Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

November 7

senate gavel

Is it possible to buy replicas of the us senate gavel? Its very distinctive — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.1.143.5 (talk) 02:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

For the curious, see Gavel#United States Congress gavels. For the OP, I'd imagine that one of the gift shops in the Washington, DC area would carry one. Dismas|^(talk) 03:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Number of polling stations in America

How many total polling stations are there in the United States for this election? --superioridad ^(discusión) 03:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

According to this report there were 113,754 polling places in 2004. I couldn't find the equiivilent report for a later year, but you might be able to find it at eac.gov. RudolfRed (talk) 03:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Since I became old enough to vote, quite a few elections ago, I have never found a long line or had to wait more than a few minutes to start voting. But in the last 2 presidential elections (at least) I've read about voters, typically in urban areas, having to stand in line for several hours due to too many voters assigned to a polling station and too few voting stations. This has been called "voter suppression" as a tactic in states with one party in charge of conducting elections trying to keep down the number of votes cast in areas likely to favor the other party. The Help America Vote Act helped get rid of punchcard machines after the 2000 Florida fiasco, and provided funding for states to buy modern voting technology and to provide handicapped access, but apparently it did not ensure that a voter could actually get into a polling place in a reasonable fashion, nor did it ensure equal access to a polling place throughout a state, since voting stations can be "rationed" in opposition areas. Has there been legislation to ensure equal access to a voting station, avoiding the appearance of intentional suppression of voting access, and how far did it get in Congress? .Possible remedies are early voting, mail-in voting, fax voting, or computer voting. Early voting similarly is subject to "rationing" as a suppression technique, while the other methods are not Secret ballots, since precinct workers in a big city machine or other bosses might insist on seeing how the person voted, or might pay for desired voting. Edison (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Politics

What type of government is described as one where there are no parties, and legislative decisions are made based on recomendations by independant experts, instead of running a poll on what the people want? Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Technocracy. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I was going to say Fantasy. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Has it ever been trialed? In the leading paragraph, it excludes economists, but isn't economic science a legitimate field which would be beneficial to this system.

A democracy is annoying, for instance: Here in New Zealand, people don't want GMO to be researched or traded in New Zealand, because of misconceptions.

In a lot of cases people want to have their cake and eat it too, and they hold the government hostage. The government ends up damned if they do, and damned if they don't. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

More on economics: you can make all the legislature you want, but it will do you no good if you can't manage you finances? Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Is that genetically modified cake? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

If that's a joke, I don't get it. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Technocrats = scientists = folks who can genetically modify things. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

It's simpler than that. GMO takes me to Genetically modified organism. If that wasn't what Plasmic meant by GMO, they'd better fess up now. Add that to the cake reference and bingo. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I meant genetically modified organisms. What's with all the cakes? I don't get the allusion. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Ooooh. You're refering to my metaphor. I forgot I posted that. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

You may now laugh. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Some anti-GMO opposition can be annoying, as when some well-fed do-gooding Europeans in 2002 pretty much advised the governments of Malawi and Zambia to let their citizens starve rather than accept U.S. food aid in the form of modified corn (maize) which Americans themselves were eating in large quantities. However, one thing which is true is that existing GMO seems mainly designed to benefit the Monsanto corporation, which is far from an ideal corporate citizen (to say the least)... AnonMoos (talk) 10:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

What about the practice of Hydraulic fracturing? Over here, people are suffering severely from confirmational bias, not helped by the media. Or oil, we can drill offshore for oil in our teritory, but because people are afraid of the worst case scenario, they are polling against it. Goodness, I could get run over by a bus when I cross the street, but that doesn't stop me. Don't get me started on the impact of groupthink on mainstream society's decision making ability. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

You might find the government of Maria Theresa of Austria interesting. A very conservative Catholic, she appointed a range of experts to run various areas of her government. The result was weirdly mixed - some of the most progressive serf-law reform of the era, a number of other reforms, but increased anti-semitism and the deportation of sex workers. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, even though it was only a pseudotechnocracy, it did have some success. What are the reasons why it's not used today, is it just to radical? Perhaps, people are just afraid of the unknown. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

More usually described as enlightened despotism about which, we have an article. Alansplodge (talk) 12:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The main problems are lack of accountability and lack of succession security. On the first point - when things go wrong, the people who are affected can easily become dissatisfied, and want to hold decision-makers to account. Despotism can work very well when the going is good, or when misfortune is obviously the product of external malice, but when the cause appears internal, people want answers. Louis XVI and Charles I of England paid the price for trying to exercise absolute rule, and James II & VII came off quite badly too. Democracy may only rarely deliver a highly-tooled government of experts, but it provides a regular mechanism for accountability. Succession security is a related problem - if your despot is very effective (Charles II of England, Maria Theresa, Augustus) then whoever replaces them is likely to be a disappointment. Either you have rigid rules for succession (in which case the successor might be a baby, a foreigner, or someone unwilling or unable to govern) or there's some kind of unseemly semi-legal contest, possibly involving civil war or assassination. That sort of thing is bad for national security and individual prosperity. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

How about one head of state, seven personal advisers, and 49 decision-makers. This head of state would not have any real power, other than communicating with the public, and proposing ideas to the decision-makers for consideration? It would really be 49 who would be held accountable. The whole system would be independently checked at every tier. The 49 would be fed concerns by local representatives in contact with the public. The decision makers are elected from qualified representatives, by an external group of experts. The succession of the head of state would be irrelevant, since he is only a figurehead. I don't think veto power is a good idea, look at what UN vetoing gave Syrian rebells - a whole lot of nothing. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

These days, I think people would regard that as insufficiently accountable. But I see the point. Next week, people here in the UK will elect police commissioners; I want the police to be run by the police. But I'd also like them to be accountable, both to politicians and to some kind of genuinely independent overseeing body. I'd be interested in moves to increase independent oversight of public services and media, whilst moving to a wholly elected legislature and executive. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Accountability is annoying as well. I remember recently, a news item about flights grounded because of bad weather - in the desperation of pointing fingers, would-be passangers blamed the airpot for their misfortune. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The current government of Italy could be seen as an example of this, though our article describes it as a 'government of technocrats', rather than a technocracy. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 13:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I think "government of technocrats" is probably a mistranslation of governo tecnico, more literally "technical government". The better translation into English is probably "national unity government" or something like that. Technocrat is a very unfortunate word to use for this; there is no connection with the ideology of technocracy. --Trovatore (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually it's a government composed mainly of non-political figures who are subject matter experts, so "technocrat" is the correct term. --Xuxl (talk) 10:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

No, it isn't (although I do have to amend my statement; from the article, it does look like they had technocracy in mind). But it's an error. Technocracy is a particular ideology, anti-democratic and anti-capitalist. See technocracy movement. Monti specifically is a little bit anti-capitalist, but a governo tecnico in general does not have to be, and it's not even supposed to matter whether it is, because such a government is not supposed to undertake any major reforms; those are supposed to be left for the next governo politico. --Trovatore (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Well that sounds like the next best thing to a technocracy, if only it was independently moderated, then 'that guy' would have been sorted out pretty quickly. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Mmmm. I think what they have in Italy is genuinely a democratic government run by technocrats, as opposed to a technocracy, which seems like it would be closer to what we would recognise as a dictatorship. By 'that guy', do you mean Silvio Berlusconi? He's no longer a part of the government - indeed he may soon be going to prison. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I really do object to calling them technocrats. That would be as though, every time you temporarily reconfigured a cabinet to work formally the way the Soviet ones did, you started calling its members "communists". --Trovatore (talk) 19:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Hha. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes do mean him, and I did use past tense to recognise the fact that he's no longer part of the government. My point was that he did not get sorted out quickly. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

United States presidential election, 2016

Can Mitt Romney run away for president in 2016? What is the statement in the article means: "As former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney was not elected, possible candidates include:"? <--- this statement. If he eligible to run away then why his name isn't in the possible candidate section?174.20.101.190 (talk) 06:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

AFAIK, among natural born American citizens over the age of 35, only three people alive now are ineligible to run in 2016: Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush. Literally every other qualified person is allowed to run. Also, I don't know that any actual reliable sources have speculated that he will run in 2016. There have been some names floated as possible candidates in 2016, but I don't believe that Romney is among them. He's certainly eligible, but there's been no one claiming that he is likely to run. --Jayron32 06:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Just wondering, in the UK I believe you can't stand for parliament if certified insane or if you are currently in prison. Would the insane and prison inmates also be inelligable to run for president in the USA? -- Q Chris (talk) 15:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Because it has become un-customary. I believe the last person nominated for the presidency by a Major Party after losing was Richard Nixon (lost in 1960, won in 1968). —Tamfang (talk) 06:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Am I the only one that's confused by the use of the word "away" in this question? That said, I don't know why Romney would have said anything about the 2016 election when the 2012 election is still wrapping up. On the other hand, news sources are saying that he's called Obama to concede. So he might have said to someone, "Just wait till 2016" or some such thing. Dismas|^(talk) 06:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Presumably "away" was meant to be "again". StuRat (talk) 08:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the pundits are deeming it unlikely Romney would run or be acceptable to the Republican Party next time. As was noted, Nixon was the last man to run for the presidency and lose in the general election, and subsequently win it. I believe he is the only president to do so since the Civil War (as I recall, Andrew Jackson also accomplished the feat). The only other repeat losers in the 20th century that I recall offhand are William Jennings Bryan and Thomas Dewey. I think the Republicans will move on and try again next time with someone else who will lack the matters (wealth, Bain Capital) on which Romney was successfully attacked.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

"Since Nixon, no one has been nominated after losing. Therefore Romney will never be nominated again." reeks of hasty generalization. A recent xkcd comic[1] was precisely about this sort of fallacy. A8875 (talk) 06:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Nixon wasn't terribly damaged by his loss to Kennedy, due to the controversy of the election, among other factors, such as having to defend everything that had happened in the previous eight years. He was also considerably younger than Romney.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Adlai Stevenson II lost in 1952 and again in 1956. Looie496 (talk) 07:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Forgot him ... easy to do.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Pretty sure Romney recently (or was it Ann?) came out and said that if he lost he simply wouldn't run again and would retire from politics. The Masked Booby (talk) 07:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Romney's eligible to run in 2016 or whenever. Trouble is, he's 65 already. And I was hearing something today (maybe on NPR) that both of their wives informed them that this is the last time they're running for office. Even forgetting that, as noted above, winning after losing is very hard to do. Conventional wisdom in 1956 was, why waste a good candidate against Eisenhower, who's unbeatable anyway? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Grover Cleveland. —Tamfang (talk) 07:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Cleveland, though he lost the electoral college in 1888, won a popular plurality, so he was not a rejected former president (to a certain extent he was after 1897), since he was fairly clearly rejected by his own party in 1896.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I think, under the proper circumstances, a losing presidential candidate might run again and win. For example, if he ran against a really strong opponent the first time around, who was beloved by all, and the economy was great, then people wouldn't hold it against him for losing. In this case, though, there are plenty of people who dislike Obama, and the economy is rather weak, so not being able to win seems to indicate that there is something wrong with Romney as a candidate. To list a few things, he's flip-flopped quite a bit, he ran a Wall Street firm (Bain Capital) which took over other companies, he supported the Wall Street bail-out while opposing the Detroit bail-out, he's a Mormon, he comes off as unsympathetic to the poor (his "47%" remark, saying that anyone can go to college without government help by having their parents pay for it, etc.), he's boring, and he's getting a bit old. I'm not saying that those things are bad, just that they make him less popular with the voters. It's amazing the Republicans couldn't come up with a stronger candidate, in a year where the President was obviously vulnerable. StuRat (talk) 08:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Stu, for all the issues you listed, I recall a young somewhat progressive minded voter saying recently that Romney was "the least bad" of the 2012 candidates for the Republican nomination. He might be saying now that he won't run, but few of the persons eyeing a 2016 nomination want to come out and publicly announce their candidacy early. A "frontrunner" often falters. Nixon was seemingly burned out from politics when he gave what he claimed to be Richard Nixon's last press conference in 1962 and seemed depressed, embittered and possibly having a breakdown, snarling "You don't have Nixon to kick around anymore.". Then he came back 6 years later raring to go and won the Presidency. Romney will be too old because he's 65? Hillary Clinton is also 65, and is frequently named as a leading contender for the 2016 Democratic nomination, however much she denies it. Edison (talk) 18:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Mitt Romney was the "least bad" of the Republican contenders, but it was a pathetic slate. What they needed to win the general election was a charismatic moderate. Romney isn't charismatic, but could have run as a moderate, on his record as Massachusetts governor, specifically on "Romneycare". Unfortunately, the Republican party has moved so far to the right that a moderate could not win the primary. Thus, to win the primary, Romney had to move to the right, such as promising to repeal "Obamacare", which made him unable to win the general election. As for age, he would be 69 at the 2016 election, and about 70 when he takes office, if elected, and 78 when he leaves office, if he serves two full terms. Yes, Ronald Reagan was about that old, but did suffer from Alzheimer's, possibly in his last years of office. So, I think it's fair to count this as a strike against him. It's also a strike against Hilary Clinton, although women tend to live a bit longer, so not quite as much. StuRat (talk) 19:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

"Obamacare" is actually pretty unpopular among US voters, according to most polls. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 01:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, it certainly does need tweaking, as most people would agree. However, Romney's position that the Federal government shouldn't do anything at all to help the poor get insurance isn't exactly "moderate". StuRat (talk) 10:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

If he also held that government ought to do nothing to prevent the poor from getting insurance, that would be true moderation, though when the implications sink in it would be called extremism. —Tamfang (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Obama was actually pretty unpopular among US voters according to most polls, but it doesn't seem to have affected his popularity among US voters. I venture to say the popularity of Obamacare is pretty close to the popularity of Obama, and that "most polls" is less interesting than "most competent polls". Nate Silver and all that. Gzuckier (talk) 06:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Romney could legally run again if he wanted to, but leaving aside the likely political difficulty he'd have getting the GOP nomination a second time, he and his wife Ann have made it pretty clear that they're not interested in going through yet another grueling campaign. Obama has said similar things, that this was his last campaign and he is glad of it. Bill Clinton must have enjoyed campaigning more, since after leaving office he said he'd have run a third time if he was allowed to. And John F. Kennedy while in office, supposedly envisioned running for his old Senate seat again after serving two terms as president.

There are signs of a serious shake-up brewing in the GOP due to yesterday's losses.[2] Their 2016 nominee may well be someone who is completely off the radar today, and their political and policy strategies may be a lot different than what we've seen over the past few years. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 05:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

So who are the current front-runners for the Democratic and Republican nominations in 2016? Not asking for crystal ball gazing here. Just wondering who commentators are speculating about, if anyone. --Viennese Waltz 08:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, for the Republicans, Marco Rubio of Florida is speculated about. Chris Christie of New Jersey is a possibility, but his bearhug of Obama last week may have given Obama the presidency and cost Christie his shot, it all depends on how people feel about it when all this sinks in. He also has a tough re-election battle next year, and would be in much better shape if he wins. For the Democrats, Secretary Clinton and Biden are spoken of, though I can't imagine Joe Biden winning the nomination. There are plenty of others, the Washington post has been pushing Governor Martin O'Malley of Maryland and Senator-elect Tim Kaine of Virginia among the Democrats.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I've just skimmed, so I apologize if someone has said this already, but I believe the phrase the OP was referring to just contrasts with a counterfactual. If Romney had won, there would be little to no speculation about the Republican nominee—he would run again. So the idea is, "As he lost, possible candidates include..." There's no legal reason Romney couldn't win again, but as others have noted, it can be hard for someone who has lost a previous election to shake the perception of being a "loser." --BDD (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Reason(s) for party majority difference between U.S. Senate and U.S. Governors?

As I write this the projected U.S. Senate will have 52 Democrats and 44 Republicans. Among the 50 states, there will be only 17 Democratic governors and 30 Republicans. If we double that number you end up with 52:44 Senate ratio and 34:60 Governor ratio, not only opposite that of the Senate but even more lopsided. Is there any clear reason for this reality? In theory both positions fully represent all constituents in that particular state, though I can accept that some fractious voting can occur with one state having two senators. Even then, I would expect the ratios to at least favor the same party... The Masked Booby (talk) 07:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Incumbent Congressmen and Senators tend to get re-elected unless they say or do something extraordinarily stupid. Governors are more directly vulnerable because their impact (or lack thereof) is more immediately observable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Governors of 36 states and 4 territories are subject to term limits. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

And senators have a 6 year term, while many governors have shorter terms. That make them more vulnerable to swings in the mood of the electorate than the Senate. StuRat (talk) 08:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Many of the present governors were elected in 2009 and 2010, both of which were generally good years for Republicans.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Governors are judge on how good an executive they are, and whether they balance the budget and the state economy is good. Senators are judged on how much pork they can steal from other states. μηδείς (talk) 16:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, some voters just like divided government, or else have different estimations of their state Democratic and Republican parties compared to their national organizations. When Scott Walker survived a recall attempt earlier this year, exit polling indicated a majority of Wisconsinites would have voted for Obama if the presidential election were held the same day. West Virginia is a prominent example in the opposite direction. There, Democrats maintain a wide registration advantage on paper, but the state has become a reliable Republican vote in presidential elections. Nevertheless, state Democratic politicians, such as Joe Manchin and Earl Ray Tomblin, remain popular enough for reelection. They generally take pains to distance themselves from the national party, however. --BDD (talk) 18:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Puerto Rican status referendum, 2012

What happens now that Puerto Rico has voted to attempt to become the 51st US state? On what timeline could we expect them to become the 51st state? What are the odds that it will actually happen? Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 07:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I would expect Republicans to block statehood, since this would presumably give Democrats more votes. So, it would have to wait until Democrats control both houses of Congress and the Presidency. Right now they only control 2 of the 3. Another possibility is that Republicans might vote for it in exchange for something else, like abolishing "Obamacare". StuRat (talk) 08:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Basically so. The Constitution grants exclusive power to grant statehood to Congress. DC's been trying for years, though there are a number of reasons why it has been denied. And given the fact that presidents in their second term almost always lose seats for their party in the midterms, I would not count on getting a new flag soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

As per Political status of Puerto Rico#Republican Party 2012 Platform, the official Repulican Party platform is in support statehood if the people express a desire for it. Of course this doesn't mean they're going to proceed with it, but this is also the first time are referendum has came out with a majority seemingly in favour of statehood. Nil Einne (talk) 13:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

There are plenty of issues on which statehood can founder. Public lands, for example. I would not expect it soon. Maybe in the runup to the midterms, if either side feels there's a point to be made. If the referendum has passed, then I would expect Puerto Rico's delegate to Congress to get a draft bill written and present it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Apparently Puerto Rican statehood would mean they would get 2 Senators and 5 or so Representatives (as a proportionate share of the 435 total), as well as 7 or so electoral votes, which would likely be solid Democratic in the present political climate. Logically, the Republican party would oppose this. In the 19th century, there were "compromises" wherein the South avoided an increase in Free states by adding a slave state.. So would it be more palatable to the Republicans if some new Red state were admitted, such as a split off from Texas? See List of U.S. state partition proposals for the history of proposals to split states. This has certainly been done in the past. If Texas were split along the Colorado River, as was once proposed, and if southern Utah were split, the new Republican states would balance possible new statehood for Democrat-leaning Puerto Rico and DC. Edison (talk) 15:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Splitting Texas wouldn't guarantee 2 extra Republican senators (and 2 extra electors) though. Worst case scenario it might actually deliver 2 senators (and 2 electors) to the Democrats[3]. NM is solid blue state, and I would expect the south-west half of Texas to be the same. A8875 (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

West Texas outside of El Paso and the Rio Grande valley is highly-conservative. New Mexico's Democratic leanings are in large part due to the particular circumstances of northern New Mexico, which might not have much relevance to southwest Texas... AnonMoos (talk) 00:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe a split-off of South California? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

StuRat -- If the congressional Republicans block Puerto Rican statehood in any obvious or petty way, they'll be giving themselves another public relations black eye at a time when they badly need an image makeover. They could remember that Eisenhower signed off on Hawaii statehood... AnonMoos (talk) 15:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Two points:

1) They can't do much worse among Hispanics than they already are, due to their immigration policy (even though the last President Bush actually had a reasonable policy). Their core, on the other hand, would be energized by the fight to "keep those damned foreigners out".

2) They wouldn't make it obvious they weren't going to admit PR, as that would be a PR disaster. They would instead form committees to study the details, which never reach a conclusion. Politicians are experts at not making decisions, while covering themselves publicly. StuRat (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Hawaii was initially Republican (Hiram Fong, for example) and Alaska rather Democratic, at least some of the time. It's been common in U.S. history to admit two states at about the same time to keep the balance.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, if the Republicans champion statehood for Puerto Rico, they might have a chance to break up the current Hispanic voting block held by the Democrats. Blueboar (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

And if they champion the war on poverty (as opposed to the war on poor people), they will steal lots of votes from the Democrats, too. I won't hold my breath, though. StuRat (talk) 01:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Hawaii was admitted with Alaska. Such compromises are normal. It's funny to hear foreignors giving Republicans contextless political advice based on how Democrats will perceive them. μηδείς (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

How the other party perceives yours is important. One reason is that it can energize the opposition and increase their voter turnout if your party is perceived as up to no good. The other is that compromises between the parties can be made more difficult. StuRat (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Medeis -- I'm a born and bred United-Statesian, not a "foreignor"... AnonMoos (talk) 00:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, had you confused with somebody olse. But your point was still oof. μηδείς (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Whatever -- One of the most-commonly repeated themes in news analysis of the election results over the last 24 hours has been that there's not much future for Republican presidential candidates if the Republican party seems to go out of its way to antagonize and alienate (non-Cuban) Hispanics. Even some of those who don't think that there's anything very misguided or losing about the Tea-party movement, or the narrowing and hardening of ideology among Republicans in recent years, now admit that the party stand on immigration has overall been politically counterproductive (there was apparently something about this in the Wall Street Journal). In this context, blocking PR statehood would seem to be a step in the wrong direction... AnonMoos (talk) 04:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Republicans would definitely been seen as hypocritical and very unloyal if they tried to block Puerto Rican statehood. Nil Einne already mentioned the GOP's party platform. Furthermore, I doubt they would want to alienate those Puerto Ricans who participate in Republican Party (Puerto Rico) (the affiliate of the national Republican Party, and a strong supporter of statehood) and those who voted in the Puerto Rico Republican primary, 2012 (yes U.S. territories can still participate in presidential primaries). Rick Santorum's comments regarding statehood was a major factor why he lost to Romney in the primaries over there. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Back to the OP's question: Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. After reading various news sources for the past day, and as others have updated Puerto Rican status referendum, 2012#Criticism, it seems apparent that opponents of the referendum are still questioning the validity of the results. Complaints are ranging from the wording of the questions on the ballot (in that it might have confused many voters), to the fact that about 25 percent of voters left question 2 blank (which effectively means that only less than 50 percent of those who voted on the referendum marked Statehood). Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not terribly surprised. At least the English version strongly implied the Congress would be required to pass whatever Puerto Rico wanted, which is not the case. I don't know about the Spanish one.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Interesting interpretation, Wehwalt. The specific wording is

Congress would be required to pass any necessary legislation to begin the transition into statehood.

I had interpreted this to mean "For statehood to be achieved, it would be necessary that Congress pass any necessary legislation", which I'm sure is what was intended. But I suppose I can see how someone might interpret it as "Congress would have a legal obligation to pass any necessary legislation." Duoduoduo (talk) 14:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I would think that another objection would be this. 46% of voters prefer the status quo. For lack of any data to the contrary, assume that the pro-status quo and anti-status quo people voted in the same ratios as each other on question 2. The percentage of people preferring statehood over any other non-status quo option is 62% according to question 2, presumedly meaning the people advocating statehood are 62% of the 54% who don't prefer the status quo, or 33.5% of the electorate. Not a majority or even a plurality compared to status quo advocates. Duoduoduo (talk) 15:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Puerto Rican referendum question

Does anyone have the exact wording of the questions on the Puerto Rican referendum? --149.135.146.89 (talk) 14:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

See page 7 of [4]. Duoduoduo (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

why weren't jews admited to moscow state university math programs?

I just read http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/The-Fifth-problem--math---anti-Semitism-in-the-Soviet-Union-7446 with great interest. I can easily picture such a thing happening in Israel today, of course an arab student would not be admitted, with very good reason. Namely, the fact that Israel lives in constant fear of suicide bombings and random acts of violence. My question is actually what is not mentioned in the story at all, which is what prompted Russia to take a similar position? Surely there were no jewish bombings and massacres happening? Were jews there responsible (or thought to be responsible) for any crimes that would justify this behavior? I am frankly simply perplexed. --91.120.48.242 (talk) 14:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

It was really just antisemitism. Jews have always placed a very high value on education and therefore occupied a disproportionate share of academic positions, and lots of non-Jews were unhappy about that and favored setting quotas. (I don't think your statements about Arab students in Israel are correct, by the way -- the situation is more complicated than that.) Looie496 (talk) 14:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

But that doesn't make any sense at all, as all it would take is for the person quoted near the end of the article (the source of the policy) to fire all the faculty, or a percentage of them. It sounds like "0% faculty or students" was the new policy. So, the explanation simply doesn't make sense. --91.120.48.242 (talk) 15:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you appreciate the fact that this was not a legal or official policy. They had to have a plausible reason to deny an application, and far more reason to fire an established faculty member. From the article you could see that they tried to simply give him questions he couldn't answer, or distort his answers, but couldn't deny it when he got it completely right. I believe some people did succeed in getting through, if they made enough fuss or had friends on the faculty. It was much harder for students in humanities where they could simply always claim the answer was wrong and/or incomplete, harder for something like Math. Notice also that it often wasn't personal, the guy impressed his examiners very much, but they'd be in trouble if they didn't fail him. --50.136.244.171 (talk) 02:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

To Looie496: The most likely reason that the Russian government adopted anti-Semitic policies after World War 2 was because Israel started to lean to the West fairly early on, and Stalin (being the super-paranoid crab that he was) concluded that since Israel was an enemy of Russia, all Jews must therefore be potential subversives as well. How crazy can some people be?! 24.23.196.85 (talk) 01:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

It's that danged Israel Lobby again. An international conspiracy, I tell you!Gzuckier (talk) 06:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Israeli Arabs are not denied entry to Israeli universities, although the figure of those actually attending is low. In 2001, 7% of all students in Israeli universities were Arabs.([5]) --Dweller (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think antisemitism necessarily has a rational explanation but we have articles such as Antisemitism in Russia and Antisemitism in the Soviet Union. Also, the linked-to article reads: "...anti-Semitism was deeply rooted in the Russian culture".[6] Bus stop (talk) 18:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, see Pogrom. Alansplodge (talk) 13:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

One cannot overlook the role of the Church in fomenting antiSemitism in medieval Europe, and Russia keeping medievalism going for longer than Europe did, the Russian Church got more mileage out of antiSemitism in more recent times. I mean Were jews there responsible (or thought to be responsible) for any crimes that would justify this behavior? Aside from killing the Son of God you mean? Plus, somewhat anecdotally, much as I love Russian people and their zeitgeist in general, their society celebrates a degree of Russian-supremacy (to coin a phrase) as normal which is comparable to some of the most white supremacist USA-first parts of the US. I've seen highly-educated, progressive, sophisticated, cosmopolitan Russians make casual statements in all innocence and with no malice intended that literally made me blink. Gzuckier (talk) 06:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Not sure how to fix a statement about Politics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_political_affiliation

"Presidents who served two or more whole terms are bolded" Having Obama in bold makes this statement os inaccurate until the end of Obama's second term 96.63.178.61 (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I've dealt with it, remarking that if they haven't bolded McKinley or Lincoln, who at least embarked on second term (Obama has only just bought his ticket), Obama should not be bolded. Also removed 2017 and subbed in present, we don't predict the future.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Discuss it at Talk:List of Presidents of the United States by political affiliation. —Tamfang (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Could wiki communities ever be a "public policy" topic?

Hey Wikipedians,

I'm a public policy student, and as part of my graduation requirements, I have to write an undergraduate thesis on a public policy topic. I was hoping to write about how power structures (particularly oligarchies) form within wiki communities, focusing mostly on Wikipedia and one or two other Wikimedia websites. My professors, however, point out that studying the WIkipedia community is more appropriate for a sociology paper rather than a public policy paper.

I'm still very much interested in studying Wikimedia communities, and I'm determined to find a way in which it could potentially be a good topic for a public policy issue. However, I'm having trouble finding such a link, mostly because wiki-based projects usually are rarely connected with government programs. (The "public policy" article explicitly refers to the executive powers of a state, and WMF generally likes to stay out of politics or policy issues.) At the same time, I've also noted that a lot of conflicts on Wikipedia articles arise over controversial public policy issues, such as abortion, gay rights, drug legalization, and others. Unfortunately, I have a hard time looking for literature on how Wikipedians address these sorts of issues.

Therefore, since many of the contributors to this page have much more expertise on Wikipedia's history and culture than I do, I'm hoping if any of you could identify ways in which Wikimedia communities have strong relevance to a public policy topic? (Free speech and government censorship keep coming to mind, but I'm having a hard time narrowing them down to specific cases.) The academic literature on Wikipedia seems to be sparse, so I would also appreciate anyone's insights on which books or journals I should look through.

Ragettho (talk) 17:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

There are obvious possible angles relating to policies about new media, press freedom, participatory democracy... They are more about where Wikipedia and other wiki projects sit within the polity than about the internal "politics" of Wikipedia, but then you did choose to study public policy. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd focus on the WikiLeaks case and Julian Assange. Those papers largely led to the Arab Spring, and caused government public policy to change to catch up. In this sense, wikis are driving change in public policy. Also, in the future, governments can't count on secrecy, as they did before. StuRat (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed. I think the Arab Spring has much more to do with Arabs than with a blond Australian personality cultist bail-jumper. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's your citation: [7]. Note that Amnesty International doesn't list hair color as a cause. StuRat (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

You could do a comparative study: "Power structures in Wikipedia as compared to power structures in [name a public policy subject]". Could be interesting to see if power structures develop differently when it is on a volunteer basis as compared to how they develop when they are part of paid businesses or governmental organisations for example.--Saddhiyama (talk) 19:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice! Over the past few hours, I realized that WP:SOPA would be a great example of a wiki community having to engage in a political process to decide how to react to a government policy. Are there any other examples in which the Wikipedia community has had to respond to a government policy? Ragettho (talk) 23:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes - see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 April 17#Wikipedia:COPPA and links from within that discussion. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

You might visit meatball wiki both to look for relevant material already written there, and to ask for advice from its participants. I don't know if that community is still very active, but it used to specialize in the topic. The stuff linked from this slashdot post about gaining power in online communities might be relevant to you, though I don't think it's directly WP specific. Wikipedia's old meta essay m:power structure seems almost quaint today. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 05:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Why is Florida taking so long to declare for Romney or Obama?

The state of Florida is the last state to declare. Obama has been re-elected. What is taking so long in the Sunshine State? Astronaut (talk) 18:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The numbers are so close that the result could potentially be changed by absentee ballots, which take a long time to count. Looie496 (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Plus it doesn't matter anyway, since Obama wins either way. Therefore, they might as well take their time. StuRat (talk) 18:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. They would never want a repeat of past events, and they'd be much more interested in accuracy than speed. This would apply whatever the result in the rest of the country might be. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not irrelevant. Given the choice of paying all the employees overtime to work all night long to do the count, or wait until the next day and save taxpayer money, overtime seems like a foolish choice, when the results don't matter anyway. StuRat (talk) 21:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, of course they matter. Even I, an outsider, know that the poll was not just for the president. But even if that was all there was to it, there is still a formal process to be gone through. But even if that was not the case, can you imagine a scenario whereby the Florida poll was declared invalid due to some horrible technicality caused by too hasty counting, and the entire state had to vote again for their Electoral College electors, even though they knew it was gonna make no difference to who becomes president? I exaggerate, of course, but after the 2000 fiasco, I can well understand them being super-hyper careful about the count down there. It does matter, Stu. Egg on face is politically more costly than all the diamonds in the world. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Just because there are other items on the ballot doesn't mean that those items have not yet been decided. The Presidential race is only unresolved because it's very close. Also note that taking this long to count also counts as "egg on their face". StuRat (talk) 01:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Not really. Not when you add in the absentee ballot factor explained below by Mr 98. Some people might be, perhaps understandably, impatient and frustrated, but they should get real - it's been way less than 36 hours since the polls closed, and that's elapsed time, not even working hours. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the underlying question is "Why is the State of Florida so consistently bad at organising elections?" DuncanHill (talk) 22:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

According to German magazine Spiegel (under heading "Wahlsieger in Florida weiter offen") this is due to verifying Provisional ballots. Also Florida is no slower than other states, According to CNN most states are only 90%-95% counted (Florida is 97% counted). However Florida is so close that those missing 3% could still swing it. 86.136.63.217 (talk) 00:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I think they were worse. I read here that some people were still waiting in line to vote after midnight: [8]. Part of the problem might have been a Republican effort to suppress Democratic votes by reducing the days for early voting. Specifically, the Sunday right before the elections was scheduled as the day for many churches in Democratic areas to bus their members to polling stations for early votes. When Republicans heard about this, they cancelled voting on that day. However, rather than not voting, this seems to have caused many to vote on election day who had planned to vote early, resulting in long lines. (Those long lines themselves might have also been part of an effort to suppress the vote.) See this Need to Know episode: [9]. StuRat (talk) 01:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think those factors have anything to do with the time it takes to count absentee ballots. And while there has been scuttlebutt on both sides of the aisle about voter interference, the fact that Florida would be a nearly 50/50 split is exactly in line with predictions made on the basis of polls done in the days before the election. Which is to say, there isn't any real surprise there. Florida is close, close enough that absentee ballots could make up the difference, and those are slow to count, end of story. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I suggest we all avoid partisanship and just answer the questions informationally, without speculation.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Short answer--because it's close and there's a lot of absentee ballots left to count. Futurist110 (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Presidents that never were

I am aware of alternate history novels in which various mechanisms cause a different president to be elected (for example, in The Man in the High Castle, Giuseppe Zangara's successful assasination of FDR leads to a weaker US government through WWII). Has there been a more scholarly study of what might have happened if US presidential elections had gone the other way? For example: if Blaine had defeated Cleveland in 1884, if Nixon had won in 1960, or if Bush v. Gore had gone the other way in the Supreme Court and Gore had won in 2000? (this later one was specifically mentioned by a pundit on the BBC this morning). Astronaut (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

You might look at Alexander Hamilton, Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun, and Robert La Follette who all might have been president under other circumstances. The scholar Niall Ferguson has written on counterfactual history. See various books on the "what if" topic including other presidents here at Amazon. μηδείς (talk) 18:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Some time ago, this board pointed me in the direction of this alternate history forum, which has since provided me with many happy hours. I am pleased to pass on the favour to you! --TammyMoet (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

And, of course, don't forget Al Gore. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 01:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

He's mentioned in the original question. Nyttend (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The type of study you're asking about is called counterfactual history and it is difficult to do persuasively. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 06:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Since it is necessarily speculation, impossible of proof, such matters are generally cast as fiction. I've enjoyed some of Harry Turtledove's books, though not his long series.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's an article about how a change in our voting system might have caused Abe Lincoln to lose, and what would've happened. Called "Would the Borda Count Have Avoided the Civil War?" published in the "Journal of Theoretical Politics". Staecker (talk) 13:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Saura, Vérin, Mousey

Can anybody give me any biographical info on the authors Bruno Saura and Pierre Vérin? And what does the Ch. in Ch Mousey, editor of L'Année coloniale, stand for, please give some prove beside a guess at Charles?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The first two have articles in the French Wikipedia. The third is actually spelled Mourey, Charles Mourey [10].--Cam (talk) 20:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Medieval titles of nobility in multiple kingdoms

The Norman conquest of England created a situation where a noble could have titles in more than one realm or kingdom, so that (to name an example) Geoffrey II, Duke of Brittany became the duke of Brittany and the earl of Richmond. Aside from the Plantagenets, and not counting monarchs (such as monarchs of a personal union), how common was it in medieval Europe for someone to have noble titles in more than one kingdom? Did such nobles have trouble "serving two masters", so to speak? Thanks! 24.209.99.109 (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

There is the case of the County of Flanders, which was a fief of both France and the Holy Roman Empire. Other examples from after the conquest that spring to mind are Robert de Beaumont, 1st Earl of Leicester and his son Waleran de Beaumont, 1st Earl of Worcester. Both also Counts of Meulan in France, but in that case their masters were the king of England and the Duke of Normandy (who was the same person). Some of the early crusaders ended up ruling two places; for example the Count of Toulouse (theoretically subject to France, but not really) was also the Count of Tripoli (theoretically subject to Jerusalem, but not really). Sometimes people could have more than one honourary title, or title over a money fief (i.e. not a territory they actually had to rule - like the Duke of Brittany and his honorary title to Richmond), but having title over two territorial fiefs is probably rarer, especially if you are looking for non-kingly examples. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem of having a fief belong to multiple kingdoms was what led, ultimately, to the Schleswig-Holstein Question. Much of the area was simultaneously a vassal to both the Holy Roman Empire and Denmark, the Dukes of Holstein-Gottorp owed equal allegiance to both. In regards to the France-England issues after the conquest, there were lots of situations where the same person held vassal titles on both sides of the Channel. Remember that, besides the fact that the early post-Conquest kings of England were also Dukes of Normandy (and thus nominal vassals of the King of France per that role), the next English dynasty, the House of Plantagenet also had many French fiefs, most importantly the Duchy of Anjou. Throw into the mix the inheritances of Eleanor of Aquitaine which passed to the Plantagenets, and larges swathes of France were controlled by the English king as a vassal of France. The Montfort of Brittany were prominent noble families in the independent Duchy of Brittany with titles in France (the county of Montfort-l'Amaury) and England (Earl of Leicester and Earl of Chester). There's also the interesting case of Richard, 1st Earl of Cornwall, who was also Count of Poitou and King of the Romans (German King). You can probably find hundreds of people who held fiefs in multiple countries. --Jayron32 03:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The dukes of Burgundy (cadets and vassals of France) acquired territories (most of Belgium) in the Holy Roman Empire. —Tamfang (talk) 02:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

And the Hohenzollerns had several fiefs in Germany proper (the biggest being Brandenburg) as well as the duchy of Prussia in Poland. —Tamfang (talk) 20:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Tamfang, can you name any specific, non-kingly people as examples? Thanks! 24.209.99.109 (talk) 15:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, no specific non-kingly people have stuck to my mind. —Tamfang (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about titles of nobility in multiple kingdoms beyond medieval times

From memory, this is not just a medieval issue; I seem to recall that in Elizabethan times, many of the Scots nobles also had English titles. I think their loyalties were fairly well understood, but they did have options if/when circumstances changed in one country or the other. --Dweller (talk) 12:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

To move it to a more modern era... During the Napoleonic Wars, Admiral Lord Nelson was made Duke of Brontë by the King of Naples (and the title came with land). Blueboar (talk) 14:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Wellington received Portuguese, Spanish and Imperial titles, too. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

And some land in Belgium. —Tamfang (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's an interesting detail: the Spanish titles could become separated from the British titles because Spain has legislated absolute primogeniture. The second heir apparent to the titles is now either a girl or her twin brother, Wikipedia doesn't know which! —Tamfang (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The seperation was possible even before the introduction of absolute primogeniture. Anne Rhys inherited the Spanish titles from her brother, while the English titles passed to their uncle. Rhys, however, ceded her titles to their uncle, and thus the present Duke of Wellington is also Duke of Ciudad Rodrigo. Therefore, I think the titles probably won't be seperated any time soon. Surtsicna (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Another Presidential Election question

Here in the UK, the serious TV news programmes are busy dissecting the election results, and attach particular significance to Mr Obama's support from the black and Latino communities. My question; how on earth do they know the ethnicity of a particular voter? Do you have to write it on your ballot paper when you vote? Alansplodge (talk) 20:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

No, ballots are anonymous. They make these estimates on the basis of exit polling. Looie496 (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Results are reported per precinct (at least in some states), as are exit polls. To the extent that Americans live in racial segregation, this gives a clue (for some places a strong clue) as to the votes cast by different social groups. If you compare a precinct result map like this one with the ethnic information collected by the census, you know quite a lot about who voted for whom. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 20:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

For example, put a Brooklyn ZIP code (say 11201) into this site to see the racial/ethnic data for that area. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 21:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Lest Finlay's comment cause confusion, I'd like to clarify that laws mandating racial segregation in the USA have been abolished in the 1960s, and any segregation that is observed now is due either to economic disparities (in most cases), or to the minority group self-segregating in order to feel a sense of community. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 00:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

That's interesting. London is VERY multiracial, but you wouldn't be able to tell anything about the ethnicity of the voters in any given area, as everybody is jumbled in with each other. Alansplodge (talk) 02:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Would London (or the UK) actually have race based statistics? Not all countries bother as much with race as the USA. Such figures don't exist in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 06:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's in the census every 10 years. Alansplodge (talk) 09:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The Australian census asks a question about ancestry, not race. It includes Australian as an option, plus Other (please specify). That provides pretty meaningless results. HiLo48 (talk) 09:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The American census has the same format regarding "race", which includes a space for "other" as well. See here question 9. Historically, institutions within the U.S. used the social construct of "race" to disadvantage entire groups of people. Thus, the U.S. Federal Government has an interest in gathering this data to ensure that it doesn't happen anymore. Without the data, it is hard to check on the progress of society in eliminating the current inequities and iniquities wrought on the American society created by such historical institutional discrimination. --Jayron32 14:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe the British police, or a large proportion of them, are still required to fill out a form every time they "stop" someone (and presumably if they "stop and search" them or arrest them as well), and the main component of the form asks what ethnicity the person considers themselves to be. One presumes this is for approximately the same purpose as the one Jayron alludes to, namely being able to check by statistics that certain ethnicities are not being "stopped" unduly frequently. Personally, I further assume (without having bothered to check) this is either due to the 1980s difficulties with stop and search, or to the later allegations that a particular part of the British police was institutionally racist. That latter term deserves some further reading because the word "unwitting" is used with some emphasis in the definition of institutional racism in the UK - these were "good faith" racist policemen, but their apparently acting in good faith did not change the fact that their service was not doing its job properly. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Australia didn't have a history of institutional black slavery or the Jim Crow laws either, so there's that... --Jayron32 06:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Quite true. HiLo48 (talk) 06:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Really? When Bowie was making the Let's Dance video, he reported that ordinarily Aborigines were not allowed inside the rural establishment in which much of the first section of the video was filmed... AnonMoos (talk) 11:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Exactly when did Aboriginals get the vote federally in Australia again? As a practical matter, ignoring the few grandfathered at Federation.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

See Voting rights of Australian Aborigines. But this is not relevant to "institutional black slavery". Our social sins are at the other end of the spectrum, institutional black neglect. There are the Stolen Generations, but that's more akin to institutional abduction than slavery. Its only saving grace is that individual cases were well-intentioned under the attitudes of the time, which can never be said for slavery. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

No reporting of the votes from Tower Hamlets? -- AnonMoos (talk) 04:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget - Tower Hamlets does not have a non-white majority. It doesn't have an absolute majority of any single ethnic group at all; the only local authority area in the UK that does not have an absolute white majority. White people still form a plurality there. So it's a good example of how ethnically mixed London is, but it's also a reminder that compared to the USA, the UK is pretty white. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

This morning's Metro in London had a detailed socio-demographic breakdown of the US vote, which it sourced from exit polling. --Dweller (talk) 12:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Who's inherited Agatha Christie's estate?

Rosalind Hicks, only child of Christie, owned £6 million at death. That seems as kind of little, considering all the novels, translations and film rights that her mother would have accrued over time. Intrakiu (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a mystery, but the clues are there. This BBC article gives details of her will (blue box on right) and states she "managed to dispose of most of her wealth before she died." Clarityfiend (talk) 23:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Even so, history is full of cases of people who inherit great wealth and manage to blow all or most of it. Howard Hughes, for example. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

"I pleaded with Aggie over and over again to no avail," said Warrin Baffit, the last witness to see her fortune intact. "At least, switch to a firm with offices, not one that conducts business in clients' homes, I said. But she wouldn't listen to me. She was done in by Scarlet and Mustard Investment Advisors with junk bonds in the billiard room." Clarityfiend (talk) 01:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Odd choice, Jack. Hughes left a $2.5 billion estate. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Let me explain my allegedly odd choice. Intrakiu assumed (until you set him right) that most of Christie's massive earnings were sitting in the bank at her death, and that it all went to Rosalind. But all Rosalind left at her own death was a paltry £6 million, which would have been chicken feed compared to what Agatha Christie must have earned. If we did not now know (thanks to you) that Christie got rid of most of her money, we might be tempted to explain Rosalind's relative poverty by surmising that she was left far more than £6 million, but managed to lose most of it. Howard Hughes was an exactly similar case. He was bequeathed a fortune but lost it all, before getting his financial house in order and becoming a self-made billionaire. He did, as I said, "manage to blow all or most of" the fortune he was left by his father. What he made later had nothing to do with his father's wealth, because that was all gone. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

November 8

Newt Gingrich's moon base idea

Newt Gingrich suggested that once 13,000 Americans are living on the moon, they can apply to become the 51st state [11]. Is this 13,000 number a reference to anything? A SF story perhaps? Or did he just pull it out of his rear-end? Apparently the actual minimum population required in order to apply for statehood is 60,000.A8875 (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Constitutionally, the minimum is whatever Congress says it is. Maybe Newt could kill two birds with one stone by establishing an orphanage on the moon... AnonMoos (talk) 01:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

As opposed to shipping aborted fetuses there? What is the purpose of your political comment?, Anon? μηδείς (talk) 02:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Orphanages were one of Gingrich's most prominent past half-baked ideas (and it didn't have much to do with abortion, either). Take a look at "Newt Gingrich: 8 of the GOP idea man's more unusual ideas"... -- AnonMoos (talk) 04:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe they count six times as much, owing to the gravity of the situation. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Can't find anything by way of reliable sources one way or the other about the minimum population needed for a new state, although some non-RS commentary out in the big old Internet seems to be suggesting that the 60,000 limit in the Northwest Ordinance only applied to new states created from the Northwest Territory and wasn't to be considered a binding limit. There is another suggestion floating around out there that a new state has to have a population greater than that of the smallest existing state (by population, so New State > Wyoming) but again, I can't find anything reliable to support that, so I think AnonMoos has it right as above. I am not going to plough through the Outer Space Treaty at this time in the night, but if memory serves me, while a nation can't claim the Moon in its entirety, much like spacecraft, a base on the Moon does remain the property of the constructing nation. (Open to correction here, of course) Going by precedence, for example in the Enabling Act of 1802, a representative body of those living there would have to be established and that would negotiate the terms of admission to the Union. As for a SF inspiration, there are probably a lot out there although I can't think of any that would include that number. But one vague memory from my childhood springs to mind from when the TV station here in the late 70s ¹ used to buy failed (and therefore cheap) US pilots to fill in the Saturday afternoon schedule, and that is a thing called Earth II (not be confused with 1990s series). Not quite a new US state and not on the Moon, but the method of determining whether it should be independent was kinda cool. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 02:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Note 1: Yes, just the one TV channel... really. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 02:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

AnonMoos is correct. Congress admits new states, and congress also declares the rules for admitting new states (with some restrictions under Article 4). Someguy1221 (talk) 02:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Our article History of Nevada mentions that that state was admitted although it probably did not have the 40,000 customary minimum, but that is unsourced and I've also read it was to give Lincoln additional Republican votes.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• See 51st state. (We're going to have to rename that article! And probably split up the content when we rethink the name) There are all manner of differently sized entities - American Samoa, Guam, Virgin Islands - that want statehood, but people will appropriately be reluctant to hand out a lot of different Senators to just a few people. (The U.S. Senate allocates two per state, regardless of size) As Puerto Rico is 29th in the U.S. according to population, this is not really a valid complaint in their case. Wnt (talk) 17:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Good luck custom -- only in England?

Does the belief that shaking hands with a chimney sweep can bring good luck only exist in England, or are there similar good-luck customs in Continental Europe as well? Thanks in advance! 24.23.196.85 (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

+ 1. Touching a chimney sweep (Germany). --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 01:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Original research, but my mum had a little souvenir model of a sweep that she bought in Paris in the 1950s. Not sure about shaking hands though. Alansplodge (talk) 01:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! 24.23.196.85 (talk) 06:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

In America it is good luck to shake hands with Dick Van Dyke. μηδείς (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I know! 24.23.196.85 (talk) 23:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Precedent for marriage referendums?

In the recent election, three states ratified same-sex marriage at the ballot box. It has been noted by gay rights advocates that this is the first time such referendums have yielded a favorable result. However, is this merely a case of "first in the USA" or is it actually "first in the world"? I can't recall any other political entity legalizing same-sex marriage by popular vote. It seems to me that in every place where it is legal, it has come about as a result of judicial decision or enactment by a legislature. (Indeed, the practice of holding a referendum on such an issue is pretty rare outside the United States.) So would it be accurate to characterize the referendums of November 7th 6th as the world's first ratification of same-sex marriage by direct popular vote? LANTZY^TALK 06:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

AFAIK, that would be correct. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 06:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Nitpick: The referenda were on November 6. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

In my defense, opinions differ. LANTZY^TALK 08:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Famous people surviving catastrophes early in life

I remembered today that as an infant Elvis Presley survived the F5 Tupelo tornado of the 1936 Tupelo–Gainesville tornado outbreak. What other cases from history are there where someone who grew up to be relatively famous/influential survived some kind of catastrophe early in life (or even anytime before accomplishing what made them well known)? Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 09:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

How famous? The Dunera Boys were an interesting bunch. HiLo48 (talk) 09:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Andy Murray was at the school in Dunblane when the massacre took place. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. "As an eight-year-old, he hid in the headmaster’s office as Thomas Hamilton brought terror to the school, shooting dead 16 children and a teacher." Article here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The entire Lutheran movement may never have happened had Martin Luther not been caught in a lightning storm on 2 July 1505 and prayed to St Anne to save him if he promised to become a monk. Having survived, he felt bound by his oath, one thing led to another, and the rest is, literally, history. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Joseph Fraunhofer was buried under rubble when the glassmaker's workshop were he was working as a teenager collapsed. He was pulled from the rubble by the Prince-Elector of Bavaria and went on to become an influential physicist. Gabbe (talk) 11:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Elsie Bowerman was the first woman barrister at the Old Bailey. As a 22 yr old, she had survived the sinking of the Titanic. --Dweller (talk) 12:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• André Laguerre, the man who essentially invented modern sports journalism, survived the Dunkirk evacuation after his ship was sunk. He had a really interesting life. --Jayron32 14:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

But what about all of the famous and influential people that didn't survive an early catastrophe? Blakk and ekka 17:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

That Kennedy guy with the very big exploding aeroplane was one of those, I think. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of the Kennedys (and who doesn't), during WWII John F. Kennedy survived the ramming by a Japanese destroyer and sinking of Motor Torpedo Boat PT-109, which incident killed 2 of his colleagues and badly injured some others. He later went on to have a mildly successful political career. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

George H. W. Bush was shot down over the Pacific during World War II. Duoduoduo (talk) 20:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr. wasn't all that famous or influential when he died. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Are we considering fictional characters: Kal-El. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Another one. Sir John Gorton was shot down no less than 3 times during WWII, enduring major facial scarring. But he survived and became one of the funkiest Australian Prime Ministers in the past 50 years. Probably the only one I'd tar with that epithet. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Althought the article for Wilford Woodruff (the 4th President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) doesn't go into it or tell any of the stories, he survived a whole bunch of horrific stuff as a child. I'll try to find some links. Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 19:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Elsie Bowerman was a survivor of the Titanic and later went on to become the first woman admitted to practice law before the Old Bailey. 216.93.234.239 (talk) 07:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Already listed above. Gabbe (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

In "The Book Thief", what is the author, Markus Zusak, trying to say about certain issues in relation to conflict?

What is the author trying to teach/say about conflict through the characters and events that take place? Examples include:

• Max (being a jew) and his conflict against society (individual vs society),
• Hans and his conflict against society (individual vs society),
• Death experiencing inner conflict in relation to humanities ways (inner conflict),
• Liesel and her conflict with words and her brothers death (inner conflict).

Anyway those are just a few examples of conflict I picked up on, through these, and other means, what is the author trying to teach about conflict? Any help is greatly appreciated :) 220.233.20.37 (talk) 11:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

You evidently wanted to make a list on separate lines, so I helped you by inserting bullets to achieve that format. I also linked the title and author to help readers remind themselves of the context. Hope you don't mind. —Tamfang (talk) 21:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, thats completely fine, thank you. Now, I just need an some answers. 220.233.20.37 (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Yet another US election question - small-town results

This story reports the results from Dixville Notch, New Hampshire, where the votes were five each to Obama and Romney. Surely announcing results at this level of detail comes close to violating the secrecy of the ballot, especially as at least one voter told interviewers how he had voted (of course he could have been lying, I suppose). Is there any minimum number below which the results would not be disclosed? AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Dixville Notch is simply reporting the results after the polls close, which is perfectly proper. I don't think there's a minimum, and I suppose there are examples of only one person voting in a precinct, which would make for certain identification of the voter's votes. I have never heard that anything has been done about it, perhaps because if there's only one person voting in that precinct, it must be a trivial election. Just after midnight is the only time you can vote there; I assume anyone unable to be present votes absentee, and given the small number of voters, such things are tolerable in the greater good of having a story every four years which brings publicity, and I daresay tourism to an otherwise unremarkable and remote hamlet in the mountains.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Dixville Notch is basically a curiosity. It's a tiny unincorporated village in the mountains of New Hampshire that decided like, 50 years ago, that they were going to make the news by being the "first in the nation" to vote. It's kinda their thing. You can look back through media reports for decades, and the results from Dixville Notch make the news on Election mornings all the time. It isn't any small town, it's just Dixville Notch. (Though occasionally some other little village tries to steal their thunder. I think some media outlets this year also reported the results from Hart's Location, New Hampshire as well). That is, don't read anything into it. It's just Dixville Notch, and it's just what they do. It doesn't mean anything institutional about the U.S. election system. --Jayron32 13:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I do have an institutional question about the US election system. In Australia, electorates tend to be more or less equal sized by population and for the most part polling places also tend to cover comparatively sized populations, all centrally determined by the Australian Electoral Commission. A town can't just "decide" that it wants to count its votes by itself, so I think it would take a really unusual and unexpected combination of circumstances for a tally board to only have 10 votes on it. How are such mechanical things determined in the US? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Dixville Notch is not an electorate nor is it a municipality. It's a few mountains and a post office, and a few homes, in northern New Hampshire, and a resort hotel which this helps with publicity. It forms a part of districts which elect various legislators, but it elects nothing by itself.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Wehwalt, I undersatnd that it is not an electorate - in Australia the smallest unit which would have its own vote tally would be a polling place, and I have assumed that by the fact that Dixvill Notch publishes its own tally, that it is a polling place (or the equivalent concept - "precinct", I think, based on Jayron's explanation below. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, in the U.S. it comes down to our own unique brand of federalism (see Federalism in the United States). In the U.S., elections are a state issue (there are no "nationally elected" office, except indirectly, even the President is indirectly elected). The way state sovereignty is handled in the U.S. elections are one of those things that the Feds aren't involved in, except in a few issues. The Supreme Court has interpreted that, constitutionally, there a few basic principles that every state election has to follow (mostly regarding access to the polls, i.e. states can't discriminate who can vote based on race/ethnicity etc.) However, beyond that elections are considered part of state sovereignty: each state gets to decide how to organize and run its own elections, including the format of the ballot, the hours when polling occurs, the locations and sizes of voting precincts, etc. In the U.S., population distribution is very uneven, so there are some locations where tens of thousands of people could reach a single polling station on foot, while in others you could have a few hundred people scattered over hundreds of square miles. Thus, the number of people in a "precinct" in New York City (that is, the number of people who are assigned to vote at a single location) would by necessity be very different than in, say, northern New England. --Jayron32 14:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, very clear explanation! --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

One consequence of leaving-it-to-the-states is that the polls close at widely different times. The folks in Alaska might still have been voting when all the networks agreed that Obama had clinched it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I think another aspect is that the only people who would have standing to sue for privacy violation are the actual residents, so if none of them mind nothing will be done. If a state wanted to designate one of us as a "precinct" and publish our votes, we could sue. Wnt (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

when did scientists first get paid?

As you know, natural philosophers do their business for free. They never get paid before. When did they first get paid? Is it happened in Paris? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003winner (talk • contribs) 13:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Robert Hooke was paid to be secretary of the Royal Society. There are probably earlier cases in Europe, and then there are the Islamic world, India, China and Antiquity to consider. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Define "scientist" and "paid". Jābir ibn Hayyān (AKA "Geber") was a "court alchemist" in the court of the Abbasid Caliph. Under any reasonable modern definition, Geber did "science" (he did controlled experiments, expanded the corpus of scientific knowledge, etc. etc.). He had a job, received compensation, and did science as part of that job. I doubt he was the first nor only medieval Persian/Arabic scientist. --Jayron32 13:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

And maybe Archimedes could qualify. King Hiero of Syracuse commissioned him to design siege engines for the defense of the city. Undoubtedly Archimedes received some kind of compensation for his work. It might be argued that he served more as an engineer than a scientist, but considering that Archimedes invented all his machines himself, through the use of mathematics and experiments, I think it would be fair to call that science. - Lindert (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention Imhotep, the earliest scientist we know by name, I believe. He worked officially as chancellor to the pharoah and high priest of Ra. Looie496 (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Galileo is generally considered the father of modern science. Like many if not most scientists, Galileo was a paid teacher. So I would say that scientists have been paid from the very beginning. Of course, it is true, as Jayron points out, that there were earlier alchemists and others who did work that, though not in our modern scientific tradition, is difficult to differentiate from what scientists do. John M Baker (talk) 16:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

During the Renaissance, "natural philosophers" were often supported by royal or aristocratic patrons, who provided facilities and finance to allow them to carry on their work. John Dee worked for Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester and Elizabeth I of England among others. However, his useful work in astronomy, mathematics and navigation were somewhat overshadowed by his obsession with talking to angels - the boundaries between science, religion and superstition was still something of a grey area. William Gilberd, who discovered the earth's magnetic field (compasses had previously been thought to point to an undiscovered magnetic island), was employed at the court of Elizabeth I as a medical physician. Alansplodge (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

It's reasonable to assume that the first paid scientist existed in antiquity. That is, before historic records. StuRat (talk) 18:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Any day now! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

A better question than asking when a scientist was first paid is to ask when science became a profession — that is, something that more than just something that rich and/or extremely eccentric people did in their spare time because they were curious, or something that rich guys paid lackeys to look into because it was a sign of how rich they were. When did it become something that someone could say, "hey, I'd like to do that for a living!" There isn't a single "the first time it happened" sort of answer to that question, but rather shifting trends. Many people date the founding of the Royal Society of London as a key moment, here, because it gave official sanction to this sort of investigation and started things like the first regular journals. But generally speaking historians like to say that the 19th century is when it really became fully professionalized, when "science" started to look like how we do it today (in terms of training, class backgrounds, publication systems, reward systems, shared values, etc.) as opposed to the stuff that looks nothing like modern science (e.g. how Newton trained and worked). It is not coincidental that this was the point in time in which "scientist" was coined as a term. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's a relevant quote from Bachelor of Science: The first university to admit a student to the degree of Bachelor of Science was the University of London in 1860. Prior to this, science subjects were included in the B.A. bracket, notably in the cases of mathematics, physics, physiology and botany. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Our article on the Holocaust reads that Freemasons were also targeted, how did the Nazis know who was a Freemason?

Isn't it a secret? Netwwork (talk) 14:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't directly answer your question, but, when you think about it, how did the Nazis know who was Jewish? Or a Communist? The Nazis were never ones to let the facts get in the way of a bit of mass-murder; hence, suspicion was often all that was needed.

An article from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum offers a bit more insight: basically, the mechanics were similar to the ways in which other 'Untermensch' were identified - through a network of informers, along with a highly sophisticated system of record keeping. When a Grand Lodge was raided, the archives would be captured and used to identify members. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 14:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, membership in a Masonic Lodge is not necessarily kept secret. A lot depends on the country, of course... in places where Freemasonry is illegal (and especially if the Masons are persecuted) membership will be kept secret. However, in most western democracies there is no need for secrecy. Freemasons tend to be quite proud of their fraternity, and will let others know of their involvement (American Freemasons are know for taking this pride to extremes - wearing great big Masonic rings and lapel pins, placing Masonic bumper stickers on their cars, etc.) This was the case in Germany, prior to the rise of the Nazis... being a Freemason was actually thought of as a good thing (at least in some circles of society)... membership was considered socially prestigious. So it was not kept secret. Blueboar (talk) 15:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

WHAAOE, as the saying goes. See Suppression_of_Freemasonry#Nazi_Germany_and_occupied_Europe. Also, I should correct something I wrote earlier: the Freemasons would not have been characterised as 'Untermensch', that term being reserved for members of races which the Nazis considered 'subhuman' - the Jews, Slavs and Gypsies. The broader term for those the Nazis found undesirable - including the disabled, Communists and Freemasons - was 'Lebensunwertes Leben' - Life unworthy of life. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

No, sorry. "Lebensunwertes Leben" was identified on pseudo-biological principles, and included racial criteria, birth defects, and so on. Young, healthy, blond, "arian" communists and freemasons were not killed for pseudo-biological reasons, but simply because they were politically opposed to the Nazis. They were targeted systematically, because they had the organisation to mount significant resistance. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The terminology that the Nazis used for Freemasons and other "subversive" groups, I believe, was "enemies of the state" -- same as in the USSR under the Communists. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 23:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Are people such as Michael J. Fox, Jim Carrey allowed to vote in both Canada and the U.S.?

They hold both citizenships. Netwwork (talk) 14:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Probably... I don't know about the rules in Canada, but in the US holding dual citizenship does not disqualify you from the vote. If you are a US citizen, you are entitled to vote. Where you are entitled vote depends on your stated place of residence (ie where you are registered). Blueboar (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Holding a second citizenship does not affect a US citizen's right to vote in the US. If he lives outside the US he can still vote in the last place he resided in the US.

Anyone know about whether they can also vote in Canada? I would be extremely surprised if they cannot, because a dual citizen can even legally be the Governor General of Canada, as Michaëlle Jean was before public pressure led her to renounce French citizenship. Duoduoduo (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Ever since the Afroyim v. Rusk court decision, it's U.S. policy to treat dual citizens exactly the same as purely-U.S. citizens. However, official policy also discourages people from acquiring dual citizenship or acting on it, because it tends to cause trouble with other countries (which the State Dept is too polite to specify). The U.S. Embassy in Canada explains it a bit, but sadly doesn't hint as to whether Canada is one of the troublemakers. The only exception is that "no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State." In other words, see Valdas Adamkus: he was a U.S. citizen until he became the President of Lithuania, at which point he was still a dual citizen, but he became ineligible from working for the U.S. government. As it happens, Mr. Adamkus renounced his U.S. citizenship because the Lithuanians made it pretty obvious that they expect that of their presidents. --M@rēino 15:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like we care too much in Canada: the current leader of the opposition in parliament is Thomas Mulcair who has dual citizenship with France and Canada. Mingmingla (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I wonder why that isn't in the article. There are lots of references to it. Bielle (talk) 23:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Any Canadian citizen living abroad can vote in Canadian federal elections, provided s/he has lived outside of Canada for less than 5 consecutive years, and s/he intends to return to Canada. Having also a foreign citizenship is not a factor per se. (Of course, if the person's foreign citizenship is acquired by naturalization in a foreign country, it probably means that he's spent too long outside of Canada to be eligible to vote anymore). -- Vmenkov (talk) 01:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Is it true that Hitler first killed his dog to test the pills?

Netwwork (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

This article by Louis Bülow says; "He (Hitler) had lunch as usual at 2 o'clock in the afternoon with his two secretaries and his cook. He now began making systematic preparations to commit suicide. He supervised the poisoning of his beloved dog Blondi and her pups and shortly after 3 p.m. he and Eva Braun bade farewell to the staff, assembled in the bunker, and retired to their private room to carry out their decision." So in this author's version, it seems to have been was out of concern for the dog. "Louis Bulow, is the director of the www.auschwitz.dk website and writes essays on the Holocaust."[12] Note that Hitler actually shot himself in the head, although Eva Braun did take poison. Alansplodge (talk) 17:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Do we know for sure that President Obama will be able to appoint more Supreme Court judges?

One of the issues that seemed to come up a lot in the US election - especially in discussions around abortion - was that the winner of the election might potentially be able to shape the direction of US affairs for years to come, through the appointment of Supreme Court judges. Yet I notice from that article that SCOTUS judges have lifetime tenure. Is there any guarantee, therefore, that there will be vacancies to fill? Have any judges expressed a desire or wish to retire? I note that a number of the judges are in their 70s, but other than death, presumably they could choose not to retire until there was a president more suited to their own viewpoints. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 15:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• You are correct. The Justices have always had lifetime tenure, and in recent years, they have made a custom of retiring during the term of a president with similar views as them. Right now, all of the Justices are fairly healthy and clearly enjoy their jobs, but the oldest Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, is 79, a double-cancer survivor, and has a Constitutional philosophy that is almost totally identical to President Obama's. So most people expect Ginsburg will step down some time over the next 4 years. --M@rēino 16:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• • That was certainly the case with William O. Douglas, a great champion of civil liberties, who basically held on to the seat (and his principles) as long as he was physically able. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Stephen Breyer is also in his 70s. Given his relatively liberal philosophy, he might also be expected to retire during Obama's term to assure that he is not replaced by a conservative. Marco polo (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Scanning the lists of justices, and looking at the current slate, it seems that, on average, there's a new justice every 3-4 years or so. That is, most presidents appoint 1-2 justices in a 4-year term and 2-4 justices in an 8-year term. Reagan added 4 justices (O'Connor, Stevens, Scalia, and Kennedy), Bush Sr. added two (Souter and Thomas), Clinton added 2 (Ginsburg and Breyer), Bush Jr. added 2 (Roberts, Alito) and Obama has so far added 2 (Kagan and Sotomayor). I would hazard that 1-2 would probably be added in the next term, based on age and health I'd say that Ginsburg is probably the next to retire. --Jayron32 21:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Stevens was a Ford appointee; hope no article lists him as Reagan.John Z (talk) 19:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

However, a lot of the recent appointees are relatively young (for SC Justices), and that will skew the historical averages. Blueboar (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I was prepared to build a case for exactly that, and spent the better part of thirty minutes researching and creating a nice little table to make exactly the case you were. The reality is that the recent nominees have been almost exactly average for all nominees across history. When I compared the current court to the one from 100 years ago, the ages of that court, at the date they were appointed, were 55, 61, 49, 54, 65, 51, 53, 54, and 56. The 65 year old was Horace Harmon Lurton, the oldest ever Supreme Court appointee, and a statistical outlier. The current court ages, at the date of appointment, were 50, 50, 51, 43, 60, 56, 55, 55, 50. The range looks quite similar, with most people being appointed in their early-to-mid 50s, with a few older and a few younger. --Jayron32 23:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Also looked at the 1812 court. The ages of that court, on the day they were each appointed, were: 45, 36, 33, 50, 42, 58, 32 (there were only 7 back then). So that court was much younger than either the 1912 or 2012 court. It'd be interesting to see a graph of the age of each appointee the date they were appointed, but it looks like there isn't any validity that current justices are appointed at a significantly younger age, I mean 3 people on the 1812 court were appointed in their 30s, I can't imagine anyone being appointed so young today. --Jayron32 00:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

A few years ago I counted up and found that 110 supreme judges had been appointed during the first 110 terms of Congress. It would make sense (to me at least) to remove the "jackpot" threat by allowing the President one appointment every two years, irrespective of "vacancies". I worked out how the size of the Court might fluctuate under such a rule assuming that the same judges were appointed in the same order and retired (or died) when they did in the real world. —Tamfang (talk) 02:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• This news item from Electoral-vote.com gives an overview of the situation, including a neat visual of the justices from oldest to youngest. --BDD (talk) 23:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

From Breyer's appointment in 1994 til Rehnquist's death in 2005, there were no retirements in or new appointments to the Court. In particular there were zero appointments in Clinton's second term and in GW Bush's first term. Obama so far is considered to have moved the court slightly rightward (he replaced two liberals with two moderates) and if Ginsberg or Breyer retires it will be approximately the same situation again (i.e. he'd replace some older judges with younger ones but the overall ideological balance wouldn't change much). AFAIK none of the conservative majority is showing signs of going anywhere anytime soon (even the oldest of them can still potentially sit through several more Presidential terms) so any change to the court's overall tilt will come from one of Obama's successors rather than Obama. If Romney had been elected, it's the same picture: he'd have gotten to replace older conservatives with younger ones but not change the immediate balance. (Added: unless Ginsberg's health forced her to retire during a Romney administration, or (maybe less likely) Breyer has some currently unanticipated problem). 67.119.3.105 (talk) 07:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Supplementary questions

• Given the American propensity to elect everyone from the President almost down to the check-out chicks at the local supermarket, how come Supreme Court judges aren't elected?

• And given the term limits the USA is so fond of, or the age limits that apply to supreme/high court judges in many other developed countries, how come they don't apply to US Supreme Court judges, thus removing from them the possibility of exercising the very "political interference" they're supposedly above, which they can appear to exercise by choosing to resign during a presidency when they're most likely to be replaced by a like-minded judge? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 12:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The theory is that justices do not need so much to be representative of the people as to have integrity, wisdom, and impartiality, especially the latter. (Notwithstanding that, judges in some states are elected.) Avoiding frequent appointments is a way of promoting impartiality, although the ability to time resignations shows that no system is perfect. The idea is that justices should not think that they have to please the executive in order to be re-appointed. Many people believe that there should be a maximum retirement age, but there is no agreement on this or on what the maximum age should be if one is imposed. Many famous justices continued to produce impressive work at quite advanced ages.

As to the premise of your first question, while our 18th century constitutional founders wanted to move the country toward democracy and away from a monarchical system, they also had a profound distrust of the people. The original constitution provided for direct election of only U.S. Representatives; Senators were appointed by state governments, Presidents were elected by the Electoral College, and other governmental officials were nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. We now have direct election of Senators, and the Electoral College now is widely acknowledged to be an anachronism, but the nomination and confirmation of other government officials works largely as the founders intended. John M Baker (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec)::Concerning judicial tenure, a related historical event is given in Article Three of the United States Constitution#Number of courts:

The Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937, frequently called the court-packing plan,[1] was a legislative initiative to add more justices to the Supreme Court proposed by U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt shortly after his victory in the 1936 presidential election. Although the bill aimed generally to overhaul and modernize all of the federal court system, its central and most controversial provision would have granted the President power to appoint an additional Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court for every sitting member over the age of 70½, up to a maximum of six.

While I can't find anything in Wikipedia about it, the idea of judicial tenure (and I would assume (?) the idea at the time it was written into the Constitution) is that it shields the court from being intimidated into making rulings that the president wants for political reasons rather than making rulings based on the actual constitution or actual acts of Congress. Sure, it's politicized now in terms of liberal or conservative presidents appointing justices with a liberal or conservative judicial philosophy, but once the judge is appointed s/he can call them as s/he sees them. Just look at Chief Justice Roberts, appointed by George W. Bush, voting to uphold Obamacare, or Justice David Souter appointed by a Republican and turning out to be on the liberal wing of the court.

As for appointing rather than electing justices, again the idea is that too much democracy is a bad thing in practice. Some US states elect rather than appoint their state supreme court justices, and it leads to (opinion alert!) unseemly electioneering that is not focused on the idea of upholding existing law, but rather is focused on telling the public what they want to hear. You could say the same thing as a reason not to elect the president or governor, but then who would appoint them? Electing an official to appoint judges is like electing officials to pass laws -- it's still democracy, but representative democracy rather than direct democracy. Duoduoduo (talk) 16:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The lifetime appointments of US federal judges is part of the system of checks and balances devised by the Framers. The various systems of installing officials (direct election, indirect election, or appointment) each were seen as gameable in their own way, so they used all three systems with mechanisms to keep each other in line. Federal judges in particular get lifetime appointments (including a Constitutional guarantee that their salary won't be lowered) to keep the other branches from being able to exert undue influence on them. At the Supreme Court level judges are sometimes seen moving leftward as they stay in office longer and become more disengaged from the political process. The two that retired during Obama's first term were the most liberal judges on the court (Stevens and Souter) and they were both Republican appointees. In states where judges are elected, there's often a sense that (just like any other politicians) the ones at the higher levels are basically there to serve their campaign donors.

I do have to wonder what happens if Congress tries to legislate that the US Supreme Court is being reorganized, so that the currently serving members still keep their high salaries as the Constitution promises, but their duties are changed so they have to adjudicate traffic tickets all day instead of dealing with anything of weight or influence. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Pencil milling

Why is computer-aided manufacturing needed to produce pencils? Can't they be made with normal non-electronic machines? 2001:18E8:2:1020:158B:CBB9:66C2:7B38 (talk) 16:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

According to the article, pencil milling is the name of a generic manufacturing technique that has little to do with the making of actual pencils. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 17:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes they can be made without computers. Pencil says that they were first made around 1560, in more or less the same form that we have them now. Staecker (talk) 17:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Pencil milling doesn't involve pencils at all. The term is a reference to "A final finishing technique primarily intended to address corners and concave areas not handled by toolpath strategies used earlier in the program."[13] Bus stop (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

A brief overview of the process for making coloured pencils can be seen here. Alansplodge (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Aw, for a moment I thought you were citing "I, Pencil". —Tamfang (talk) 20:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Human nature evolution

If you have a 3000-year-old book that records human experiences with God, as if "God" is a real character, then how relevant would it be to a modern-day person? Can human nature evolve within 3000 years that modern people would have no idea what ancient people thought and thus would find a hard time extracting a personal religious/spiritual meaning? 140.254.226.238 (talk) 16:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The existence of Christianity and Judaism should be plenty of empirical evidence that modern people do find at least one such book relevant (although strictly I don't think any of it is quite 3000 years old). I think it's disingenuous to present a question that is obviously about one or more real religions as though it were an abstract hypothetical. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Dating the Bible is a topic on its own, but most of the Bible is not as old as 3000 for sure. Regarding your question on evolution I have to say that I don't believe species evolve that fast. 3000 years is nothing during evolution. OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

You couldn't get significant genetic evolution in 3000 years, but you could get essentially unlimited cultural evolution. The adult human brain can hold probably over 1000 gigabytes of information. Our genes hold well under 1 gigabyte of meaningful data. Thus the content of our adult minds derives much more from our experiences than from our genes. Looie496 (talk) 17:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

How can you calculate how much information the brain can hold? OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

You can count the number of information-storage elements (modifiable connections between brain cells), and multiply by the capacity of each individual element. That involves a lot of guesswork, but however you do it, you end up with numbers orders of magnitude higher than the genome holds. Looie496 (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

This is interesting: "Maybe being born earlier is better if you’re a cultural animal." I am agreeing with the statement above (by Looie) that "You couldn't get significant genetic evolution in 3000 years, but you could get essentially unlimited cultural evolution." Bus stop (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a book The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind that argues precisely that human consciousness changed drastically around 1200 BC, and that people before that experienced reality much differently than we do now. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 06:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I suspect that the average first-worlder, at least, has very different basic mental constructs than the illiterate Bronze Age nomadic shepherd tribesmen who were the intended audience of the original Old Testament; from taking literacy and the ability to access a written text for granted to an intrinsic bias towards Cartesian reductionism and materialism. Thus, even if the original text was intended to be considered infallible, the fundamentalist approach today is not any kind of return to original intent. Furthermore, background default attitudes today are different, often because of the pervasive influence of the Bible itself; for one, the Binding of Isaac story which can upset folks today must have had a very different effect on the original audience, living in a time when child sacrifice was actually prevalent and (spoiler) letting Isaac go was a surprise ending; but after thousands of years of reading that story, it's the original suggestion of child sacrifice that seems abnormal. Gzuckier (talk) 06:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

It's even ironic in a way. A lot of major religions today began as rebellions against conservative older traditions. The concept of being kind to slaves and women were probably radical in Abraham's time. The total pacifism extending even to animals and plants of the Jains were probably laughably strange to the Vedic priests and their ritual sacrifices. Buddha leapt past not only the older pantheon of Hinduism but made the rigid caste society of Hinduism irrelevant by proposing that individual souls can achieve greater enlightenment than even divinity. Sikhs did the same thing a few centuries later by advocating total equality, regardless of gender, beliefs, or caste. The concept of questioning the high priests and forgiving sinners instead of stoning them was outright blasphemous in Jesus' time that it eventually led to his death. Protestantism, even more so, as it began as very literal rebellions against the total church control of literacy and hence Biblical interpretation. Ahmadiyyah, Baha'i, Quakers, Unitarian Universalists, etc. all had similar origins of attempting to get past the fossilized and sometimes oppressive older traditions that more often than not, have lost their relevance already. Fast forward a few thousand years later, and it's now the followers of most of these once revolutionary religions who have become the older traditions, defending themselves against newer ideas seeking to do the same thing they once did.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 10:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Native American voting patterns

Especially in the wake of this most recent US presidential election, I've seen plenty of stories about how Hispanics voted, how Asians voted, how Jews voted. But although I consider myself a pretty big political junkie, I don't think I've ever seen solid statistics on how Native Americans vote. They're often presumed a Democratic constituency, which seems reasonable, but I'd be interested to look at some real numbers if anyone has them. --BDD (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

If you can't find direct numbers, you might look at numbers for areas which are largely native American (that is, reservations). StuRat (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree -- it doesn't seem like they'd generally show up in exit surveys, but could look at numbers in Navajo country or certain parts of South Dakota... AnonMoos (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

They vote overwhelmingly Democratic, from what I understand. They apparently swung the US Senate election in North Dakota this week.[14] 67.119.3.105 (talk) 06:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Do Indians living on reservations have the right to vote in US elections? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You're joking, right? Of course they do. Pfly (talk) 10:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems a fair question from a local, given a lot of history and given this quote from Indian reservations: Because tribes possess tribal sovereignty, even though it is limited, laws on tribal lands vary from the surrounding area. These laws can permit legal casinos on reservations, for example, which attract tourists. The tribal council, not the local or federal government, generally has jurisdiction over reservations. Different reservations have different systems of government, which may or may not replicate the forms of government found outside the reservation. Most Indian reservations were established by the federal government; a limited number, mainly in the East, owe their origin to state recognition. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 12:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs -- some Indians didn't have the right to vote at times before 1924 (though I don't think it was as simple as "living on a reservation"); see Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 (which should have guaranteed Indians the right to vote, but according to our article, doesn't seem to have been fully implemented in that respect until 1948)... AnonMoos (talk) 12:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Pfly, it's not as obvious as "of course they do". For example, US citizens residing in any of the five inhabited territories (including natives of four of those five territories, who are citizens by birth) don't have the right to vote for president. Duoduoduo (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I was just surprised that Bugs, who seems to know a lot about the United States, didn't know this. Pfly (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, if Native Americans reservations did not have the right to vote there would be odd holes in election results maps by county, like this one. In that one, the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation jumps out as a very blue county in South Dakota. There are a few counties that are entirely within reservations. Pfly (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

India own 51st state issue

Did countries around India or have relationship with ever think that they were a state of India or the political pundits says Bangladesh, Pakistan or Canada or UK is like "51st state" or "29th state" of India? The latter is my own idea because Canada and UK have larger Indian diaspora than US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.231.220 (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

No, Bangladesh and Pakistan used to be part of India. See Partition of India. The reality is that the modern nation of India was historically never a unified state, excepting when such unification was imposed by an external empire. There were always a wide variety of states and nationalities that existed on the Subcontinent before the British came and sorta crammed them all together and declared them a single entity. Even after the splitting off of Pakistan (later to split into Pakistan and Bangladesh) there has always been an uneasy tension within India regarding all of the various ethnic and nationalist and religious and other geographic and other divisions. Prior to the Mughal, and later British, domination of the Subcontinent (both externally imposed empires), there just was no single nation or unified state. India is no more ethnically uniform than Europe, and used to be as politically divided, the idea of "India" as a single state is relatively modern. --Jayron32 18:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Sikkim was annexed in the 1970s... AnonMoos (talk) 19:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

But the 1961 Indian annexation of Goa was first. Alansplodge (talk) 23:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

And Hyderabad State was annexed by force in 1948, if I'm reading this right. What's your point, Moos or Alan? —Tamfang (talk) 01:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Sikkim was a non-colonial territory associated with independent India, but distinct from it, for over 20 years... AnonMoos (talk) 06:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

There is an equivalent to the "51 state" argument around Nepal, were conspiracy theories of a possible future annexation do float around ("Sikkimization"). It is very much centered around the changing demographics of Nepal, as Hindi-speakers could be or soon be the demographic majority of the country. --Soman (talk) 21:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

India's Own Jesusland but Hindu kind

Which states does Hindu nationalists consider as part of land of Shiva and which states do they consider as part of Pakistan and Bangladesh because of their social stance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.231.220 (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that to Hindu nationalists the term "land of Shiva" means Kashmir. Looie496 (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

There are a number of traditional quasi-religious terms such as "Bharat", "Aryavarta" etc. The original definitions of these terms had nothing to do with the modern borders of Pakistan etc... AnonMoos (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

French Polynesian mayors

I already asked this once but the answer was insufficient and the person who answered just referred to an article I was editing. How do you contact the government of French Polynesia for a list of mayors of Rurutu, a tiny island under their jurisdiction? I really want to know the actual dates of the terms of Toromona Teuruarii as mayor. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

You can contact the government of French Polynesia using information from their "Contact us" page here. Knowledge of French is likely important when doing so, as unsurprisingly the website is in French, as well the person responding to your email or answering the phone will likely be a native French speaker. Incidentally, I got there in two click from the Wikipedia article you linked: The first external link in the Wikipedia article is titled "Government of French Polynesia" and that page has a prominent link in the title bar that says "Nous contacter" which, even if you didn't speak a single word of French, would have been a good guess for a page to contact them... --Jayron32 18:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Parliamentary procedure?

I was watching Prime Minister's Questions today and noticed something I haven't seen before soon after this. Why was the Speaker of the House chastising the Prime Minister? I noticed nothing out of the ordinary, but evidently he did something wrong? Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The members of parliament are only supposed to address the Chair directly, and are not supposed to talk at other members directly. The use of the second person pronoun (you) is definitely against the rules. You can talk about other members, but not to them. You'll notice that Cameron begins his rebuttal fine: he addresses his remarks at the chair physically, and refers to his opponent in the third person. The Speaker doesn't get upset until Cameron turns his attention to the other MP and begins to speak directly to him, and start addressing his remarks "You..." rather than "He..." --Jayron32 19:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) When the Prime Minister responded to one of the Leader of the Opposition's questions, he addressed the Leader as "you." However, parliamentary procedure requires that all remarks in debate be addressed to the Speaker, rather than to another Member. Thus, the Prime Minister had technically violated the proper procedure. It was not a very serious violation, but the Speaker's comment suggests that he has raised the point with the Prime Minister before. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec x 2) Under Standing Orders, all communications are directed to the Speaker, and all references to other members in the House are in the 3rd person. Even then, it's not by their names but by their titles ("The honourable member for Wherever" or "The Minister for Reprehensible Affairs", or "The Leader of the Opposition", etc). Therefore, when a member directly asks another member "Would you do X?", as Cameron did to his Labour opponent across the table, the Speaker is entitled to assume the question is directed at him. Which is why the Speaker denied he would be doing any such thing. The Speaker of course realises he was not being addressed in actuality, but this was apparently the 10th time he's asked Cameron to respect these parliamentary procedures, so he's understandably a little frustrated. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

"So let me ask him: Would you use the veto?" As a matter of formal grammar, this isn't asking the opponent a direct question, this is urging the Speaker to allow him to do so (which would of course be denied, but so what?). Cameron would be on firmer ground if he said: "So I would ask him (if we were to meet outside the House): Would you use the veto?" —Tamfang (talk) 20:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so, I'm not sure that the Speaker would have allowed such a weak attempt to circumvent procedure at that point. You're really not supposed to directly address other MPs during open debate, and using slight linguistic tricks like that would probably not be kosher. If he said "I would ask him if he would use the veto" he'd be fine. The issue is the use of the second person pronoun, which is never supposed to be uttered under any circumstances. Even a weak framing statement like you gave wouldn't be enough to make it within rules, AFAIK. --Jayron32 21:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

To simplify it a bit more: there isn't a staff grammarian on site to parse every phrase to decide, in the moment, what is and isn't a technical violation of Parliamentary Procedure based on the strict rules of grammar. The Speaker is charged, broadly, with the role of maintaining order within the house, and is the final arbiter of what is, and isn't, a violation of House rules. --Jayron32 21:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand that the point of such a requirement (which many other bodies follow as well) is that it can help to reduce interpersonal conflict — if you have to address your issues to the chairman instead of speaking directly to your opponent, you're likely going to be calmer, since you probably don't have anything against the person to whom you're speaking. Nyttend (talk) 21:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Jayron, I think it's slightly overstating the case to say the 2nd person pronoun "is never supposed to be uttered under any circumstances". The prohibition is between members on the floor of the House. But if a member is addressing the Speaker, maybe about a point of order, it's permissible to use 2nd person pronouns to refer to something the Speaker said, for example ("Might I respectfully indicate that your ruling is in direct conflict with one you made yesterday in identical circumstances"). -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Probably, but not much. I'm sure one could find some convoluted situation which would unambiguously be allowed, but from a practical matter, one is not supposed to address anyone except the Speaker. The OP asked what the violation of Parliamentary procedure was in the debate in question. The simplest answer is that Cameron said the word "you". --Jayron32 23:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

But remember that the Speaker should be referred to as 'Mr Speaker', not 'you'. Whilst there might not be an outright 2nd-person ban, I'd expect your sentence to be rendered something like 'Might I respectfully indicate, Mr Speaker, that this ruling is in direct conflict with one made yesterday'. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 22:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Was it luck or police failure?

I read the article on Jeffrey Dahmer and couldn't believe how police had the opportunities to catch him and let him get away. First in 1978 when he committed his first murder, pulled over by police who didn't check the bags in his back seat which contained human remains. And secondly, the Laotian boy returned to his apartment by three police officers who didn't care about the smell in the apartment and let the boy alone with Dahmer who later murdered him. What's wrong with the Milwaukee Police Department? Netwwork (talk) 22:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

As for the first case, if the police didn't have probable cause to search the car, they wouldn't have searched the car. Not every traffic stop merits a search. Dismas|^(talk) 22:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. But the 2nd case is absolutely inexcusable. However, the officers seem to have appealed and gotten their jobs back. Apparently total incompetence in a police officer leading to deaths of civilians is not just cause to fire them. See John Balcerzak. StuRat (talk) 05:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The police deal with a world that you and I only have a miniscule understanding of. They see a lot of weird stuff, and they might have thought this was just routine weirdness. That possibility should be considered. Although another possibility that could be considered is that they were late for their appointment at the donut shop. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hindsight is 20/20. Of course it's easy for you, sitting in the comfort of your home with perfect information about everything that happened, to wonder how the police could possibly have let Dahmer get away. As far as the police were concerned, they found a bumbling and incoherent Laotian boy who couldn't communicate his situation, a much more coherent Dahmer, and a stinky apartment. "Serial killer" isn't exactly the first thing that comes to mind, nor should it be. --140.180.252.244 (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

They didn't have to know he was a serial killer to do basic police work, like checking IDs. Had they done so, they would have discovered that Dahmer was a convicted child molester and the Laotian was a child, actually the brother of someone he was convicted of molesting. StuRat (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you the same user AmericanMarinee who asked this very same question back in September?

No, I'm not, in fact I read that but wanted new answers. Besides, that account wasn't blocked why would I create another one If I were him?. Netwwork (talk) 20:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

How legally binding is "conceding" an election?

For one of our election related articles someone just used the Edit summary "Florida hasn't been decided, yet. A Romney concession is irrelevant." It made me wonder. Is there any legal significance to a candidate "conceding" the election? What if someone concedes based on misleading information, later proven to be false? I would assume that a final vote count means a lot more than what is said and done during the count. I'm Australian, so I'm interested in more than just the USA. HiLo48 (talk) 23:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

My take on that is that the result is what the votes say it is, as advised by the official electoral authorities. It's not what any politician or any commentator says it is. If a concession could be given any official weight at all, then so could a spurious claim of victory. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

You don't have to get snippy about it. --Trovatore (talk) 23:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Double huh? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

After the network(s) projected GWB as the winner in 2000, Gore called to congratulate him. His advisers later got back to him and said "not so fast", and Gore contacted Bush again. Bush said something like, "You mean you're taking it back?" and Gore retorted with the quote I gave. --Trovatore (talk) 23:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Ya wanna use quote marks next time you're quoting someone? It's easy to get people off side. Wars have started over less. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Thought there was just a chance you (or someone) would have recognized the quote. Then it would have looked clever. --Trovatore (talk) 04:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I strongly disagree with the editor who made that edit summary. Since US election results aren't really official until over a month later, network projections and candidate concessions are what we go by in the meantime. I don't think they're legally binding in any sense, but Romney conceding Florida is absolutely not irrelevant. --BDD (talk) 23:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I think he was right on. Projections OK; what a candidate thinks, not so much. Candidates are not a reliable source for what happened in the election. --Trovatore (talk) 00:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x3 I would guess that the answer for the US is 'not at all', since Al Gore was able to withdraw his concession to Bush in United States presidential election, 2000 when it became clear he might have a chance in the Florida shenanigans. In the UK, of course, the ruling party is the one which can command a majority in the Commons, so in the case where there is no overall majority, a concession by one of the parties would have more standing, as it did after the 2010 election, when Gordon Brown conceded that he would not be able to govern either alone or with the Lib Dems, leaving the way open for the ConDem coalition and for Call Me Dave to kiss hands. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

As far as I understand, the concession is basically saying "Okay, you won, congratulations". Remember that the popular vote doesn't legally mean anything as far as the actual election of the president, and Obama hasn't automatically won the presidency just because electors pledged to him are the majority, since the official vote is over a month away. You'd be crazy if you were to suggest that there's a realistic chance of lots of Obama electors being faithless and voting for Romney, but technically speaking it would be possible for that to happen without laws being violated. Since the only thing that officially matters is the electoral vote, a concession by one of the candidates doesn't matter; all of the Romney electors will presumably still vote for him next month. Nyttend (talk) 00:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually as our article attests and discussed here before, quite a few states have laws which punish faithless electors so I don't know if it would be accurate to say 'without laws being violated' although this won't invalidate a Romney victory. Our article doesn't give a list, but it would surprise me even with the resonably large electoral college margins expected for Obama that it would be possible for it to happen without at least one state with such laws being involved. There is also at least 2 states which invalidate the votes for faithless electors but I expect there isn't enough states with such laws to mean it's impossible for enough electors to vote for Romney instead of Obama. Of course as our article attests the constitutionality of neither of these actions has been tested so it's possible the laws are invalid. Nil Einne (talk) 04:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that I wasn't clear. What I meant was that if all of the Obama electors changed their minds and voted for Romney instead, it wouldn't violate the constitutional process. I wasn't attempting to address the state laws, which at any rate aren't something prohibited by the Constitution to the states. Nyttend (talk) 07:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't quite get what you mean by the last comment. If you mean that the constitutionality of the laws punishing faithless electors is clear cut I would question that. As I mentioned, our article specifically it hasn't been tested (albeit unsourced). The fact that the constitutionality of pledges (rather then punishing electors or invalidating votes) was tested, and in fact initially failed (Ray v. Blair), suggests it may not be as clear cut as you believe. Nil Einne (talk) 14:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it is possible that a candidate's post-election actions can have an effect, not concessions per se but not completely unrelated. Specifically, recounts are not always automatic; sometimes they're driven by specific challenges on a candidate's part. A candidate who has already conceded might conceivably be at a disadvantage in a courtroom when asking a judge for such a recount. Legally, I imagine, it's entirely irrelevant, but judges are human beings. If I recall correctly, Gore did not publicly concede on election night, but only privately to Bush. If he had made an actual concession speech, I would guess that it might have hurt him quite a lot in the subsequent proceedings. --Trovatore (talk) 04:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

There's several examples (Gore being one) of a "concession" being withdrawn. But the situation Trovatore describes may be happening in Arizona right now: the rule was if you showed up at the polls and didn't have required ID, you could vote on a provisional ballot which would not get put into the usual pile. It's set aside and you have 5 days to show up at the election office with ID and if you do that, your provisional ballot gets counted. There was a very close election (I don't remember offhand which one) where candidate B conceded after getting slightly fewer votes than candidate A (enough fewer to not have significant chance of winning in a recount), and then people figured out that there were tens of thousands of provisional ballots that hadn't been counted, and -won't- be counted unless the voters followed up with ID within 5 days. B was (I think) an underdog in the first place, so the theory is that his supporters who voted provisionally may have seen the concession speech and not bothered with getting the ballots validated. I don't know if anything is being done to pursue that. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 05:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The simple answer is NO, it's not legally binding to make a concession speech. A speech is just a speech. However, it can influence whether or not a recount is done. Since Obama doesn't need Florida's electoral votes, and since recounts are expensive, they might just table it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

In Florida there is an automatic recount if the initial count difference is within 0.5%, and apparently no way for a a candidate to get a recount if the difference is larger. Allen West is a little over 0.5% behind and is apparently demanding a recount anyway. This was also an issue in the Bush v. Gore festivities in 2000. Gore asked for recounts in 4 counties where he was within 0.5% and not in the other counties, and was accused of cherry picking because he didn't ask for the whole state to be recounted (since he didn't have a legal basis for doing so). It became apparent afterwards that he would have had much better chances with a statewide manual recount, because of the inaccuracy of the notorious punch card automatic counting equipment in use in some of those counties at the time. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 09:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm very skeptical that concession would be legally binding anywhere, because that would mean that the ballot itself was not legally binding. I wouldn't expect a democratic country to put in a loophole by which the freshly elected majority candidate can be deemed not the winner based on some comment he made, although, of course, you never really know. Wnt (talk) 09:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

That brings us full circle to pretty much exactly what I said above. The thing is that, if there were the remotest possibility that a recount in a certain state might upset the apparent result, there's no way the apparent loser would be conceding anyway. They concede when all hope is gone, not when there's any hope left. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 12:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Wnt, the issue in Arizona (above) isn't that the concession is legally binding (it wasn't), but that a certain substantial subset of the ballots weren't legally binding without further action by the voters (showing up at the election office to present ID after the election). And after the concession, voters hearing of the concession may have decided the election was over, and not bothered to perform the individual action, so their ballots never became binding. Jack of Oz, Florida in 2000 was a famous incident where a candidate conceded while the election outcome was still unclear. The (withdrawn) concession, along with events like the Brooks Brothers riot, helped fuel the narrative surrounding the legal wrangling that followed. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 17:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It's just as binding as campaign promises. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

November 9

RCAF strategical map in the Battle of Britain

Hello everyone. In a history project, I have to make a poster detailing the Battle of Britain and Canada's role in it. As such, I need to provide a map of the Royal Canadian Air Force's strategies to defeat the Germans in the Battle. I have looked everywhere but I can't find anything, all I could see were overall maps of the British Isles. Could anyone help me out? Thanks so much! 64.229.183.165 (talk) 01:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

There's a good reason why you can't find anything. "Canadian airmen played their part in the Battle of Britain", but mostly in the RAF. Only one RCAF squadron participated in the fighting. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Start by reading our Battle of Britain article. Also have a look at Non-British personnel in the RAF during the Battle of Britain#Canadian contribution. A breakdown of the nationalities of the fighter pilots is at Statistics of the Battle of Britain although the Wikipedia article notes that Canada disputes the RAF figure of 88 Canadian pilots. There are maps here, here and here. We also have an article about the base used by the Canadian Squadron during the battle at RAF Croydon. More information about the Canadian contribution to the battle is at THE BATTLE OF BRITAIN - THE CANADIANS. Good luck! Alansplodge (talk) 10:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Clumsy typography on old buildings

Why is it that the iron lettering on old buildings (like "AD 1734") usually looks rather clumsy? I can imagine you couldn't specify Verdana as the font to be used in 1734, but "that piece of iron actually resembles a "3", let's use that one" probably doesn't reflect the state of art at the time either. Joepnl (talk) 02:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you have an example? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

In a building that old, it's probably hand made, by a blacksmith. Try hammering white-hot iron letters sometime and see how good they come out. StuRat (talk) 05:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Metalworking in 1734 was reasonably sophisticated, I think "clumsy" here is being used subjectively to mean "I don't like the font style they used" rather than "they were technically inept". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Bear in mind it may be a reasonably modern addition, made to 'look old'. --Dweller (talk) 09:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

If the question is about "vernacular buildings" (ordinary houses, cottages, farm buildings etc) rather than "high-status" ones (manor houses, public buildings, churches), then the lettering might well have been done as an afterthought by the builder, owner or (as StuRat says) by a local tradesman who hadn't been trained for the job. I found this picture of a reasonably well-built house in Mottram in Longdendale, or on a lock-keeper's cottage at Bank Newton. Wealthy people could afford to have it done properly. Alansplodge (talk) 11:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• I always just assumed this was the style, you see it in colonial era buildings all over the Delaware Valley area from Valley Forge to the Batsto Village. A google image search leads to this for wrought iron house numbers and letters with the style still in common use such as this. μηδείς (talk) 15:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Probably the word "clumsy" has a lot of connotations I didn't mean, I'm sorry for that. I meant "the numbers don't look as if someone got paid a lot for creating them, they look as if the five year old nephew of the blacksmith was allowed to give it a try". The clue might be in the play with 6 and 9 in Alansplodge's picture which at first sight also looked "clumsy" to me but is obviously meant to look that way (though kerning wasn't invented back then I guess). I'll try to get some pictures tomorrow that also look clumsy but where there doesn't appear to be a reason like a 6 and 9 resembling each other, or actually not a reason someone born later than 1700 would understand. (Next time I will provide some examples before asking such a question.) Joepnl (talk) 02:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Hurricane Sandy ribbons

By any chance, would there be Hurricane Sandy awareness ribbons? If yes, what will the colors be, and where can I buy one?142.255.103.121 (talk) 05:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Send your dollars now to Sheesh I'm sure there's plenty of people cashing in on every aspect of Sandy, but it's generally best to avoid such scamopportunists. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 06:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know that it is particularly helpful to cast aspersions when answering the question. The OPs question is very easy to answer: Type "Hurricane Sandy ribbons" into Google and you'll get several links to websites selling such ribbons. There doesn't appear to be any universal color or design to them; just what retailers feel like they want to make. I did find one site with a nice deep purple ribbon with the names of the affected states in pretty gold lettering on it. A few that I found are also selling blue ribbons as awareness ribbons. So, you'll have your options. --Jayron32 06:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Why on earth would a hurricane that gripped world news headlines for a week need an awareness ribbon? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The same reason tens of thousands left dead plant sexual organs outside a royal palace to honour a deceased former princess. Because they cared.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

That's called commemoration, Wehwalt, not "awareness". Nobody thought that your sexual organs were being laid down to make people aware of something of which they were unaware. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Which one with the nice deep purple ribbons is that? Which sites are the ones with the blue ribbons as awareness ribbons?142.255.103.121 (talk) 07:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

How would awareness of the Hurricane help? As I understand it, "awareness" of certain cancers is designed to make people... aware of them, so they might spot the warning signs. There won't be another Hurricane Sandy. I'd be unsurprised if there were hurricane awareness ribbons, but Hurricane Sandy ones seem a little pointless, except as a cynical fundraising exercise. --Dweller (talk) 09:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

In all seriousness, the people of the East Coast and the Caribbean who have been rendered homeless by this disaster need your money a lot more than the ribbon-manufacturers do. Set aside slacktivism and actually help the people who are in need. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Now that's a more sensible approach. --Dweller (talk) 11:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there any sort of control? If the money from the sale of the ribbons went to those in need, that might be something. But if simply anyone can sell their own ribbons, with their own colours and designs, then it's safe to assume that at least some of them are quick fund-raising schemes for the ribbon makers, and the victims were never going to see a cent of it. In some countries, charity fund-raising drives are centrally controlled and sellers have to wear and/or produce on demand some official ID, exactly to prevent get-rich-quicksters chasing in on people's good natures at the expense of those who actually need the money. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Anyone can sell their own ribbons. Commercial free speech and so forth. I'd beware of "Proceeds from the sale of this product go to victims of Hurricane Sandy." comments, as a) How much of the proceeds? b) Which victims and c) Does the seller consider himself a victim of Hurricane Sandy?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Alright. How about Hurricane Sandy lapel pins?142.255.103.121 (talk) 19:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Same story I would imagine. Find a real charity that's definitely helping storm victims. And if you really care, you shouldn't need a ribbon or badge to tell other people. HiLo48 (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Even The Onion never made me laugh this much :). Thanks 142.255.103.121. Joepnl (talk) 03:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

What the heck is that supposed to mean?142.255.103.121 (talk) 03:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

What I meant is that it's hard to beat trying to raise "awareness" for a hurricane that's been on the news for weeks. Possibly "mortality awareness ribbons". Raising money for relief is a good thing, but the word "awareness" is losing its original meaning fast now, having a new, much longer definition that contains at least the word "guilt". Joepnl (talk) 23:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Xi Jinping military service

A recent BBC article claims Xi Jinping "... has served in the Chinese military."[15]. Is this true? Or did the author confuse Xi's Central Military Commission post with military service? If this was a regular news article I would've just passed it off as an error but the feature is written by a former PM of Australia.A8875 (talk) 07:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Between 1979-1982, Xi was enlisted in the People's Liberation Army, but his actual role was serving as secretary in the General Office of the Central Military Commission, specifically serving as one of three secretaries to the then-Defence Minister. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Yet another US presidential election question-Electoral college Reform

Sorry if someone else has asked this already, or if its in the wiki somewhere, but in the last coupl eof days there have been a lot of US presidential elections. I guess it comes down to the desire for conclusive results, but I really can't see why the US electorate tolerates the winner takes all approach to the division of a State's electors, Republicans for example in California have effectively been disenfranchised, and I guess the same applies to Democrats in safe Republican states, but surely it can't be that hard to implement and sell the idea of dividing up a states electoral college votes in proportion to the popular vote a candidate recieves in a a state?--KTo288 (talk) 11:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Have you read the article "National Popular Vote Interstate Compact"? Gabbe (talk) 12:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

yes its not exactly what I'm thinking but not exactly, as I understand it the effect of the compact would aggregate the national vote and in effect would turn the entire United States into a single giant constituency. What I'm thinking of is covered in one line at [[16]], that is each candidate recieving a porportion of a States electors in line with his or her share of the popular vote in that state, and those electors casting those votes in favour of that candidate. To me it seems a good option, balancing as much as possible the value of the wishes of individual voters, but at the same time reflecting the consensus within individual States. I guess that one line in the article shows just how unpopular such an option would be.--KTo288 (talk) 12:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

KTo288: If one state alone assigns its electors proportionally, then it lessens its political influence (it "unilaterally disarms" in comparison to other states which remain winner-take-all). If California became proportional while everything else remained the same, then this would be a huge gift to the Republican party, making it significantly more difficult for Democratic candidates to be elected president... AnonMoos (talk) 12:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Well I guess the ideal would be for all States to adopt it, surely in a democracy fairness and legitimacy must count for something, even if it means that it becomes harder for one side to win over another.--KTo288 (talk) 12:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

If there were such a system, then the relatively small states, such as Virginia, New Hampshire, and Iowa, which got much attention from the candidates, would not. They would go to the major cities without worrying about who wins Ohio, since that would be irrelevant to the result. It takes only 13 states to block a constitutional amendment. In my opinion, the only thing that will cause a change is a major breakdown, such as an outcome being determined by rogue electors.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain why paying attention to major cities instead of half-empty states is a bad thing? I'd like everyone's voice to be heard, but given the choice between mainly listening to LA and NYC, or mainly listening to Ohio, the former seems very much fairer. Marnanel (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The swing states presumably are a more accurate cross-section of America than the solid-red and solid-blue states are. Those are the states where issues can be raised and challenged, thus informing everyone. If only the big cities are courted, then you might have a rural rebellion to deal with. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• It is always worth bringing up Federalist No. 68 (text here: [17]) to show exactly the rationale behind the electoral college. Please note, however, how much history has drifted from the actual operation of the college itself. But it helps to understand exactly why it is in the constitution in the first place, and to understand how its operation today differs from how the Constitution writers envisioned it working. --Jayron32 18:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Let me come up with scenarios where it might make sense to change from a winner-take-all state to a proportional state:

A) One party is currently in control of both the legislative and executive branches of government, but the tide is turning, and they can tell that the vote will go the other way in the next election. Thus, they might want to switch to proportional votes, so they will still get some votes for their party. Of course, in the long run, being proportional might help the other party just as much.

B) There is some critical issue to the state, like the threatened closure of a major military base, and they want presidential candidates to promise to help them out. If they are a winner-take-all state, and the election isn't particularly close in that state, then there's no need for either candidate to make a promise. However, if they switch to a proportional vote, and this could make a candidate's promises to the state sway an electoral vote or two, then they might do so. StuRat (talk) 18:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

But some states do have proportional representation for their electors, right? So I don't imagine it would need a constitutional amendment to allow other states to institute it. Particularly since how states decide on their electors is a matter for each state to decide free from federal influence (other than when a Bush is running and Florida is involved). And the advantage would be not only that the resulting winner would be a much truer reflection of the wishes of the voters (having 100% of the electors go towards a candidate who got 48% of the state's votes is not particularly representational of the wishes of the people) but it would eliminate the practice of candidates ignoring states which have a defined tilt, in favor of campaigning in the swing states. So, it seems as if by sticking with the winner take all system for electors, a state is willingly abdicating its chance to have any influence on the candidates. Gzuckier (talk) 07:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

In Nebraska and Maine, each Representative district elects one Elector, and two more Electors are elected statewide; this is finer representation than in the other States, but it's not proportional representation as that term is commonly used. — I believe the Federal courts have sometimes used the Voting Rights Act (1965) to invalidate true PR. —Tamfang (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Do customer service workers in England address male customers as "Sir"?

In the United States, where we don't have an established nobility system, the word "sir" is still used pretty often just as a form of light formality, especially in the situation of a business interaction (but also to politely address males of unknown name outside of business interactions as well). For instance, it would be not at all improbable to see an employee at a gas station convenience store say to an unshaven, stained-shirt-wearing, slouching man "Thank you, sir." Or if some guy just dropped a dollar, another guy may very well say "Sir, you dropped a dollar." Both of these describe exactly scenes I've seen with my own eyes (which is to say, they are common). I was wondering, in England, where putting "Sir" in front of someone's name is a special thing that not everybody can just do, is the noun form (as in, service employees calling male customers "sir") not heard? If not, what is used to address males whose names you do not know? Is it exclusively "Mister"? 20.137.2.50 (talk) 13:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It depends totally on the context. "Sir" is extremely formal in UK English, and it would probably be used in a posh restaurant or department store. If I went to a "cheap and cheerful" cafe or local store then I would be addressed as "mate", "gov", or just "you" and now that I am old enough that it can't be mistaken as a pass I am often addressed as "dear" or "love" by female staff. -- Q Chris (talk) 14:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd say "yes, occasionally" and when it happens it makes my skin crawl. In cases where the person's name isn't known, we find a way not to use an honorific. For example, if I saw someone drop something, I'd say "excuse me" to catch their attention. --Dweller (talk) 14:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Why the aversion? 20.137.2.50 (talk) 14:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm neither their schoolmaster nor their commanding officer, nor am I, as alluded to, a knight of the realm. --Dweller (talk) 14:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd say there are variations in the UK which bear explanation, and some which are merely regional variation. It is the case in the uniformed services (police, fire...) that "sir" is used when addressing your superior. I found this out when my ex's cousin cringed after I said "Thank you, sir" after he bought me a drink. To me it was being polite: to him (a serving fireman) it was inappropriate usage in a social setting. Also, when I moved to South Yorkshire, it took me some time to get used to being called "luv" by complete strangers - people of both sexes are called "luv" as a matter of course in that county. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I do like the friendliness of South Yorkshire, and that usage does carry on to West Yorkshire to a certain extent. I did find it strange though when I had a builder from Barnsley say to me (another male) "I'll sort that out for yer in no time love"! -- Q Chris (talk) 14:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's "extremely formal", or that it "makes my skin crawl". It's certainly unusually polite, but not exactly rare. I generally look positively towards sales or service people who call me "sir", but then I must be either old, posh, or both.  :-( Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

And, frankly, I'd probably disagree to some extent with the "pretty often" in the U.S.. It was common in the 1950's and 1960's and before to teach kids and store clerks that it was extremely impolite not to use "sir" in virtually every transaction with anyone other than their close personal friends of equivalent age or to use their given name rather than "Mr. X" or "Miss X" or "Mrs. X". Failing to follow these rules was likely to get you whomped or fired. (Of course, it was also impolite to wear a hat or cap inside a restaurant, office, or home.) While I don't think its use today evokes the skin-crawling anti-class-consciousness here in the U.S. that it apparently does in the U.K., if not just dropped offhand and under one's breath, it seems kind of quaint. More's the pity. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

One situation where I think you could still use "pretty often" if not "almost always" is police officers addressing citizens, esp. offending citizens. "Sir, please step over here..." Also, I could imagine the probability of being addressed as "sir" rising in the US the more raucous one acted, actually. I could see a store manager who might not say to some poorly-dressed patron "Welcome, sir." saying to a patron who started yelling or being otherwise unpleasant "Sir, please calm down." 20.137.2.50 (talk) 15:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree about the UK usage. "Madam" is used even less than "Sir", if anything. French is much better in my opinion, where everyone uses "Monsieur" or "Madame", and what's more, they use it reciprocally. So if a shop assistant says "Bonjour madame" to me, I can "Bonjour madame" her back. No subservience, and no problem with what to say if you are trying to get someone's attention. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

In Cornwall, you sometimes get (if you are of the opposite sex) "my lover" or rather "alroit moi luvver". A bit surprising the first time you hear it. A bit more likely from a bar maid than a bank clerk though. Alansplodge (talk) 15:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

When I lived in Cornwall, "my lover" was used for both sexes. DuncanHill (talk) 15:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think a man would say it to another man, or am I mistook? Alansplodge (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Was used to one and all. DuncanHill (talk) 17:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Here in London, "Sir" or "Madam" is used quite regularly when addressing customers, regardless of how well the customer is dressed or not. This happens in posh stores and restaurants as much as fast food places and supermarkets. However, strangers are unlikely to address each other that way on the street. If someone dropped a pound coin, you might here "Excuse me, you dropped something", it would be unlikely to be "Sir, you dropped a pound." If a stranger calls you "sir", that is more likely to be prefacing something unpleasant they are about to say. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I allways find it extremely strange when people in movies refer to military personell, especially retired as "Sir" (as in a civilian adressing military personell). The same goes for police officers, I have respect for the jobs they do, but they are civil servants - not the other way round (I have lived in the UK since birth btw) 80.254.147.164 (talk) 10:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

In the US, at least, it's a measure of respect. Yes, they're civil servants. And making your life's work dedicated to protecting others is something to (generally) respect. That seems to have been falling by the wayside a bit in my lifetime, though. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Class consciousness in the U.K.

Is it really so profound there that any hint of "poshness" causes the reactions noted in the last section, above? More importantly, why? Would members of the upper class feel the same way or feel slighted if they were not properly addressed? How about people who have hereditary peerages or the like, but who by income are lower or middle class? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC) PS: The "why" is the most important of my questions. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

"How about people who have hereditary peerages or the like, but who by income are lower or middle class?" In the US, class is far more tied up with income than it is in the UK. In the UK, you can be practically penniless and still remain upper-class, especially if as you suggested you held a hereditary peerage! As an example, there was once a charity called the "Distressed Gentlefolk's Aid Association" which existed in order to give money to impoverished but upper-class people. Marnanel (talk) 14:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It's still going, under a different name Elizabeth Finn Care - and it wasn't so much for the impoversished upper class but for the impoverished middle class. DuncanHill (talk) 15:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I thought that might be the case, which is why I asked it. Thanks for the response. But how about the visceral reaction to poshness? Does it merely have to do with presumptuousness, that is, that there's a widely accepted sentiment that each class should know and remain in their place? Resentment of the upper classes? Something entirely different? I was really surprised by Dweller and TammyMoet's comments, above. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

In my case it is more a feeling for the other person's dignity. I felt extremely uncomfortable once when in a restaurant where the staff hung my coat up for me, pushed the chair in for me, and called me "sir" because if I had to do that then I would feel that I was in a servile position, having to do things for someone not because it was helpful to them in any significant way but just to demonstrate a position of inferiority. I know the attitude is very different in America, I once discussed it with a shop assistant who said "I'm polite to a customer in here, he's happy and will probably come back. I could find that the same guy is serving me a drink this evening and he'll call me sir and I'll be happy and leave him a nice tip". I suppose the difference is that historically this politeness was a one way thing in the UK. -- Q Chris (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I simply don't believe that most males in Britain would think that, if they were called "sir", they would feel embarrassed about the other person appearing "servile". It may be an age thing, but I would simply think that they were being a little over-polite. It's a bit like holding a door open for someone - I don't feel oppressed or servile doing that, unless I'm having to stand there for an unduly long time. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

To answer your question, I'd say "yes it is really so profound". You only have to see the reaction to Andrew Mitchell's reported comment of "pleb" when addressing a police office to see the class divide in action. The UK has become so used to the veneer of equality that grew since WW2,that any threat of taking it back to the pre-war class-ridden society is viewed as quite serious. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree that "any hint of class entitlement" raises profound feelings, but I don't think this is necessarily linked to "any hint of poshness". For example nobody I know find's Boris Johnson's "bumbling" poshness offensive, but as TammyMoet says Andrew Mitchell's comment implying superiority was instantly offensive to many. -- Q Chris (talk) 15:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I guess I'm just showing how ignorant I am about British attitudes and history, but I also didn't realize that the "pre-war class-ridden society" was a big deal. Rather than taking up a lot of space here to educate me, could you perhaps point me to a WP or external article or two that might serve to help me understand? Thank you for your response, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

This is the classic photo usually used to illustrate the point. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a classic sketch from the 1960's "Frost Report" that summarises the English view of class quite nicely. This site gives a synopsis and a link to a video of the sketch. Nothing has really changed since then, unfortunately. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

A few years ago, I (a middle-aged white American male, dressed somewhat nicely for the theatre) was in the London Underground one evening. I needed to get to one of the branches of the Northern line and heard an announcement that there was no direct service to that branch but couldn't understand the instructions on how to get to that branch. I saw a black tube employee (probably of Caribbean descent) in uniform on the platform, and said, as I would have said to a subway employee of any color in the United States, "Sir, can you tell me how I can get to [name of my destination, which I've now forgotten]?" My sense was that he was surprised but pleased to be called "sir" and he gave me extremely helpful and detailed advice on reaching my destination. I had the strong sense that he wasn't used to being called "sir" by passengers, whereas if he worked in the States, he would be used to it. [I've just moved this comment down from the section above this one because I think it's more relevant here.] Marco polo (talk) 20:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes; I wouldn't call anyone who is supposed to be providing a service "sir", regardless of skin colour or social status. Even if it was a very senior police officer. He (or she) is supposed to call me "sir". However, I wouldn't be offended if they didn't. BTW, most London Underground staff are helpful and polite, although sometimes you meet a surly one (I commuted on the Central Line for 25 years). Alansplodge (talk) 18:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm on the flip side. Providing a service can be extremely demeaning, in many positions. I prefer to address people in those jobs as "sir" or "ma'am" and thank them when the transaction is complete. It certainly can brighten up their day to be treated as more than just an automaton. Or worse, as I've been witness to (and on the receiving end of). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: Puerto Rican status referendum, 2012

Given the acrimonious debate about exactly what the voting population of Puerto Rico said they preferred on November 6: Would not knowledge of the breakdown of the eight (8) reasonable combinations of answers shed more light on this question? Specifically:

1. yes (continue present status) on 1 AND statehood on 2
2. yes on 1 AND associated sovereignty on 2
3. yes on 1 AND independence on 2
4. yes on 1 AND blank on 2 (strongly urged by PR-governor-elect Padilla)
5. no on 1 AND statehood
6. no on 1 AND associated sovereignty
7. no on 1 AND independence
8. no on 1 AND blank (perhaps unlikely, but not impossible)

Could such data be made directly available, or is it now forever buried within the separate raw totals for the two questions? DWIII (talk) 15:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Good question. It seems to me that the ballots are preserved for a significant amount of time -- electronic votes on machines should be easy to preserve, as should paper ballots, punchcard ballots, etc. There would be no reason to destroy them, at least not until many years have passed (or possibly ever). But I would seriously doubt that any tally has yet been made, or ever will be officially made, of the combinations of votes.

But: in 2000, the public had access after the fact to the actual ballots: from United States presidential election, 2000#Post recount:

The first independent recount was conducted by The Miami Herald and USA Today. The Commission found that under most recount scenarios, Bush would have won the election, but Gore would have won using the most generous standards.[64] Ultimately, a media consortium — comprising the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Tribune Co. (parent of the L.A. Times), Associated Press, CNN, Palm Beach Post and St. Petersburg Times[65] — hired the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago[66] to examine 175,010 ballots that were collected from the entire state

So maybe an interested news organization will do exactly what you suggest. Duoduoduo (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Will Obama help the "Palestinian people" build their state?

The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events. Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Peace will come when the Arabs love their sons more than they hate us – Golda Meir – Netwwork (talk) 15:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC) I think this falls under the rule above that "The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events.". No one can foresee the outcome of future negotiations regarding the Palestinian conflict or what role Obama will play in these. - Lindert (talk) 15:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I won't predict what he will do, but will note that he's now freer to do so, if he so chooses, since, as a lame duck, he no longer needs to worry about re-election and hence popularity. The Palestinian cause is not very popular in the US, due to the large Jewish voting block here and the perception that the elected Hamas government of the Gaza Strip is a terrorist organization. And Palestinians dancing in the streets to celebrate 9-11 didn't help their cause much: [18]. StuRat (talk) 18:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The USA's historical support for Israel long before 9-11 in the face of opposition from many other countries and the UN hasn't help Palestinians and their attitudes much either, but I don't think any of that will help us in speculating what Obama will do. This thread was correctly hatted. HiLo48 (talk) 22:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The Palestinians seem utterly incompetent at public relations. Had they followed the example of Gandhi, and used non-violent protests only, they would have wooed the US over to their side long ago, who would have then pressured Israel to settle their disputes in a manner favorable to the Palestinians. Instead, they are viewed as terrorists and terrorist supporters in the US. StuRat (talk) 01:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Possibly. He won't have to worry about any future elections right now. Futurist110 (talk) 09:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Obama has publicly stated he supports the two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, see Obama#Israel. He's also a huge supporter of Israel. What will he actually do? You'll have to wait and see. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Supporting Israel does not equal to opposing a two-state solution. Also, Obama might have been less active on Israel-Palestine over the last 2 years due to his reelection campaign, but that's over now and he can't run again in 2016. I doubt his wife has any plans to run for office in the future either. Futurist110 (talk) 10:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Greater Bangladesh

I read the article and it said about four districts of Assam with Bengali Muslim majority. What are their names and do they border with Bangladesh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmust90 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

There are 27 districts in Assam. Going just by the info on Wikipedia, Dhubri district at 74% Muslim is the only one with an obvious Muslim majority; there are five others with strict Muslim majorities: Barpeta district 59%, Hailakandi district 58%, Goalpara district 54%, Karimganj district 52% and Nagaon district 51%.

Dhubri, Goalpara, Hailakandi and Karimganj border Bangladesh; Barpeta borders Goalpara. Nagaon is sort of in the middle, bordering none of the others nor Bangladesh.

NB: Our articles do not state which year this data is from. Also note that our articles don't give religious demographics for 11 of the 27 districts (including the four new ones), so there could be more than these six.

I'm sorry I do not know which are the four to five of interest to the United Liberation Front of Assam, since the source given in the Greater Bangladesh article is a book not available online. You could ask your library about getting it via inter-library loan. 184.147.123.169 (talk) 16:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Code of Tehauroa (1884)

Where can I find a copy of the Code of Tehauroa (1884), the constitutional law code of the Kingdom of Raiatea?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I put the phrase through Google and interestingly - in all of cyberspace the phase "Code of Tehauroa" occurs only in two places - this page and at Tehauroa. Perhaps searching for spelling variants might be more productive. Roger (talk) 14:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

It is my translation of "Codes Tehauroa" which even at that only appears in two book sources that discuss it but not necessarily gives the original. I think it would be in French or Tahitian.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

It's legal to kill a Scotsman in York?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1568475/Ten-stupidest-laws-are-named.html

Surely that can't be right. What's the truth about that law? --128.42.216.76 (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Only if he's carrying a bow and arrow. Now seriously, is anything there true? Surtsicna (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

As a general rule, anything on a list of "dumb laws" can be presumed false unless proven otherwise. The Law Commission explicitly describes this one as not true (it probably never was), though interestingly #9 is nominally still in force. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Highland Scot, or lowland Scot? Gzuckier (talk) 07:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

All of those are total BS. This list has been doing the rounds of the internet for years, and the Telegraph is not exactly known as a reliable news source. It's basically a wannabe middle class version of a tabloid. You can Google any of them just to debunk them. Try "age of consent Japan", and you will see there is one. It's utter nonsense. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

September 11 and the dancing Palestinians

The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events. Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If in the wake of the September 11 attacks, the U.S. dropped a bomb on the dancing Palestinians, would that have been accepted as retaliation like the missiles launched by the Clinton administration on Sudan and Afghanistan? Netwwork (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC) You're inventing something that didn't happen and asking us what may have happened had your invented scenario actually worked that way? I'm afraid you've mistaken the Wikipedia reference desk for an internet forum. Your initial post here may be a worthwhile and interesting discussion for somewhere, just not here. --Jayron32 22:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC) The reference desk is a place for questions with factual answers. Are you asking whether the United States bombed Palestine in the wake of the September 11 attacks? The answer is 'no.' -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC) Nope, the OP is not asking is the US has bombed them, just what would have happened. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC) The word "would" is the problem there. It demands speculation. Not here thanks. HiLo48 (talk) 22:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC) I haven't mistaken it for an internet forum. Anyway, it's surprising to find people who defend Palestinians on here. Netwwork (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC) That comment, taken with your previous postings, makes it pretty clear that you are trying to promote a rather distasteful agenda here. Please follow the advice you have been given and go somewhere else. DuncanHill (talk) 22:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC) Where is the defence of Palestinians? HiLo48 (talk) 22:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC) Apparently the failure to even entertain the idea of bombing them. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC) Nope, because the "dancing Palestinians", as stupid as they might look, were not a threat to the US, specially when Arafat demanded that they stop celebrating and generating worldwide negative attention towards them. That was more of an one-time event than of a serious anti-US tendency. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Forcing sovereign government to pay

What are the instruments that have been applied in the past? The first thing that jumps to mind is confiscating ships, airplanes, companies, and cargo of the country. But, are these measures being applied? Philoknow (talk) 22:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Libya paid up for the Lockerbie bombing after being subject to trade sanctions for a rather long time. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

In the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, European countries or the United States took over the customs-houses of various Latin American or Caribbean nations on several occasions, and applied the collected import tax revenue to the settling of the external debt... AnonMoos (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Then there was the time that France basically used naked raw blackmail to extort 90 million gold francs from Haiti... -- AnonMoos (talk) 00:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't/can't countries seize the bank accounts of foreign countries, within their reach? Gzuckier (talk) 07:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Political allegiances of CEOs

How many CEO's are republicans and how many are democrats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1gmangsa (talk • contribs) 22:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

That's as vague a question as I've seen here in many a long day. I presume you're talking about Americans, but can you define what you mean by "CEOs", and what you mean by "republicans" and "democrats"?

I should warn you that this information is almost certainly not available anywhere; we might know about a few CEOs who've declared their allegiances, but they'd be a very small percentage of the total, no matter how you define "CEO". Plus, political allegiances change from day to day, particularly where $$ is concerned. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I would think anyone with the cojones, Jack, would... well, never mind. Every ref desk question has someone willing to make up an answer to it. No? μηδείς (talk) 00:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

If I may quote AnonMoos: "Whatever". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Problems with the question:

1. You might think of CEOs as big fat rich corporate types in suits, but the vast majority are probably your every-day guy at a small company, but they are not famous and you will never hear about them.
2. Regardless of how you define CEO, most are not going to broadcast their political affiliation.
3. Even if you went by political contributions, most large contributors these days donate to party's indirectly, and often anonymously.
4. Even where donation information exists, it is often inconsistent (case in point, even Bain Capital has donated to Democratic campaigns).

If you want to look at corporate donations (rather than individual donations), you may glean something you find interesting from this list. However, especially since Citizens United, many of the donations are by or to political action committees, so as I said in problem 3, it's not obvious who is supporting what. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Most corporations donate to both parties. When you are buying access to the machinery of government, it makes more sense to spread the money among everyone who is likely to be in a position to return a little quid pro quo your way, instead of trying to pick winners. If you pay for the campaigns of everyone, they all are beholden to you. --Jayron32 01:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

If you have decent statistics you can only pick the winner and save money. Philoknow (talk) 01:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

You'll find both even at the highest spots. Warren Buffet is a dem, but Donald Trump is not. Philoknow (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Well just an info that you may want to know. Bill Gate is a democrat. 174.20.101.190 (talk) 03:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

November 10

Was Amenhotep IV Nefertiti 's cousin? And were they related through adoption or blood? Why did they Egyptians marry their relatives anyway?

Was Amenhotep IV Nefertiti 's cousin? And were they related through adoption or blood? Why did they Egyptians marry their relatives anyway? Neptunekh94 (talk) 00:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

In Inbreeding#Royalty and nobility it has a small bit: Pharaohs married their sisters to keep the inheritance within the same family. Apparently, the tradition developed whereby the heir to the Pharaoh's throne passed through his eldest daughter, and was inherited by her husband. So to "keep the throne" in the family, it was common for the eldest daughter to marry her brother. It was particularly commonplace during the Ptolemaic Dynasty. this page also has a little bit on the topic. This page also has some information. Neither is strictly a "reliable source", so take it with a grain of salt, but the information looks sound based on my understanding. --Jayron32 00:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

And more generally, some royals actually bought into the idea that they were special, even gods. As such, it wouldn't make sense for them to marry mere mortals. StuRat (talk) 01:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

People believing their own rhetoric is one of our most cherished traditions. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Republican Party in US

I noticed a contradiction: Red states are growing in population faster than blue states, and thus gaining electoral seats. Meanwhile, the percentage of minorities, who tend to vote Democratic, is increasing nationwide. Does this mean that the percentage of minorities is also increasing in red states, and does that mean Republican control of those states is waning ? StuRat (talk) 01:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

In a word, yes. Two things are happening: 1) People from Northeastern "Blue" states are moving south into states like North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, Texas, etc. When people move, they don't suddenly adopt the political affiliations of their new state; they bring their politics with them. Look at the articles on the 2000 United States Census and 2010 United States Census. Look at what states have lost, and what states have gained, congressional seats/electoral college votes. Those people are largely moving south, and as such, the South is getting "bluer". This is especially pronounced in places like Virginia and North Carolina, which have gone from "Solidly red" to "Swing states" in the past decade or so. 2) The Republican Party's stance on immigration has alienated many Hispanic citizens who's politics would otherwise match the Republican Party closely (being largely socially conservative, more religious, and generally distrusting of big government as Republicans are) and driving them away from the Republican party. See [19] and [20]. If both Fox News and the Huffington Post are running with the same story, it's a pretty good sign that there's some truth to it. What parts of the country have seen the largest growth in people of a Hispanic background? The red states: See [21], which shows that the following states saw a greater than 100% growth in Hispanic population between 2000-2010: Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee. Check what color nearly all of those have been colored for the past 4-5 Presidential elections. --Jayron32 02:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Do we have any evidence of red states becoming less red ? StuRat (talk) 07:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Texas, and Colorado would be good examples of this. Futurist110 (talk) 09:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

There may be a sudden collapse of the Republican party unless they reform, see here. Count Iblis (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

That's what the experts were saying 4 years ago, too. Then 2010 happened ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think "sudden" is correct, but there are long-term demographic changes which mean being the party of rich, white, heterosexual, protestant men won't work for much longer. They will need to broaden the tent, at some point. StuRat (talk) 19:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe re-broaden it would be a better term. The teabaggers managed to scare away most of the moderate or liberal-leaning Republicans (of which, ironically, George Romney was one). This is why we're hearing more loose (and potentially treasonous) talk from the far right about some kind of military revolution, since they can no longer win "fairly". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't be the first time. The parties don't have any long-term political ideologies to speak of. That is, there is no historically universal set of "Republican" or "Democratic" party values which one can say is consistent across history. The parties rejigger their ideals every 30 years or so, and are likely very much due to do so again. At one time, the Democratic Party was the party of exactly the demographic make up that StuRat describes (see Solid South), while the Republican party was the party of social progressives (see Theodore Roosevelt etc.) The parties started to reshape their political ideology in the 1940s, for example the Dixiecrat movement represented a time when the Southern white protestant racists bolted from the Democratic party; they stayed alienated from the party throughout the 1950 and 1960s when the Democratic Party nationally became a proponent of civil rights, while in 1968 Nixon's Southern strategy specifically targeted these voters and helped reshape the party dynamics in America. As late as 1972, there was still a serious socially progressive wing to the Republican party (see Pete McCloskey) but those voters bolted for the Democratic Party during the same time as Southern Whites moved into the Republican Party. The party reshuffling was completed in the early 1980s when socially conservative Northern working class voters left the Democratic party (which had formerly had solid control of the "labor" vote in America) and became the Reagan Democrats that became a major force in giving him one of the biggest electoral landslide victories ever in 1984. Throughout the 1980s, these voters still continued to vote Democrat in local elections, which is why Reagan governed during a time of divided government (The two houses of Congress were staunchly democrat during the 1980s). Even today, many southern states still have strong local connections to the historic Democratic Party. North Carolina, where I live, continued to elect Democratic Governors, for example, throughout this time period (See Governor of North Carolina). This also partly explains the "Republican Revolution" of Newt Gingrich during the Clinton years: Local candidates and party structure takes longer to catch up with national trends, so there's always a "lag" when state offices and, say, the House of Representatives to "catch up" with national trends. That may also be why the House and state Governors, on one hand, and the Senate and Electoral College, on the other, have in the past decade or so moved in opposite directions, to partly answer a question asked a few days ago. --Jayron32 21:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that the Republican economic policy has generally stayed very similar between the 1920s and the present, with the exception of the 1950s and 1970s. Likewise, the Democratic economic policy has stayed very similar since the days of FDR in the 1930s. It's the social issues and foreign policy where the parties have changed their positions over the last century. The Republicans used to be the more isolationist party (getting us out of Korea and Vietnam, et cetera), even as recently as 2000 with George W. Bush's opposition to nation-building. Of course, 9/11 changed all of that. Futurist110 (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, economically both parties are nearly identical in outlook, and have always been. Neither has ever offered any real distinct economic plan, aside from small distinctions between how government money is spent, and how taxes are collected, but neither presents anything like a truly different economic model. They're both working within the same economic model, and offer very slightly differing views on spending and taxation. But very small difference. --Jayron32 22:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

That's because there is no other viable economic model than free-market capitalism with reasonable government regulation -- and countries that experimented with a truly different economic model have paid dearly for their experiments. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 00:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly. Both parties give lipservice to free-market capitalism, though neither actually supports economic policies that practice it. What the parties both do is subcontract various governmental functions with corporations in exchange for establishing laws and a system which benefits those large corporations at the expense of actual open exchange of ideas and products and services. The current system isn't so much free market as it is corporatist, and both parties have supported a fully corporatist model of economy for a very long time. Both parties act to enact laws that benefit the corporations that fund their maintenance of power. There are other ways to run an economy than command-economy-by-government and command-economy-by-coprorations. It is also possible to maintain a free market whereby the government doesn't directly act to stifle competition by anyone except large corporations with the money to buy laws friendly to themselves. --Jayron32 01:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, quite a few nations are more liberal than US Democrats, and some European socialist governments have done fairly well for themselves. On the other extreme, China now seems more conservative than the US Republican Party, letting rich businessmen do as they please, with little effective regulation. StuRat (talk) 00:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Jayron32 -- there's no absolute consistency in political positions over long periods, but in some respects modern Republican party positions resemble those of the "Hamiltonians" in early U.S. history, and modern Democratic party positions those of the "Jeffersonians" in early U.S. history... AnonMoos (talk) 02:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Kinda-sorta, and only today. As noted above, you could have swapped those labels 100 years ago. And that implies that those political labels have meaning today; it would be a stretch to say that they do, but if you remove the definitions from their unique historical contexts (never really wise to do), I would buy it, but I'm still not sure its a useful analogy to draw. There is not a straight line following the political ideologies from late 17th century politics to today. There is no way to do that through the history of American political parties. --Jayron32 02:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

IMO, it is more likely that the two-party system will stay in place due to the various issues mentioned on Two-party system#Causes; the Republican party will continue to exist in some form as the primary opposition party to the Democrats, but realign to some other political ideology; and we will eventually add a "Sixth Party System" to Political parties in the United States#History. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

That assumes that 2008 was a realigning election leading to a period of Democratic dominance. Too early to argue about that, and continued Republican control of the House of Representatives makes it a far from simple question.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the Republicans need to eject the Tea Party, who make it so a candidate moderate enough to win national office can't win the primary. StuRat (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

That's pretty much how the Republican Party formed in the first place. The Whig Party became divided over the issue of Slavery; anti-slavery Whigs bolted to form the Republican party. In a free-society it is hard to "Force" people to leave the Republican Party, but one could envisiona voluntary realignment: either the moderate Republicans leaving to form/join another party (there was some movement in this direction when the Reform party was created, but it proved to not be lasting, or if the Tea Party bolts to their own party and/or joins a third party. But they can't "force" anything. The party platform is negotiated from within, and the Tea Party has afforded itself a voice at the table given its support. The moderates have the option to leave or deal with it. --Jayron32 00:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Galen

Statement from the article: "Galen’s principal interest was in human anatomy, but Roman law had prohibited the dissection of human cadavers since about 150 BC." Why did the Roman prohibited the dissection of ceased human bodies? There must be a reason but I don't think the article has it.174.20.101.190 (talk) 03:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

It may have been religious. Roman funerals and burial states "In Greco-Roman antiquity, the bodies of the dead were regarded as polluting." It may have been some sort of "ritual uncleanliness" similar to that which exists in Judaic law. --Jayron32 03:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how when someone dissect a dead body is more polluting than a dead body itself.174.20.101.190 (talk) 03:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

No, people weren't supposed to handle dead bodies at all. It "polluted" them. So dissecting would have been right out. The Romans also had a reverence for their dead, so it may have been seen as desecration. The article I linked above has some information which may help solve the conundrum. --Jayron32 05:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Given the lack of knowledge about microbes, wouldn't there in fact be a danger of "pollution" of those handling the dead? Although I wonder how they did burials without touching the bodies at all. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Many ancient religious practices have a small basis in real benefits. There are many studies, for example, that show how Jewish, Muslim, and Hindu dietary practices may have had real health benefits for those populations at that time in that location. Just to pick one paper at random: [22] states "laws of kashrut (keeping to a kosher diet), the Torah advances spiritual health, holiness, and purity, rather than physical health as a reason for kosher. It is, of course, quite feasible that physical health, al- though not a reason for kashrut, might be one of the benefits of a Kosher diet." That is, when codified religious laws about "spiritual uncleanliness" aren't primarily concerned with physical well being, but in many cases modern science has shows that they have that benefit as well (i.e. the microbe issue you note). --Jayron32 21:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes. One Jewish tradition is to wash one's hands when leaving the graveyard after a burial. I don't know how old that tradition is, but it certainly would have a practical basis even though microbes were unknown. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Edward Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire volume IV, chapter XLIV (see here) contains a discussion of Roman law. Some aspects of their religion can be read here. Zoonoses (talk) 06:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Note that the dissection of human bodies was illegal in England (with a few exceptions) until the Anatomy Act 1832. Alansplodge (talk) 19:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

A "Book Thief" quote?

By Markus Zusak.

In the context of Max becoming sick without evident reason and slowly seems to slip away from life, Liesel tends to his bed:

"For hours, she sat with him as he shivered and slept.

'Don’t die,' she whispered. 'Please, Max, just don’t die.'

He was the second snowman to be melting away before her eyes, only this one was different. It was a paradox.

The colder he became, the more he melted."

I feel this quote really has a lot of hidden meaning behind it but I can't seem to place my finger upon it. Especially the bit: "Only this one was different. It was a paradox." Anyone care to share their opinion/enlighten me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.20.37 (talk) 04:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Our article Paradox is fairly confusing, being full of jargon. An easier definition is here; something that contradicts itself and is true anyway. If a snowman gets colder, the snow in it should stay frozen. The snow can only melt if the snowman gets warmer. But because Liesel is thinking of Max metaphorically, she can think of him as both a snowman (figuratively, i.e. he is cold) who is getting colder (literally) and is nevertheless melting (figuratively, is dying). I don't think it's hidden meaning but a way of trying to express her inability to believe Max is so sick. 184.147.123.169 (talk) 14:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Is capital punishment truly effective in lowering crime rates?

From a statistical point of view, is capital punishment truly effective in preventing crime? As in, around the world, in countries where capital punishment was implemented, were crime rates low? Conversely, in countries which abolished capital punishment, did crime rates go up? And have there ever been non-biased studies on the effects of capital punishment on crime and crime rates? I'm asking this because there appear to be countries with relatively low crime rates that have abolished the death penalty and countries with relatively high crime rates despite retaining it (European countries and the United States respectively come to mind), but of course there are countries which are the other way around (high crime rate and no death penalty and low crime rate with death penalty), like Colombia and Singapore respectively. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

We have a section on this at Capital_punishment_debate#Deterrence. Long story short, the experts can't agree on whether there is a deterrent effect. Numerous studies are linked to from that section, but I believe they mostly regard the United States. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

If I recall criminology class, and if theory hasn't evolved much since then, ever since like the French Revolution the basic axiom has been that crime is deterred by the inevitability of being caught and the swiftness of punishment; while the severity of punishment has comparatively much less or even no effect. A quick survey of my own motivators would seem to confirm that. So that the current system of having a trial a year or two down the road, followed by several appeals, a few decades on death row, followed by death would seem to be not particularly effective; which in fact it doesn't seem to be. And ironically, it's been suggested that prisoners may in fact survive longer on death row than they would in the prison's general population. Presumably, being executed on the spot by the arresting officer, Judge Dredd style, would be more of a deterrent; but presumably having him/her merely break a finger or two would be pretty much as effective, according to the theory above.

None of this addresses the question of ensuring the innocent are not punished, of course, which tends to fight both the inevitability and the swiftness. Those who hold that the occasional execution of an innocent is excused by the fact that it presumably saves a larger number of lives by deterring other murders miss the logical extension that, were that the case, then it would be morally required to deliberately frame and execute some random shmuck for every unsolved crime, rather than pasively allowing many more to die as a result of the lost deterrent. Ethics doesn't lend itself to calculus very well. Gzuckier (talk) 07:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. For capital punishment to actually have a statistical effect on crime, you'd need to execute a statistically significant number of criminals. In the US, criminals have like a 1 in a million chance overall of being executed (although it's much higher for certain crimes in certain places). StuRat (talk) 07:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The effect certainly isn't clear or obvious so I suppose one should discount it as a major reason to do it. I'm not certain it saves any money either with all the court cases and appeals though I suppose it could in a poorer country where justice can be more summary. Dmcq (talk) 16:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The premise is off. The question being asked here is analogous to, "Does wearing clean underwear really prevent car accidents?" μηδείς (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why. As to your example casting ridicule is not a substitute to a proper answer. Dmcq (talk) 16:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The question presumes that lowering the crime rate is the purpose of the death penalty. You'll find very few death penalty supporters making that argument, and none as their main argument. As for the example, that's what's called an analogy. (I assume you are familiar with mothers ask their sons, "Are you wearing a clean pair? What if you got in a car accident?") I could just as well have mentioned Lisa Simpson's tiger-repelling rock. Your concern is noted, but I most certainly did not ridicule the OP, and I am quite sure I didn't hurt the argument's feelings. μηδείς (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The difference is that it's reasonable to think that execution of criminals might prevent crime, but completely unreasonable to think that clean underwear prevents accidents. From a science POV, the first is a reasonable hypothesis, worthy of testing, while the 2nd is not. StuRat (talk) 18:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, clearly execution prevents the executed criminals from committing more crimes, so, unless there is some mechanism to counter this effect, it should reduce crime. However, there could be exceptions:

1) If we are comparing it with life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, then neither should be able to commit many crimes. (Although those in jail can still commit crimes against other prisoners, guards, and visitors or can commit crimes outside by escaping, or using the phone or mail. They could also be a mastermind behind crimes committed by others outside).

2) In some cases, other people will become criminals when one criminal is removed from society. For example, if a drug dealer is removed, a new drug dealer often quickly appears in the same location to sell to the same customers. StuRat (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course, there are essentially infinite ways capital punishment could contribute to an increase in murders. For one, it may lead to people who commit a murder in a fit of passion, or by something of an accident, or in some sort of self-defense, to decide to eliminate all witnesses; whereas without the threat of death they might resign themselves to the wheels of justice, rather than dig themselves a bigger hole, or violate their basic revulsion against deliberate murder. Or the more vague suggestion that, by endorsing the idea that certain people "need killing", the government thereby perpetuates that idea among the general public. The US is, after all, a nation which endorses the idea that people should do for themselves rather than rely on the government to do it.

In tune with that, those on the "right" (to overgeneralize), who are the most likely to demand the death penalty are also the people most likely to talk about unplanned consequences of government laws and regulations, the unreliability of government laws and regulations, etc. etc.; but only in a different context from the government actually putting citizens to death. Apparently in that arena, the government is infallible. That, and of course in the arena of killing foreigners en masse.

And on a different tangent, one must point out that the "lenient" systems, such as most of Europe, which not only do not have capital punishment but tend to hand out sentences of maybe 25 years where the US would hand out life terms, tend to have lower rates of murder, and (arguably) violent crime in general. Which is, at least, consistent with the notion that the severity of the punishment is not the most important deterrent. Gzuckier (talk) 19:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Comparisons between different nations are problematic, since so many other factors vary, like the distribution of wealth and availability of guns. StuRat (talk) 17:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Capital "punishment" isn't exactly punishment, it's permanent and irreversible removal from society. Prisoners can escape their confines. Corpses can't. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

We should probably put all felons to death then. I'm pretty sure the chance of a released or escaped felon (not including murderers) committing murder is higher than the population in general. After all, there is a reason we don't let them have guns. And probably, misdemeanors too. And those accused, but found not guilty, as well, I bet. And I bet even those who get traffic tickets are more likely to go on to commit murders. And certainly, males are more likely to commit murder. (I'm not going to touch on the third rail of race here). Permanent and irreversible removal from society on the grounds of murderous propensities could do a lot to keep us safe, we shouldn't limit it to the small number of convicted murderers. Gzuckier (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The list of capital crimes is fairly narrow, at least in the US. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

But if we correctly understand that we can reduce the murder rate by eliminating all those with greater than average propenisty to murder, even with the deaths of many innocents, we would see a net gain. Thus, it only makes esne to increase the number of crimes with capital punishment; even mandatory.

Tangentially, the newspaper today had an article regarding the philosophical/moral question, is it ethical to push an innocent person into the path of a moving vehicle, if it would stop that vehicle from plowing into a crowd of many people? The old deliberately sacrifice one innocent (who hasn't volunteered), in order to save many more innocents dilemma. What the article said (haven't checked it myself) is that psychopaths don't even see why there should be any question; of course whatever results in the lowest net death rate would be the most moral, regardless of what it may be, what other possibility is there? Interesting to tie a certain type of person to that point of view. Gzuckier (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Leaving aside the immorality of executing people for minor crimes, it would also have a negative effect on crime. If anyone who commits a traffic violation is executed, you could expect them to open fire on any policemen who approaches them, in an effort to save their lives, or perhaps only bribe the policeman. You could also expect the collapse of the automobile industry, as you'd be crazy to take the risk of driving a car, since there are so many driving laws, that anyone who drives is sure to break several laws a day. In any case, you make things much worse this way. StuRat (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

And on another tangent, for those who are interested one way or another with the Old Testament's tendency to prescribe death by stoning as a punishment for all sorts of things but who are not familiar with this relatively well-known quote from Mishnah Makkot 1:10, "A Sanhedrin that puts a man to death once in seven years is called destructive. Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah says: even once in seventy years. Rabbi Akiba and Rabbi Tarfon say: had we been in the Sanhedrin none would ever have been put to death.". An illustration that capital punishment may serve a largely symbolic purpose, to indicate the severity of a crime without necessarily being imposed in every or even in any case. Capital and corporal punishment in Judaism Gzuckier (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Parental Consent Abortion Laws Enforcement

How do laws which require parental consent for minors to get abortions get enforced? What would stop someone from faking parental consent or a doctor from doing an abortion on a minor without parental consent and then keeping it a secret? Futurist110 (talk) 09:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The only law I could easily find the text of is West Virginia's. It's not a parental consent law, but a parental notification law. It is not specified how the doctor is to determine that notification was actually given to the correct persons, but he is only punished under law if he knew that proper notification did not reach the minor's parent or legal guardian. There is nothing in the law to stop a minor from scamming a doctor. The law doesn't mention anything about the doctor's requirements for ascertaining the correct identity/location/etc of the minor's parents. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I was asking specifically about parental consent, but in cases of parental notification couldn't the doctor simply avoid putting the abortion for the minor in his records or something like that to avoid notifying the parents? If there's no record that the minor got an abortion, how can the doctor get prosecuted/punished? Futurist110 (talk) 10:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, businesses have been known to do things off the books, and sometimes they don't get caught. But the doctor would be taking a big risk to his career, that the minor might end up letting it slip to her parents, who then might go to the police. Duoduoduo (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

You have a valid point about that. Many doctors probably wouldn't want to risk that. However, there might be a couple doctors who would. However, if the doctor does the abortion off the books, then he probably won't be able to get prosecuted for anything due to a lack of evidence. Of course, the allegations (and possibly resulting investigation) themselves could prove to be damaging to the doctor, even without enough proof for prosecution or a conviction. Futurist110 (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Communism and capital punishment

Why do communist states seem to like capital punishment? All of today's communist nations have capital punishment, and China (probably the world's only country to officially keep exact execution statistics a state secret) executes more people yearly than the rest of the world combined. And let's not forget the Soviet Union and the various other communist states throughout history, which purged and executed people who fell out of favor with the ruling party. The question is, why? Does it have to do with the Communist Party of those countries trying to remain in power, or is there something in Marxist writings that encouraged executing individuals? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I would ask this: at various points in history, has capital punishment been more popular with dictatorships of any stripe than with non-dictatorships? My hypothesis would be yes, since dictatorships like to be in control. Duoduoduo (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. And, of course, most "communist" governments haven't actually been interested in equality for all, but rather only used this as a way to gain power, and then used severe repression, including executions, to maintain power. In many cases, if the threat of violence was removed, those "communist" nations would soon be overthrown (perhaps in favor of real equality). StuRat (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Because, of course, they are greatly impressed by the science of Sunstein et al, and they are morally driven to protect their citizens to the utmost. Gzuckier (talk) 19:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Irene Adler

Who is Irene Adler? Bennielove (talk) 13:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)Bennie

Irene Adler. See also the other links at the top there. Staecker (talk) 13:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Titanic's stewards and their responsibility

I read about Sid Daniels, last surviving crewmember of the RMS Titanic. My question is, was he ever queried about his responsibility on locking the gates and leaving hundreds to die on the lower decks?. American Civil War veteran Isidor Strauss died in the disaster and plenty of other innocents also died because of the locked gates. What about that? Watterwalk (talk) 14:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Isidor Strauss died because he followed the "women and children first" rule, and our article on Sid Daniels says nothing about the locking of any gates. DuncanHill (talk) 14:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, the gates below decks were kept locked in order to comply with US immigration rules. To quote from our article Sinking of the RMS Titanic, which you would do well to read, "This segregation was not simply for social reasons, but was a requirement of United States immigration laws, which mandated that third-class passengers be segregated to control immigration and prevent the spread of infectious diseases.". DuncanHill (talk) 14:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Duncan for your fast answer, I know that the article on Sid Daniels doesn't say anything about that but he was a steward and stewards are to blame for the locking of the gates, I wanted to know whether or not he was queried about that. Thank you. Isidor's death is moving for me because he was a veteran of the American Civil War, just like my grandfather. Watterwalk (talk) 14:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

You'd rather the stewards had ignored the laws of the USA? As pointed out in the article, the locked gates were a requirement of US law. You would be better off going after US Congressmen and immigration officials, who, in their desire to reduce the spread of infectious diseases, imposed the rule. DuncanHill (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer Duncan. I just couldn't believe that an American Civil War veteran was left to die on board the ship. Watterwalk (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think they went around asking passengers their life-histories before assigning places in the (too few) lifeboats. Perhaps this is something that maritime safety authorities could be encouraged to require in future. DuncanHill (talk) 15:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Why would an American civil war veteran be any more deserving than anyone else? Please explain. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sorry, I don't mean he was more than anybody else, but American Civil War veterans were highly respected at the time. Watterwalk (talk) 15:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

American Civil War veterans were common. One in ten of the entire population enlisted during the war, so with soldiers being mainly male and mainly of younger ages, you would expect one of every 3 or 4 men old enough to have been in the war (and not a later immigrant) to have actually been veterans. Rmhermen (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, Civil War vets may have been highly respected in the United States... but the Titanic was a British shipping company (White Star)... the British did not have the same attitude towards vets (of any war... even their own). Rank was more important to them than mere service (ie former officers were respected... "other ranks"? much less so). Blueboar (talk) 16:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a bit of a broad brush statement that misinterprets a more complex reality. Yes it's true that the British armed forces had a "lions led by donkeys" problem in the First World War, and probably some similar problems in the second, but the USA selected their officers by rather similar means in that period. Focusing more on what you actually said, "the British" have always been respectful and grateful to those who serve in the armed forces (hence the huge popular regard for the actions of Florence Nightingale even at the time), and indeed (in WWI and to a much lesser extent WWII) had a tendency towards open disrespect for those whom they thought did not (see Order of the White Feather).

The USA has a larger proportion of its population in the armed forces, and thus respect for "veterans" is more widespread, but in the UK there is no shortage of parades to honour veterans (of all ranks), nor monuments to them (which exist in almost every village, and again, honour all ranks). Obviously those monuments were far fewer in the year the Titanic sank, but that didn't mean the respect wasn't there. On the other hand, combatants in a different country's civil war may indeed not have received any natural sense of special respect. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Why do you call Isidor Straus an American Civil War veteran? His biography gives no clue. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 01:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

True. Seems the closest he came was to volunteer, but was rejected. That he offered his services shows a fine civic spirit, but it hardly qualifies him as a veteran in any common understanding of that word. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Your entire premise is full of half-truths, urban legends, and melodramatic nonsense derived from fiction of dubious quality. There are many reasons why most third-class passengers didn't escape, but "locked gates" was really not an issue, and the stewards weren't even responsible for them. Much more serious problems include: the architecture of the ship, which deliberately made it difficult for third-class passengers to even find passages up to the Boat Deck let alone negotiate them (google "Scotland Road"); the mindset of the entire transportation community of the time, which was that accidents were a "thing of the past" and there would never actually be a good reason to evacuate the ship, so drills, adequate lifeboats, etc. were a waste of time and money; the dozens of languages spoken by the immigrants, most of whom did not understand a word of English and could not have found out how to get up to the boat deck even if they tried to learn; and the logistics of trying to get an entire family of five or more small children up, dressed, and out in the time they had. Even the locked gates were there specifically because of US government law - keep in mind that the crew members in charge of the gates, at the time the ship was taking on water? Had no idea of the seriousness of the matter. They weren't thinking that the decision that they were making was between life and death for the third class passengers; they were thinking that the decision was between keeping their jobs or being unemployed and watching their own kids starve to death. We know that the Titanic sank; they didn't have our hindsight. Also, Isidor Straus? CHOSE, voluntarily, to stay behind.--NellieBly (talk) 16:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

If you just look at the percentages saved then the 2nd Class males faired the worse of anybody on the ship (8.3%), compared with 16% of 3rd class males. MilborneOne (talk) 20:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Researching Supreme Court Justice Opinions

I need some help with trying to do topical research on opinions of specific U.S. Supreme Court Justices. I am trying to get 4 or 5 opinions written by Scalia in the field of Commerce Clause, but I am having a hard time finding a way to search opinions in that way. Can anyone recommend a good way to search for them online? Thanks. Rabuve (talk) 16:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried the official U.S. Supreme Court website, in addition to full opinions they also have a collection going back a number of decades of all oral arguments on audio files. "Google Scholar" I also know has only rulings and opinions of most every county, state and federal district appeals and supreme court in the U.S. going back at least to the early 2000s and sometimes further. Also Cornell U. has a treasure trove of all things judiciary and I was able to find a huge collection of just Scalia opinions on their website.Marketdiamond (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

This is another resource. Zoonoses (talk) 05:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Armies capturing each other's main city

Has there ever been a war in which each army ended up simultaneously in control of the other's principal city or heartland? A hypothetical example which did not occur would be if in World War II Russia had gotten control of Berlin or most of Germany while on the Western Front the Germans wiped out the Allies and retained control of France. Or again in WWII suppose MacArthur had invaded Japan successfully while the Japanese army on the mainland retained control of eastern China. Or in a simpler two-country war, army A could stretch its supply lines in taking over territory B's heartland, and army B circles around and severs army A's supply lines, and then finds it easier to wipe out the thinned part of A's army on territory A than to retake its own territory. Any actual historical examples? Duoduoduo (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is common during a short, 2-party war, as each side is likely to devote more resources to defense of their capital than the attack on the enemy, and they also have the "home court advantage" (short supply lines, lots of civilian help, etc.). However, over the long term, perhaps generations, a single power can be driven to a new location by their enemies, thus giving up their capital, and perhaps taking over the capital of their weakest enemy. StuRat (talk) 17:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

How about the Normans? After the Conquest they would go on to lose Normandy to the Franks. I don't think this particularly fits your requirements though, since the events took place over centuries, by which time the Normans were thinking of themselves as English and the Franks as French. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Well maybe not completely this but in history Poland smooshed around so much in time-lapse that it looked like an ameoba and it's center moved a good portion of it's diameter. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

During the War of the Austrian Succession, the Austrians captured Munich at the same time as Charles Albert of Bavaria (whose capital it was) was being crowned Emperor in Frankfurt. Frankfurt was not the Austrians' own capital (that was Vienna), but they felt that the imperial title, dignity and coronation ought to have gone to their own candidate, Francis Stephen of Lorraine (as indeed it later did). The Empire had no capital, but Frankfurt was one of its principal cities. AlexTiefling (talk) 01:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

In the Second Punic War, Hannibal's forces were occupying much of Italy when Rome attacked and took Carthage itself. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Not quite - Hannibal came back from Italy to Africa before Carthage fell (he commanded at the Battle of Zama for example), and he brought many of his most experienced soldiers back with him. Although he had indeed succeeded in moving at will through the Italian countryside, wiping out several armies sent against him, and capturing numerous major towns, I don't think there was ever a point where his forces were in direct control of the majority of Italy. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

That's true, if I recall correctly the occupation had not ended completely when Carthage fell. It probably comes close but does not exactly meet the OP's criteria.

How many US Americans have German surnames?

majority ethnicity by county

Comploose (talk) 17:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

This is going to be incredibly difficult to calculate since it's nearly impossible to accurately define what's an authentically German surname. In the period before the Civil War (and, to a lesser extent, right up until WWII) immigrants to the US were encouraged to Anglicise their names - thus Schmidt becomes Smith and Müller becomes Miller. But not all Smiths are Schmidts - some may be original English Smiths, others could be Hungarian Kovacs, for example. And what about someone with a German surname whose ancestors moved to Russia centuries before the emigration to America? Are they to be counted?

The best data might be to use the 50 million German Americans, unless you have a particular reason otherwise. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Likewise, many US Jews have Germanic surnames but it is quite difficult to say if a name like 'Stein' is from German or Yiddish. --Soman (talk) 17:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Subtract of these 50 million the many descendants of Germans who do not have German names. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

See also, this map. μηδείς (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Follow up question about the map: what do American readers understand by the "American" label in that map? Anglo-Saxon, Anglo-Celtic, native American, generally caucasian, or is it a non-ethnicity spcific catch-all for people who did not identify their actual places of ancestral origin? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It's the last one, more or less, except that they might disagree with your term "non-ethnicity specific". While some people don't know their ancestry, and while some have such a diverse ancestry that it's impossible to pick out one as the main one, there are also a lot of people who actively dislike terms like "Italian-American" etc., saying "I'm not a hyphenated American". They believe strongly in the idea that America is a melting pot, where people from various places merge together into a distinct American form. Duoduoduo (talk) 15:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, note that the summary below the map says "Areas with the largest "American" ancestry populations were mostly settled by Germans, English, French, Welsh, Scottish and Irish." Duoduoduo (talk) 15:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

A story that relates... When a friend of mine joined the US Navy (back in the 80s), they had a form that asked about "national heritage". My friend wrote down "American". The recruiter came back and told him this was not an acceptable option... "we are all Americans," the recruiter said, "where did your parents come from?" My friend replied "New York". "OK," said the recruiter, "What about your Grand Parents, where did they come from?" My friend replied, "New York". "What about their parents?" "New York"... this continued for a few more generations... until my friend finally explained that the first of his ancestors to come to America arrived in the 1630s (His dad's oldest branch was English, settling on Cape Cod... his mom's oldest branch was Dutch, settling in New Amsterdam) and that by the time of the American Revolution, both branches had been infused with various European strains... French, Irish, Scottish, German, Spanish (via Cuba), etc. My friend asked... how far back must I go?... How many generations does a family have to live in America before before you can simply call yourself "American"? The recruiter grunted, and wrote down "English".

There does come a point where hyphens become meaningless, but statisticians and bureaucrats like it when people fit into predetermined boxes. Blueboar (talk) 16:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

This is taking us pretty far afield from the original question, but I'll note that the hyphens are even more meaningless than one might expect based on one's notional, nominal family tree. Genetic testing reveals that a not-insignificant fraction of children aren't actually the offspring of the putative father (see non-paternity event). There's a pretty wide range of numbers in the published literature, but the lowest estimate is about 0.8% of births, and the median across several studies is 3.7%. The odds are pretty good that there is an unaccounted for branch somewhere in the last four to six generations of any given person's family tree. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

A lot of Americans don't like to admit that they are mainly of English blood - that or they don't think of "English" as an actual ethnicity. (I've noticed that Americans seem to see Englishness as they do the base of latex paint - not really there or important in comparison to the "pigment" of Irish, German, etc. ethnicity.) --NellieBly (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Which years of the Senate election cycle favor each party? (USA)

There has to be some bias, if only because most elections are impossible to split evenly. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I can see two possible questions here:

A) What is the distribution, by party, of US Senators elected in 2012, 2010, and 2008 (or possibly back further). I think this is what you're actually asking.

No, I just wanted to know which of the 33 or 34-state senate classes are more Dem-biased and Rep-biased than the 50 states as a whole without having to look up hundreds of data points. Maybe it's already out there somewhere. According to the article, each class was decided by lot, so I doubt the Senate classes have no bias at all. In fact, 2 senate classes are 33 seats so if you call all the states red or blue one side has to have the advantage. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

B) Does a Senate election year which coincides with the presidential election favor one party over another ? If this is what you meant, I'd expect that to favor Democrats, versus Republicans in mid-term elections. The reason is that many Democratic voters are poorer, and thus it takes more of an effort to get to the polls (taking public transportation, for example), so they are less likely to vote. In mid-term elections, when less is at stake, they aren't as likely to make that effort. There's also a coattails effect, where, if a President of one party is elected, Senators of the same party are also likely to be elected. This, obviously, only applies to years when the two elections are coincident. StuRat (talk) 19:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Not what I asked, but interesting, I hadn't thought of that before. Inherant off-year Republican bias.. (Most polls are under half a mile away here, I once tried to time a vote with a commercial break (well, a few minutes of voting and 4 minutes of walking isn't bad)) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

"Democratic voters are poorer" - I'm sorry, but do you have a source for that? Royor (talk) 19:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Jayron32 21:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Royor (talk) 08:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Jayron. I thought this was common knowledge. StuRat (talk) 23:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that it is more based on whether its a presidential election year, with the coattail effect, or a midterm election. Midterm elections are sometimes regarded as a referendum on the sitting president's party. If you take a look at United States midterm election#Historical record of midterm elections, there is a recent average trend where the the party of the president looses seats, regardless if it's a Democrat or a Republican in the White House. Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

One variant of the OP's question is this: In each of the three sequential senatorial election years, which party has the most seats up for reelection and hence vulnerable? For example, this year if my memory serves me correctly (sorry no citation) 23 of the 33 seats up for election were Democratic seats. That means the Democrats were at a disadvantage, because there were more seats for them to lose than for the Republicans to lose. Simplistic, of course, since it doesn't take into account how many of each party's seats are "safe" and how many are not. So another version of the question would be: of the 33 or 34 seats coming up for election in each of the three cohorts, how many of them are in states that (a) are solid red; (b) lean red; (c) are absolutely borderline; (d) lean blue; (e) are solid blue? Of course, this still doesn't take into account the incumbency advantage, so you'd have to subdivide all five categories into (i) Democratic incumbent, (ii) Republican incumbent, (iii) no incumbent running; then you'd have to further subdivide into first-term (hence vulnerable) incumbents and more entrenched incumbents. Duoduoduo (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Why did the Nazis persecute the homosexual?

What was the threat? Watterwalk (talk) 19:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

You'll get a better answer by reading Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust, but the short answer is they were seen as a threat to the family. In the Nazi ideal, men were workers and soldiers and women were child producing, cooking and cleaning machines. The duty of the family was to create and support legions of blond-haired, blue eyed 'perfect' children. Homosexuals were seen as a threat to the ideal family. The arguments used today by those opposed to gay marriage are unsettlingly close to those of 70 years ago. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 19:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Nice article to read, thank you Mike. And did it carry, or meant, a mandatory death sentence if a homosexual was caught? Watterwalk (talk) 20:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Some use those arguments, like the infamous Westboro Baptist church, but many others would find much objectionable in the Nazi's viewpoint. Implying some major argumental connections between people who oppose SSM and Nazis is not exactly going to go over well. Vidtharr (talk) 08:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a difficult question. In legal terms I do not believe that homosexuality carried the death penalty. It is not listed in our article Capital punishment in Germany. But, as that article says, "no law even of the Nazis allowed extermination through work, and genocidal mass murder, as in the case of the Holocaust." Many of the Nazis' measures against undesirables had no particular legal basis. However, it would be true to say that, if a homosexual was discovered, and refused to change their ways (as the first article says, there were efforts to "force them into sexual and social conformity") then they could expect to be sent to a concentration camp, which was, as we now know, an effective death sentence. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 20:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Being sent to a concentration camp was in no way an effective death sentence. You're thinking of extermination camps, which had nearly 100% death rates. Camps like Dachau, Buchenwald,and Auschwitz (except Auschwitz II), which were grade I, II, and III respectively, had death rates of 18-50%, according on our articles on those camps. The average inmate was more likely to survive than not. --140.180.252.244 (talk) 22:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

That death rate refers to what time span? Does it refer to one year? OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

A very good book for you to read would be The Men With the Pink Triangle, by Heinz Heger, a gay man who survived the Concentration Camps. DuncanHill (talk) 20:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The Nazis persecuted all enemies, real or imaginary, of their social model. That includes homosexuals, but also less known victims like esperantists and Jehovah's witnesses. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

One fascinating chapter in the history of Nazi Germany is the brownshirts, where homosexuality was widespread among the leadership. Early on, Hitler needed them, so turned a blind eye. Then, when his power base was secure, he purged them. So, in this sense, homosexuality was just an excuse to get rid of people he wanted to get rid of anyway. StuRat (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

It could equally be the case that he had moral objections to their homosexuality all along, but did not act on his objections earlier because (as you say) he needed them. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Right, but in either case, it demonstrates that their objection to homosexuality wasn't all that strong, if they could tolerate it at all. StuRat (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

"Brown people"?

Hello. I have recently heard an upsurge in the term "brown people" to refer to persons of Indian and Arab ancestry, and even more broadly to refer to anyone with darker skin (such as East Asians, Hispanics, Pacific Islanders) except African Americans. What intrigues me is that this is not coming in anywhere near a racist context - I have heard it from some of the most politically correct / culturally sensitive people I know, and in the company of the referred-to "brown people." My question is: Has this term become the new PC word for nonwhite? It doesn't seem OK to my ears, and your article does not address this phenomenon. I am in the midwestern United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.74.238 (talk) 22:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

If the brown skinned people in question feel comfortable with the term, then it's OK. However, I would prefer "brown skinned people" instead of "brown people." And both are preferable to brownie or mulatto. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

As always, context is very important. A Jewish person calling himself a Jew doesn't mean the same thing as a Neonazi calling them a Jew. The same word can be positive, neutral, or negative depending on context. There are no rules which apply to every social situation. --Jayron32 23:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, take care, if two gangsta are calling each other "nigga", that doesn't mean you can call any one of them the same. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not as annoying as "people of color", implying that Caucasians are as white as a piece of chalk. StuRat (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Isn't "white" a color? A8875 (talk) 00:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Nope, and neither is black, although, of course, "white" and "black" people aren't actually white and black. StuRat (talk) 01:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course they are colors. Just not hues. μηδείς (talk) 04:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm brown and I don't find it offensive. But yeah, I can't understand why anybody would want to use it. "Brown people" is so ambiguous it's basically meaningless. The only people it actually excludes are very pale-skinned northern Europeans or East Asians. Speaking of pale-skinned, I find "red skin" or "yellow people" about as offensive as calling someone "paleface". Outwardly harmless. Historically offensive. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 09:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Generalising on the basis of skin colour seems pretty dumb to me. HiLo48 (talk) 03:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

then you should get rid of that box or just strike out the ngamudji.GeeBIGS (talk) 07:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

dumb. Practical. Whatever.GeeBIGS (talk) 06:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

seems its simply a necessity of our ever shrinking world. Why is white or black ok but brown ,red or yellow not? If someone that was not "the same color as me" was trying to be PC and referred to me as a whatever-skinned " person" I would be odd-stricken. Lets see he's white, she's black, he's Indian I mean Asian I mean .... , he's Indian I mean Native American I mean.... A red skinned person indigenous to north america, She's Asian but not Indian or Russian, you know asian-asian. It's just awkward and incongruent. Using brown or yellow avoids the slippery pc slope.GeeBIGS (talk) 05:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Missed my point completely. maybe it was too simple. HiLo48 (talk) 05:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I would "generalize" (make a general assumption )that you live in a rather homogeneous community. Having to ask people to self-id on a daily basis for gmi I have found that people are proud of whatever they are and barely bat an eye before answering whether they are "white" or "black OR African American" or "OTHER Pacific Islander". Being white I also played on a football team with black and brown people where we all called each other nigga. Both dumb but practicalGeeBIGS (talk) 06:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

It appears that you have no idea what generalising means. You basically seem to be talking garbage. HiLo48 (talk) 06:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

(For the clarification of other readers, GeeBIGS has just made considerable changes to his previous post. Part of what I was referring to is no longer there. At both that fine level, and on a broader scale, we are clearly not discussing the same thing. I shall move on, unless wiser posts are made here.) HiLo48 (talk) 06:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

and what you said at 550 wasn't ?GeeBIGS (talk) 06:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't find the strikethrough featureGeeBIGS (talk) 06:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't want you to strike out next time, so, type <s>to strike out text</s>, like so. StuRat (talk) 07:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

In other words, who cares. See brown bagging. μηδείς (talk) 05:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

A Scandal in Bohemia

The statement in the article confused me: "Adler herself is threatening to reveal the relationship upon the announcement of the King's betrothal by sending a photograph of the King (then the Crown Prince) and Adler together to the newspapers." Adler herself is threatening by who to reveal the photograph? It would make more sense that she is the one that does the action of threat.174.20.101.190 (talk) 23:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The English is perfectly straightforward. She's not threatening "by" anyone (and that "threatening by someone" constuction doesn't even make sense in English). She's made a threat. The threat is that she intends to send a photo to the newspapers. The photo is of the King and her. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 00:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

ok I see it now but "herself" indicate a reflexive verb which makes the sentence confusing. It could be interpret as she is threatening herself. My English is not so great so not sure if I'm right but I don't think it is necessary to include herself in the sentence. It just made it more confusing.174.20.101.190 (talk) 06:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm intrigued by the preceding sentence:

• It transpires that the King is to become engaged to Clotilde Lothman von Saxe-Meiningen, a young Scandinavian princess, but the King's in-laws-to-be would not allow the marriage should any evidence of his former liaison with an American opera singer, Irene Adler, be revealed to them.

That reads to me that the in-laws-to-be are aware that there was this former liaison with Adler, but they refuse to voluntarily become familiar with the details, and if anyone does inadvertently tell them or if somehow the details come to be known to them, the wedding's off. That's a very odd premise, because it punishes the King for something that might happen over which he has no control. But maybe it's just a poorly written paraphrase of the actual story. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The king would, in that case, be punished for something that was in his control - an 'inappropriate' relationship. The revelation of that would be out of his control. No, you don't need to suppose they know about it from the sentence - it's forecasting how they would react if something [anything, really!] scandalous emerged. --Dweller (talk) 19:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The revelation of that would be out of his control - that's what I'm saying. I think it should be split up and re-written as follows: It transpires that the King is to become engaged to Clotilde Lothman von Saxe-Meiningen, a young Scandinavian princess. However, he had earlier had a liaison with an American opera singer, Irene Adler, and if the King's in-laws-to-be discover this, they would not allow the marriage. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you should edit the article and re-written the sentence as what you did. I think the goal here is to make it as easy understand as possible considering the fact that there are a lot of non-native English speakers in the world that are using English. Plus you got to consider English Wikipedia has by far the most abundant information about most topics. Many people won't find as much information in their native languages as they do in English Wikipedia.174.20.101.190 (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd normally be a little reluctant to make it say whatever I think it's trying to say, because Sherlock Holmes stories are known for their peculiar plot lines, and I haven't read the original story. But my first reading of this passage calls for an outlandish interpretation, so I'll let Occam's Razor apply here and change it as you suggest. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

He'd be punished for getting caught. Nothing odd about that. —Tamfang (talk) 04:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

@174.20.101.190: Herself in that sentence is used intensively, not reflexively. It can be a confusing distinction for nonnative English speakers. Deor (talk) 10:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

In the Jeremy Brett TV series of the 1980's, the photo of Irene Adler and the future king was an unremarkable one of him seated in an ornate chair, likely a throne, with her standing next to him, with an arm around his shoulders. and holding his hand with her other hand. They were not kissing or embracing. It would not prove they had a sexual affair. Was part of the scandal that "Adler" is often a Jewish surname, so he had been involved in some unspecified way with a Jewish woman, which the Saxe-whatever Scandahoovians (was there a "King of Scandanavia in 1891?) would find more objectionable than if she had had some other surname, or is Adler just a random name Doyle chose, with no association for his 1891 readers? Edison (talk) 21:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

No, there wasn't a "king of Scandinavia" in 1891, there wasn't even a "king of Bohemia", since at that time Germany had formed. And holding the hand of an unmarried woman on a photograph in 1891 would be enough for contemporary readers to know that the relationship was more serious than just casual friendship. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Phew, I hope Franz Joseph I of Austria didn't hear that somehow. Of course there was a king of Bohemia in 1891. The Kingdom of Bohemia had nothing to do with the German Empire. It was a sovereign nation. It just so happened that the king of Bohemia and the emperor of Austria and the king of Hungary (etc) happened to be one person. Surtsicna (talk) 23:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Isn't that a pre-1806 analysis? The Austrian emperors did claim the style King of Bohemia (among many others) but, at the time in question, maps would show Bohemia as a province of Cisleithania. Even the concept of dual monarchy (Austria in mere personal union with Hungary) was invented, or revived, in 1867. —Tamfang (talk) 04:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

There wasn't a "king of Scandinavia" but Sweden and Norway were in personal union from 1814 to 1905. It's a bit surprising that Doyle didn't go all the way and use wholly fictional states, like Ruritania. —Tamfang (talk) 04:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree; but it seems that for the purposes of this story we are in a parallel world where the Kalmar Union did not collapse, but the Austrian Empire did - or something like that. Saxe-Meiningen was a genuine Saxon duchy with ties to the British royal family; I have no idea why Conan Doyle decided they should be the ruling house of Scandinavia, but the prominence of the related house of Saxe-Coburg at the time might have been influential. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I once read an essay (I forget where) whose author argued that the description of the photograph as a 'cabinet' is a double entendre; it conveys an overt meaning 'picture taken by a cheap photo studio', but also has a suggestive meaning 'picture taken by a concealed camera'. But I agree with Saddhiyama that a photograph such as that portrayed in the TV series would at least be sufficient to call the King's conduct into question, if not to be regarded as conclusive evidence of an affair.

Addendum about the fictional dynasties: although we are led to believe that Bohemia in this universe is an independent kingdom ruled by the (fictive) von Ormstein family, the King is nevertheless described as possessing the Habsburg lip. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

November 11

what is a dignitary and what does that person do?

I want to find out what a dignitary is and what that person does. But when I type "dignitary" in the search bar and click on the magnifying glass, all I get is "There's no article for dignitary." There so many dignitaries around the world. But somebody should do an article. I wouldn't know where to start. What could possibly be done?142.255.103.121 (talk) 00:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

"Dignitary" in the dictionary -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 00:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a rather vague term. I tend to think of it as mainly referring to diplomats. I think the Wiktionary def is too broad, including people like celebrities, which I would never call dignitaries. StuRat (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I think your definition is too narrow. I think of dignitaries as important public officials. A town mayor is a dignitary but not a diplomat (not involved in international relations). Low level diplomats might not be dignitaries, either. 14:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Amusingly odd. As the OP says, if you type in dignitary you get a page entitled "Dignitary" with the message Wikipedia does not have an encyclopedic article for Dignitary (search results). Then when you click on "search results" in that sentence, you get to a search page which begins with There is a page named "Dignitary" on Wikipedia. Duoduoduo (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I use it as a more formal equivalent of "VIP".--Wehwalt (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Duoduoduo, there's a bit of history to that page. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Note that in wikipedia parlance, that isn't that odd. We do have a page on dignitary on wikipedia (the page which says we don't have an article and suggests you check out wiktionary). We don't however have an encylopaedic article on it. Nil Einne (talk) 14:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

As for the second part of the question: what does a dignitary do?... well, as a minimum, their job is to be treated with dignity. Blueboar (talk) 15:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

No, that's the job of the other people they come into contact with. Mind you, dignitaries don't have a monopoly on the right to be treated with dignity. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Did the vikings believe in gods other than Odin?

An interesting dispute has arisen between me and some Russian (ethnic not just from Russia) muslims, which claim that the vikings were monotheists and believed only one god that was Odin. So this, in their opinion, resembles Islam and Allah. Their argument is that the vikings were warriors, and as Odin was the god of war, so the vikings did not need any other gods. So did they need other gods or not? Did they believe other gods? Some links to scientific researches may be also useful.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 01:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Please refer to List of Norse gods and goddesses.A8875 (talk) 01:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I could find this perfectly by myself but I'm asking about other thing: did the vikings (not all Scandinavians but only the vikings!) believe all of them or only one - Odin?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 01:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

God aren't real. If historians can find records of two dozen Norse Gods then someone back then must've wrote it down. The very act of recording it is proof of their belief, I believe. A8875 (talk) 03:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Muslim viking: "There is no other true God than Odin" Comploose (talk) 01:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Funny but some Russian muslims really believe that they are muslim vikings! :0 --Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 01:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

There are so many Norse gods you could spend Týr's day, Woden's day, Thor's day, and Frey day reading up on them. StuRat (talk) 01:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I think real muslim warriors did not need such trivial things like calendars... :) --Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 01:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

For a warrior, everyday is a warday? Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Rephrasing a Russian saying, the vikings might have seven Odin's days in a week. :) --Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 13:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean believe in, as in, profess the existence of, or worship? The ancient Norse people (among whom being a viking was a specific subculture) generally acknowledged the existence of many, many deities. Some worshipped several, while others dedicated themselves to only one of them. (Chiefs were often also priests of Odin, as chief god, while many warriors worshipped Thor or Tyr, who were warrior gods.) AlexTiefling (talk) 01:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I would like to disagree on a minor point, here. Vikings were not a specific subculture. They were soldiers, merchants, explorers, and more specifically, normal people. The various kings in Scandinavia could call upon them in times of war, like in all feudal societies of the time. All of the gods were revered, as can be seen in various Norse literature. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 07:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

If 'vikings' means those who went out raiding, why not call them a specific subculture? —Tamfang (talk) 04:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

As I've noted above it is from the dispute with some Russian Muslims. I can suggest they mean the vikings both worshipped Odin and believed that Odin is the only God. Like in Islam. They make an analogy that vikings were "northern bedouins".
So you can follow their thought: Russian Muslims are descendants (at least spiritually) of the vikings (I suppose they mean the varangians), but it isn't strange that they (Russian Muslims) connect themselves to Pagans, because the ancient vikings were not Pagans but already Islam-like monotheists (e.g. "Muslims") and Odin was just their name for Allah. Simply speaking the issue is whether the viking were monotheists or not.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 13:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I think these Russian Muslims (whoever they are) need to take a more evidence-based approach to history. Pagan Odin-worshippers were not, in any sense, monotheists. They were not even, generally, monolaters. There's an obvious link between the concepts of God in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Ba'ahi, etc, and arguably to certain figures in ancient Canaanite paganism, too. But there is no such link with Nordic paganism. (It might be argued that the form in which the story of Baldur has come down to us owes a little to semi-Christian myth-making, but no more than that.)

But it's important to note that not all Varangians were pagans. Many of them converted to Christianity, either through contact with German and Irish missionaries in Scandinavia, or with Orthodox Christians in Constantinople, which was and is the heart of the Orthodox world. From the reign of Vladimir the Great of Kiev onwards, there was also the distinctive strain of Russian Orthodoxy, which was arguably instrumental in uniting Varangians and Slavs in a new proto-Russian cultural identity. Their beliefs, while in no sense Islamic, would have been vastly closer to Islam than either was to the pagans. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I think nearly the same but their claim that "the vikings was warriors and did not need any gods but the war god Odin" has instilled some doubts in my mind. But excluding any connections to Abrahamic religions, is there possibility that they could invent some sort of monotheism independently?
But in any case this group of Muslims is very narrow-minded and dogmatic (it looks like some cult for me) and they won't hear any of my arguments, they will just think that I am another "Islamophobe". When I said a very obvious thing that Odin did not mean "one" in Proto-Indo-European (!) and had no connection to Russian один "one" they were quite outraged. These guys are from Muslim society NORM and call themselves Normanns. :) --Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

This has some information on Northern European "heathen lore and literature." Zoonoses (talk) 05:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Lüboslóv Yęzýkin: I presume you've read "Norse religion"? It lists a number of scholarly sources among its references. Gabbe (talk) 09:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

One way to infer the past strength of a given god's cult is from the density of place-names incorporating that god's name. (I have a book that may touch on this, but it's in a box and I don't know where to look for it.) Odin, if I remember right, is commemorated in relatively few place-names; Thor in many more. —Tamfang (talk) 04:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

There are tons of places named after Woden. The article on Thor states that the name is used only sparsely outside Scandinavia, in contrast to Woden whose name (or alternate name, Grim) is found throughout northwestern Europe. --NellieBly (talk) 15:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I think there are more Thor places in England than that article implies, but maybe they are small places and localised. Just in western Surrey there are Thursley and Thundery Hill - places associated with iron working and thus with hammering. Woden/Grim for ditches and dykes, Thor for iron works. There are Friday placenames too. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)}

Literary Term/"Meta"

I'm reading a book where the narrator/protagonist gets drunk and all of the words (what he says and what he narrates) are garbled until he eventually is sober again. I'm curious what the literary term is for that. Is it some kind of "meta" approach? Thank you for your time. Vidtharr (talk) 07:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a variation on the unreliable narrator. StuRat (talk) 08:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

This is a sort of extreme version of a viewpoint character style of narration. Staecker (talk) 12:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both for your suggestions. I'm thinking more in terms of the story's content affecting how the actual story is conveyed. For example, a book ending with the death of the narrator (even mid-sentence). I hope this clarifies what I'm looking for. Thanks again. Vidtharr (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Two examples that made a strong impression on me as a child are Flowers for Algernon and "A Psychedelic Diary" by Dick DeBartolo in Mad Magazine... AnonMoos (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

A Nazi who wore glasses and was responsible for the killings of the disabled, can anybody help me?

Thank you. Can't find him. Watterwalk (talk) 13:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Philipp Bouhler, or others in Category:Action T4 personnel? Mikenorton (talk) 13:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

That's right! Thank you indeed!. Resolved! Watterwalk (talk) 13:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

What exactly is the view of continental philosophers to formal logic?

Although there is an article about "continental philosophy" it did not address specifically the stance of the said philosophers about formal logic. Does the tenet of continental philosophy put very less emphasis on the use of formal logic to the extent that it may not use it at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.205.33.134 (talk) 17:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Since the article continental philosophy states that "It is difficult to identify non-trivial claims that would be common to all the preceding philosophical movements", it seems that it wouldn't be possible to make a generalised statement about such a specific subject. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

As formal logic is generally taken to include propositional logic, then continental philosophers do indeed use formal logic, as the use of propositional logic is common in all philosophy departments. More developed formal logics are usually limited to use in analytic philosophy though, as predicate logics are mostly used in the logical analysis of language which is analytic philosophy's core. This does not mean that predicate logic is entirely foreign to the continentals. See Heidelberg's description of their BA program [23]: Although they relate the "new mathematical logic" as they call it to analytic philosophy of language, they also see this strand of philosophy as applicable to Hermeneutics. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Reading the article on continental philosophy I think you would need a definition of that term before discussing it, considering the wide variety of schools of thought that seems to be combined in it. For example who are you referring to when you say that "they relate the "new mathematical logic" as they call it to analytic philosophy of language, they also see this strand of philosophy as applicable to Hermeneutics"? Schleiermacher, Bergson, Heidegger, Sartre? As far as philosophical terms goes, this is one of the vaguest I've ever come across. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm quoting and referring to the page to which I linked: the Heidelberg Philosophy Department's description of their own undergraduate program. This is just working from the assumption that Heidelberg's is a department which trains its students in continental philosophy, which is not controversial. The other claim I made was that all departments deal with propositional logic, so then so do continental departments. I don't have to define what departments are continental to make that claim, as it is indifferent to the distinction. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Shariah banned in which states?

Which states in the U.S. banned Shari'ah? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmust90 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

There was a vote in Oklahoma, but I don't know if it ever ended up being implemented. AnonMoos (talk) 18:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Alabama and Kansas also passed anti-shariah laws similar to the one in Oklahoma. As for the Oklahoma law, it was duly passed by the legislature and signed into law by the state governor, but is being challenged in the courts. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 05:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Ban on sharia law is the link you need. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Jewish holidays

I was told by a Sephardi Jew that Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews don't celebrate what Ashkenazi Jews do and Ashkenazi Jews don't what the Sephardi and Mizrahi Jew do. What forgot the name of the holidays but I am asking if there was a such thing? I didn't him in the first place but I started to believe him after the day that I met him. I am sorry if I didn't make sense.

It probably has to do with observing an extra day for some holidays, Rosh Hashanah, Pesach (or Passover), Shavuot, and Sukkot.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The extra day originally had to do with observance within the land of Israel vs. observance elsewhere... AnonMoos (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Basically, a CYA when the calendar had a one-day uncertainty.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd guess that more Ashkenazi celebrate Christmas than do Sephardi. Gzuckier (talk) 19:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

There's a lot of very peculiar opinions above. Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews celebrate the same main festivals as Ashkenazi Jews do. There are lots of different aspects of the celebration, especially the liturgy, but the same days will be observed. All hues of geography (Sephardi/Mizrahi/Ashkenazi) Jews keep one day fewer in Israel (Wehalt), but there may be slight variations in what rabbis say non-Israeli Jews should do when they happen to be in Israel for a festival, or vice-versa, but that's also the case within, say, the Ashkenazi camp alone. The one day variation has been a rabbinic decree since Temple times (c.2000+ years) which long predates the Sephardi/Mizrahi/Ashkenazi splits. The comment about Christmas looks like it's angling for an irritable response, so I won't oblige it.

The only thing I can think of that the OP's acquaintance might have been referring to may be exceptionally minor dates in the Jewish calendar that are celebrated by parts of the community, eg 19th Kislev, which is celebrated only by Chabad chasidim, most (but by no means all) of whom are Ashkenazi.

Another way of looking at it could be the observance of Yom Ha'atzmaut, Yom Yerushalayim and Yom Hazikaron, whereby the split is not geographic, but how Zionist Jews are. --Dweller (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Re comment about Christmas, assume incompetent attempt at benevolent joshing. Gzuckier (talk) 01:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Perfect response, thanks. --Dweller (talk) 12:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Festivals that Bengali hindus do and don't celebrate

Which festivals do Bengali hindus celebrate and which festivals that Bengali hindus don't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmust90 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Bengali Hindus do not celebrate Fronleichnam. And many other events. --Soman (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

For what is celebrated, see List of festivals of West Bengal and Public holidays in Bangladesh. 184.147.123.169 (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

First Class of Lahainaluna

Does anyone know the name of all the students of the first class of Lahainaluna School in 1831? The wikipedia article states that attended the first class in 1831. According to this 44 graduated from the first class. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Seeing how this has not been answered in a while, if it doesn't exist on Google or another search engine or the official website of the school I seriously doubt any wikipedian would know. You might try asking this over at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request if one editor may have database or library access to a yearbook or other like source. Best of Luck! Marketdiamond (talk) 22:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The Matrix

What is philosophical in movie The Matrix?Bennielove (talk) 23:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by "mean"? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.19 (talk) 23:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Who exactly are "you", if not actually "me"? Gzuckier (talk) 01:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I hope you folks realise it's turtles all the way down from here. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

See also The Meaning of Meaning. "The night attendant, a B.U. sophomore,/ rouses from the mare's-nest of his drowsy head /propped on The Meaning of Meaning."... Robert Lowell, Waking in the Blue--Shirt58 (talk) 07:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

What is the philosophical explanation of the movie? It originates from philosophy.Bennielove (talk) 23:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The Matrix#Influences discusses a number of the philosophers that (supposedly) influenced The Matrix. It's very reminiscent of Plato's Cave. Some people see Gnosticism in it (not least because one vessel was called Gnosis), for example these folks. But you'll always find someone who thinks Fast and Furious 3 is an ironclad analogy for Jainism... -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 23:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

See also Brain in a vat, Simulated reality, Dream argument, Evil demon, Maya. The basic themes have been discussed by philosophers for centuries. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing in the Matrix that you couldn't get from an evening class in philosophy. It's really not deep. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Except the slo-mo gun fights, which are generally reserved for the daytime classes in philosophy. (I'm not actually against the Matrix as a vehicle for old philosophical ideas — they are interesting ideas, and our popular culture could do much worse than taking its plot points from Descartes et al. Descartes is deep, and the ideas in the Matrix are subsequently deep, even if they are not new and even if they are encased in a glossy, gun-fighty envelope.) --Mr.98 (talk) 13:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

You could say that The Matrix is like the shadow cast on the wall (movie screen?) of popular culture by a number of deep and complex philosophies. Though you probably shouldn't say it very loudly. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Having seen it once (which was more than enough), the basic plot idea was definitely nothing new. The innovations were in the areas of special effects, which continue to be used in many places. As far as "philosophy" is concerned, it was the same as any other movie's philosophy, which is to make as much money as possible for the investors. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The premise that a feature film cannot simultaneously explore a theme (philosophical or otherwise, previously touched on by other works of fiction or not) and make money for its producers seems flawed. A restaurant must make money to remain in business; that does not preclude the restaurant from expressing ideas about food. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The point being that the themes explored in Matrix were explored stylishly, but they were still derivative, unoriginal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

My first-year physics textbook didn't explore any original themes—does its failure to present the material in Newton's original Latin render its treatment of inertia pointless? Translating old ideas into the current cultural vernacular can have value. The use of parables to introduce or illustrate complex abstract concepts is at least as old as the ancient Greek philosophers.

Are there other works beside The Matrix that would have provided a more thorough or more original take on the philosophical concepts underpinning its story? Sure. Does that mean that The Matrix isn't a valid potential entry point for the neophyte (Neo-phyte? See what I did there?) to begin exploring those ideas? I would disagree. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

November 12

Death of community - references please

I am interested in community psychology and theories of community. I am looking for papers discussing the dissolution of communities for reasons of social psychology. I am trying to understand the psychological reasons why a community might cease to exist. I am not interested in discussion of how Government X built a dam and flooded community Z or similar events. "Community" need not refer to a place-based community such as a town or neighborhood. In fact, virtual communities may be better example of what I am looking for.

Thank you for your comments and assistance.98.169.37.214 (talk) 01:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

You might be interested in Bowling Alone, and its detractors. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 01:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Try the first two links here. 184.147.123.169 (talk) 12:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The concept to which Finlay refers is social capital. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

S. S. Hill

Who was the S. S. Hill, the author, Travels in the Sandwich and Society Islands and many other travel books?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

A quick Google search tells us that he was Samuel S. Hill, "an English gentleman-traveler". [24]. The book is available online at archive.org here: [25]. Further works by Hill can be found at the same location: [26]. AS for more on Hill himself, I'm sure it can be found, though maybe through old-fashioned library research... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree that there probably isn't too much more to be found online; I remember when Kavebear asked about the date of his arrival in Maui a couple of months back, I was a bit curious about him as well. Apart from speculation that he was a businessman on account of his interest in trade fairs here, I couldn't dig up anything substantial. I do remember that he managed to spin a couple of books out of his around-the-world trip; his Travels in Siberia ended with him setting sail for the South Seas and I seem to remember that Travels in the Sandwich and Society Islands ended with him heading for South America, so I must download his Travels on the shores of the Baltic and Travels in Peru and Mexico to confirm that it was all the same trip. Unfortunately he didn't include much detail about himself in his books. Anyway, long story short, I don't think there is much more online, which seems a pity. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 07:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Quick check of the opening and closing sections confirm Travels in Mexico and Peru is a continuation (and conclusion) of his round-the-world trip, while Travels on the shores of the Baltic was a different venture. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 07:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Celebrities quoting from the Bible

Besides people in religious occupations, which celebrities have publicly quoted from the Bible?
—Wavelength (talk) 03:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Define 'celebrities'. And are you asking for an exhaustive list? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

By "celebrities", I mean "famous people". I am not asking for an exhaustive list. I am interested in knowing of some notable examples.

—Wavelength (talk) 03:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

In what context? In movie roles? Song lyrics? Speaking extemporaneously? In bible study groups? --Jayron32 03:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

By "publicly", I mean "in any mass-media context where their quotations were heard or read by many people". I do not mean "in movie roles" or "in song lyrics"; I mean "as themselves". They may have been communicating "extemporaneously" or from preparation. I do not mean "in Bible study groups", unless the groups were in public spaces where people not in those groups were able to see or hear the quotations.

—Wavelength (talk) 03:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Hard telling if you can find this anywhere, but LBJ once had the audacity to say about his Republican opponents in 1964, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

In addition to defining "celebrities" and context, you also have to define what counts as "quoting from the bible". There are a large number of idioms and stock phrases in English that are biblically derived. "Turn swords to ploughshares" comes from the bible, but is frequently used in non-biblical contexts, as is "live by the sword, die by the sword", "pearls before swine", "Alpha and Omega", and "apple of my eye" (see Category:Biblical_phrases for more). Whatever you may think of its theological influence, the bible has had a great literary influence on the English language. I'm guessing you probably don't mean this bible-as-literary-metaphor usage, but it's something to be aware of when evaluating quotes. -- 67.40.212.42 (talk) 05:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I can't remember if it was written by a celebrity, but I remember reading at least one obituary of Christopher Hitchens that said he "fought the good fight". I assume no one realized that was from the Bible (or what the rest of the phrase is). Adam Bishop (talk) 11:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe the writer deliberately chose those words to underline the irony (as the writer saw it) of "the good fight" now not being for Christianity but against it. --NellieBly (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

By "quoting from the Bible", I mean quoting directly from the Bible, regardless of the interpretation or application of the passage quoted. I do not mean "using any of the idioms and stock phrases derived from the Bible", regardless of the interpretation or application of the passage used. (http://mlbible.com/2_timothy/4-7.htm; http://mlbible.com/matthew/6-3.htm) Also, I do not mean re-quoting from a source that had previously quoted from the Bible or had adopted a phrase from the Bible. (http://www.shakespeare-online.com/plays/macbeth/bibimagery.html)

—Wavelength (talk) 17:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, football player Tebow may be the most obvious recent example. Apart from that, poking through the google news archive turns up mostly criminals and politicians. Senator Russell Long in 1967, Senator Alan Trask in 1982, Oliver North in 1987, Bill Clinton in 1992. You may find different results with different search strings. Jay Leno once asked his audience for Bible quotes and no one could come up with one. And Donald Rumsfeld used to insert Bible quotes in military briefing papers for George W. Bush. 184.147.123.169 (talk) 12:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you only referring to living people? If not, beyond what people have said about needing to better define 'celebrity' or 'famous people' (for example there are a fair few priests and bishops and other Christian religious leaders who can be said to be famous and most must have quoted the bible but I'm not sure you want to include them, but what about the various Catholic popes?), you also may want to set a time frame. I expect many famous historic figures have quoted from the bible. Nil Einne (talk) 14:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Practically everyone who was born in any Western country until about 50 years ago, and still an awful lot of people since. The Bible was such an essential part of the cultural landscape that it's harder to find a public speech or a book that doesn't quote the Bible. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I did not specify "living people"; I am referring to "both living and non-living people". In my original post, I said "Besides people in religious occupations"; I do not mean "priests and bishops and other Christian religious leaders" and I do not mean "Catholic popes". I have not set "a time frame"; the quoting can have occurred at any time after a quoted passage was in the Bible.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The first words ever sent by telegraph, by Samuel Morse, were What hath God wrought, a quote from the Book of Numbers (23:23).

Here’s someone who often quotes the Bible.

The difficulty with this question is that we can find any number of quotations from the Bible, or from any other authors we care to think of, but finding examples of people actually quoting those books is another thing entirely.

An analogy would be between the existence of a certain cookbook, which is well-attested; and knowledge of all or even some of the notable people who've ever used that cookbook in their own kitchens, which knowledge would not even exist. We might happen across very occasional mentions of particular people using the cookbook, but as for a full list, forget it. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Can philosophy be done and understood with only informal logic?

Philosophy discourses tend to focus on the substance than the so called "logical symbolic structure". When the writer asserts that there is an objective moral values for example, he focuses mostly on why is it so. Thus we cannot see the the formal symbolic structure of logic here. And if so can philosophy be done and understood without formal logic? I am not saying that all philosophers does it. Some cannot argue without symbolic aspects of logic. What i'm trying to point out is that, Is it possible to do philosophy with informal logic alone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.205.97.213 (talk) 12:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

You've asked this kind of question before. I'm not sure what sort of answer you're looking for. Not all philosophy uses formal logic; but not all philosophy can be understood without it, either. 'Doing philosophy' is an almost impossibly broad range of intellectual activity, and it's not easy or sensible to make sweeping statements about it. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Can a philosophical branch be independent? =

It is agreed that philosophy like science is a method not a body of knowldge. Thus philosophy is only a term for a method some subject adheres upon. If so can a philosophical branch be independent from the other, for example can ethics be independent from philosophy of the mind? Can there be the subject of ethics even if there is no other branches? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.205.97.213 (talk) 16:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Why do you keep trying to get us to agree with your assertions about philosophy? "It is agreed that philosophy like science is a method not a body of knowldge. Thus philosophy is only a term for a method some subject adheres upon." Aside from being rather poor English, this is not necessarily a true declaration. There are philosophies of various areas of endeavour (eg Philosophy of science), but there are also philosophers whose studies are more abstract, and whose philosophy is an end in itself. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

What book is September reading?

I'm reading Catherynne Valente's new book, The Girl Who Fell Beneath Fairyland and Led the Revels There. In the opening chapters, September's father sends her a book from France. It seems like a reference to something... does anyone here know what book September got from her father? Here's the relevant quote: "It had illustrations, too, of a girl not older than September sitting on the moon and reaching out to catch stars in her hands, or standing on a high lunar mountain conversing with a strange red hat with two long feathers sticking out of it that floated right next to her as pert as you please." -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like, except the wrong gender, The Little Prince, which often has illustrations on the cover or elsewhere of the main character standing on the moon or reaching for stars. Perhaps September confused the Prince with a girl like herself. If she didn't read at all, or didn't read French, it would be an easy mistake to make. --Jayron32 22:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Does increasing female Infidelity mean that men are getting less gay?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peggy-drexler/the-new-face-of-infidelit_b_2109881.html?utm_hp_ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=111212&utm_medium=email&utm_content=BlogEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief

So what exactly were men having affairs with all those years ago, farm animals, altar boys? What? Hcobb (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The question in the title has a simple answer - No. In fact, the question in the title is pretty nonsensical. People don't "get" more or less gay. And the question below the source seems to be based on a poor reading of it. HiLo48 (talk) 16:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

You are making the flawed assumption that the rate of male infidelity has remained constant. Perhaps, historically, there was a correspondingly small percentage of men who are unfaithful. We also have to ask whether there has been a change in the number of women who are willing to have multiple affairs. Blueboar (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the article that suggests anything like what the OP is saying. But it's pretty clear the OP is being sarcastic. To be mathematically technical, if a given married man and woman each only had at most one fling, then the percentages should necessarily have to be similar. If the past percentages were true, then it should mean there were fewer women having affairs, but they were having them with multiple men. Forgetting the marriage vs. affair issue, well known personalities such as Zsa Zsa Gabor and Elizabeth Taylor had multiple men. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

In what way is it "clear the OP is being sarcastic"? And where does "getting less gay" fit in? Maybe there's some sort of cultural communication gap happening here. HiLo48 (talk) 20:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you missed the comment about farm animals and altar boys. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the fact that it is possible to have more than one affair is one explanation for the odd statistic indicating that more men have affairs than women. Another possibility is that, because of the cultural double standard regarding sexual morality, women are more likely than men to lie when a pollster asks whether they have had an affair. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Cheeses Murray has Chosen! Will no one hat this trollscat? (I would say "What a gay question!" if it weren't impeecee to do so.) μηδείς (talk) 23:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Are Canada and the U.S. on the same side on the Iranian issue?

Would Canada send troops if a war broke out? Thank you! Watterwalk (talk) 16:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Would the USA send troops? If so, to do what? Who exactly would be in any position to occupy Iran? Canada would no doubt deploy their "worn out" fighters to help defend those states on the south side of Iran's Gulf. Hcobb (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

This question requires a little explanation and perspective. Exactly what IS "the Iranian issue". How many "sides" does it have? The questions are somewhat independent too. It would be possible for Canada to "send troops" no matter what "side" it was on. Then again, it might not, no matter what "side" it is on. HiLo48 (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The Iranian issue would be "how close are they to getting nukes?" An attack on Iran is certainly a possibility somewhere down the road, but that doesn't mean troops would be involved. To answer the OP's question factually, it would be useful for the OP to see what he can find about Canada's own opinion of the Iran situation, and whether it has any sort of treaty with the US that would somehow obliged it to send troops somewhere if we do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

They might not have to "send troops" in the case of infantry, but certainly some nations would need to deploy some troops to the general area. There would be a large naval presence, and likely an air force, as well, flying from area bases. There likely would be some ground troops in neighboring nations, too, to man anti-aircraft and anti-missile defenses, and to protect against Iranian car bombs and such. Those troops might be marines. Also, commando teams might be used to destroy nuclear sites. StuRat (talk) 17:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

My question comes about after the severance of relations between Canada and Iran. Watterwalk (talk) 16:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It's entirely possible that Canada would prefer to never see or hear of Iran again. But if they felt their own interests were threatened by Iran having The Bomb, they might be willing to participate in a war against Iran. Has the Canadian government said anything about this subject? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Canada and the US are on the same side, in that they are both opposed to Iran developing the capability to build nuclear weapons. That does not, however, automatically mean Canada would participate in any military action. They might not have anything to contribute, unless they have a division trained for desert warfare. Of course, having Canadians there would lend moral support, so perhaps they might send a token force just for that purpose. StuRat (talk) 17:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Iran is not entirely desert, and fighting a war against countries in the Middle East does not require troops that are specially trained for desert warfare. The invasion of Iraq certainly didn't. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It did, at least in part. Jungle camo won't do you much good in a desert, for example. StuRat (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

That's not "a division trained for desert warfare", that's breaking out the stocks of desert camouflage for your existing troops. Bravo Two Zero in the first Gulf War found that, in Iraq, snow and ice and temperatures well below freezing were a problem exacerbated by their desert gear, not solved by it. Canada doesn't have much jungle anyway. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Now that shows a lack of experience with desert warfare. Specifically, not knowing that deserts can get very cold at night. Proper desert equipment would include cold-weather gear. Forest camo and arctic camo would also be of little use in Iran. StuRat (talk) 20:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

You can also compare Canada–Iran relations and Iran–United States relations and check out Foreign relations of Iran. 184.147.123.169 (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

According to the following news article/poll, only 12% of Canadians would strongly support an attack on Iran, with a majority opposed to such an attack. The article goes on to state that opposition to attacking Iran is correlated with being educated, and well Canadians do have a high rate of education attainment. [27] 50.101.137.171 (talk) 20:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Which does not tell us anything about how the Canadian government would or would not react should things get to the point of a shooting war between the US and Iran... I am sure Canada would "support" the US, but how it would do so is a very open question. Blueboar (talk) 20:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Sir Peter Hayman (MI6)

Sir Peter Hayman (MI6 and "diplomat") has no entry, although he is mentioned extensively in your entry on Paedophile Information Exchange, Section 3, and backed up by several "notes & references". Neither is there a cross-reference to this article in your search tool. The least you could do is cross-refer people looking up "Sir Peter Hayman" to the "Paedophile Information Exchange", page, Section 3. Apologies - I am sure there is a way I could have done this myself, but I couldn't work out how, unless...you have made it difficult because Wikipedia been "got at" by MI6 and/or Messrs Carter-Ruck or other expensive lawyers to the rich or powerful? Would be VERY interested to know whether there ever was a page on him, or other more interesting references to him, and when, and by whom they may have been expunged. (Hayman was acknowleged to have worked under the pseudonym "Mr Henderson".)

In a similar vein: Johann Hari: You have a page devoted to this writer/journalist - I suggest you change this to writer/journalist/PLAGIARIST. In this page, a large proportion - at least 4 sections, including WIKIPEDIA EDITING, deals with his (or her!) dirty tricks including one line at the end of WIKIPEDIA EDITING, which reveals that he also uses the name David Rose (not the composer). You should have a reference to this Johann Hari page in the Disambiguation list for other people named David Rose, and a redirect to the Johann Hari page.

I strongly suggest you also tell people using that page that Hari also writes under the name "David Rose" - I have attempted to amend myself the profile box containing his picture, but I don't know if I have done so successfully. It seems likely that "Hari" may somehow thwart attempts to amend his own versions of the truth.

Thank you for your patience. gabad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabad (talk • contribs) 17:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC) GB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabad (talk • contribs) 17:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

This is the Reference Desk, where people ask factual questions, which other people try to answer. If you have ideas about how our article on Paedophile Information Exchange could be improved, you can discuss them at Talk:Paedophile Information Exchange. If there's consensus that your ideas are truly the best thing to do to make the article better and more reliable, you and others can work together to make the changes. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Already asked at Wikipedia:Help desk#Sir Peter Hayman.--ukexpat (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

...and Wikipedia:Help desk#JOHANN HARI. (If "asked" is the right word.) —Tamfang (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Some elements of the OP's question do appear to be relevant on this desk. For example, he seems to be asking for references about whether Wikipedia articles are regularly censored by their subjects using behind the scenes methods. I'll make a few brief comments on that.

First, Wikipedia considers itself bound by its policy on the biographies of living persons to a greater extent than it is bound by the various laws on defamation. In other words, before something on Wikipedia would be potentially defamatory and thus subject to removal through legal threats issued from "expensive lawyers to the rich or powerful", it should already have been removed due to breaking Wikipedia policy. To put that another way, things that appear in trashy tabloids or in rumours on twitter, usually do not appear on Wikipedia at all. And this is as it should be.

Without mentioning any specific names, I would also make the point that, quite the opposite of being ruthlessly successful at manipulating Wikipedia without being discovered, all these supposedly well-connected people seem to make laughable blunders that make their attempts obvious to anyone who cares to check up on them. If you have a look round on Google you'll find many pieces about biased or just plain foolish edits made from IP addresses traceable to the offices of departments of various different governments and companies; and about the software that exists to automatically identify when an IP address traceable to a company makes edits relating to that company.

Incompetence is far, far more widespread than malice. Or at least, far more widespread than competence (I see lots of incompetent malice on Wikipedia all the time.) Also, you need to realise that Wikipedia is quite resilient to even the most determined and competent of censorship; if someone publishes a biography of a Tory politician, and you buy that biography and discover that somehow magically Wikipedia doesn't mention anything in the slightly embarrassing ninth chapter of the biography, then you will very easily be able to either fix this yourself, or demand an explanation for it.

Real debates about Wikipedia "censorship" manage to be even sillier and simultaneously much more prosaic; one that I was involved with involved lawyers for Sony insisting that Wikipedia not host some small colour image that could be interpreted to provide some completely useless information about a Sony product. To cut a long story short, Wikipedia removed the information at Sony's request, that decision was then challenged (because hiding the fact it had been removed, like hiding anything else here, is very tricky), and the decision was overturned. Sony's lawyers then presumably went away and asked themselves why it was they were trying to suppress the information in the first place. That's about as exciting as it gets. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Military culture

Why do some countries developed a kind of military culture and others not? It's clear that the Swiss, Pakistanis and Israelis have reasons to fear their neighbors, but what about the Polish? And why is Canada relationship to the army different from the US? Comploose (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The Swiss have reason to fear their neighbors ? I think that theory is full of holes. :-)

I suspect that Canada has a weak military because they can. If they were invaded, say by Russia, they could count on the US to protect them. So, why spend money on a strong military when you don't need one ? StuRat (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The Swiss had reason in the past to fear their neighbors, but nowadays no. That might have impacted them historically, and lead them to keep their determination to have a well-training popular army.

I do not believe Canada has such a weak army. Its population is just much smaller than the US and it doesn't have borders with rough countries. Philoknow (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Compare the US Navy with 318,406 active duty personnel versus the Royal Canadian Navy with 8,500 regular personnel. That's a ratio of over 37 to one. The ratio is over 27 for the Canadian Army versus US Army and over 22 between active US Air Force members and the Canadian Air Force. Does Canada even have marines ? That's a lot more lopsided than just the population difference, where the United States population of 314,750,000 is about 9 times the population of Canada, at 34,976,000. Also note that the US lacks borders with enemies who are likely to attack it. StuRat (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Isn't illegal immigration a form of attack? Isn't Cuba an almost bordering rough country? Historically, it was considered an advanced enemy base. Comploose (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Poor people looking for jobs is hardly an invasion. I think you need to check your rhetoric before you say something silly. --Jayron32 22:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Invasion: n. 3. An intrusion or encroachment. Comploose (talk) 22:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Comploose -- Cuban immigration to the U.S. is the other side of the U.S. trade embargo on Cuba, and the U.S. government has traditionally recognized this (nuanced recently by the "wet foot"/"dry foot" policy). If the U.S. government allowed people to take boats from Florida to Cuba and return with refugees, then it can hardly complain about Cuban immigration (though it did complain loud and long that Castro had emptied the jails of non-political prisoners and placed them on the same boats). AnonMoos (talk) 22:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The US doesn't use the military to stop illegal immigrants, they have other agencies for that. As for Cuba, it hasn't posed a threat for half a century. And, despite the absurd plot in Red Dawn, the US is quite safe from invasion. StuRat (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Poland has been invaded by the Russians twice in the last 75 years, and has only recently got rid of them. They probably don't want them back again. Alansplodge (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

In the case of Poland, it may be a source of pride to have a strong military, to erase memories of their military weakness in the previous century. StuRat (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The relationship of the United States to its military is different from that of Canada because the US has sought to extend hegemony over large areas of the globe, and Canada has not. The United States has also committed itself to overseas military interventions when "its interests" (arguably often corporate interests) are at stake, whereas the Canadian state has not made the same kind of commitment to national "interests" far from Canadian shores. In terms of political rhetoric, since World War I, the United States has also justified its strong military on account of its role as "defender of the free world". Canadian politicians have never made such a grand claim for Canada's global role. Marco polo (talk) 20:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Poland not fear its neighbors? Poland might be the most-invaded country in the world. Even if there is another nation which might make that claim more strongly, are you familiar with the Partitions of Poland? Between 1772 and 1795 Germany, Austria, and Russia nibbled away at Poland in 3 gulps which in 1795 caused Poland to cease to exist as a sovereign country for 123 years and then after regaining its independence at the end of WWI, was re-invaded by the Nazis and the Soviets during WWII and then was occupied as a Soviet client state from 1945 until 1989. And that doesn't take into account the invasions of Swedes and Tatars in the 15th-17th centuries. It's national anthem translates to "Poland Is Not Yet Lost" or, more colloquially, "Poland Still Exists" for gosh sakes. While since the end of WWII the power of Germany and Austria has been, shall we say, diminished, I think the Poles have more than enough reason to be a tad paranoid. (And to show that Poland could do a lot with just a little bit of military might, see Battle of Wizna, where "720 Poles defended a fortified line for three days against more than 40,000 Germans".) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

You mean the most-invaded country in the world which has not seen an invasion for 70 years, and whose last invasion by the Soviets also affected every other country east of West Germany? Since when does any rational person make military decisions based on 15th century conflicts? --140.180.252.244 (talk) 01:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Attending some courses at prestigious colleges

How common is for the top 1% colleges around the world to offer programs that almost everyone can join? I see that many of them have further education programs, summer courses, online education programs and the like. It seems that almost anyone would be able to obtain a little bit of prestige. In your CV you could put Educated at college such and such (even if it was just a couple of months). Philoknow (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

For your first question, very common. Many prestigious institutions are giving their names to online programs. It certainly wouldn't be dishonest to list classes or workshops taken through extension programs like these. The issue here is that most of these programs do not offer degrees. A good CV will, of course, list degrees obtained, but it would not be appropriate to list these institutions if you did not achieve a degree. --Daniel 18:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It would be dishonest to say you earned a degree from them if you did not, but not to say you attended classes or earned a certificate, if you did. In particular, this type of thing can perk up a resume for somebody who otherwise finished school decades ago. StuRat (talk) 18:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Degrees are more valuable than certificates, independent from where. But a degree + certificates is better than just a degree for sure. In your CV you'll have to explain things like they are: degree from college X and certificate from college Y. I don't know how acceptable would be to put in your short bio thing s like: "Philo Know attended College X and College Y." It's not a plain lie, but misleading. Comploose (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see what's misleading about saying you attended two colleges you attended. StuRat (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

But if you attended college X for 4 years and obtained a degree there and did a a weekend introductory course at college Y, then you shouldn't try to give the impression that you both were the same experience. For many people to attend college = to earn accredited credit. Comploose (talk) 18:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

One way to list non-degree work on a CV is under a heading: "Additional education"... you could say something like "Attended classes at Kumquat State College, and XYZ Workshop sponsored by University of FooBar." or "Earned certificate of completion in Star Gazing, Online Continuing Education Program (Astrophysics Dept.), BoxTop University". The key is to be honest in presenting your achievements. Caveat... potential employers will know the difference between legitimate programs in continuing education and those that offer puffed up "faux-credentialism". If you are taking classes to build your professional credentials, find out which institutions have a good reputation and which do not. Blueboar (talk) 19:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Your CV will generally need to say "AWARD TITLE in SUBJECT from INSTITUTION NAME", and lying about the award name would be just as bad as lying about the institution name. Some "top 1% colleges" do award honorary degrees, but I doubt they would award something with a title that sounded like something for a 1-year course, after only 6 weeks' study or whatever. (So for example I think Oxford still do a "Post Graduate Certificate in Education" as a 1-year course, but it's certainly not open to "almost everyone", and I very much doubt they have similarly-named qualifications that you can obtain from a single summer school course.)

It is of course true that some institutions will want to milk the value of their name as much as they can, but equally if it really is a top 1% college then it can make just as much money by hosting "conferences" and the like as it can hosting courses whose reward is a certificate of attendance. At least to the extent that they wouldn't want to water down the value of the real qualifications they award.

My CV has a section towards the end that lists a brief selection of more significant "certification and courses attended". A piece of paper that says "certificate of attendance" is worthless for anything beyond graduates seeking their first job. But, if a former employer paid for two one-week courses on a particularly important technical topic, I may mention it on my CV, but will also expect I may be asked about it, in detail, at interview. Exaggeration is unnecessary; if a particular relevant "certificate" was gained by sitting eight short tests after eight one-week courses, I briefly say so, and the potential employer probably realises that I'm neither making it more nor less than it is.

Anything that is "top 1%" enough to increase your chances significantly just on a brief mention, is also sufficiently notable that you will be asked about it at some stage of the interview process. At which point, the extent to which your CV does or does not exaggerate its significance, will become clear. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Is Anderson Cooper's coming out a hindrance to his career?

I mean, he used to travel to the Middle East and cover stories from there. Now that he's come out, can he keep doing what he used to do? What do you think? Watterwalk (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

This is really asking for our opinions and speculations on what might or might not happen. We are not a crystal ball. There is no objective reference we could possibly provide that would answer this question definitively. There are many fora where this could be discussed ad nauseam. Just not here. Sorry. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

You're right, my question should be, can CNN now send him to places such as the Middle East? Watterwalk (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that would depend on where they're sending him. Any journalist is in some peril in a war zone, and some have been killed or seriously maimed in the line of duty. The fact he's American is probably the greater mark on him, from the terrorists' viewpoint. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Watterwalk -- It might possibly affect him as a war-zone correspondent, but doesn't seem to have done anything to him as a talk-show host, which seems to be the main part of the next phase of his career... AnonMoos (talk) 22:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Meh! with a capital em. μηδείς (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Any journalist, like any traveler, needs to obey the laws of the jurisdiction they are in. In much of the Middle East this would mean that he would have to refrain from various sorts of sexual activities while there, lest he come under very harsh penalties. But that isn't a result of his having come out — that would have been the case even if he was still in the closet. Other than that, I doubt it really adds much more of a security threat than is already assumed by members of the foreign press. If, for example, a fatwa were to be issued against him on account of his coming out, that would be a different story. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

berenger sauniere

My question centres around the information you offer on the Parish priest at Rennes le Chateau, Berenger Sauniere. I find current information to be fairly reflected, save for one (I think) very important point. There appears to be a tendency to eliminate the more controversial aspects of Sauniere's residence as priest, and one striking anomaly is missed out entirely. As someone who has taken the time to visit the church at Rennes le Chateau, and witness for myself the astonishing and controversial iconography within, without question the most noteable (and notorious) symbol is that of the XIV Stage of the Cross. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.117.124 (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for alerting us to this, not 100% sure on what your suggesting though, for something this article specific you may want to raise this point on the articles talk page and if no response after a decent amount of time you can also be WP:BOLD and edit the article itself reflective of both views, but please list any notable sources with < ref > tags on anything making a claim or extremely factual. Thanks for visiting wikipedia! Marketdiamond (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

U.S. Conquering British Canada in the War of 1812

Did the United States of America ever have a realistic chance of conquering Canada (or at least parts of Canada) in the War of 1812? Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Even if we did, the Southerners would not have let us, just as the Northerners prevented the annexation of Mexico and Cuba. Either would have led to an imbalance of slave and free states. See manifest destiny and The Missouri Compromise among other articles. μηδείς (talk) 23:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the first meaningful political confrontation over slavery in U.S. territories was 5 years after the war, in 1819. Before the war, politicians from both North and South had worked fairly smoothly together to abolish the external slave trade to the U.S. in 1808 (the earliest it could be abolished under the U.S. constitution). The two sides in the War of 1812 were fairly evenly-matched; the U.S. could have conceivably conquered Canada with some extra luck and skill, but it's not too surprising that it didn't (and even if it had, then it would have had to face the full force of the British navy after the wars in Europe were over). AnonMoos (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

P.S. The word "Canada" did not include the Maritimes in 1812. AnonMoos (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That wasn't a goal of the United States during the War of 1812. There are a few historians that have proposed that the U.S. may have had that as a goal, but they do not represent the preponderance of historical thought, and even if the U.S. had that as an ambition, it was a "secret" ambition insofar as it was never an overtly stated goal of the U.S. in declaring war. The List of War of 1812 Battles has the results of conflicts that did occur in Canada during said war. Insofar as the American capital was captured and set ablaze by the British, I don't think there was a realistic chance that the Americans were going to secure a whole lot of territory in Canada. Even if they had, it isn't a forgone conclusion that it would have been a part of the peace negotiations for the resolution of the war. Strictly speaking, the U.S. wouldn't have had to had any military involvement in Canada to request a transfer of said territory, and winning battles in Canada would not have required the British to offer it in negotiations. Transfers of territory are common during peace negotations, but it isn't a usual condition that transfer of territory been contingent on winning battles within that territory, in either direction: winning battles doesn't mean you automatically get that land, and getting land doesn't require that you win battles there. --Jayron32 23:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Post EC comment: (edit conflict) on the post EC comment, this comment response to Medeis's answer: I don't think the free-state/slave state problem really became a national issue until the Missouri Compromise issue, which was 5 years after the resolution of the War of 1812. The Mexican Cession issues are even later than that. Had the War of 1812 been fought ten years later, that may have been a serious issue; but I don't think that particular hornets nest had been a problem in 1815. Historically, the Oregon boundary dispute was the major post-1815 issue between Britain and the U.S., and I am not aware of any free/slave state issues in that dispute either: In the election of 1844, Southern Democrats supported full annexation of Oregon up to the famous 54^o 40' line, while northern Whigs actually supported acceding to the British position of the 42nd parallel. The modern boundary was eventually settled by Polk (a southerner) on the compromise middle 49th parallel. --Jayron32 23:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

However, in 1846 there were some Northerners who felt disgruntled that Polk had given away claims in a presumed future non-slaveholding area ("Oregon" / Columbia) to aggressively pursue claims in a presumed future slaveholding area (Texas)... AnonMoos (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

True, but Polk's own party had initially been for aggressively pursuing Northern Oregon/BC, though their reasoning for doing so was to preserve slave/free balance as they sought to carve up Texas into a half dozen slave states: Oregon would have provided them political capital to do so in providing land for a similar number of Free states. Population was also an issue: The Texas states would have had greater representation in the House than the ligher populated (and harder to settle!) Oregon states. So yes, there was some free-slave issues in the Oregon dispute, but it was NOT as simple as "Southerners oppose annexing land to the North". In this case, southerners supported annexing land to the North. Complex politics is, unsurprisingly, complex. --Jayron32 00:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)