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 25

Is there a link between conservatism and religion?

Basically, I noticed that the United States seems to have conservative tendencies. Abortion, same-sex marriage and the like are hot issues. They also don't have free healthcare and education (to my knowledge at least). On the other hand, Europe seems to be more liberal leaning; many European countries allow same-sex marriage, abortion is allowed in most countries, and in some countries, you can even keep a small amount of marijuana at home and the police won't arrest you, or at most will just fine you. Europeans also seem to have a high standard of living. And let's not even get started on Canada. What I noticed is that, in the United States, most people are religious, especially those living in the Bible Belt, while many people in Europe are atheists, agnostics, or people who don't go to church anymore (except maybe France). So basically, does religion play a major role in conservatism? I think there's an article about that, but it doesn't seem to elaborate on the reasons. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Not an answer to your question, but France is actually one of the least religious countries in Europe and the world - about 50% are atheist or agnostic, by my understanding. Moreover, the US has free public education (up through the secondary level) and is theoretically going to have a convoluted form of universal (if not free) healthcare.

Now to your question: Religion (at least Christianity) is by nature a conservative institution, because it is based on dogma (aka "canon") rather than adaptation to the times. In many ways religious conservatism is linked to social conservatism, as the most literal readings of the Bible prohibit abortion (or even birth control, for that matter) and homosexuality, and prescribe Creationism as the answer to "how did we get here?" in opposition to Darwinian evolution.

However I would argue that religious conservatism is only a small part of why the United States tends to be more conservative than European countries. There is a significant economic aspect - the idea of the "welfare state" is stigmatized in the US, whereas in some countries it is seen as one of the most important social advances of the past century. There is also the glorification of the military culture that needs to be taken into account. And of course, correlation is not causation: generally those who are not educated tend to be more conservative and more religious, especially if they do not benefit directly from the government's social policies - they are more aptly "traditionalists" than conservatives, in that they don't support the older ways because they inherently work better, but because that's "just how it's always been". 24.92.74.238 (talk) 00:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

When Christianity is described as conservative, I can never help thinking that Jesus certainly wasn't. HiLo48 (talk) 01:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

My aunt is an Episcopal priest (ie a Christian), and as liberal as they come. She likes to say: "The 'Christian Right' is neither Christian nor right". Blueboar (talk) 01:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they certainly seem to reject many of the teachings of Jesus, like pacifism and caring for the poor, in favor of Old Testament values. As such, they don't seem entitled to claim to be "Christian", to me. StuRat (talk) 06:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Say a group were to come in that wanted to repeal same-sex marriage and abortion in Europe. Would these people now be liberal or conservative? If the status quo is liberal ideology, then is conserving it still liberal? There is a corollary contraposition in the preceding sentences. Additionally, you may want to look at separation of church and state for more information about your question. 97.93.199.163 (talk) 00:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Wanting to restore things to how they used to be is "reactionary". StuRat (talk) 05:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

That's what they call it, but sometimes it also comes under the heading of "damn good sense". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

You do realize that "putting things back they way they were in the good old days" would include locking up homosexuals in prison or mental institutions, right ? StuRat (talk) 08:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and that's why I qualified my statement with "sometimes". If one were to argue that everything about today's world represents progress compared with yesterday's world, I would laugh in their face so long and hard I'd probably have a heart attack. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

StuRat apparently never noticed that the reactionary-conservative-liberal-radical rubric he was taught in high school is total and complete bullshit. --Trovatore (talk) 22:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have left out moderates. What's your source which proves it to be BS ? StuRat (talk) 05:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

See Friedrich Hayek's masterwork, The Road to Serfdom. --Trovatore (talk) 05:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying I have to read the entire book to make sense of your comment ? StuRat (talk) 05:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the OP means 'conservative' and 'liberal' in their political spectrum senses (i.e., right and left) and not in their most literal incarnations. 24.92.74.238 (talk) 00:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, when I said conservative and liberal, I meant both interpretations. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, I don't think it works to generalize about the United States. I live in Massachusetts, which is quite liberal in the US sense of that word, is not very religious, and which has had gay marriage and universal healthcare for several years now. Marco polo (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The latter being Romneycare. StuRat (talk) 06:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The two concepts of Fiscal conservatism and Social conservatism are orthogonal. Hence we have Left-libertarianism, etc. Hcobb (talk) 01:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Relevant articles for further reading: Christian Left, Liberal Christianity, Liberal Islam, Oneness Pentecostalism, Liberation theology, Christianity and homosexuality, political Christianity, Book of James, Christianity and evolution and Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 05:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Both words have an i, an r, an o, an n, and an e in them. That spells irone. μηδείς (talk) 07:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It's worth noting that in the UK at least, the Labour movement grew out of the soil fertilised by Non-conformism, while the Church of England has been described as "The Conservative Party at prayer". Here Christianity has influenced both sides. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the American drift in this direction is the stronger link between conservatism and ignorance. Hence religious schools have declined as the neo-Know Nothings have taken over the churches.

http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20121125/A_NEWS/211250301/-1/A_NEWS04 It's a national issue, according to Sean Kennedy, a visiting fellow at the Lexington Institute who produced a report on Catholic education that was released in July. Kennedy reported that 167 Catholic schools across the nation closed in the past year, that national Catholic school enrollment has shrunk in the past few decades from 5.2 million to 2 million

Hcobb (talk) 11:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

This is one of my pet peeves... Too often, when people use the word "Christian" in political terms, they are really referring to the various Evangelical or Fundamentalist denominations. These denominations do tend to attract political conservatives (and do take an outspokenly conservative political stance in their dogmas)... but the membership of the older "mainstream" Christian denominations (Catholics, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Congregationalists, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc.) are far more mixed in their politics (with both conservatives, liberals, and moderates... in both clergy and laity).

Being religious has nothing to do with ones political stance... but one's political stance can influence the form that one's religiousness will take. Blueboar (talk) 15:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

In the UK, the various Christian denominations tend to take a very liberal view of political issues such as spending on social benefits and immigration. The days of the Church of England being the Conservative Party at prayer departed decades ago - see Faith in the City; "An unnamed Conservative Cabinet Minister was reported as dismissing the report — before it was published — as 'pure Marxist theology' and another Conservative MP claimed the report proved that the Anglican Church was governed by a 'load of Communist clerics'". Alansplodge (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a bit of overgeneralisation going on here: there are some regions in the US that allow same-sex marriage (even if it isn't always treated equally to opposite-sex marriage due to federal laws) and where abortion is widely available. There are places in Europe where abortion is strictly limited, like Ireland, where it is only allowed in life-threatening circumstances (and might not even be available in practice then). Some European countries, like Poland if I recall correctly, do not have universal healthcare, and the majority of countries in Europe do not allow same-sex marriage. According to Importance of religion by country, more people say that religion is important in their daily life in several major European countries, including Greece, Italy, Portugal, Poland and Romania, than they do in the US. Also, I suspect that for many devoutly religious people with strong political views, their religious and political views would have developed in tandem, and it would be hard to argue that one is responsible for the other. 130.88.99.231 (talk) 12:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Although there are many bible-thumpers-mostly in rural areas although California has its share of Born-Agains - the United States has never in its history, fought a war over religion.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The Philippines and plastic bag bans (yet again)

I'm very much aware that I've asked this question twice, but both times I asked them, results were inconclusive, usually because I did not choose the right words in asking the questions. Hopefully this time, I can finally get some good answers on the topic. My question is: Does the Philippines have a higher number of plastic bag bans than other Asian countries? (excluding Bangladesh) If so, what are the possible reasons why the Philippines does and other Asian countries don't? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Well as I said in reply to your last question, per your own comments the Philippines does not have a greater level of plastic bag ban then Bangladesh, so your comment is apparently excluding Bangladesh even though this hasn't been stated for whatever reason. Nil Einne (talk) 00:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll exclude Bangladesh. Besides, I'm referring to individual bans. A nationwide ban in Bangladesh still counts as a single ban. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the question you are trying to ask is: Excluding nations that have a national level ban, which Asian country has the most number of purely local/provincial level laws banning or restricting plastic bags? Blueboar (talk) 02:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Precisely. Except that it has to be compared to the Philippines. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Does the Philippines have a national ban, or just a whole bunch of provincial/local ones? Blueboar (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Several, several, local bans, especially in Luzon. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

OK... my guess is that you will not get a good answer to your question here on Wikipedia. I doubt there are sources that compile statistics on local/provincial level plastic bag ordinances in a given country. The best you might get are guesses based on anecdotal evidence... ie someone saying: "well all the towns near where I live (in country X) have anti plastic bag ordinances... so country X is a contender." Blueboar (talk) 04:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Semi-reliable source: List of plastic bag bans in the Philippines - Plastic Bag Ban Report (PBBR). Count 'em up. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 05:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why the op is soo concerned with this topic.GeeBIGS (talk) 06:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

You might want to look at the OP's other contributions to get a clue. μηδείς (talk) 07:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The reason why I am so curious is because my city is one of the so-called "pioneers" in the boom of plastic bag bans in the Philippines; it was among the first cities to do so. I was wondering if a similar trend exists in other Asian countries. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Our article seems to be Phase-out of lightweight plastic bags (why not Plastic bag ban? but it needs Philippines info added.

Googling for lists so far I'm finding only very general lists of countries here and here and here. Plus the blog Plastic Bag Ban Report which has entries for China, India, Philippines, Thailand, United Arab Emirates and Vietnam so may have more specific info.

One more possible lead; this article mentions cities in China, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Nepal, Pakistan, the Philippines, Singapore and Taiwan. The author, Lilia Casanova, seems to write a lot on the topic. Her contact info here. 184.147.123.169 (talk) 14:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

What are the current British laws on treason?

Is public expression of frustration that your mother might outlive you grounds for whatever the modern version of beheading is in the United Kingdom? What is? μηδείς (talk) 07:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a concise history of sedition and treason in the UK here, and of course we have an article: Treason. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

What's worrying about that interview is that he wants to have time to "do things". British monarchs are not supposed to do things, other than they are what they are told to do by people who have been elected to do things. Charles already faces opposition to him becoming monarch - it may never happen even if his mother dies first. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Having frustrated heirs to the throne is tradition in the UK, not treason. Blueboar (talk) 14:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, your last sentence is very contentious. Many people have their opinions on individual members of the Royal Family, but all that matters is the law, and the law says that Charles will succeed his mother as long as he doesn't die first or become a Roman Catholic or marry one. It would take an absolutely extraordinary and unprecedented circumstance for the parliament to change the law to exclude Charles from the succession. Not being as well-liked as William is most definitely not such a circumstance. There are these grumblings of his dabbling in matters some say he should not be dabbling in; but rest assured, they would never amount to such a circumstance either. He has desired the throne for far too long to seriously jeopardise it now. All the signs are that his desire is undiminished, hence his sense of frustration; there's no evidence he's contriving to make himself ineligible to accede. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Hardly _unprecedented_ - James II and Edward VIII come immediately to mind. But I agree that Charles' behaviour isn't close to the level that would provoke a constitutional crisis. Tevildo (talk) 19:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Those two cases are about people who came to the throne, and some time later ceased to be monarch, for whatever reason. They are not comparable to a legitimate heir being deemed ineligible to ever accede in the first place. There are existing laws that would make Charles ineligible, such as becoming or marrying a Catholic. But I'm not aware of any case where a law was passed to specifically exclude an otherwise legitimate heir from the line of succession. That's what I mean by "an absolutely extraordinary and unprecedented circumstance". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It's been a very long time since the eldest child and heir apparent of the British throne has been passed over; William I, Count of Boulogne is the most obvious example I can think of; on the death of his older brother Eustace, he should have been next in line and heir apparent to his father Stephen as King of \ngland. Stephen passed him over in favor of the heir to the Empress Mathilda in order to bring an end to the long civil war that marked his reign, see Treaty of Wallingford. Edward of Westminster, Prince of Wales was also written out of legitimate succession when the House of York seized control of the monarchy during the War of the Roses, though he died less than a month after his father's final deposement. And, during the same war, there was the curious case of the Princes in the Tower. Since then, with the exceptions already noted with the removal of Catholics from the line of succession that resulted in the deposition of James II and the eventual inheritance of the House of Hanover, I can't think of any other clear English or British heirs apparent that were passed over. --Jayron32 06:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

And regarding Charles being written out of the succession: it would require extraordinary means to do so; under the Statute of Westminster 1931, changes to the succession require the positive votes of all 16 countries where the British monarch reigns. Doing so is fairly unlikely. --Jayron32 06:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm fully aware that I was being mischievous. But, the antipathy towards Charles is fairly strong, and currently masked by the positive views people have for his mother and his son. If he did become king and make clear his own personal views on controversial policy matters - as he has done in the past - the realisation that no-one has ever voted for his family to have that role may become politically significant. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Which is still a very different scenario from his being passed over in favour of his son and never making it to the throne to begin with. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that Medeis didn't so much have a question as much as she wanted to point out Charles's remarkable public statement that, interpreted uncharitably, can be read as saying he wishes his mother would hurry up and die. Though I have no great affection for royalism, I might suggest that, in this sort of situation, it's better to try to find the charitable interpretation, however strained it might be. --Trovatore (talk) 06:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually what shocked me was the logical implication of his words. Two interesting facts from Tammy's first source, is that prophesying the monarch's death by witchcraft was a capital offense because it might scare him to death, and that a 19th-century law that expressing support for the overthrow of the monarchy (even peaceful usurpation or republicanism) is punishable by a one-way lifetime trip to Australia. The US has no law of treason in regard to the President as President. Oswald might have had treason charges brought against him if it were proven he was working for or to aid a foreign enemy. McKinley's assassin Csolgosz was electrocuted for first degree murder, and no other charge.

The open questions as I see them are, what are the actual laws still in effect? And does Charles have any sort of immunity? However unlikely a prosecution would be, if he were to write a tract urging her to step down in his favor he would seem subject to lifetime transportation according to the 1848 Felony Treason Act. μηδείς (talk) 07:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Which, of course, could be effected by making him the next Governor General of Australia. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

On a sort of sidenote, it was brought up in the UK TV show QI (a fairly reputable source), that no form of capital punishment is used in the UK for any reason anymore (including treason). 80.254.147.164 (talk) 13:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't quite explain how old laws come off the books, IP 80. Are they just ignored? An American sees your Parliament as making it up as you go along, a practice we've recently adopted as well. μηδείς (talk) 02:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

And presumably that's why Medeis said "whatever the modern version of beheading". I'm pretty sure that Parliament abolished it wholesale. Nyttend (talk) 04:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

But according to parliamentary sovereignty, they could simply reinstate it in a bill of attainder naming one person specifically, and off with his head. Would it get royal assent? --Trovatore (talk) 05:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

That depends on how parliamentary sovereignty meshes with foreign treaties, since if I remember right, the EU membership treaty (whatever it is) prohibits signatories from permitting capital punishment. Nyttend (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a fair amount of discussion on this at Parliamentary sovereignty in the United Kingdom, Human Rights Act 1998 and Constitution of the United Kingdom. The current opinion generally seems to be that parliamentary sovereignty remains (although not everyone agrees), and per the Human Rights Act, the courts are forbidden from striking down laws (they can can reinterpret them but if you clearly spell out the death penalty I'm not sure how that is going to be reintepreted to mean you don't actually have to kill the person) for incompatibility instead issuing a Declaration of incompatibility and waiting/hoping parliament does something. However I think it's a fair to say that such a case will definitely make it to the European Court of Human Rights and it's not entirely clear to me what will happen when the European Court of Human Rights finds it a clear cut violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. Theoretically, the UK is supposed to abide by decisions of the European Court of Human Rights but it's possible parliament and the Government will resist and there will be some sort of constitutional crisis. (Although realisticly, it's hard to imagine such a bill getting Royal Assent so if there is any sort of constitutional crisis, it would likely arise earlier. But then again, it's hard to imagine such a situation at all so... I wonder whether presuming the Charles remains the Prince of Wales, an argument could be made Prince's Consent is required.) Of course depending on the mood of the country, it's possible the UK will just go ahead and ignore the ECHR which I think has happened before at least for other countries, but never in the case of the death penalty. I would note in the case of Russia, it has been suggested expulsion from the Council of Europe is likely, in fact it's not even clear if they will wait for a European Court of Human Rights decision. (In the case of the UK, expulsion from the European Union and all related European community bodies also seems likely.) See [1], [2], Capital punishment in Russia and [3]. Nil Einne (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible for people or their parents and grandparents not to have cousins or siblings? (A family of only children)

Is it possible for people or their parents and grandparents not to have cousins or siblings? (A family of only children) I've heard of the one child rule in China but are they families that exist with a Lineage of only children? Are there any famous people or families like that? Neptunekh94 (talk) 08:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible? Sure it is. Have you looked on Google to see what is said, if anything, about the rest of your question? Like maybe "single children of single children", or whatever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Well... it depends on what you mean by "cousins"... it is certainly possible if you restrict the definition to first or second cousins (common grand parents or great-grand parents), but as you go back through the generations, it becomes highly unlikely that every generation of ancestors (both maternal and paternal) were single-child families. Sooner or later, there will be at least one ancestor that had a sibling who has living descendents. So you might not have any first cousins, but you probably do have at least one ninth cousin or tenth cousin out there... somewhere. Blueboar (talk) 14:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

See Only child. Another interesting article is this one from TIME: The Only Child: Debunking the Myths that includes a gallery of famous onlies. That in turn gives you examples of famous onlies of onlies such as Jennifer Grant and Lisa Marie Presley. 184.147.123.169 (talk) 14:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

What percent of the adult population over 18 has never been married nor ever been in romantic relationships?

What percent of the adult population over 18 has never been married nor ever been in romantic relationships? Neptunekh94 (talk) 08:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a precise definition for "romantic relationship"? HiLo48 (talk) 10:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

And by adult population one must assume OP is talking about the adult population globally. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

You might be interested in perusing the truly massive study at [4], which unfortunately is specific to the United States. Anyway, according to that, 10% of unmarried Americans have never had sex by age 44, which is the highest age for which this really enormous survey goes. Amongst married Americans, only a little over 2% in that age group have never had sex. Since almost 100% of Americans get married at some point in their lives, 2-3% seems like a reasonable percentage of middle-aged Americans who have never had sex (or at least would never admit it, even in an anonymous survey). Someguy1221 (talk) 10:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

"...almost 100% of Americans get married at some point in their lives..." Really? That seems extraordinary. Source? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree it seems somewhat questionable. This source [5] for example says one in ten people 50 to 54 have never been married. (It also claims one in three never marry at all but I'm somewhat unclear how they determined that figure as it's supposed to come from census figures so I'm not going to quote it as reliable. Based on some other sources, I think they're actually talking about the percentage of adults who have not married yet, in which case the source is IMO using very poor wording.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

From the 2000 census data [6], 4.5% of people 60 and over have never been married. While some of these people may eventually marry, it's resonable to assume the percentage of people who never married is likely to be higher since some people will obviously die at a younger age when fewer of them are married (if we ignoring the complicating factor of marriage affecting death rates). Nil Einne (talk) 14:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Even these 4.5% of never married over 1960 seems strange to me. What about all the homosexuals and incorrigible single womanizers? They amount to more than 4.5% of the population. The data doesn't pass my bull-shit detecting plausibility test. Linenld (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't find the figures particularly unbelievable even if we ignore the possibly those who don't marry are more likely to die at a younger age. Historically, plenty of gay people married people of the opposite sex due to social pressure and other reasons. (And I think your overestimating the number of 'incorrigible single womanizers'.) Remember since it was the 2000 census, we're talking about people born in 1940 or earlier. If you're going by current marriage trends, you're likely to be mislead since all the trends suggest marriage is getting less popular which may mean 40 years from now there will be a much higher percentage of people over 60 who never married, but obviously can't have an effect on those already over 60 who married sometime during their life. (In fact the first source I linked to strongly suggests we should expect the percentage of people over 60 who never married to have increased likely by a fair amount in recent figures.) Nil Einne (talk) 20:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Someguy's post says "according to that [7], 10% of unmarried Americans have never had sex by age 44, which is the highest age for which this really enormous survey goes. Amongst married Americans, only a little over 2% in that age group have never had sex." But as far as I can see that study only includes women. And I can't find those statistics in that (long) article -- what page are they on? I find it a little surprising that supposedly over 2% of married 44-year-old (female) Americans have never had sex. Duoduoduo (talk) 18:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Page 71. I was also a teeny bit wrong, it was 1.6%, not "a little over 2%". To give the most accurate statement: According to the cited survey, 98.4% of married American women between the ages of 30 and 44 have had sex at least once in their lives. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

That's 1.6% of "all women", not "married women". There are columns for "all women" and columns for "never-married women"; there are no columns for "married women" per se. If you multiply out the percentages, that's 512,160 virgins among the never-married women 30-44, which makes 1.57% of the "all women" 30-44. --Trovatore (talk) 04:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

So how many married virgins are there? Roger (talk) 14:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

They're probably a non-null subset of people who got married today but have not had their wedding night yet. So technically they do exist. Duoduoduo (talk) 15:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Marriage of convenience sayeth not. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

How would reliabilism justify knowledge?

We all know that reliabilism is under externalism. But my questions are, if knowledge is justified by an outside source then how is it going to relate to the person who would say that what he has is knowledge? and Would it not turn as another form of evidentialist claim if the external justification should relate to the person to assert that what he has is knowledge? Because it requires his/her cognitive skills so as to believe and recognize an external justification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Atienza (talk • contribs) 13:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

We all know that reliabilism is under externalism - Well, this little black duck doesn't know that, because he doesn't even know what either of those two things is. They have links but I don't have a week spare to read and absorb the concepts contained therein. But that aside, what would it mean for one -ism to be "under" another -ism? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It's normal for externalists to claim that you don't need to know that you know x in order to know x. K(S, p) → K(S, K(S,p)) is false for many externalists (where K(z, y) means "Some person z knows some proposition y" and S is a person and p is a proposition). The K(S, p) speaks to the first- order knowledge of S, and the K(S, K(S , p)) speaks to the second-order knowledge of S.

That does not fully answer your question, I know, and I don't think I can because I don't know all the different externalist positions. One influential paper: Tyler Burge (1988), “Individualism and Self-Knowledge” in the Journal of Philosophy, 85, pp. 649–63. Burge says "Knowing one's thoughts no more requires separate investigation of the conditions that make the judgment possible than knowing what one perceives." His theory is that the mental event involved in K(S, K(S , p)) contains within it the mental event involved in K(S, p). And S need not recognize an external justification for K(S, p) in order for there to be K(S, K(S , p)) because the object of the mental event of K(S, K(S , p)), that is, the mental event of K(S, p), is already beheld by S. So take reliabilism. The reliability of the belief in p is the justification for K(S , p). The reliability of the belief in K(S , p) is the justification for K(S, K(S , p)), let's call that the second-order reliability in this case. The recognition that "the reliability of the belief in p is the justification for K(S, p)" is not the justification, but the second-order reliability itself is the justification. The second-order reliability is guaranteed by the first-order reliability, because the second-order knowledge content is merely the first-order knowledge which S does have as a mental event and which has its own reliability.

So really, he is calling out the line of thought you have advanced as a sort of category error: An epistemological theory says what it is for someone to know some proposition, including what it is for someone to have the relevant justification. You then turn around and say: "Well, for S to know p is for S to have that justification, so for S to know that S knows p is for S to know that S has that justification, ergo, externalism falls apart". Burge is turning around and saying: "No, it's externalism all the way down. For S to know p implies that S has that justification, but the knowledge itself is not merely that S has that justification. For S to know that S knows p is not for S to know the first-order justification, but is rather that S has the second-order justification."

I might have poorly put Burge's theory, but I encourage you to read the paper. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 01:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Why did the Southern states ratify the 13th amendment?

I was watching Spielberg's Lincoln movie yesterday, and I was wondering why the Southern states decided to ratify the 13th amendment abolishing slavery? According to the wiki page, states like Virginia, Tennessee, Louisiana, Arkansas, all ratified it, almost immediately after the war! Borisblue (talk) 14:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

'Cause they accepted the fact that they had just lost the war (a war fought. in part, to settle that exact issue)? Blueboar (talk) 15:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a somewhat long story. The basic version is that after Johnson took power (after Lincoln's assassination), he largely halted many of the efforts of Reconstruction and scaled them back to, "if you ratify the 13th amendment, you can join the Union again." (Which was how Lincoln thought Reconstruction should start, not end.) At that point it was an expedient move to get out from under martial law, and by that point it was clear to all that they couldn't just re-institute slavery (nor did they really need to). Read the Reconstruction article if you want to get a better sense of the whole history. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Mr. 98 is partly correct. Virginia, Tennessee, Louisiana, and Arkansas were partly or completely under Union control by the end of 1864, and those states formed Unionist state governments amenable to the abolition of slavery. These states typically had two rival governments, one loyal to the Confederacy and another loyal to the Union. See, for example, Louisiana in the American Civil War and Restored Government of Virginia. It was the Unionist governments of these states, not the secessionist governments, that ratified the 13th amendment. For the other Southern states that ratified the amendment during the 1860s, Mr. 98's explanation is correct. Johnson made ratification an implicit condition for readmission to the Union. See this account. Marco polo (talk) 02:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You may also find Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution#Proposal and ratification interesting in this regard. Duoduoduo (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Why do humans enjoy fictional stories?

The question is not only why we like stories, but those that are invented.OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Nobody really knows, but it is an interesting question, given how much of a role fiction plays in the lives of human beings. There's at least one book that speculates on the topic, but I view this kind of neuro-cultural speculation with some suspicion, personally, because we still really are grasping around in the dark when we are trying to talk about even how the brain works, much less how the brain evolved. But it's at least an attempt at a learned explanation. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Fiction is certainly an early human invention... In a world where there is a great big hungry lion hiding in the bushes outside the cave, it's nice to imagine a world where someone in the tribe might actually be brave enough to face the great big hungry lion and drive it away (psst... hey Ogg... hint, hint). Blueboar (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that, like dreaming, they give us an opportunity to think about how we might handle that situation, and thus prepare for a similar situation, in case it does occur. As such, life threatening situations in fiction are more desirable, since preparing for those is most important. (I always do that: "Get down on the ground, you idiot, can't you see they're shooting at you ?") StuRat (talk) 04:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

There are several psychological purposes of fiction. Some of the major ones include the validation of one's philosophical or social values (IE the "crime epic" in which the protagonist goes from a typical blue collar life into a life of crime, gets the girl, the money and the power, and ends up "taking a tour of the meadowlands" or otherwise tortured and killed for his deviance from social norms EG Scarface, The Godfather, The Sopranos, etc), explication of social taboos (in which an antagonist violates some grave social taboo and suffers most horribly, IE Hamlet) exploration of an ideal society (what Bruce Sterling called "the magical widget factory tour" in which the workings of a utopia are carefully explained to the captive audience), and many other roles. Fiction can illustrate values, as in a Passion Play or Morality Play, fiction can guide us along a mythological journey, as in the classic "Path of the Hero" as explained by Campbell, Et Al. Fiction can serve to both validate and challenge our values. Stories are where we boil our values down to basic units and can examine, challenge and explore their implications. HominidMachinae (talk) 09:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• As reading sources, I would strongly recommend the Novelist/Philosopher Ayn Rand's two works on fiction, The Romantic Manifesto, in which she writes various essays on aesthetics in general, and her The Art of Fiction which is a guide to writers that rests upon her aesthetic theories. Both books are great reads aimed at the layman and you don't have to agree with her politics or atheism to get a lot out of them. μηδείς (talk) 02:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Muslim meal times

My young daughter has a friend who is Muslim and, from what I can gather, the family originally came from Egypt. The parents seem like nice folks, though there's a sizable language barrier between us, hence my reason for asking here. One thing we've noticed is that the family seems to have (what seems to us) odd meal times. I'd like to learn more about this as the girls frequently visit either family's home, so it would be good to kind of know how everything is set up. I think it's pretty standard for people to eat a breakfast soon after rising, a lunch sometime around noon, and then a supper/dinner five to seven hours after that. Obviously there's a lot of variation, but I think that gives a rough average, yes? This family seems to eat their breakfast around noon, their midday meal sometime around two or three in the afternoon (or later) and then has supper very late, just before bed. At least, that's the impression I'm getting via the kids, who are not always the greatest informants! I've tried Googling about Muslim meal times, but everything I see is in regards to Ramadan and other fasting practices, which I don't think are at play here. Any help? Is this a standard Muslim meal schedule? An Egyptian thing? I'm quite aware it could just be an idiosyncrasy of the family, too. Matt Deres (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Frommers has a little Egyptian mealtime info. This report talks about restaurants closing at 2 am being a controversial curtailment of their normal hours. Given the climate, I'd expect this is the effect of a siesta rather than theology (and the Frommers link says things are different during Ramadan). -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 16:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

and this (in the Egyption home cooking section) talks about dinner invitations for times as late as 1 am. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 16:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it's likely to be just an idiosyncrasy of the family. There are plenty of families of all religions and ethnicities who like to get up late, have a leisurely breakfast and so on. --Viennese Waltz 18:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

That's wrong for sure. Philoknow (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Are you responding to Finlay McWalter? Because your indentation makes it seem you're responding to Viennese Waltz. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I think he is responding to me - and I don't see how he can be so sure that I'm wrong. --Viennese Waltz 18:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

That was exactly my thought, hence my AGF query about it being "A Question of Indentation". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

"Normal" mealtimes vary across cultures.. Lunch provides more information. Lunch at 16:00 is "normal" for some cultures. Philoknow (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Huh, so it does. Thanks for the link; I guess I was looking from the wrong direction, going from Muslim -> lunch instead of lunch -> Muslim. Thank you also to Finlay; I'll check those links as well. Matt Deres (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Do either of the parents work an unusual shift ? This might explain the odd meal hours, if they are trying to have their meals together, despite the unusual shift. StuRat (talk) 04:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not a Muslim peculiarity, it's a cultural one. Different Muslim (or Arab) countries have different work schedules. In Egypt, typically, many businesses and government offices work from early morning until mid-afternoon without a break. People come home around 3:00-5:00 pm, have their lunch, take a nap, and then get back to business early evening (7:00 pm or so). The final meal of the day is taken in the middle of the night, before they turn in to bed. Other countires of the region (Lebanon, Syria, Jordan...) will also have their evening meal late, but not quite so much - restaurants begin to get busy around 9:30 pm or so, and it's not rare to see a family with young children show up for a meal at 10:30 pm). Yet other places have adopted the western work week and meal times differ little from what would be in Europe. However, in northern Morocco, for example, where there's a strong Spanish influence, breakfast is late (9:30-10 am), lunch is around 3 pm, tea time is around 7:00 pm, and the evening meal is taken near midnight. Generally, one of the key factors is that most of these countries have a climate with a oppressively hot middle of the day, which pushes people to take a mid-day nap and spent more of their waking hours at night, when the temperatures are more pleasant.

To add more complication, Ramadan with its restrictions on eating during daylight hours, also produces what to us are strange meal times, especially around now when it falls in the middle of summer (it was not as discernible when Ramadan fell in mid-winter a decade ago). All of this based on extensive travel around the region and is OR, although I'm sure it can be verified. --Xuxl (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow, well that pretty much exactly mirrors the kind of thing we've seen. Thanks for the explanation! I think the family's been in Canada for less than ten years, so their schedule could easily be a holdover from the old country. If you have a reliable source, you should think about putting that info into an article somewhere. Matt Deres (talk) 11:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Here are my two cents: it depends on whether lunch or dinner is the main meal of the day. I too happen to come from a Muslim family, though a Bosnian one (and thus of Slavic origin), so I'm not sure if that is relevant. There might be some cultural similarities, though the same is true for Orthodox Christian Serbs and Roman Catholic Croats. In our culture, lunch is the main meal. Dinner is, in fact, a sort of a nighttime breakfast. The meal times of that family correspond almost perfectly to meal times in Bosnia. Surtsicna (talk) 10:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

World War II and the suicide of most Nazi members

Why?, did it come about out of guilt for what they had done over the years of war or just fear of getting caught? Keeeith (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Each case would be different. It's not possible to generalize as you suggest. --Viennese Waltz 18:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, 'most' is an overstatement. "The list includes eight out of 41 NSDAP regional leaders who held office between 1926 and 1945, seven out of 47 higher SS and police leaders, 53 out of 554 Army generals, 14 out of 98 Luftwaffe generals [and] 11 out of 53 admirals in the Kriegsmarine." However, it is true that many Germans took their own lives following the end of the war. Our article Mass suicides in 1945 Nazi Germany states that "[t]he reasons for these waves of suicides were numerous and include the effects of Nazi propaganda, the example of the suicide of Adolf Hitler, victims' attachment to the ideals of the Nazi party, and a reaction to the loss of the war and, consequently, the anticipated Allied occupation of Nazi Germany." - Cucumber Mike (talk) 18:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

What's a "Nazi member"? A Nazi party member? Answering your question, the alternative fate of falling into Russian hands or facing the death penalty was not very attractive either. I do not believe in a general feeling of guilt, given the reactions at the Nuremberg by some leaders or trying to bury the past by the general German and moving on. Philoknow (talk)

See also this previous question. Alansplodge (talk) 18:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all! Keeeith (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Who is educated?

Who can claim, at least in the Western civilization, to be educated? Do you need a degree? Read the news regularly? Speak foreign languages? Recite poetry? Correctly spell without spell checker? Standard accent? Eat with your mouth shut and say please and thank you? Know the bible by heart or better be an atheist? Where's the valid canon? Linenld (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

One criterion by which readers decide if a writer is "educated" is his ability to avoid using a different word than the one he intended, such as writing "cannon" when he means canon. In speech, someone might be regarded as "uneducated" (or perhaps an autodidact if he mispronounced a word, such as pronouncing "chaos" beginning with a "chay" sound rather than a hard "c" sound as I once did when as a child I had only read the word and never heard anyone say it. "Proper" grammar and spelling are an initial hurdle in presenting oneself as "educated." Eating habits and saying "Thank you" might be indicators of a "proper upbringing" more than of "education." I don't see Americans expecting an educated person to recite poetry and speak a foreign language. I found several descriptions which have been written of what makes a person "educated." Some were more like what makes a person relate to God and others well, but one which seems more mainstream is [8]. Edison (talk) 20:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The author of that essay (K P Mohann) knows nothing about physics or punctuation... Tevildo (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

 ??? I didn't read Mohanan's whole essay, but I didn't find a single error in punctuation in the extracts I did read. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

"We expect a physicist to know that in the quark theory, the only elementary particles are quarks and leptons, but it is hardly necessary for a lawyer, doctor, or sociologist to have this information, and hence we would treat it as specialized knowledge." Justify the commas after "theory" and "information" and you will rise even further in my estimation. :) Tevildo (talk) 00:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

That was something I hadn't read. "In the quark theory" could be regarded as parenthetical and hence deserving of two commas. Or not, in which case it gets none. But not just the one, as written. I don't have a problem with the comma after "information", but it's not essential. I still think it's a bit of an overkill to say he "knows nothing" about punctuation. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Opening this out as it might be relevant to the discussion. "Nothing" was admittedly excessive - Mohanan's punctuation isn't as dreadful as many pieces of text that one reads on the Internet, but he does not appear to have studied any formal rules of punctuation in great detail, choosing instead the "bung a comma in every now and then when it looks OK" approach. This reminded me, indirectly, of a very interesting programme on the radio a couple of weeks ago about E D Hirsch and cultural literacy. Mohanan takes the opposite position, in that his essay considers the goal of education to be the development of appropriate thinking techniques and methods for processing information - this is important, true, but it might be regarded as placing too little emphasis on the acquisition of actual _facts_. Although nobody today would regard the full-blown Gradgrindian approach as acceptable, I would still argue that knowledge of facts themselves in addition to methods of obtaining them is an important component of "educatedness". Tevildo (talk) 01:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Well the examples listed are really couple different things: being educated (formal education), having good etiquette, and learned (bilingual, recite poetry, etc acquired by formal education and/or experience) . For Canada and US, the relevant articles would be Educational attainment in the United States & Education in Canada (or look at this under Educational attainment). One can "claim" to be educated at any level, however in my opinion the very bare minimum would be completing high school but it'll be a more reasonable claim if one complete some sort of post-secondary level of education (College Associate degree and up). Royor (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Linenld -- I don't think that either being an atheist or memorizing the Bible has much to do with it, but to be "educated" in a Western sense, you do have to know in a general way about certain Biblical episodes or incidents (the Sermon on the Mount, the Golden Calf, etc.), even if you don't believe in them. By the way, Muslims place greater emphasis on personal scripture memorization than either Christians or Jews do... AnonMoos (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

There a lot of good points above; I would only like to stress how important the context is for answering this question. There are situations where only those people who have completed a doctorate would be called "educated". Likewise, there are instances where completing any formal education at all would be considered so. My opinion is that for the average person in urban North America, obtaining a post secondary degree would probably be a minimum requirement to have people refer to you as "an educated person." It's not that others are uneducated, it's just that there's a rising standard in what it means to have a formal education; with so many people having bachelor degrees, it would be difficult to be called "educated" without one.

Context comes into it further when you talk about what your degree is in. For some people, only individuals who have completed a course of study in something highfalutin like medicine or English literature would be considered "educated", while the folks that only got, say, a business degree would not. Matt Deres (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think perfect punctuation is required for a person to be considered "educated". In fact, few people other than professional editors (not all of whom are highly educated) manage perfect punctuation. This is OR based on my experience as a professional editor who has at times had to edit the punctuation of highly educated persons. Marco polo (talk) 02:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

As Mark Twain said: "I have never let my learning get in the way of my education." There are lots of forms of education... an auto mechanic may not have completed high school, but he can be quite educated on the topic of automobiles. Blueboar (talk) 03:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Educated is too broad a term to attack usefully. An elementary education is the ability to read, use a library, do arithmetic and write a paragraph in full sentences. A proper education is the ability to do algebra (including exponents), to write a report and a formal letter, to find yourself on a map and the way to your destination, to follow and participate in politics, to run a household, and to earn a living. A liberal education requires some knowledge of world and classical history, the scientific method, the arts, familiarity with logic, the use of a foreign language, the ability to write an essay and a lab report, and to have a good notion of the extent of your own ignorance. A doctorate requires mastery of a classical and fluency in a foreign language, authoritative expertise in some technical area, the ability to do independent research, to write a thesis, and to defend it and yourself in a dissertation. Approximately. See the trivium, the quadrivium, and paideia. μηδείς (talk) 06:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Medeis. My only quibble is that, even at the most exalted universities, a doctorate (except in the classics) today no longer requires mastery of a classical language. The other requirements still apply at the best universities. Marco polo (talk) 19:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Here I was hoping if I didn't mention that the language standard has largely been abandoned it might catch back on, and you had to go and ruin it for me! μηδείς (talk) 02:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

In the sciences, at least in the United States, the defense is typically a formality. Your adviser will generally not allow you to schedule a defense unless you're going to pass, and you're lucky if your other committee members even read your dissertation. I was actually asked whether I wanted to do a defense at all (I did — it's a lovely rite of passage but not much more than that). --Trovatore (talk) 23:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

"Educated" requires context. Those who excel in some areas, fall behind in other areas, oftentimes. Also, if I particularly value language skills, I am probably going to be impressed by someone who uses language well. If I am seeking to understand the mysteries of the universe I might consider a cosmologist the most educated person I have ever met. Thus my own personal preferences will determine who I consider educated and conversely uneducated. Bus stop (talk) 02:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Turning into a market maker (not in the stock market)

Is it by any mean illegal to take part in a market as a bigger player and buy all offered products at a specific price and only sell them back into the same market with a margin of profit? It would mean that you indeed are the market maker and decides for all (smaller) players that the prices have to go up. It would only work if you have considerable more means than others, or when other similar players are doing the same. As a concrete example, imagine that you buy all offered offices in a district, which normally trade for $500/sq ft, and try to re-sell for $600/sq ft. You do it systematically, and each time an office get offered by less than $600/sq ft you go there and buy it. Linenld (talk) 19:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

See monopoly, in many countries it's illegal - see competition law. Royor (talk) 20:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that strategy would work. Nobody would want to buy in an area where such real estate manipulation occurs, so you would end up with property worth less than what you paid for it. Real estate agents would also figure out your strategy, and only sell to you for $599 per square foot. StuRat (talk) 04:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually after re-reading the question price fixing would be the more relevant article (it might work depending on the country and local laws). Of course when the government does this it's now a price floor Royor (talk) 04:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It's called buying low and selling high which is called investment when the big guys do it and scalping when the little guys do it. It's neither monopoly which requires government force to make people buy from you and only you or price fixing which is competitors getting together and colluding to charge the same amount. In either of those cases there might be a temporary swing one way or the other, but so long as the government doesn't prevent it market forces will cause a correction. What it sounds like your big guy is trying to do is corner the market. Again, that's never been accomplished without government backing, as people catch on and react as StuRat indicated. Again, for a great read and the go-to resource on free market economics rationally explained go to George Reisman's http://www.capitalism.net/ and download his college textbook for free as a pdf on the left of the page. μηδείς (talk) 07:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The Hunt brothers tried to corner the market in silver in 1980, but ended up losing a ton of money. It's not an easy thing to pull off. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, precisely the example I was thinking of! There are others as well. μηδείς (talk) 02:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

symbols of France, Netherlands, Italy, Germany, and Spain

Canada is known for its maple leaf, USA is known for its stars and strips and UK is known for its Union Jack. What about France, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, Germany and Spain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmust90 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

We have a list of National emblems you may wish to peruse. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

For the flags themselves, there are the French drapeau tricolore or pavillon tricolore, Italian il tricolore, and Spanish la rojigualda. Don't know about the Netherlands. Germany's colors are referred to as Schwarz-Rot-Gold" (black, red, gold), and sport sailors apparently call the Flag of Germany the "Adenauer", but it doesn't have a special name beyond that, as far as I can think of right now, which isn't terribly far, I admit. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The Dutch call their flag "het rood-wit-blauw" or "the red-white-blue". Marco polo (talk) 02:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

And then they go and use orange for their sporting colour, just to confuse us all. (As an Australian, I actually love it, because we do pretty much the same thing - a flag that's predominantly blue, with some white and red, but green and gold for sport.) HiLo48 (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The original Dutch flag was orange-white-blue, but somehow the orange changed to red. Orange of course refers to the House of Orange. - Lindert (talk) 16:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

See Flag of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Alansplodge (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

One of France's oldest national symbols is the Fleur-de-lis, though it is considered somewhat monarchical. There's Marianne, which is something like the "Uncle Sam" symbol is for the U.S., a personification of the nation; France's equivalent of the U.S. Bald Eagle is le coq gaulois. --Jayron32 03:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

As for Germany: We have our Bundesadler. The Oak is also used as a national symbol, for example in coinage. --Abracus (talk) 15:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Oak is a symbol of England too, although we more usually use a rose Alansplodge (talk) 18:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

In traditional European quasi-heraldic symbolism, the lion was the noblest animal, the eagle the noblest bird, and the oak the noblest tree. Thus many countries have eagle or lion emblems, and it doesn't surprise me that multiple nations have the oak as a symbol... AnonMoos (talk) 14:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Certain buildings can symbolize a nation... the Eiffel Tower for France, the Leaning Tower of Pisa for Italy... A Windmill for the Netherlands... "Big Ben" for England (yes, I know... Big Ben is the bell, not the building. You know what I mean)... etc. Blueboar (talk) 15:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

That problem has finally been addressed, by renaming the building "Elizabeth Tower". They could have at least gone for "Big Lizzie".  :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Music

What is the difference between a Symphony Orchestra and a Philharmonic one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.191.111.117 (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, the short answer is - no, there isn't. They're just different ways of naming orchestral organizations. So while Edmonton's orchestra is called the Edmonton Symphony Orchestra, and Calgary's is named the Calgary Philharmonic Orchestra, the nomenclature doesn't point to any difference in the makeup of the orchestra, or the way they are governed, or their mandates in their respective communities. In some larger centres, where there may be several orchestras, you find both names being used - like the London Symphony and the London Philharmonic - or the Vienna Symphony and the Vienna Philharmonic. And some orchestras don't use either, like the Philadelphia Orchestra or the Cleveland Orchestra. However both names do carry the connotation of a full, well proportioned orchestra that includes winds and strings, as opposed to a Wind Orchestra or a Chamber Orchestra. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

What he said. Also, I hope this doesn't confuse, but all Philharmonic Orchestras and Symphony Orchestras are symphonic orchestras, but not all symphonic orchestras are Philharmonic Orchestras or Symphony Orchestras. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

There are also a few Philharmonic Symphony Orchestras, which are equally symphonic orchestras. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Separatists winning the Scottish Parliament elections.

Is the Scottish parliament election not a local election? When is the last time Scottish separatist parties won a 60% majority, or anything like that? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

No, the Scottish Parliament is not a local election; local government in Scotland is a different layer of government. The SNP has never won 60% in a Scottish Parliament election - all four are shown in Scottish parliament#Elections. I don't believe the SNP has ever enjoyed a majority of votes, Scottish seats at the Westminster parliament, Scottish seats in the European parliament, or Scottish local authorities. In the last general election the SNP polled 20% of the vote in Scotland. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 23:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The Scottish Parliament was conceived as part of a system of regional government (English regional assemblies and the Welsh Assembly were created the same year) and has powers devolved from Westminster. It's a creation of Westminster, very like a local authority, and for now in theory it could be abolished quite quickly there, though there would be a political backlash which might well cause many more Scots to vote for independence. Moonraker (talk) 05:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that clears a lot up. Almost as if they had created three US state legislatures where before there had only been local and national government. I had thought the Scottish parliament was separate from and equal to the Westminster parliament. μηδείς (talk) 05:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

No, Scottish MPs still sit at Westminster. While they are there, they get to dabble in purely English domestic legislation, whereas the equivelent Scottish legislation has been devolved to the Scottish Parliament, where English MPs don't get a say in it. As a majority of Scottish MPs are from the Labour Party, it annoys the hell out of Conservative MPs. The issue is called the West Lothian Question. Alansplodge (talk) 13:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

To clear up the confusion here, the Scottish Parliament is made up of MSPs (Members of the Scottish Parliament), while the Parliament of the United Kingdom contains MP (Members of Parliament). The Scottish Parliament is more or less on a par with the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Irish Assembly, but it has certain devolved powers that the two Assemblies don't. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Apologies if I muddied the water. Alansplodge (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

When Tam Dalyell first coined the term "West Lothian question", though, he was talking about a different situation - obviously, since the Scottish Parliament didn't exist back then. He was talking specifically about Scottish local government and the fact that certain matters had been devolved to local authorities which meant that he as a Scottish MP had no control over them, although he could vote on similar matters affecting England. --Viennese Waltz 03:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Did Churchill say something like this?

When asked about the French, he answered I don't have an opinion about them, since I haven't met all of them. Comploose (talk) 23:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

To me that doesn't sound like Churchill at all, too trite and silly. Moonraker (talk) 03:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything on Google, but then he did make an awful lot of witty remarks. Alansplodge (talk) 14:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It sounds more like Mark Twain or Will Rogers than Churchill Blueboar (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The expression "I haven't met all of them" is all over google from a variety of sources and contexts, but so far I'm not seeing any attribution. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not mentioned at q:Winston Churchill. ⋘HueSatLum ? ❢⋙ 01:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

November 26

Tolerance

I'm looking for the name of the fallacy that occurs when thinking about tolerance. It is summed up in this quote:

“Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society... then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them...” ― Karl R. Popper

I thought it was some sort of equivocation or regression, but I can't find it exactly. Thanks. 129.120.4.8 (talk) 04:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It is indeed a type of equivocation, I'd call it context-dropping or definition by non-essentials. By tolerance in a political context we mean tolerance of opinion, not tolerance of force or physiological tolerance of drugs, etc. Popper is not committing the fallacy here, he's describing it. Those who'd replace the properly valued political tolerance of peaceful differences of opinion or taste or peaceful practices with "tolerance" as an absolute, as if we must "tolerate" those who initiate force against others, are destroying the very concept whose value they expect you to recognize emotionally, but whose nature they don't expect you to identify consciously. (That phenomenon of replacing thought with emotion is the essence of Orwell's Newspeak.) Ayn Rand called the fallacy involved the anti-concept. Popper's not arguing against tolerance, he's arguing that we have to know what we mean by words like it that have multiple and possibly contradictory senses in the context where we use them. μηδείς (talk) 05:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Replacing thought with emotion is not the essence of Newspeak. The essence is that if a language is not capable of expressing a certain idea, say "freedom", then nobody can imagine the concept or try to bring about its existence. Newspeak only works if linguistic determinism is true, and very few linguists believe it is. --140.180.249.151 (talk) 07:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll agree that that phrase would need a lot of unpacking the way I put it, my point was that consciousness is reduced from functioning conceptually to functioning emotionally (e.g., the two minute hate); but the OP can read the sources and ask more questions if he has them. μηδείς (talk) 02:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Tolerance is not an unalloyed good. The object of tolerance must be taken into consideration. In the absence of an articulated object, tolerance can be welcome or unwelcome. Bus stop (talk) 02:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

mizrahi and sephardi jew politics

Which political parties other than Shas do Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews support the most? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmust90 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Including Sephardi in this question is pointless. That term indicates the ancestry of descendants of Jews expelled from Spain in 1492. They've lived for five (!) centuries in other countries, so those who came to Israel - relatively few, after the Holocaust - are generally identified by their place of origin, e.g. the Netherlands and the Balkan countries, etc. Those Spain-expelled Jews who emigrated to North Africa in the late 15th C. largely intermarried with local Jewish populations, so culturally would be among the "Mizrachi" of the large post-WWII wave of immigration, along with those from the Arab countries of the Middle East. -- Deborahjay (talk) 14:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Weren't a lot of the olim from Bulgaria and Romania after World War II Sephardi Jews? Futurist110 (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Can someone else answer my question? Please. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmust90 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I would think that the Likud would be a popular party for Mizrahi and Sephardi Jews. Futurist110 (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's an an essay on multiculturalism in Israel complete with references. If you search the web (e.g. Israel + Mizrachi + political) you'll find information from such a wide variety of sources that you'll have to decide which ones you consider reliable. At present, eight weeks away from national elections, parties are still forming: the Likud primaries were on Monday, a new party (Tnuah headed by Tzipi Livni) announced yesterday. I suggest that voters' choices reflect their positions on security (Iran, Hamas/Hezbollah), foreign relations (Arab countries, the West), the territories (settlers, Palestinians), and economics (free market vs. social welfare). Loyalties to a particular party or politician reflect what the individual voter feels s/he stands to gain on these issues. Religious fundamentalists are most likely vote as their spiritual leaders direct. -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I notice that some Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews support Kadima, not to mention the leader is of Mizrahi backgorund.

The OTHER Middle-Eastern Religions

How much is known about the other religions that are related to Abramism or to Mazdaism there were (or are) in the Middle-East? What kind of resources are there on them? 209.159.255.226 (talk) 08:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Could you be a bit more specific please? Do you mean the offshoots of the Abrahamic religions such as Gnosticism or Bahai, or whether there are still some pre-Abrahamic religions still in the area? Are you interested in any in particular? --TammyMoet (talk) 10:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

One (of doubtless several) relevant is Samaritanism. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.21.143.150 (talk) 14:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

And the Druze, which are not really Muslim, but related. OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course 84.21... means Samaritanism. When you say "other" religions, I suppose you mean other than the big three: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Tammy Moet has mentioned Bahai. Of course each of the big three has offshoots that are different enough to possibly qualify as different religions, such as Samaritanism (from Judaism), Gnosticism including Manichaeism and Mandaeism (drawing from both Christianity and what you call Mazdaism), and Islam-influenced sects such as Druze and Yazdanism (including the Yazidi), or sects whose Islamic affiliation is debated, such as Ahmadiyya or the Alawi and Alevi. A number of these Islamic sects also draw from what you call Mazdaism, by which I think you mean the Zoroastrian tradition. Another Zoroastrian-derived sect that also showed Islamic influence was the Khurramites. Yet another Zoroastrian-derived sect was Zurvanism. The Zoroastrian connections of Mithraism are debated. Marco polo (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry I probably should have been more specific. I am looking, particularly, for the *older* religions in the area, ones dating from before Islam or Christianity and possible even before the consolidation of Judaism. Samaritanism and the Yezidi I already knew about, but are otherwise the kind of groups I was thinking of. I was also thinking of the religion of the Kanem, and that of the Sabians, though I don't know how reliable the reports are of them. Also, by "Mazdaism" I didn't quite mean Zoroastrianism, but rather the kinds of religions that birthed it-- I have heard that before Zarathustra, the worship of Ahura Mazda was more polytheistic. Thanks. 209.159.255.226 (talk) 01:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The articles Ancient Semitic religion and Religions of the ancient Near East can probably lead you in some interesting directions. --Jayron32 04:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

(Some forms of Zoroastrianism were compatible with temples to Anaitis long after Zoroaster.)

For a Roman view of Canaanite paganism, you can look at De Dea Syria by Lucian (avoid the 1920s translation into pseudo-Elizabethan English, however!)... AnonMoos (talk) 08:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Seven Pillars of Wisdom has a passage near the beginning, musing on the very wide variety of religions that had sprung up and faded out in the region over the centuries, resulting in a culture that had been shaped by the interaction of a lot of different ideas. Like Native American languages, it could be that a lot of them are undocumented or only documented in obscure scholarly places. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Punahou, Hilo

Where is Punahou, Hilo? I am not talking about the Punahou School on Oahu. I am talking about a place in or around Hilo called Punahou.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

How sure are you of the spelling? There's a small Punahoa Street in Hilo, that appears to have a Farmer's market on it. Buddy431 (talk) 02:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Waimea United Church of Christ

Does this image look like the Waimea United Church of Christ?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 10:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes it does. Trio The Punch (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Ernest Hemingway and Ludwig Renn (Spanish Civil War, 1936-39)

Hello Learned Ones ! I'm finishing the french version of Ludwig Renn in WP fr , & I suddenly note that Hemingway (to my knowledge) didn't mention Renn, a chief of the International Brigades, while he gave wide descriptions of many others (André Marty especially seems to us quite juicy & accurate). A quick look in Carlos Baker doesn't carry more fruit. WP deutsch says in a note that Renn mentioned EH curtly in his book about the Spanish war , as "an american" . Was that cold eye reciprocal ? Thanks beforehand for your answers. T;y. Arapaima (talk) 11:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course, not everything of Hemingway's has been published yet, and if you have in mind The Fifth Column and Four Stories of the Spanish Civil War, that doesn't aim to cover all of his experiences in Spain. Hemingway's letters are being published in a Cambridge University Press series edited by Sandra Spanier, but so far there is only volume 1, up to 1922, with nearly six thousand letters still to come. I imagine some from Spain should appear one day. Moonraker (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Moonraker. Am trying to find "EH Complete stories" , collected by James Fenton. T;y; Arapaima (talk) 07:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

RMS Titanic

Is it true that as the Titanic sank, American Civil War veteran Isidor Strauss was in bed with his wife waiting to die like in the film? Keeeith (talk) 12:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Our article Isidor Straus (note the spelling) includes the following text:

"Isidor and Ida were last seen on deck arm in arm. Eyewitnesses described the scene as a "most remarkable exhibition of love and devotion."

As the last eyewitnesses saw them on deck, it would seem that the scene in bed must have been the film-makers' imagination. However, the comment in our article is currently unsourced, so you will need to research this further or decide for yourself on Wikipedia's reliability on this point. --Dweller (talk) 12:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Who would know if they did? It's not likely that some frantic person would suddenly decide to peek into somebody's cabin, plus recognize the occupants. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

According to Isidor_Strauss#Death_on_the_Titanic there is no reason to believe the 1997 film's version of the Titanic sinking (dying in bed), but there are accounts of the 1953 and 1958's versions (seen on deck arm in arm with his wife). Since his body was found floating on water, I doubt he perished in his cabin. OsmanRF34 (talk) 16:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

This is the second reference desk question I've seen about Strauss being a "Civil War veteran". But according to the article, he attempted to enlist but was turned down, and instead made money trading traitor bonds. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, see Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 November 10#Titanic's stewards and their responsibility, where his purported veteranity (?) was debunked. He volunteered but was rejected, and that was the sum total of his involvement in the war.-- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The direct quote, "most remarkable exhibition of love and devotion" appears to come not from an eyewitness but from a newspaper article. I found HER LOVE STOOD THE SUPREME TEST. (ARTICLE) in the The Kingston Daily Freeman, Volume 42, April 20 1912, Page 6 (but no doubt syndicated in many others); the text accompanies a portrait photograph of Ida. So the story about them is at least contemporary with the sinking, however it doesn't actually say if they stayed on deck or went to bed. I know which sounds the most likely. Alansplodge (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I have since found Jay Henry Mowbray, Sinking of the Titanic: Eyewitness Accounts" 1912 which quotes an account from an American journalist and survivor called Helen Churchill Candee. She said; "I saw Mr and Mrs Isador Strausss on the deck of the Titanic as I was lowered into one of the lifeboats. Mrs Strauss refused to leave the ship unless her husband could accompany her. They were on the top deck and I heard her say that she would not leave her husband. She went down with him as she had lived and traveled with him...". A further account in the same book comes from Ida's maid, Miss Ellen Bird, although reported by "Sylvester Byrnes, general manager of R.H. Macy & Co.". Ellen's description seems to end when she is put in the lifeboat in Ida's place.[9] Alansplodge (talk) 17:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I also found the account of the ship's barber, Charles Weikman, who fell into the sea as the Titanic finally sank. He says; ""The parting of the last two boats from the ship's side caused all those on board to rush to the rail. Here I found Mr. and Mrs. Isadore Straus, their arms enfolding one another. Mrs. Straus clambered out of a lifeboat when she learned that her husband would be unable able to accompany her to safety. She remarked that she would rather stay on board with her husband than leave the ship without him. They went down to their death in the sea locked in each other's arms."[10] There's another report about them sitting in deck chairs, which is quoted on several websites like this one, but I haven't been able to pin it down to any particular survivor. Alansplodge (talk) 18:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the Strauses' devotion and love was played up (in comparison to that of other families; I do not doubt that their deaths occurred as described by surviving witnesses) for a reason not obvious to modern readers: the emphasis put upon the bravery and stoicism of "Anglo-Saxon" first-class victims, and the claims or implications by some prominent survivors and reporters that the non-"Anglo-Saxon" victims were all irrational screaming nutcases with no sense of decorum or decency. The Strauses were of course Jewish, and Jewish readers were keenly interested in the story of Ida Strauss, who was seen as embodying all those virtues attributed by the mainstream media only to "Anglo-Saxons". I put "Anglo-Saxon" in quotes because that's the term the newspapers used when describing victims of Northwest European Protestant stock. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

November 27

Keith Baines

I need some(or more)information about Keith Baines(English man) . It's said that he is a contemporary poet,whose poems once appeared in periodicals both in the United States and the United Kingdom,died in 1986. Help really really needed!!! Thank you , sincerely!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharpay90 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a book: Alice Hughes, Archives of a Muse Poet: Keith Baines (1924-1984) which might repay your perusal. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC) Have a look here too. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

He is mentioned at Le Morte d'Arthur#Later_publications, for his rendition of Le Morte d'Arthur in modern English. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Transnational metropolitan areas

Whilst reading the Copenhagen article, it was stated that because of the Øresund Bridge it was becoming part of a greater transnational metropolitan area with Malmo in Sweden, which sparked my curiosity about transnational metropolitan areas, only to find we have no article in general on the topic. After some work searching I finally found Transborder agglomeration, but this is just a listof such areas. Can I ask for ideas and insights on this topic. Thanks.--KTo288 (talk) 13:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

"Ideas and insights" is a bit vague - what precisely do you mean? One thought is that in many case these cities would have developed on opposite banks of a river, which only became an international (or inter-territorial) boundary at a later date. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

That's true of some. Others are cities near a border, which gradually merged with dormitory towns on the other side, while yet others are towns which have developed either side of an important border post. Warofdreams talk 14:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

After reading some of the articles from those on the list, transport links seem to be important, it seems strange to think that because of the bridge Malmo is becoming a dormitary town for Copenhagan, the other thing seems to be financial incentives, where their is a financial benefit from moving goods or people from one side to the other.--KTo288 (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

There are also cases where some country had a populated region, some part of which later got acquired some other country (e.g. due to a war), leaving the region split across the two countries. I can't think of examples that I'd say are really metropolitan, though maybe there are some. East and West Berlin pre-unification could be sort of a partway example. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Jerusalem was similarly divided between 1948 and 1967 - the legalities are complicated and contentious, of course, but the de facto situation was that a defended barrier existed in the middle of the city. Nicosia in Cyprus has been in a similar situation since 1974, divided by the Green Line. Andrew Gray (talk) 13:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the "insights" wrt division of existing cities, sorry that the word insight is a bit vague, but with my initial line of thought I would never have on my own come up with Berlin pre unification, Jerusalem and Nicosia fitting this description.--KTo288 (talk) 11:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Temple details

There is a temple of Raghavendra swamy near Hosur of Tamil Nadu. Can I get details of the same such as route direction etc.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.75.157 (talk) 13:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Is it Raghavendra Swamy Mutt? That link gives you the google map location, which should help. I'm not sure, since Raghavendra Swami apparently founded several temples, but this may be the temple website, which gives contact information for each temple. 184.147.123.169 (talk) 01:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Philipp Bouhler and his killings of the disabled

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.
My question is, that scumbag was responsible for the deaths of thousands of disabled people. But he wore glasses, didn't it make him disabled too? Keeeith (talk) 13:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC) There's probably few people around without any deficiency in some way, whether it be physical, emotional or cognitive, but there is obviously great divergence in how 'disabling' different deficiencies are. Not that I want to defend him, but there's nothing illogical in my mind about distinguishing between little and great disabilities. - Lindert (talk) 14:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC) The need for glasses was not considered disabling enough to make someone qualify as Life unworthy of life. By the Nazi logic, to be life unworthy of life you had to somehow be a burden or a threat (long or short term) to society. People with glasses, in and of themselves, constituted neither. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC) However, some regimes have executed people with glasses for other reasons.--Shantavira|feed me 15:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Recorded speculations about the "origin of energy"?

I know this is not a science question, which is why I place it under "philosophy", or generally speaking, "humanities". Where does energy come from? Are there any recorded philosophical speculations about the origin of energy? For example, the qi in Qigong or the electrical energy that turns on your lightbulb. 140.254.227.120 (talk) 14:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Aristotle in "Metaphysics" reasoned that the source of all movement would be some Primum movens or "prime mover," (God, for instance) acting not through pushing on something (which would cause a reaction) but by thought. The prime mover set things moving without being moved itself. Thomas Aquinas and Isaac Newton were in accord with this, if I recall my classics education from many years ago. Aristotle coined the word "energia" or "energy," but its modern use in science ins not the same as his. See Potentiality and actuality for an explanation. Edison (talk) 14:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

This is essentially the same question as the origin of matter and the origin of the universe, on which people have been speculating for time immemorial. Carving it down to the origin of energy doesn't seem like a distinction with a difference to me. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

This IS a science question. To claim otherwise displays a poor understanding of what science is. HiLo48 (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

It depends on how you define "science". As Marco polo states below, if you believe that ultimate causes can only be explained in metaphysical terms, then you are talking philosophy. 140.254.121.38 (talk) 20:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

If you read "Energy (disambiguation)#Science and philosophy" you'll notice that the word "energy" is used to describe quite different phenomena. The qi in Qigong and the electrical energy that powers a lightbulb are quite different kettles of fish. But lets say you mean energy in its physical sense. When you say "Where does energy come from?", do you mean the concept "energy" or actual energy itself? Gabbe (talk) 17:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a physicist, but I believe that physicists see the Big Bang as the ultimate origin of all energy in the universe. However, I don't think that scientists understand and agree on the causes of the Big Bang. (See also Cosmogony.) Some (scientists or otherwise) believe that ultimate causes can only be explained in metaphysical terms. Which brings us back to philosophy. Marco polo (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

You may or may not wish to contemplate http://mlbible.com/isaiah/40-26.htm.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Right, because God is definitely the best explanation for a relatively well-understood, observable, and ongoing physical process that has nothing to do with the OP's question of where energy comes from. Please take your propaganda elsewhere. In reality, star formation conserves energy (to a very good approximation). There are physical processes in the universe that don't--the expansion of the universe creates dark energy, because dark energy density is constant with time while the universe expands. In the same vein, radiation energy goes down with time because its energy density decreases as the fourth power of the universe's size, while volume only increases as the third power. But you don't see Wavelength trying to prove that God created dark energy, for the reason that the almighty Creator doesn't seem to know about this component of the universe that dominates all matter by a ratio of 2.7 to 1, and all stellar mass by a ratio of 200 to 1. --140.180.249.151 (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Did God tell you personally that He doesn't know about dark matter and dark energy? The OP specifically asked for philosophical explanations, and Wavelength supplied one. Dbfirs 22:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Did you even read his link? It talks about God creating stars. Creating stars does not create energy. The OP asked about the origin of energy. Even if Wavelength did provide a philosophical answer to the OP--which he didn't--philosophy is not a field in which anything and everything is accepted as valid. In particular, the argument from ignorance is widely regarded as fallacious, and every argument of the form "I don't why X happens; therefore God did it" is an argument of ignorance. --140.180.249.151 (talk) 23:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Hamlet Act 1 Scene 5 lines 166-7 (Hamlet to Horatio, though he could have said it to either of us!) Dbfirs 21:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Which part of "star formation does not create energy" or "the OP asked about the origin of energy" do you not understand? I'm having trouble believing in your good faith if you continue defending an answer that never mentions the word "energy" or anything related to it. --140.180.249.151 (talk) 05:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I see mass and energy as two aspects of the same thing (per Einstein), so I was puzzled about why you felt it necessary to shoot down a good-faith reply by Wavelength. See Mass–energy equivalence and the recently confirmed God particle (though it accounts for only 1% of the mass in the universe — the other 99% of measured mass is really energy!) The OP asked for "philosophical speculations". Perhaps you can provide one? Dbfirs 19:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

You might be interested in another "borderline science" theory that the whole universe has, and has always had, zero total energy. See the article: Zero-energy universe (including some of the deleted content for way-out ideas that have a philosophical slant). Dbfirs 22:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Idiots guide to 2011 UK census release calendar

 Done

For reference, I'm the idiot.

I have been trying to understand the UK 2011 census data without, so far, fully understanding the terminology used by the ONS. So here is what I would like:

1. 2011 population and area for Ely (ONS E04001630 12UC011)^*
2. 2011 population and area for Stretham (E04001643 12UC024)^* NOTE: Not the ward Stretham & Thetford!
3. 2011 population and area for Little Thetford (E04001647 12UC028)^*

^*census codes from file PAR_DEC_2011_EN_NC from names and codes for administrative geography—parishes As far as I can ascertain, the 2011 parish level population statistics have not yet been released although there was a recent ONS release of Lower-Level-Output-Area population statistics, including wards. There is, on the other hand, parish level population data available for 2001 at Neighbourhood statistics.

My question is therefore: For 2011, is there a parish level population statistic available yet? Will one be produced? When?

Thank you in advance --Senra (talk) 16:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried asking here? Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

No, you are not an idiot. The ONS website is extremely hard to navigate and understand. It may have made sense to the people who developed it, but not much thought was given to users' needs or expectations. Marco polo (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Did you get an answer from asking at Ghmyrtle's link? I have a weird workaround for you if not, but it's complicated. If you use the map here, you can zoom in on an area you want (for example, Ely), and select each individual census area (Ely seems to be composed of at least eight). Use the dropdown menu under "click an area to update table" to find out the LSOA code for that area (for example, one piece of Ely is called East Cambridgeshire 003F/E01033426). Then go download the excel table here (it's the one called "Output Areas (OAs) in the East", fifth from the top), and click on the LSOA sheet (tab at the bottom of the document) to get the number for that specific piece/code (in this case, 1,510 residents). Repeat and add up for other areas that make up Ely. Repeat for your other areas etc. There must be an easier way, but that's all I've got. 184.147.123.169 (talk) 15:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Ha ha. I like the response from Marco Polo; especially where I am told I'm not an idiot. He he. Not yet, Ghmyrtle, but I will ask the ONS customer service; thank you. It is however highly likely that the ONS has not yet produced a parish level population statistic, otherwise someone would have corrected us by now and told us where to find such a statistic. I had considered your work-around 184.147.123.169 but I discounted it on the basis that such a solution would be original research. Thank you all for your valuable input --Senra (talk) 16:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It might not be original research (assuming you want this information for a Wikipedia mainspace article). See this paragraph WP:CALC of the OR policy

Routine calculations do not count as original research. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is allowed provided there is consensus among editors that the calculation is an obvious, correct, and meaningful reflection of the sources...

The original research or original synthesis would not be in adding up the columns (something that can be verified by any reader without checking a published and cited total), but in picking boundaries. If the parcels all fall within well-recognized boundaries for Ely, that should be fine so long as you specify the definition of Ely that's being used. On the other hand, saying "to blazes with the Boundary Commission, everyone knows what the real Ely is, or should look like" relying only on your own judgement and good sense (or on someone else's published definition without citing the source) would be OR.—— Shakescene (talk) 06:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Question answered by ONS customer service. Release 2.2, due for publication 30 January 2013, will contain Information for "wards, parishes and parliamentary constituencies". See also Release plans for 2011 Census statistics. I was slightly confused when I read the 2.2 release as the recent (November) release also contained wards. I was told that release 2.2 contains more detailed ward level statistics; not just population. The very helpful ONS customer services representative urged caution in adding up Output-Areas (OA) or wards to arrive at a parish population statistic, as not all OA's or wards in England are coterminous with parishes. Question: Will the release 2.2 statistics on parishes be migrated to Neighbourhood statistics? Answer: Yes. But not before 30 January 2013. See also our article ONS coding system for a description of ONS census codes --Senra (talk) 11:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateapokaiwhenuakitanatahu

Does this name predate the 1900s? Or is it a later revival of a traditional Maori name? The oldest source I found on Google Books was a 1961 Maori dictionary of place names. How did European explorers and settlers in the 1800s transliterate it originally? Did they use different letters, hyphenate it, broke it up into different words, etc.? Is there any books from the 1800s, written by a European that speaks about this mountain. Or did they use another name for it, or never bother to visit it or write the name down. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea when Taumata was named. I have managed to discover that the then Lieutenant Cook did not name the hill when he first sailed close to the area on 17 October 1769. His description can be found on pages 307–308 of 1773 Cook, James in Hawkesworth, John An Account of the Voyages Undertaken by the Order of His Present Majesty for Making Discoveries in the Southern Hemisphere, ... Captain Cook, ... in the Endeavour:, Volume 2, W Strahan and T Cadell, London. His southern most point during that part of the voyage was 40°34′S 177°05′E. I hope this helps --Senra (talk) 22:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The United States Supreme Court Overruling Itself Twice

Have there been any cases throughout history where the US SC overruled itself twice? I was discussing this issue with someone else, and discussed the possibility of the US SC re-legalizing abortion eventually in the hypothetical event of a repeal of Roe v. Wade. The person that I was talking to said that he never heard of a case where the US SC overruled itself on twice. My question is, has there ever been such a case/issue? Futurist110 (talk) 22:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Taking a quick look over the List of overruled U.S. Supreme Court decisions page, I don't see any scenario where they overruled twice. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if these are technically overrulling decisions but over the centuries the Supreme Court has allowed disallowed then allowed again the death penalty. See here: List of United States Supreme Court decisions on capital punishment.

^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 04:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

November 28

2012 Campaign Question

Can anyone link me to any sources online that give the total amount of money spent on internet ads in the 2012 U.S. Presidential election?Rabuve (talk) 15:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The Federal Election Commission has some data on how the candidates spend their money: http://www.fec.gov/portal/presidential.shtml, but I'm not sure if it specifically lists internet advertising apart from other types. RudolfRed (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Web search "romney obama internet ad spending" finds lots of data, which I think can be summarized as "Obama spent more". 67.119.3.105 (talk) 19:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

First European to cross the equator

(1) Was Bartolomeu Dias the first European to cross the equator? If not, then who?

(2) Our article Bartolomeu Dias#Purposes of the Dias expedition says

King John II of Portugal appointed him, on 10 October 1487, to head an expedition to sail around the southern tip of Africa in the hope of finding a trade route to India.

At that time did Europeans know for sure that there was a southern tip of Africa? Duoduoduo (talk) 19:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

1) Marco Polo may have crossed the equator, because he describes islands in Indonesia that are "so far to the south that the North Star, little or much, is never to be seen!" and that he himself was "detained by the weather" for five month on such an island in the Kingdom of Samara (Sumatra) where "neither the Pole-star nor the stars of the Maestro were to be seen".

2) There is a story recorded by Herodotus claiming that the ancient Phoenicians sailed around southern Africa, and there may have been other accounts. And besides, the only alternative of there being a southern tip is if Africa extended to the South Pole, and then it had to be huge. Not impossible perhaps, but that might have seemed unlikely. - Lindert (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips about Marco Polo and Herodotus. I was wondering whether there's documentary evidence of, say, Bartolomeu Dias' sponsors saying that the southern tip of Africa must exist, or telling him to find it "if it does exist". (As a practical matter they could view it as non-existent if the coast of West Africa veers toward the west as you go farther south.) Duoduoduo (talk)

I think it's really unlikely that we can figure out who was the first European to cross the Equator. My guess would be it was someone whose name is lost to history, not more than 300 years after there were Europeans. There have always been wanderers, and it's not really that hard to wander to. --Trovatore (talk) 21:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

But surely we could identify the first one known to have done it. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The first European known to cross the equator would be Marco Polo, assuming he wasn’t fudging the facts (which would seem unlikely given the rather limited understanding even the most educated people had about the particulars of latitude and the like in the early 14th century). Regarding the Herodotus claim, it’s not entirely germane to this discussion, but similar claims were made by Plutarch Ptolemy about the Egyptians; I don’t think anyone takes those too seriously these days. Dias had enough trouble getting around Cape Bojador as it is, and it seems likely that had he been trying it with 14th-century technology (let alone ancient Egyptian or Phoenician tech) he would have died like many of the others who had tried before (remember that the Cape of Good Hope wasn’t even the hardest part of getting to the other side of Africa). Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, it might be germane to this discussion, because the second question was "did Europeans know for sure that there was a southern tip of Africa?". Answer - maybe, if they'd studied Herodotus. He was thought to be a reliable source at the time, so at least they would have thought that they knew for sure. Alansplodge (talk) 22:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

IIRC, the Geography, along with a smattering of other classical and early medieval works, portray the Indian Ocean as a massive lake bounded by Africa on the west and an overgrown Malay Peninsula on the east. Herodotus was much more well-known than Ptolemy in the 14th and 15th centuries, however, so you may be correct here. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

However, even Herodotus himself expressed doubt about the story, even though he includes it. (link) - Lindert (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

If the Egyptians did it, it was probably by following the Nile or the Red Sea, not by sailing into the Atlantic and south along the western coast. Also, a 14th century traveler would have certainly been aware that the farther south you go, the lower the North Star appears, until it disappears behind the horizon. --140.180.249.151 (talk) 22:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Ptolemy's claim was that they went out through the Pillars of Hercules, so do with that what you will. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the Pole Star -- while medieval Europeans certainly would have known that the Pole Star sunk toward the horizon as one travels south, they didn't necessarily know that it would disappear upon reaching the equator, nor were they at all certain that the equator was even habitable (Lester 2009). Unfortunately, Torrid zone is a redirect to Tropics at the moment. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Duoduoduo -- for a lot of information on what 15th-century Europeans thought they might find in distant regions, see The Fourth Part of the World by Toby Lester (ISBN 978-1-4165-3531-7). -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I highly recommend Lester's book for anyone interested in early European exploration. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The story by Herodotus about Phoenician navigators is not completely dismissed by scholars, as some details suggest that it might be accurate, but of course the Phoenicians were not European, nor were the Egyptians. My namesake, Marco Polo, is not certain to have passed south of the Equator. The farthest south he is fairly certain to have reached is Singapore, which is just north of the Equator. He says that the North Star was not visible, but it may have been just above the horizon where he didn't recognize it. There's no way to be sure that he sailed farther south than Singapore, which was as far south as his ship needed to travel. The first Europeans that I think we can be certain traveled south of the Equator were João de Santarém and Pêro Escobar, who discovered São Tomé and Príncipe in 1470 or 1471. Marco polo (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

But the article São Tomé and Príncipe says São Tomé, the sizable southern island, is situated just north of the equator. On the other hand, the article equator says in its chart that the equator goes through São Tomé and Príncipe. So: (1) how can we be certain João de Santarém and Pêro Escobar crossed the equator -- are they known to have gone beyond São Tomé and Príncipe? And (2) the two articles São Tomé and Príncipe and equator seem to contradict each other -- which is right? Duoduoduo (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

If Google Earth is to be trusted, the main island of São Tomé a is just north of the equator (Principe is further north), but a small island, (Ilhéu das Rolas just south of São Tomé) does lie on the equator, as its article confirms. - Lindert (talk) 22:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Given this doubt, we could certainly not say that João de Santarém and Pêro Escobar are known to have crossed the Equator. The honour must go to someone else. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Age of Discovery#Portuguese Exploration after Prince Henry says

explorers João de Santarém, Pedro Escobar, Lopo Gonçalves, Fernão do Pó, and Pedro de Sintra made it even beyond the hired (sic). They reached the southern Hemisphere and the islands of the Gulf of Guinea, including São Tomé and Príncipe and Elmina on the Gold Coast in 1471. [bolding added]

Duoduoduo (talk) 20:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

That may well be the case, but it is currently an unreferenced statement from a Wikipedia article, so not really authoratative, especially because none of the places mentioned is actually south of the equator. - Lindert (talk) 20:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

An additional note: Marco Polo claimed to have seen "neither the Pole-star nor the stars of the Maestro". I don't know what the Maestro is, but presumably it's a part of the Big Dipper, in which case he could not have been just a bit above the equator and failed to recognize the Pole Star. Polaris itself would have been 5 degrees away from the pole in 1300, meaning 5 degrees above the horizon at the equator at its maximum. That's 10 times the angular diameter of the Moon or Sun. --140.180.249.151 (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

If you discount Polo, de Santarém, and Escobar, then Lopes Gonçalves might be the first European of whom it can be said without any doubt that he crossed the equator (in 1474). ---Sluzzelin talk 23:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Not exactly the right answer, but I think the first person to visit both Europe and South of the Equator was the Moroccan explorer Ibn Battuta, who ranged as far north as the Balkans and as far south as Zanzibar. --Jayron32 02:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, i agree Duoduoduo's question #1 as posed. You might actually say that della Casa the first European to cross the equator in that his expedition is sort of the starting point for our use of the term "European" at all. Before the sixteenth century CE, the people living on the European continent would not have responded to the question "where are you from" with a continent. Rather they would have self-identified and identified others of by religion, language or locality. What was understood to be common to the entire area was religion (Christendom), a legal system (inherited from Rome) and a set of origin myths harkening back to what we would call classical antiquity (Hercules, Troy, and Brutus). A twelfth-century man living in what is now Belgium, if asked where he lived, would likely have responded "Christendom" or "Rome," not "Europe." A good overview of this topic that i have read is chapter one of Garrett Mattingly's excellent if now-dated monograph Renaissance Diplomacy". From a non-European perspective, the Ottomans in the 16th century referred to themselves as Rus (Roman) and some Turkish dialects, according to the entry Europe, the word Frangistan is casually used to refer to Europe outside of official institutions. Translators of the native peoples' descriptions of the migrants associated with crusades generally [this one)]render the terms they wrote in as "Franks," but i have no idea why they make that choice. I believe that the term actually only became into use after men like Della Casa changed how we conceive of the distribution of people across our planet. Or, i could have just cited the Europe#Etymology page. Sigh...Hfeatherina (talk) 05:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Another possibility, though falling into the "we'll probably never know for sure" category, is Eudoxus of Cyzicus. It seems the ancient Greeks at least knew about Zanzibar, which is south of the equator and mentioned in the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, an ancient Greek sailing guide. Pfly (talk) 11:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Hfeatherina, the Europeans who lived in the crusader states are generally referred to as "Franks" because, when they themselves were at a loss to describe themselves, that's what they used, rather than "Europeans" because, as you say, that term didn't exist yet. They tended to come from France anyway, and when they didn't come directly from France, they probably came from Norman Italy or England, thus they were actually from Normandy in the previous generations. It also recalls an earlier age when the actual Germanic Franks ruled Europe, and almost all of the crusaders were descended from Charlemagne in one way or another. Muslim authors like Usama ibn Munqidh, whom you linked to, called them Franks too, and that is the ultimate origin of names like "Frangistan". The Greeks adopted the term too (as in "Frankocratia", when crusaders conquered the Byzantine Empire). Modern historians also sometimes use "Franks" as a convenient shorthand for the inhabitants of the crusader states, because "crusaders" is not really accurate (they weren't all literally crusaders), and "Christians" is too broad (there were other kinds of Christians there). We also use "Latins" (another name they called themselves). Adam Bishop (talk) 12:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Adam, many of the Crusaders came from Flanders too. I forgot about Latins, but that would be another example of their self-identification by language rather than geographic area, wouldn't it? Hfeatherina (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

True, crusaders also came from Frisia, and Norway, and Poland, and everywhere, even as far as Iceland. Latin was a language identification, presumably - as opposed to Greeks, and the various other languages spoken in the Middle East. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

It basically meant Latin rite Christians... AnonMoos (talk) 00:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

de-law-ification

Is there a generic term for "de-lawification", i.e. making a law stop having legal force? If it's done by a legislative act, it's called "repeal", and if it's done by a court nullifying a statute, I've seen the term "struck down". But there are other situations, like the law expiring (sunset provision), a jurisdictional change (the northernmost part of California hypothetically becoming part of Oregon would make California law stop having effect in that region), or case law created by a court later being overruled by a court (perhaps the same court). The example prompting this question is Lawrence v. Texas "de-lawified" Bowers v. Hardwick. "Overruled" or "overturned" isn't what I'm looking for. I want to refer to the effect on the law itself. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about a verb, but I would say "the law is no longer in force". BTW, may I suggest the Language Desk ? StuRat (talk) 23:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Annulled? Abrogated? Deor (talk) 11:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Repeal. Matt Deres (talk) 11:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

OP is asking for a general word that covers repealing legislation, overruling legislation, overturning judgments, reception and withdrawal of laws due to change of jurisdiction, as well as expiry of legislation due to effluxion of time. I'm not sure such a word exists, since these examples cover at elast three or four fundamentally different situations. The only thing common to all of these that I can think of is that there has been a "change of law". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

As for the specific example the OP mentioned, the word you are looking for is probably "overturn". While we say Court A overruled Court B, and Court A overturned Court B's judgment in Case X, it is also okay to say "Court A overturned legal principle Y". As I understand your explanation, you are looking for a way of describing the effect on the law rather than on a specific case. It is perfectly acceptable to say that the legal principle in question has been overturned. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

"Overturned" doesn't really work for, say, expiration due to a sunset provison, nor for legislative repeal. How about something like "lose currency"? Actually I like the OP's wording "stop having legal force", or "lose legal force". Duoduoduo (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I suggested "overturned" for the OP's specific example of what happens to a legal rule established by case law if it is overturned by a court, I am not suggesting that "overturned" works for any of the other examples.

"Loses legal force" works well for legislation but it isn't quite apt for some types of legal principles based on case law, since you can't really say that, say, "the doctrine of terra nullius is in force" or "is no longer in force". It either exists or it doesn't (or it is either recognised by a court or it isn't). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

"Ceased to have effect"? "Spent"? "Obsolete"? Gabbe (talk) 14:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Hazara dominated provinces of Afghanistan

So far, I know that there are three provinces that are Hazara-dominated and one of them is Bamyan. who are the other two? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmust90 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Our article Hazarajat, about the homeland of the Hazara, says "It is made up of the three central provinces of Bamyan and Daykundi and includes large areas of Maidan Wardak, Helmand, Ghazni, Orūzgān, Sar-e Pol, Samangan, Ghowr and Parvan provinces", which doesn't actually make sense. Rojomoke (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Go back far enough in the article history and it used to say "Bamyan, Daykundi and Ghor". Rojomoke (talk) 23:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

That's strange. I thought it was Bamyan, Daykundi and Ghazni and I ask this question because I totally forgot this fact sine 5 years.

November 29

Schuyler A Donnella Retired secret service field chief. 1867?-1929 ss time frame

Being relevant to the "The New Deal" and Jacob Coxeys pleading with the Government "Coxeys Army". What Information could possibly have been shared with Operatives of that time era? This is virtually hard to answer. I have tried when visiting the National Archives in DC. politicians of the current days issues could use said information to think about the Immigration issue' facing our Great Country. And the continued growth of our Great Citizens (new and old). Thank you Tilde -- 02:38, 29 November 2012‎ User:Nicolausdonnella

Hebrew Publishing Company

I've made a title for an IP contributor's question. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 05:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

WHAT WAS THE FIRST BOOK PRINTED BY THE HEBREW PUBLISHING COMPANY ./ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.26.249.219 (talk) 02:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

No idea but please don't write in FULL CAPS, it is the equivalent of shouting, and we don't like being shouted at. No one else here writes in full caps. Have you ever heard the phrase "In Rome, do like the Romans" ? --Lgriot (talk) 11:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you referring to the title of a recently published work of fiction, The Hebrew Publishing Company by Israeli author Matan Hermoni? -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

This question seems to be related to this post at a Yiddish forum; in context it seems to refer to an early or mid-20th century printer in New York. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 13:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Countries With Little or No State/Province Boundary Changes Over Time

Which other countries besides the United States of America did not have significant boundary changes in their states/provinces over very long periods of time? The boundaries of the U.S. states and territories have stayed almost the same since the Reconstruction Era to the present day in the United States, a period of 140 years or so. Futurist110 (talk) 07:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be excluding all the new states added since then. That is, territorial boundaries changed into state boundaries. StuRat (talk) 08:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Not quite. The territories changed into states, but their borders generally stayed the same--example, Utah Territory became Utah state with the same borders. Futurist110 (talk) 08:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Territorial evolution of the United States--This page shows that there were almost no meaningful territorial changes (the division of Dakota Territory, the creation of Oklahoma state) since 1868, when Wyoming territory was created and the borders of Idaho and Utah were finalized. Futurist110 (talk) 08:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

It appears based on this (Territorial evolution of Canada) and this (Territorial evolution of Australia) that Canada's provincial/territorial borders haven't changed much since 1912 and Australia's since 1862. Futurist110 (talk) 09:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Yet... Mitch Ames (talk) 10:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Let them keep trying. Futurist110 (talk) 18:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Didn't Newfoundland and Labrador become part of Canada in 1949? That must have changed the border a bit. Alansplodge (talk) 13:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

No, Newfoundland just kept its existing borders when it joined and this did not affect any other provincial borders. However, the creation of Nunavut in 1999 changed the borders of the Northwest Territories. --Xuxl (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

But the addition of Nfld certainly changed the borders of provinces within Canada - it added an entirely new one. Saying additions don't qualify as changes seems like a very narrow definition. Matt Deres (talk) 05:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

English counties seem to have had very little change in delineation for centuries, that is from shortly after the Norman Conquest until the 1974 boundary changes. Is that the sort of thing you are looking for? --TammyMoet (talk) 09:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Sort of, but I want it to be continuous to the present day. Futurist110 (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Also the boundaries of the countries within the Union are basically unchanged since the 1500s. The OP might like to clarify what they're looking for in a state or province - the terminology and governmental setups are different from country to country. Would, for instance, the German Länder count? -- Cucumber Mike (talk) 10:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the German Lander would count since they are the largest country sub-divisions for Germany. By states and provinces, I mean the largest sub-divisions of countries. Futurist110 (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The Partition of Ireland (1922) was a significant boundary change for the United Kingdom. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)x

English counties may have been less changed between 1066 and 1974 than many other sub-national divisions, but there were many changes during that period - there's a decent summary in historic counties of England. Even national boundaries are not entirely unchanged - besides the abovementioned partition of Ireland, Welsh Bicknor was in Wales until 1844. Warofdreams talk 17:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The U.S. date for fully modern boundaries shouldn't be any earlier than 1898: That year the Oklahoma-Texas border was finalized in its modern form (see Greer County, Texas) and the Newlands Resolution passed annexing Hawaii. There have been other more minor adjustments; the Delaware wedge wasn't resolved until 1921, and the U.S. adjusted its border with Mexico in the Boundary Treaty of 1970. So, if you want the absolute last date when all 50 U.S. state borders reached their modern form it would be 1970. --Jayron32 13:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say fully modern boundaries. I said that there were almost no meaningful territorial changes after 1868. Look at a map of the U.S. in 1868 and now and there won't be much significant changes. Greer County got added to Oklahoma (it was disputed before), Hawaii was annexed, and I don't really care about the minor adjustments, since they are very tiny and aren't visible on a map, even a large one. Futurist110 (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Nope - even later. The control of Lake Erie between Michigan and Ohio was finally determined in 1973. (See Toledo War#Subsequent history) The border between Ohio and Kentucky was redrawn by the Supreme Court in 1980. The border between New York and New Jersey was changed in 1997 around the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island. In fact, there was a small border change between North and Carolina this year [11]. Rmhermen (talk) 14:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

1980 also saw the US Supreme Court decide the border between California and Nevada (decision), resolving survey differences of a mile or so, over the entire boundary of the two states [12]. By my rough estimates, that's about 600 square miles, 10 times the size of the District of Columbia. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 17:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Although it seems a relatively short time compared with some of the above, for the whole period of its existence Australia's borders have hardly changed. It was legally created on 1-1-1901 (glad that date works in US and rest-of-the-world conventions) and, as far as I can tell, no significant external changes have occurred, and the only internal one of any significance would be the creation of the Australian Capital Territory (where the national capital, Canberra, is) in 1911. HiLo48 (talk) 16:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Surely the separation of the Northern Territory from South Australia, in 1911, was also significant? The above-linked territorial evolution of Australia shows various other changes - the most significant external one looks to be the addition of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. Warofdreams talk 17:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

A quick overview of the boundaries of the Swiss Confederation and comparison to the current cantons seems to demonstrate that the boundaries within the Swiss confederation have been relatively stable since the early 19th century. The boudaries of the original cantons do not appear to have changed very much at all, but new cantons were added after Napoleon. I believe that this would apply to just about every country that Napoleon reorganized administratively in the early 19th century.Hfeatherina (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Would this apply to France? Futurist110 (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The last adjustment to the French National boundary came in 1947, see Paris Peace Treaties, 1947. Strictly speaking, France doesn't have anything like U.S. states, they have various levels of administrative divisions, including Regions, Departments and Communes, none of which has any statutory power like a U.S. state does. You can think of them as equivalent of Counties and Townships in the U.S., they are organized mainly to administer national laws, the elective assemblies at each level are like county "boards of supervisors" in the U.S. than legislatures. --Jayron32 23:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, Jayron. France would have regions as their largest sub-divisions, so that would be what I'm looking for in France, even though their regions function more like U.S. counties than U.S. states. Futurist110 (talk) 06:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I'm especially interested in the large counties (population of 50+ million) who fit my question. Futurist110 (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

It appears that Japan's 47 prefectures have had stable borders since 1888 (see this article, p. 13 near bottom). - Lindert (talk) 08:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Are there any other similar countries? Futurist110 (talk) 09:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Why did Russia get all the Soviet Union's nuclear weapons?

I've tried to read through all the relevant articles, but can't find much about the circumstances behind Russia ending up with all the nuclear weapons after the Soviet Union collapsed. The only relevant information I've found is one sentence in Dissolution of the Soviet Union: "In international law, Russia was recognized as the successor state of the Soviet Union, and took complete possession of its arsenal of nuclear weapons". The Non-Proliferation Treaty is probably the argument the Russian side used, as it prevented the Soviets from transferring weapons to other countries, but it didn't directly address the actual situation of the Soviet Union breaking up into several different countries.

So, was the actual official reason based on the NPT, or was there some other explanation? Did Ukraine, Belarus etc just accept this interpretation, and not make any attempt to keep some of the nukes? Or was there some tough negotiation involved and they took some other concessions in return? How were the other countries, especially the US, involved - did they threaten not to support the breakaway states unless they gave up their claim?

59.108.42.46 (talk) 10:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Iirc some of the states basically said they don't want any nukes. They regarded them as an expensive useless unwanted burden. Roger (talk) 11:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Did you read Nuclear weapons and Ukraine? Essentially Ukraine got some security guarantees and various more tangible goodies. Henry^Flower 12:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

You can see some info for Kazakhstan here [13] [14] [15] and Belarus [16] [17] [18] [19] here. Some general info here [20] [21] (second one is Jstor/behind a paywall). Ukraine appears to have been the primary one to consider going nuclear (see the other links, our article and [22]). According to all reports, none of the other SSRs (and therefore their successors) had many/any? nuclear weapons at the time of the breakup, so while they perhaps could have tried to produce them or refused to join the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and may have negoiated something before joining, their negotiating position was naturally far weaker. Nil Einne (talk) 13:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I have just created my first from-scratch Wikipedia article, Lisbon Protocol, in response to your question, because I thought it deserved an article. Forgive me for the flaws in the article, I will go back and improve it later, though you are welcome to do so. Marco polo (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations and welcome to the club, Marco Polo. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, those are all really interesting, especially the NPEC article. I added links to Lisbon Protocol from Russia and weapons of mass destruction and Dissolution of the Soviet Union, because those were the first places I looked when I wanted to find out more about this subject. 59.108.42.46 (talk) 02:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Let me try to address the underlying cause. The Soviet Union was not at all equal, that was all just propaganda. It was basically the Russian empire renamed. So, it was totally dominated by Russia, and, as such, Russia controlled the nuclear weapons, and continues to do so. A similar situation existed in Yugoslavia, where Serbia dominated. Fortunately they didn't have nukes, though. StuRat (talk) 05:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

For what? That the USSR was Russia plus a bunch of puppet states? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Now this is an interesting question -- was the USSR basically Russia plus a bunch of puppet states? If so, then there would be no realistic chance for someone from one of the other republics to get into a position of power, unless he effectively became a Russian (whatever that means). I think I recall that Stalin was a Georgian. Does the presence of non-Russians in high levels refute the Russian Empire claim? Don't know, just asking. Duoduoduo (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Lincoln Avoiding the Whole Idea of Secession?

I seem to remember from history class that Lincoln took pains to avoid the notion that the states of the confederacy had withdrawn from The Union. Rather, he declaried the politicians of the south to be a rebel party that didn't have the authority to suceed. Was that the case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.227.201 (talk) 12:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Reconstruction Era has a lot of good information for you. --Jayron32 12:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think his position was that it is constitutionally impossible for states to secede unilaterally. Therefore, none of the states in the Confederacy had really seceded. Instead, each of those states was ruled by an illegal government. By voting for secession, those governments did not take their states out of the Union. Instead, they abandoned their lawful right to rule their states, since the states themselves were still part of the Union. Marco polo (talk) 14:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

That's why he called it a civil war, while southerners called it other things. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

"The War to Keep our Slaves" was less popular than some. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The vice president of the CSA famously called it the "Cornerstone" of the Confederacy... AnonMoos (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

That might come as a surprise to those who defend the Confederacy. Or maybe NOT. The south tended to call it "The War Between the States", which is a reasonably neutral way to put it. Some have called it "The War of Northern Aggression", which is obviously an aggressive statement in itself, but is not entirely untrue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The South didn't call it that much during the war. See Naming the American Civil War. (I love Wikipedia.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Obama as vice-president

Can Obama run and be elected to be the next vice-president? If the hypothetical next president resigns, having Obama as vice-president, this would be serving a third term. Is that against the 22th amendment? OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

It is an unsettled question. Vice President of the United States#Disqualifications notes "Scholars disagree whether a former President barred from election to the Presidency is also ineligible to be elected Vice President, as suggested by the Twelfth Amendment. The issue has never been tested in practice." However, the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution states "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." Which sounds pretty unambiguous to me; the 22nd Amendment makes Obama ineligible to be elected President again; but there are ways of reaching the White House without being elected. Hypothetically, Obama could run for Congress, get named Speaker of the House of Representatives, and then become President on the simultaneous death of the President and Vice President; this is not outright banned by any combination of the 12th and 22nd. Given the wording of the 12th, which merely says that no one constitutionally ineligible to be President may be elected Vice President; however there are technical loopholes whereby Obama could be President without being elected. Which is why the question is unsettled; there are too many ways to interpret the Constitution given the vague ways that the various passages interact (differences between being and being elected, for example). --Jayron32 13:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it appears that the 22nd Amendment limits total cumulative service as U.S. President to 10 years. Therefore, it would appear that the answer to the OP's question would be Yes, but only if Obama would serve exactly 6 cumulative years or less as U.S. President. This would mean that Obama would need to resign as President in January 2015 or before in order to become eligible to run for Vice President in the future. Futurist110 (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

No, see below: Obama has been elected twice, so he's maxed out &mdash even if he were to resign today, he could never be elected again. As Jayron says, it's not clear that he couldn't become president again through some roundabout scheme, but he can't be elected to the presidency. --Trovatore (talk) 03:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I meant that it would appear that Obama would be eligible to run for VP in the future if he resigned from the Presidency on January 20, 2015 or before. Futurist110 (talk) 05:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I think that's completely irrelevant. If you interpret the 12th amendment to mean that a termed-out president can't be VP, then Obama can't be VP, even if he resigns today. There is no 10-year limit. The limit is, you can be elected twice, except if you've served more than two years of someone else's term, only once. In the most usual scenario that adds up to a max of 10 years, because not many people run for VP after having been president, but 10 years is not the rule. --Trovatore (talk) 08:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

This is where the Supreme Court would come in, if such a situation arose. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

More likely they'd call it a political question and leave it to Congress to decide whether to accept the Obama VP electoral votes or not at the joint session.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

You could actually do it without killing anyone — see Gerald Ford. The 25th Amendment says nothing about the conditions of who the President may appoint, assuming Congress is down with it. Whether it is implied by the 12 Amendment or not is the Constitutional law question. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't really settle it. When Ford was appointed Vice President, he had not previously served as either Vice President or President, so it doesn't bear on the OP's question. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

And when Ford appointed Nelson Rockefeller as his own VP, the same situation applied. No small amount of constitutional issues are in the nature of "we'll worry about it when it happens". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talk • contribs) 03:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Any former two-term president could be appointed vice presidnt after half-way through the sitting president's term, since they can potentially serve up to ten years. μηδείς (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

  No, nothing in the text says anything about ten years. Ten years is the inferred maximum, from the scenario where a VP takes over past the midpoint of a term, and is then eligible to be elected twice. If you're elected twice, you've maxed out; you can't be elected again, and you're also not eligible to be (elected?) VP. I don't think the limits *ever* kick in as long as you're not elected president — in theory, you could serve as president an unlimited number of times, as long as you start each of the terms as VP rather than prez. --Trovatore (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

  (ec) That's an unconventional interpretation, as "serve up to ten years" as a general concept isn't an operative phrase anywhere in the Constitution. The 22nd Amendment explicitly provides for "2 years followed by 2 terms", but only in that sequence. "2 terms and then..." is, as covered above, an unsettled matter. — Lomn 21:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Help with a Native American Myth

Someone told me once that they seen a documentary about ancient myths & legends including one about a native American (unsure which tribe that was mentioned) myth about the moon. It went something like they could remember a time when there no moon & over a period of time, possibly generations, what we call the moon today gradually got closer & closer until it sits were it does today.
There was also a part about a group of spirits or that came down from the moon & helped to teach the ancestors of that tribe, or something like that.
Does anyone know anymore about this or if it true (as in its an actual myth) ? 80.254.146.140 (talk) 15:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I found Wesakechak and the Origin of the Moon, but it doesn't really follow your plot. Alansplodge (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

When I was got told about it, I probaly heard it wrong. 80.254.146.140 (talk) 14:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Webcomic parable reference

Which parable is this in reference to[23]? Dncsky (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a rather oblique reference to the famous exclamation Eureka! by Archimedes.Hfeatherina (talk) 18:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. From the sounds of it there is a parable out there with this interesting profit sharing scheme. Also for future reference the Eureka story is untrue [24].Dncsky (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The king is something like The Goose That Laid the Golden Eggs? 67.119.3.105 (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is a specific parable here, so much as the general story of various kings requiring or receiving their weight in riches every so often. Apparently this has occurred (though fairly recently) though I suspect not as much as is reputed. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Same exact story told in a Garfield cartoon (king getting on a scale, getting fat, getting skinny, etc.). (source) So maybe there is some fairy tale, unless the Garfield is the original and the smbc folks took it from that. 20.137.2.50 (talk) 15:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, now I'm even more convinced there's a story behind this. Guess I'll keep looking.Dncsky (talk) 16:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

18 party in Bangladesh with BNP?

When Khaleda Zia's BNP's Four Party Alliance became 18 party alliance? Where did they get the other 14 parties from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmust90 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

They came as prizes in Cracker Jack boxes. --Jayron32 23:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Just for (incomplete) reference: 18 Party Alliance and Four Party Alliance. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

According to the Four Party Alliance article, the transformation came on April 18, 2012. --Soman (talk) 09:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Palestine 2012 UN Statehood Vote

Does anyone have a map on how various countries voted in the Palestinian statehood vote in the UN today? Thank you very much. I know what the result is, but I want to know how specific countries voted. Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Can't find a list (much less a map) on any news sources yet, but this picture from Norways's UN mission which was retweeted into my timeline should help. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

See Annex II here. Marco polo (talk) 00:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

That's from a year ago?Dncsky (talk) 01:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry. Missed the year on that date. Marco polo (talk) 02:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I also found this map now:

.

The reference desk is not a forum for debate, political point-scoring and unsourced speculation.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It's interesting how a lot of the No votes and Abstentions came from countries that were the most heavily impacted by the Holocaust. Futurist110 (talk) 01:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC) Even more interesting would be to go state-by-state and try to figure out the "What's in it for me" if there's a separate Palestinian nation - and also to gauge their individual levels of hatred of Judaism. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC) You mean like Australia vs. New Zealand or Britain vs. France or Finnland vs. Lithuania or Japan vs. South Korea or Uruguay vs. Paraguay? To me, that map seems to be explained quite well by the level of partnership with or dependence on the US (as always, with possible exceptions). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC) Yeh, we wouldn't want to jeopardize that big contract with Mongolia. Meanwhile, the greens (apart from the Islamist states, of course) either haven't stopped to think about the consequences; or they don't care. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC) Resolved I think Schulz is more to the point here. The thing is that there are multiple layers here. The Holocaust issue is probably only directly relevant for Germany. As for the bloc of Eastern European countries either abstaining or voting no it is more important to note that they are today politically closer to the US and hostile to the PLO as PLO had close connections to the Soviet bloc during the Cold War. Antisemitism is definitely more widespread in Poland and Hungary (2 abstainers) than most Western European countries, so it seems to be a non-issue in the vote. --Soman (talk) 08:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC) You guys are right that pleasing the U.S. is probably more of a factor for Eastern Europe, but I wouldn't completely discount the Holocaust. Even if some people in your country are still anti-Semites, the governments would want to look good internationally and in the eyes of Jewish communities worldwide considering that millions of Jews were killed in these countries just seven decades ago. Futurist110 (talk) 08:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC) So if the yellows are kissing up to the US, who are the greens kissing up to? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC) I don't think that's a useful phrasing of the question. Most states may simply be of the opinion that granting observer status now will further the peace process, or is a natural step in the evolution of the situation, or that it is the right thing to do (tm). When a large majority goes one way, and a small minority goes the other way, we tend to try to explain the exceptions, not the general case. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC) Those who really want to understand why countries voted the way they did could start by reading United Nations General Assembly resolution 67/19. According to it, the U.K. " it would only support the motion on assurances of unconditional talk on final status issues," not because it's somehow connected to the US. Equally important seems to me the pattern of voting of states like Nauru and Palau, which seems to be always pro-US. It would require some deeper work beyond asking the questions about levels of antisemitism, relation to Nazi Germany in the past, present day partnership to the US. There are more than exceptions here and the voting was preceded by some debate. OsmanRF34 (talk) 10:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC) How about the green and yellow countries have a conscience while the red ones don't care about the suffering of a people under occupation and going against the tide of history and appearing as international pariahs so long as they continue to get political donations from their donors? Not saying that's valid, but it's as valid as the simplistic connection being drawn about the holocaust. I'm sure many people in Mongolia even gave a damn about Germany in 1944 when it was itself being fought over by the Chinese, Japanese and Russians. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

November 30

Jewish holidays on 10th Muharram

When Prophet Muhammad PBUH saw the Jews fasting and ask them why they were doing it, they said that this was the day that Moses rescued the Hebrew people from Pharaoh Ramses II. Is there any sources from Islamic perspective or if possible from Jewish perspective whether the holiday that the Jews were fasting on was either Passover or Yom Kippur? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmust90 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Passover is the day that commemorates the Exodus. The fast observed in preparation for Passover is the Fast of the Firstborn, occuring the day before passover. The day of Passover, there is a ritual meal to break the fast called the Passover Seder. --Jayron32 01:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Verification on the Chenier Cell considering itself the "most macho of the FLQ"?

I am doing some research on this the 1970 October Crisis in Quebec (Canada) and the Front du Liberation de Quebec and was wondering if anyone could provide a more reliable source than the one I have currently that mentions this. Here is my current source, which I am not confident in using as a citation on my paper. It says that the Chenier Cell was surprised after the Liberation Cell kidnapped James Cross because the Chenier Cell considered themselves the "most macho of the FLQ" If anyone can give me sort of information on the Chenier Cell I would appreciate it. 199.189.89.55 (talk) 02:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I would start here Bibliography of the Front de libération du Québec if you can't read French, but the French wiki page du Front de lib%C3%A9ration du Qu%C3%A9bec has a much more extensive (and reputable) list of publications and even some audio and video from the time.Hfeatherina (talk) 08:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Large Articles/Papers on Race/Ethnicity History in National Censuses

Does anyone know of any other large articles/papers like this one for the U.S. (http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0056/twps0056.html) that discuss the history of race/ethnicity and its categories on that country's census? It would be nice to have some to expand this article (Race and ethnicity in censuses) a bit more. Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 09:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

For the UK, I found Ethnicity and Second Generation Immigrants. Alansplodge (talk) 15:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

the sinking of the “Girona” ship

Dear Sir or Madam: I am currently working on a book on UK banknotes and fond this picture of ‘the sinking of the “Girona” ship’. I have attached the link and the photo.

I am trying to locate the origin of the painting that is who and when it was painted and cannot find any information like that linked to the pic.

I would like to use this pic in my book.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GalleassGirona.JPG

Please advise Yigal Arkin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.177.250.86 (talk) 16:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Street grids

What drove (sorry for the pun) city planners to make street grids as those in Washington? They seem made for the traffic of lots of cars, which weren't available at the time. Where horse coaches so common that they got traffic jams? Comploose (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

There's some commentary at 1811 Commissioners' Plan and the links from there. The center of Washington D.C. is considered to have a "baroque" style street layout, as opposed to simpler rectangular grid plans common in cities originally planned in the 19th century... AnonMoos (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Agape

Is there any benefit to this form of love? The wiki article on this cites: "an intentional response to promote well-being when responding to that which has generated ill-being". Riiiiiiiight. From my understanding, such a love would be extremely counter-intuitive. Can it increase the survival of your species in some way, shape, or form? What is "ill-being"? Does it have to be a human being, or can it be anything or anyone that harms you and decreases your reproductive success in the long run? Or does "agape" simply mean "make a good out of a bad situation"? 140.254.226.230 (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)