseling about it. And the attempt to throw him out of office not only failed but generated quite a backlash against those behind it. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I should agree with the others that it seems relevant, but I'd say however that this isn't precisely a sexual moral issue in the Puritan sense. In other words, you can be pro-gay, but still find marital infidelity disturbing. Because you feel like if a candidate can lie to his wife, he can lie to you; if he can break a vow that he personally appears to find of great importance, he might break a principle that he seems to support; if he abandons a wife when times are tough, maybe he will sell out your cause when his opponents threaten to come at him with a serious political attack. "Never trust a traitor" would seem to be the relevant idea. Wnt (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think Wnt has the right idea. While folks like to make all kinds of mental "deals" to justify their own hypocritical actions, we don't often cut others the same kind of slack - he lied once = he's a liar = he lies all the time = he lied to me! Matt Deres (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's disqualifying, and frankly I doubt it ever really has been. Presidential candidates surviving sex scandals, even ones that were credible, are not novelties.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To see this thought pattern illustrated in language, Google estimates 3,010,000 results for "in bed with the oil companies", 121,000 results for "in bed with the defense contractors", 754,000 results for "in bed with al Qaida" and so forth. True, their estimates are usually tremendously inflated, but the point is, in everyday speech, Americans literally talk about politicians committing adultery with various distrusted entities. Wnt (talk) 14:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The South After the Reconstruction
In the Southern United States, what was life like for a white female schoolteacher during the Reconstruction period right after the Civil War? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.32.209.45 (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There might have been conflict, if she was forced to teach black students, since this was before segregation was established following the end of Reconstruction. Any white woman raised at that time in that place would have found this to be "unnatural" and "against God's will". Note that blacks had some political power at the time, due to being the majority in many areas, having the vote, and having protection of Union troops. StuRat (talk) 08:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure where that comes from -- the Freedmen's Bureau paid many teachers, some women, most white. There were also private church-supported schools in some areas. Some women took such jobs out of idealism, but I don't see how anyone could have been "forced" to do so (unless by personal economic necessity). AnonMoos (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the original question is very broad, and much would depend on circumstance, such as the teaching blacks bit. However, given the great upset after the Civil War economically in the South, my reaction to a woman making a secure living as a schoolteacher is "lucky". It was a time when few women could make their own way, and many women had their husbands or other male relatives dead or broke. However, there were parts of the South which were far less affected, especially if they had been in Union hands for several years already or were particularly remote.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
January 21
Crazy (purely philosophical viewpoint)
i heard that mentally ill or crazy people didnt know their condition, so how can i be 100% sure that i am not crazy? (this is a repost from science desk) MahAdikusap01:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Rosenhan experiment showed that it's rather difficult to prove that one is sane, let alone insane. While that experiment wasn;t really about if people are sane or not (it was more about diagnosis, treatment, and hospital conditions), it did prove that even people generally considered sane, once labelled insane, couldn't do much to prove otherwise. Basically what I'm saying is you can't really know for sure, because even professionals have troubles figuring it out. Mingmingla (talk) 03:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm talking out of my a** here, but it seems to me we're all at least a little bit insane, at least some of the time. We all do things that we immediately, or soon enough, realise were dumb, dumb, dumb. What could possibly have possessed us to act that way? In that moment, we were for all intents and purposes insane. But the next moment, we're right as rain again, making good decisions again. The so called "insane person", likewise, is not insane all of the time. Many or even most of their decisions may well be perfectly OK, but perhaps they're prone to making crazy decisions more often than is considered "normal". Just exactly where the dividing line is between sanity and insanity, and who decides where it is, and how often and under what circumstances it's moved, and how much of your time you have to spend on the wrong side of the line, and over what period, to be classified as insane - those are questions that would make anyone crazy. :) -- Jack of Oz[your turn]04:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt the answers above are on topic. This is not about insanity from a psychiatric or psychological perspective. It's about discovering if you are a brain in a bucket or connected to the Matrix. For more on that, search for the same question and pertinent answers on the Sci RD. 88.14.196.211 (talk) 13:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question on this direction are sometimes self-deceiving: how can you know if you are trapped for ever into a perfect simulation of reality? Well, you can't, if the simulation is perfect and you never leave it. 88.14.196.211 (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and it's also not universally accepted that there is such a thing as evolution. However, nearly everyone with relevant expertise in the area knows it exists, and the opinion that it does not is not generally considered a scientific view. Overdiagnosis and overmedicalising of normal variation is a separate issue, just as epigenetics and punctuated equilibrium do not argue against evolution. This says nothing to whether some 'ultimate truth' exists in which mental illness doesn't exist, but even on the humanities desk we should be careful not to misrepresent the scientific consensus. This is, of course, a completely appropriate topic for philosophers and those who have never encountered serious mental illness. 86.164.75.123 (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised no one has suggested simply going to a doctor and asking to be assessed for any potential mental illnesses. ("Crazy" is not a medically defined term.) -- Mwalcoff (talk) 07:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We're talking about a society where anyone caught with a tiny packet of plant sap will instantly get sent to a fancy facility designed to keep him in a cage and teach him to obey gang authority absolutely as a matter of life and death in the name of reducing crime, but people who want available treatments to be free of the compulsion to obtain such sap are put on long waiting lists or required to pay more than they have handy. Everyone is crazy. Maybe Jesus was sane, so in another fine public mental health intervention they nailed him to a cross for it. Some people can delude themselves into feeling good about themselves and thinking they're sane by putting on their suits and ties or facial cosmetics to distinguish themselves from savage tribes who wear ridiculous costumes and cover their women under veils, but it is all a delusion. Wnt (talk) 07:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean 'native to' in the sense of not being brought over by Polynesian settlers, no. There were no land-based mammals in Polynesia prior to human settlement. The dogs on the island would be descended from whatever the Polynesians brought with them. Whether they would have been a 'distinct breed' would probably depend on how many were brought, and how long they were genetically isolated - a 'breed' of dog isn't a clearcut, objectively-definable thing. Even deciding if a 'species' is real can sometimes be difficult. See the question as to whether the dog is a separates species from the wolf for a classic example of this ambiguity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All animals came from somethere else. Since the Polynesian settlers were considered natives also, obviously I was talking about their dogs. I found the answer myself. It was the Uri-Mahoi. Does anybody know if this species/breed is extinct or not?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well Marginal_propensity_to_consume#MPC_and_nature_of_country states "The MPC is higher in the case of poor than in case of rich people. The greater a man’s income, the more of his basic human needs will have already been met, and the greater his tendency to save in order to provide for future will be...", which is unreferenced, but responds to your question that MPC would decrease as income rose into the millions. Oh, this is also why those that argue that cutting taxes for the rich or giving the rich more money will stimulate the economy through trickle-down economics are largely misguided, as increasing the spending power of the poor does far more due to stimulate the economy through this effect of the MPC (though often it's as much to do with greed and self-interest as truly being misguided). --jjron (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Siege of Antioch - positions stephen of bios & anonymous author gesta
I try to understand which position stand stephen& anonymous. I think i had found stephen of bios - between st. paul gate to dog gate where the north france stand but i quite not sure where the anonymous stand - he described that he was where the building started to bullied the castle but other described show he was near to gate of duke. someone can help? thanks --82.81.96.243 (talk) 06:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...good question. As you say, Stephen of Blois was between Bohemund and Raymond of Toulouse, who was encamped at the Dog Gate. The author of the Gesta Francorum was presumably always with Bohemund, outside the Gate of St. Paul. The gate of the Duke, where Godfrey of Bouillon was encamped, was on the other side of Raymond's camp, so I don't think the author of the Gesta would have been there. This is according to Thomas Asbridge in The First Crusade: A New History, pages 152-153; I can't see the endnotes so I don't know what sources he used, but the author of the Gesta does mention that Bohemond was at the Gate of St. Paul. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
but on 4 march, ships arrived so Bohemond Raymond went to st.symeon. The anonymous said (i think near bridge gate) the turkish attack them and more than a thousand knights or fot soldiers killed, while stephen said "we lost more than 500 of our foot-soldiers--to the glory of God. Of our horsemen, however, we lost only two" --82.81.96.243 (talk) 10:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
i fount it but the picture still not clear "The crusaders decided the best use of this new resource was to build a siege fort outside the Bridge Gate. About 60 knights and many infantry were sent to the port to accompany the craftsmen and their materials on the road to Antioch. But the Turks in Antioch had got word of it. They sent out a party through the other gate, who ambushed the cavalcade, killing two knights and 500 infantry. Then when the group reached the city, the Turks sent out a sortie through the Bridge Gate, and there was a battle in front of the gate. Surprisingly, the crusaders won. Despite the loss of 1,000 men, the crusaders considered it a marvellous victory: God was on their side again." - the attack happen when Bohemond cameback at the bridge bride. "When, however, they were returning to us with those mariners, the Turks collected an army, fell suddenly upon our two leaders and forced them to a perilous In that unexpected flight we lost more than 500 of our foot-soldiers--to the glory of God. Of our horsemen, however, we lost only two, for certain.
On that same day truly, in order to receive our brethren with joy, and ignorant of their misfortunes, we went out to meet them. When, however, we approached the above-mentioned gate of the city, a mob of horsemen and foot-soldiers from Antioch, elated by the victory which they had won, rushed upon us in the same manner."
stephen said that 2 attacks hapen: Dog gate & bridge gate, those 2 on the "princes" when i look on the map its strange - something happen but i dont sure what--82.81.96.243 (talk) 11:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
from the book - googlebook - Victory in the East: a military history of the First Crusade 252 - i cant see in your book so a look for pther books. also:[16] - i think i got it - maybe stephen saw on the attack in dog gate and this way the number of the death eople is less, while anonymous frist was near to the bridge and then go up to the camp where another group waited to them.--82.81.96.243 (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But (at the time of the photo, at that very age) is it any more dangerous than that dog next to it? Any chance it would attack you, if it did would it be any more lethal than a baby dog doing it?
Obviously dogs are domesticated and grow up to be quite tame as a rule, whereas tigers grow up to be obviously dangerous. But are they dangerous as babies? Just curious :) --80.99.254.208 (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty small and pretty helpless. It's of note that domestication in part means "acts like a juvenile it's whole life." Dogs differ from wolves largely because they act like puppies. Baby forms of most mammals are pretty harmless (with the exception of the fact that there may be a parent around). If you are not talking about mammals, though, all bets are off. Baby snakes can be just as poisonous as their adult forms, for example. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who has cats knows that they don't always keep their claws sheathed (hence the need for declawing). When trying to grab something, it's just instinct to stick their claws into it. Biting, on the other hand, usually only happens when they are angry. So, assuming tigers are the same, and this one isn't declawed, I'd think getting slashed accidentally would be a real concern. StuRat (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Declawing is considered animal cruelty in most of the world, so I doubt it has been. If it's about the size of a cat then its claws are probably about the size of a cat's, so there is no more need to declaw it than there is to declaw a cat. --Tango (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see the size of those paws in the pic ? Looks to me like there are some rather large claws in them. I can't see how declawing is any more cruel than castration or spaying. StuRat (talk) 02:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is cutting the tips off all their fingers and toes. Because it interferes with their ability to climb and sit securely on high places, as well as their ability to mark their territory without spraying, which are all actually pretty important for a cat's mental well-being, and you certainly don't want a cat more likely to spray. I'm sure the reasons why it is considered a cruel procedure that most vets will not perform, in most countries, is included in our declawing article. If the conditions you would like your cat to live in are not possible when it has claws, then you need to not have the cat, or keep it in other conditions. In the same way, if that tiger will be dangerous to have in the house with its teeth and claws, the appropriate action is not to amputate its fingers and toes, and pull out all its teeth, but to find a different place for it to live. 86.164.75.123 (talk) 12:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My cat is extremely domesticated, totally dependant on humans for almost all its needs. It would never harm a person deliberately. It's also very clumsy. I have a large scar on my leg from when it misjudged a leap onto to my lap one summers day when I was wearing shorts, and used its claws to "save" itself. It's those claws that do the damage, even in "harmless" play. Other cats have thick fur to protect themselves. Humans don't. HiLo48 (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Salt corrodes silver (which is why silver salt dishes have glass liners). You may not be able to restore the lost silver, but it may be worth trying to replate the spoon if the corrosion hasn't eaten into the body of the spoon too much. Ultimately it will be worth seeking the opinion of a silversmith. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've always thought that silver was about the worst possible choice for utensils. It's soft enough to bend out of shape, reactive enough to tarnish or dissolve and give food a bad taste, has a high enough thermal conductivity to cause you to burn your hand when picking up a spoon left in hot soup, and is expensive to boot. About the only worse material I could imagine is uranium. StuRat (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It only is if you confuse expense (what you pay for something) with value (what it is worth). People often do that, though the two concepts are surprisingly only very tenuously related. People overvalue things which are expensive. That is because they place more value on the cost of an item than they should. Silver is considered valuable merely because of its expense, in lieu of other measures of its value, such as its utility. --Jayron3222:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Silver utensils have more utility than lumps of silver hidden under the mattress. The benefit is that if you run out of money, you can sell the family silverware to buy food, then eat with your hands. Franamax (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Better yet to sell the silverware to buy durable stainless steel utensils, buy some food, eat it with the utensils, and still have some money left over to start saving for some little luxuries - like silver utensils :) . -- Jack of Oz[your turn]21:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to remove the darkening (see Tarnish), try this. Prepare an enameled cast iron or Pyrex pot, a piece of aluminum foil (about 15x15cm), a table spoonful of salt, and water (about 300ml). Boil water, put the foil and salt in the boiling water, then put the spoon in it and keep boiling the water for 5 minutes or so. Oda Mari (talk) 06:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How do American film studios and music recording companies pressure the US government into basically violating international law?
How do American film studios and music recording companies pressure the US government into basically violating international law? What are their 'weapons' or methods of coercion? --Broadside Perceptor (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From what I have read on other sites, now that most people are convinced that the megaupload people were committing some crime, the concern seems to have moved to their having been arrested and charged with american crimes by the american state in spite of living and working entirely in another country. 148.197.81.179 (talk) 12:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that there's nothing unusual or new about people being detained and extradited for crimes they committed in another country, even if they are legally living and working in the first country. That's one point of extradition treaties. As mentioned in the extradition article (linked previous), some countries may disallow citizens to be extradited, and some countries may require double criminality, and impose other limitations, but disallowing people 'living and working in entirely another country' from being extradited is not common. What it perhaps somewhat unusual (although has some legal history behind it) is that the persons involved were AFAIK generally not in the US when they committed their alleged crimes, although they apparently used servers in the US (which makes them unlike some other cases where the US has claimed using a .com or .net domain name is enough to bring it in to their jurisdiction [17]). See also Personal jurisdiction in Internet cases in the United States. Nil Einne (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many years ago, perhaps around the 1980s or so, I saw mention on the local South London news about a man who had traveled to London from Africa looking for a lost African artifact, some kind of statue of a man or a boy. It was rather large, the height of a 6-10 year old child, and black in color. Perhaps made out of wood, but I am not sure. He was sure it was located somewhere in South London, perhaps in an attic or garage or something. I have searched using google but I cannot find anything even vaguly related. I am hoping the reference desk might be able to uncover some information. Thanks for you help. 87.98.250.244 (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I understand your question. The magazine has what? One issue or some issues in irregular frequency? I think ISSN is for series, independent of their frequency. 88.14.192.250 (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
January 22
Surnames as movie titles – feedback
On 10 January, here, I asked about movie titles that use only the surnames of characters, and I got lots of good ideas.
From a perfunctory reading of non-Christian religious texts, specially Eastern, I got the impression that in some belief systems it's possible to forgive without repentance from the offender. Is that true? And, if yes, wouldn't that be a kind of dangerous move, since said offenders could attack you again? 88.14.192.250 (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Forgiveness doesn't imply trust. While the Pope forgave his would-be assassin, I doubt if he would meet with him without having him searched first. StuRat (talk) 02:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, in Christianity as well, one is supposed to forgive others without the need for repentence. See Matthew 18:21-22 and Matthew 6:12, 14-15 and Luke 6:37. Christian thinking makes it clear here, and in many other places, that Christians must forgive freely and willingly and without the expectance of the person you forgive to repent for their transgressions against you. This is quite different from how God reacts to such transgressions, but the OP implies that he's looking for someone "to forgive" another person, and not for a person to be forgiven by the Deity. Christianity, at least, makes a clear distinction between those two ideas. If that wasn't what the question was, I apologize, but that's how I read it. --Jayron3202:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone point me to where I could find a log of crimes in Oxford (U.K.) from last year? I want to know if an assault of some kind occurred by the river near St. Aldates Street in early 2011 (Jan. or Feb., maybe March)
I tried Googling "murder" and "Oxford" but apparently there's a movie called "the Oxford Murders" that ate up all my search results.
In the U.S., newspapers frequently publish short, unedited summaries submitted by local police departments called a "police blotter." I have no idea if something similar happens in the U.K. But it might give you a lead. --Jayron3202:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and if you know anything more specific, you could check to see if it was reported in the Oxford Mail or Oxford Times, but I think those results get swamped by the sad case of the woman with learning difficulties in Witney in January 2011. I mean, there is this, but it seems unlikely to be what you remember.86.164.75.123 (talk) 03:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your simplest option is probably to just ask the police. You can find the contact details here (obviously, don't call 999, but you could email them or call the new 101 number and they will probably be able to help you). --Tango (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Economic left but social conservative and economic right but social liberal
Is there any political party that is economic left but social conservative meaning they lean left in economic issues and lean right in social issues?
Is there any political party that is economic right but social liberal? -- 05:11, 22 January 2012 70.31.18.111
I agree, which country you are talking about is very important. The definitions of "right" and "left" are relative to the norms for that country and those norms vary widely. For example, the Conservative Party (UK) is considered right-of-centre, on both economic and social issues, in the UK, but it would be considered very much on the left in the US on both issues (eg. they support public health care and have openly gay ministers in government). --Tango (talk) 14:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Libertarian Party (United States) seems to have the "keep government out of our lives" attitude, which means they are socially liberal (no government banning of drugs, prostitution, or homosexual relationships) and financially conservative (wanting a small government and minimal taxes). StuRat (talk) 08:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In general, mainstream right wing parties in the Nordic Countries support redistribution of wealth as it is currently practiced in those countries, although when faced with financial problems they are more ready to compromise such policies than traditional left-wing parties. However, perhaps the best examples would be the newish populist parties such as True Finns and Danish People's Party which do actively support both wealth redistribution and conservative social values, and such policies have been very popular especially among workers disillusioned with traditional socialist parties. 188.117.11.111 (talk) 10:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
saluting during a foreign anthem
When Angela Merkel visited the US last year, she was greeted with a State Arrival Ceremony. Both the German and US national anthems were played, and the military officers saluted during both national anthems. However, President Obama did his civilian salute (with the right hand over the heart) during the US national anthem only. Was it appropriate for Obama to not salute a foreign anthem, as customary within the military, even though he is Commander in Chief? Ragettho (talk) 05:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These things are matters of protocol; which are highly scripted. It is more newsworthy when Obama is seen to have varied from protocol.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with the protocols on these matters, but it is probably significant that German civilians don't do any kind of salute during their national anthem (at least, I don't think they do). --Tango (talk) 14:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is Obama considered to be a civilian, though? He is, after all, the Commander in Chief, and all military personnel are required to salute during foreign anthems in addition to the US one. Ragettho (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the British armed forces, even military personnel don't salute when they're not wearing uniform; also, if they're wearing uniform but no headgear, they still don't salute. Our Salute article suggests that it's the same for the USA. Alansplodge (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He's a civilian, his authority is "over" the military chain of command as civilian authority over the military is a fairly fundamental component of liberal democracy.
Collective term for groups of people with physical disabilities and people with special needs
Is there a term to refer collectively to the various groups of people with physical disabilities and people with special needs as a large community? Would an article about this community in the context of a specific country be suitable for inclusion into Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.10.11 (talk) 09:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would be difficult to find a term that wouldn't result in terminal bickering over it's political correctness, and I think that the closest you may get are the terms you have already used, "those with physical disabilities" and those with "special needs" however both have their unpopular connotations. The entire world of physical and mental difficulty is too broad for one collective term I think. S.G.(GH)ping!12:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is no 'community' of 'the various groups of people with physical disabilities and people with special needs'. I'm not sure what definition of the word community you are expecting to apply here. In context, a word or phrase will be chosen. So, for example, in an educational context, we might talk about students with Special Educational Needs, which is a blanket term implying they need extra support in some way, but doesn't specify why they need that extra support: they might have a special need because they are visually impaired, or because they are dyslexic, or because they have a language difficulty, or because they find fine motor skills difficult, or because they have problems with anger, or because they are recently bereaved, or all sorts of reasons. When it comes to Disability Living Allowance, it is supposed to depend on what a person needs help with, not why they need help with it. So these are things which, broadly, lump these issues together, but they don't imply any sort of 'community', nor do they use a single term to refer to all people with any sort of special need. 86.164.75.123 (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Negative campaigning and the political system
Is there a connection between the degree of negative campaigning (in politics) and the political system in different countries? It seems to me that countries with several large parties would have less negative campaigning. You may want to ally with the other party in the future, and from a game theory perspective just because you stop the voters from voting for party B it doesn't mean this vote is going to your party. Sjö (talk) 09:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am seeking information in relation to a serious rail crash at Concord West around 1955. The train collided with a very large earth moving apparatus and the side was ripped out to the train. I am having difficulty finding any reference ot it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.64.171 (talk) 10:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all. Not a Wikipedia related message, but I was hoping someone could help. I'm interested in getting to know more about this chap, and I was wondering if anyone who perhaps worked on the topic could recommend a good biography of him? I've got a grounding in the relevant areas of history so wouldn't need a "dunces text" would like something quite in depth, and something that perhaps deals with the complexities of the man as well as his actions with the FBI. Any thoughts? Thanks in advance, S.G.(GH)ping!19:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know myself, I really have never dealt much with him. If you feel comfortable asking on the article talk page, you could. The leading editor who has edited the article recently is User:Plazak, he might be worth talking to.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Um... I've never this objection anywhere, so I'm gonna ask it here.Isn't it a sort of contradiction, saying that everything needs a cause at the beginning of the argument and then saying there is something that doesn't at the end of it?--Irrational number (talk) 14:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not a strict contradiction per se, but certainly an inconsistent handling of assumptions in the argument. The argument seems to be that the First Cause is so special that it has to be god. There are various embellishments ("God is outside of time and space, so does not need a cause"), but they all seem like special pleading to me. From a logical point of view, I don't see a reason why every action needs a cause (what causes a U235 atom to split at a particular time?), nor do I see why infinite regression can be ruled out. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
siblings on either side of the law
Do we have examples of male siblings, one of whom is a career criminal, and the other of whom is significantly involved in law enforcement? If there are many such cases, would it make sense to have a WP:List article which would be a list of siblings, one of whom is reliably sourced as having been significantly involved in criminal activity, and the other of whom is reliably sourced as having been significantly involved in law enforcement? Bus stop (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
... -- AnonMoos (talk) 11:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Unresolved
