AndyTheGrump (talk | contribs) |
m →Irish politics question: close ec template |
||
Line 400: | Line 400: | ||
Actually, this is a question about parliamentary-style democracies in general. Currently, Brian Cowen is resigning from leadership of his party but somehow remaining taoiseach, that is, prime minister, for the next month or so. Apparently this is not unprecedented in Ireland. Has this sort of thing happened outside of Ireland? It seems very bassackwards to me. I thought that the position of PM basically proceeded ''ex officio'' from leadership of the ruling party, so that if the PM were to lose or relinquish control of his party he would thereby cease to be PM, end of story. But apparently not. Apparently the two positions are technically independent. And apparently it is sometimes advantageous to exploit that independence so that you can have your cake and eat it too. So why not just have two completely separate offices: party chairman and PM? Another thing: it appears to me, reading these Irish news stories, that there are two kinds of no confidence vote: one affecting a government and one affecting a premiership? The idea here is that the Green Party, the coalition partners of Fianna Fail, won't vote against the government of which they are a part, but might vote "against the PM". Once again, I didn't think that was a separate option. Can someone clear up my rather copious pile of confusion? [[User:Lantzy|<font style="color:black">'''L'''<small>ANTZY</small></font>]][[user talk:Lantzy|<sup>T<small><font style="color:black">ALK</font></small></sup>]] 19:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC) |
Actually, this is a question about parliamentary-style democracies in general. Currently, Brian Cowen is resigning from leadership of his party but somehow remaining taoiseach, that is, prime minister, for the next month or so. Apparently this is not unprecedented in Ireland. Has this sort of thing happened outside of Ireland? It seems very bassackwards to me. I thought that the position of PM basically proceeded ''ex officio'' from leadership of the ruling party, so that if the PM were to lose or relinquish control of his party he would thereby cease to be PM, end of story. But apparently not. Apparently the two positions are technically independent. And apparently it is sometimes advantageous to exploit that independence so that you can have your cake and eat it too. So why not just have two completely separate offices: party chairman and PM? Another thing: it appears to me, reading these Irish news stories, that there are two kinds of no confidence vote: one affecting a government and one affecting a premiership? The idea here is that the Green Party, the coalition partners of Fianna Fail, won't vote against the government of which they are a part, but might vote "against the PM". Once again, I didn't think that was a separate option. Can someone clear up my rather copious pile of confusion? [[User:Lantzy|<font style="color:black">'''L'''<small>ANTZY</small></font>]][[user talk:Lantzy|<sup>T<small><font style="color:black">ALK</font></small></sup>]] 19:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC) |
||
:Well, ''someone'' has to fulfill the function and duties of PM while a new leader is selected. The office can not be left vacant. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 19:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC) |
:Well, ''someone'' has to fulfill the function and duties of PM while a new leader is selected. The office can not be left vacant. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 19:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC) |
||
:{{ec}As Ireland follows the [[Westminster Model]], the leader of the largest party is asked by the head-of-state (presumably the Irish President) to form a government; the party leader can nominate any member of the [[Dáil]] to be the PM. Convention, however, is that the PM and the party leader is the same person. Another interesting question is why are the opposition raising a [[vote_of_no_confidence|vote-of-no-confidence]] when Ireland is going to the polls on 11th March this year anyway? [[User:Csmiller|CS Miller]] ([[User talk:Csmiller|talk]]) 19:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC) |
:{{ec}}As Ireland follows the [[Westminster Model]], the leader of the largest party is asked by the head-of-state (presumably the Irish President) to form a government; the party leader can nominate any member of the [[Dáil]] to be the PM. Convention, however, is that the PM and the party leader is the same person. Another interesting question is why are the opposition raising a [[vote_of_no_confidence|vote-of-no-confidence]] when Ireland is going to the polls on 11th March this year anyway? [[User:Csmiller|CS Miller]] ([[User talk:Csmiller|talk]]) 19:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC) |
||
== What psychological problems are likely to be faced by North Koreans upon unification? == |
== What psychological problems are likely to be faced by North Koreans upon unification? == |
||
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the new Kim (or whoever) doesn't markedly change the nature of regime, and it collapses rapidly. What psychological problems are likely to be faced by the average North Korean during reunification, and in paritcular, in discovering the true nature of the Dear and Great leaders? [[User:Egg Centric|Egg Centric]] ([[User talk:Egg Centric|talk]]) 19:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC) |
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the new Kim (or whoever) doesn't markedly change the nature of regime, and it collapses rapidly. What psychological problems are likely to be faced by the average North Korean during reunification, and in paritcular, in discovering the true nature of the Dear and Great leaders? [[User:Egg Centric|Egg Centric]] ([[User talk:Egg Centric|talk]]) 19:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC) |
||
:You seem to be suggesting that "the average North Korean" knows less about the "true nature of the Dear and Great leaders" than those outside. I suspect that the opposite is more likely true. See the downfall of say [[Nicolae Ceauşescu]] for a demonstration of the difference between what 'the people' are supposed to believe about a 'Great Leader', and what they actually believe. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 19:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:53, 22 January 2011
of the Wikipedia reference desk.
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.
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.
January 17
French food
Why has France developed a far better culinary tradition than just about every other country (except maybe Italy)? --75.15.161.185 (talk) 03:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Answer: Good Marketing. Seriously, France does not have a better culinary tradition, its just that people in England and the US think they do. Blueboar (talk) 03:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- And I disagree strongly with Blueboar. It's not about thinking; it is about eating. I would also include in the list of nations with a "far better culinary tradition", both China and Japan. YMMV. As to why this might be, I'd like to see if someone here comes up with hard information about the differing development of the traditions, if any. Bielle (talk) 04:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- YMMV = "your mileage may vary" = "your opinion may be different". I had to google it. :-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, Ghmyrtle. I should have linked it myself. Bielle (talk) 16:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- There seem to be a dozen of reasons for speculation. One angle I find promising is the history of restaurants. See also Restaurant#Europe. I found the fourth comment, the one by ""George", in this forum thread interesting, also regarding how the documentation of standards and recipes helped make French gastronomy a great model for top restaurants worldwide (see also our article on Marie-Antoine Carême, for example). One book that sounds worth reading is The Invention of the Restaurant: Paris and Modern Gastronomic Culture (Volume 135 of Harvard Historical Studies), by Rebecca L. Spang, Harvard University Press, 2000, ISBN 9780674000643. (On my computer, most of the book is in full view at google books). Two months ago, "the gastronomic meal of the French" was added to the UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage Lists.[1] So it's probably not just the anglosphere that values France's culinary tradition, Blueboar. For more possible links, see French_cuisine#History. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- France and Italy has managed to hold on to their regional culinary traditions, even through a period of industrialisation and mass-production. And on account of the climate of those countries, sub-tropical in the south and temperate in the north, the variety of local produce, and thus the variety of the local culinary traditions, are extremely multi-facetted. That at least is some of the explanation. There is also a more subjective explanation, concerning the taste. About the method of preparing the food, that is the method of bringing out the best in the raw materials used, which in the Italian and French cuisine just seems superior to many other cuisines, at least as seen from a Western palate. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- And I disagree strongly with Blueboar. It's not about thinking; it is about eating. I would also include in the list of nations with a "far better culinary tradition", both China and Japan. YMMV. As to why this might be, I'd like to see if someone here comes up with hard information about the differing development of the traditions, if any. Bielle (talk) 04:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- France was a political, military, and cultural leader in Europe throughout much of its history. It also was one of the first absolutists countries, maintaining a class of rich nobles who created a demand for high-quality food. Add to that the climatic advantages already mentioned, and you have a number of reasons. I also find French and Italian cooking to be both excellent, but quite different. French food is much more refined, with fairly complex techniques. Much Italian food, on the other hand is really just a few excellent ingredients treated with appropriate dignity to bring out their best. Both result in sterling results. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Having lived in Italy for a number of years, I have to say that the much-vaunted Italian cuisine is overrated. Certainly if one goes to an Italian restaurant outside Italy, the food is among the best anywhere in the world; however, most meals one finds on Italian family tables are heavy on the stomach, lacking in variety, and contain far too many unpalatable ingredients. Even pizza tastes better in America than here in Italy. IMO, the best cuisine is Mexican. The food one finds on a typical Mexican family's table matches that in a restaurant.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds like you have mainly lived in northern Italy where they do indeed specialise in a butter, cheese and meat heavy style of cooking, as compared to the southern cuisine which mainly specialises in simple vegetable and/or sea food dishes. But I do admit that each regional Italian cuisine seems to be extremely conservative and adverse to change, but that is also the main reason why they still survives to this day. And when all those conservative, but unique, and compared to each other extremely varied, regional cuisines are looked upon as a whole, that is to say as a general Italian cuisine, it is inarguably more varied than most Europan cuisines (the French excluded), and, even if you may be used to a more sugary and uncomplicated cuisine back home, you will be able to find some very good dishes all over the place. Personally I would prefer a Neapolitan D.O.C. margherita, or just any Neapolitan style pizza, over an American pizza any day (the Roman pizza is not bad either).
- However, this goes to show that taste is subjective, and as I stated above, part of the reason for the good reputation of the Italian and French cuisines is on account of those cuisines for some reason seems to strike a chord with many (Western) food critics and experts, it can't really be based on pure objectivity. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Having lived in Italy for a number of years, I have to say that the much-vaunted Italian cuisine is overrated. Certainly if one goes to an Italian restaurant outside Italy, the food is among the best anywhere in the world; however, most meals one finds on Italian family tables are heavy on the stomach, lacking in variety, and contain far too many unpalatable ingredients. Even pizza tastes better in America than here in Italy. IMO, the best cuisine is Mexican. The food one finds on a typical Mexican family's table matches that in a restaurant.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Here in Spain, we consider our cuisine to be of very high quality, even obtaining international recognition, specially in the last 10 years or so. See Spanish_cuisine#Chefs . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.54.219.64 (talk) 12:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Actually I live in Sicily. I find, on the whole, Sicilian food to be rustic and coarse. Yes, many seafood dishes, but so much of their cuisine relies on olive oil, garlic and overcooked tomato sauce. I prefer Northern Italian food. Lasagna comes from the north; here in Sicily it's rendered almost inedible by its typical substitution of minced meat for ham and inclusion of peas, etc. Horse meat is comsidered a delicacy, the pizzas are OK, but not as good as their Neapolitan and American counterparts, and a typical Christmas dinner has sausages smothered in sauce, meat rolls (smothered in sauce) with an egg inside, pasta with sauce containing bits of bone. I cannot help but feel the traditional American turkey, potatoes, butter rolls is more apetising, but this is a highly subjective matter.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Demographics: some countries like the UK, USA, Netherlands, have welcomed large numbers of immigrants bringing food - e.g. Italians, Chinese (although the Irish didn't bring food with them because they were very poor, had bad farmland, and only ate potatoes). Other nations like Japan (vast culinary traditions) or Argentina (nice meat) have had comparatively little migration to Europe or North America, and Japanese cooking is far more alien to UK or US traditions. France has had migration from North and West Africa, but these populations have suffered in ghettoized suburbs.
- Geography: France is in an excellent position for growing and catching food. Northern Europe tends to have poorer farmland (e.g. much of Scotland and Wales are only suitable for grazing sheep) which will affect the range of food on offer. France has abundant coastal waters, which means fish and seafood, as well as excellent farmland with a reasonable amount of rainfall. Countries in the south of Europe (parts of Spain, Greece) tend to be drier. France has also supported its small farmers far more than e.g. the UK, or the USA where the only encouragement seems to be for vast industrial farming.
- History: France has been comparatively prosperous over the past 100 years, which helps expensive restaurants, and has long been popular with wealthy tourists; of large European countries, only the UK has had a democratic and capitalist system for as long. And branding: France was home of European luxury in the 17th and 18th century, and following the Revolution, a lot of French chefs fled the country and helped spread the fame internationally in the 19th C.
- However, France now loves McDonalds and the French are frequently bemoaning the loss of their traditions[2], while non-French are complaining about the low standard of their food[3] so it may not last.--Colapeninsula (talk) 14:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Because of poverty. When British people were habitually dining off hunks of roast beef (hence the Beefeaters), french people were foraging for any food they could find, including herbs and snails. So french cooking had plenty of variety, while traditional British cooking was rather dull and monotonous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.8.13 (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Good Lord! Are we giving 18th and 19th century English propaganda as serious answers these days? The vast majority of British people did not habitually dine on hunks of roast beef, but political cartoons regularly portrayed the British (really the English) as fat from all the beef they supposedly ate, in contrast to skinny frog's-legs - eating French people. But this was never an accurate picture of reality. We do know, from older recipes and diaries, that (particularly in the country) British people ate more culinarily interesting food (including plenty of foraged herbs and fruits like blackberries picked wild) before the austerity years, but between the poor living in slums, a middle-class obsession with French cuisine, a view of packaged food as more hygenic, and all the years of austerity and rationing, this tradition was largely lost. A certain amount of foraging was revived during the rationed times, but was then strongly associated with austerity. 86.164.67.42 (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- I do not think it is entirely propaganda: what British person would willingly eat frogs and snails unless they were literally starving? As far as I know farming was better developed in Britain, even centuries before Turnip Townsend and the agrarian revolution, so at least the better-off literate people who were able to write down recipes ate farm-food. The British peasantry may have lived off gruel, but they left few historical records or recipes. The French nick-name for English people is "Roast Beefs", which I think is conclusive evidence. 92.28.254.64 (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'll agree with that. Actually, I'd say that the Agrarian Revolution and the Industrial Revolution in Britain had a part to play. The French tradition of peasant cuisine is dependant on subsistance farming which gave the farmers wife time for cooking. In Britain the subsistance farmers were swept away by the Inclosures in the 18th and 19th Centuries. They became either farm labourers who lived largely on bread and cheese or even lard (I remember that from an A Level text book - possibly one of the Oxford History of England series) or they migrated to the towns to become industrial workers. The London Labour and the London Poor paints a picture of working families in the 1840s without the time or facilities to cook and living on pies and baked potatoes bought from street vendors or take-away shops.
- The poorest british people lived off bread jam and tea in the 1930s, until WWII rationing improved their diet. The book "Voices from Dickens' London" by Michael Paterson says the same thing as the unknown poster in the paragraph above about conditions in the 1840s, and goes into a lot of interesting detail with excerpts from many first-hand accounts from those times. The People of the Abyss is a non-fiction narrative of the time the author Jack London spent exploring the poverty of the east-end of London in 1902, and it still seems be like the mid-19th. century. One slight compensation for all the slaughter and misery of WWI and WWII may have been that they increased the poor's standards of living through technological innovation, better organisation, and a greater sense that the poor deserved and could be helped. As another aside, the fact that it was commonplace for english people to starve to death during the mid-19th. century, although I forget the medical euphemism that was used at the time, does give context to the claim that England did little to alleviate the starvation during the Potato Famine: there wasnt enough food even in england, and it would have been very much more expensive than food is nowadays. 92.24.183.183 (talk) 11:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Good Lord! Are we giving 18th and 19th century English propaganda as serious answers these days? The vast majority of British people did not habitually dine on hunks of roast beef, but political cartoons regularly portrayed the British (really the English) as fat from all the beef they supposedly ate, in contrast to skinny frog's-legs - eating French people. But this was never an accurate picture of reality. We do know, from older recipes and diaries, that (particularly in the country) British people ate more culinarily interesting food (including plenty of foraged herbs and fruits like blackberries picked wild) before the austerity years, but between the poor living in slums, a middle-class obsession with French cuisine, a view of packaged food as more hygenic, and all the years of austerity and rationing, this tradition was largely lost. A certain amount of foraging was revived during the rationed times, but was then strongly associated with austerity. 86.164.67.42 (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Quite bizarre - French food is OK, but no more. Italian food is far too oily, on the whole, and the tomatoes ruin everything (though I should say that the only country I've been able to get pizzas without tomato and not be looked at funny is Italy, so kudos there). Chinese food is OK but you wouldn't want to eat it everyday. Japanese food is frankly scary, too many tentacles and not enough cooking. Swedish food has an unfortunate predilection for rotten fish, and German food makes you look like Chancellor Kohl. Give me saffron cake, hog's pudding, and mackerel so fresh it swims into the pan. DuncanHill (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Opposite for me. French food is one of the few "ethnic" cuisines I dislike almost across the board. (For other cuisines there may be individual dishes I don't like, but with French food I have difficulty finding anything I do.) If you don't like tomatoes on your pizza, you need to go to New Haven, Connecticut and order an apizza. Many varieties of those, such as the white clam pie, have no tomatoes; at any rate, no one will consider you odd for wanting one without them. Pais (talk) 15:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- I shall now stand up for the quality of French food, since this is a rather rare opportunity to do so. When they are near enough to the sea, the French like to eat fresh mackerel. As said before, their climate ranges from temperate to Mediterranean (not sub-tropical), so there is a wide variety of meats, fish, fruit and veg available. They cook these items with a view to bringing out the flavour, in numerous, imaginative combinations. Can't quite see what's not to like, really. "French" dishes offered in restaurants abroad, that's another matter. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, de gustibus and all that. When I've tried French food, both in France itself and in French restaurants (including those owned and operated by actual French people), it simply hasn't appealed to me. It seemed heavy, the sauces seemed overly wine-laden (I can't stand wine), and in Toulouse the menus were dominated by duck, one of my least-favorite meats. And the vegetarian I was traveling with had trouble finding any meatless main dishes at all - not like Italy, where finding meatless main dishes is quite easy. Pais (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- That's the thing - the sauces often overpower the taste of the meat. All very well if you are cooking with rubbishy meat, but a crying shame if the meat's good. DuncanHill (talk) 15:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, de gustibus and all that. When I've tried French food, both in France itself and in French restaurants (including those owned and operated by actual French people), it simply hasn't appealed to me. It seemed heavy, the sauces seemed overly wine-laden (I can't stand wine), and in Toulouse the menus were dominated by duck, one of my least-favorite meats. And the vegetarian I was traveling with had trouble finding any meatless main dishes at all - not like Italy, where finding meatless main dishes is quite easy. Pais (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- I shall now stand up for the quality of French food, since this is a rather rare opportunity to do so. When they are near enough to the sea, the French like to eat fresh mackerel. As said before, their climate ranges from temperate to Mediterranean (not sub-tropical), so there is a wide variety of meats, fish, fruit and veg available. They cook these items with a view to bringing out the flavour, in numerous, imaginative combinations. Can't quite see what's not to like, really. "French" dishes offered in restaurants abroad, that's another matter. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Opposite for me. French food is one of the few "ethnic" cuisines I dislike almost across the board. (For other cuisines there may be individual dishes I don't like, but with French food I have difficulty finding anything I do.) If you don't like tomatoes on your pizza, you need to go to New Haven, Connecticut and order an apizza. Many varieties of those, such as the white clam pie, have no tomatoes; at any rate, no one will consider you odd for wanting one without them. Pais (talk) 15:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- That all makes sense, actually. They do often put wine in sauces (but you can ask for no sauce, or choose your sauce carefully). There are lots of ducks and geese in the South West (and foie gras too). Vegetarians are hardly catered for at all, except in some specialist restaurants, but the bread is good, the cheese is good ... Itsmejudith (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Another thought - travellers to Britain in the mid-18th Century noted the disparity between British and French food - this is well before the French Revolution. The French court, especially that of Louis XIV raised cooking to the status of a high art. At the same time, the English court was recovering from the English Civil War and the Commonwealth when even making Christmas puddings was banned by the Puritans. James II might have wanted to imitate "The Sun King" but we kicked him out in favour of the dour William of Orange who I suspect was a meat and two veg man. That put us well behind in the gourmet stakes and anyone who wanted superior food would hire a French chef rather than developing our own tradition. I'll see if I can find any sources to back up my theory. Alansplodge (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Two things come to mind. One is one time when a talk-show host asked John Cleese why the British never took the time to develop extraordinary cuisine. His answer was, "Well, we had an empire to run, you see." There's also the old adage: If your guests are Italian, serve French. If they're French, serve Italian. And if they're English, boil anything. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Another thought - travellers to Britain in the mid-18th Century noted the disparity between British and French food - this is well before the French Revolution. The French court, especially that of Louis XIV raised cooking to the status of a high art. At the same time, the English court was recovering from the English Civil War and the Commonwealth when even making Christmas puddings was banned by the Puritans. James II might have wanted to imitate "The Sun King" but we kicked him out in favour of the dour William of Orange who I suspect was a meat and two veg man. That put us well behind in the gourmet stakes and anyone who wanted superior food would hire a French chef rather than developing our own tradition. I'll see if I can find any sources to back up my theory. Alansplodge (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- That all makes sense, actually. They do often put wine in sauces (but you can ask for no sauce, or choose your sauce carefully). There are lots of ducks and geese in the South West (and foie gras too). Vegetarians are hardly catered for at all, except in some specialist restaurants, but the bread is good, the cheese is good ... Itsmejudith (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
HOW TO KEEP BALANCE ENGLISH BETWWEN CHINESE INCULCULTURE
NOWDAYS,CHINA PLAY MORE AND MORE ROLE IN THE INTERNATIONAL STIUTUATION ,SO THE NUMBER OF PEPOLE IS INCREASING ASK A QUESTION THAT STUDENT SHOULE LEARN CHINESE OR NOT . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocean2candy (talk • contribs) 04:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- If you are asking if it would be sensible (practical, useful) for an English speaker to learn Chinese, given the increasing visibility of China on the international scene, then I can only say that learning the language of a significant nation is always a good idea. However, in current terms (and I have no idea how long this will last), English remains the international language of trade, commerce and, to a lesser extent, education. Learning Chinese won't likely benefit an English speaker as much as learning English will benefit a Chinese speaker. All of this could, and perhaps will, change. Bielle (talk) 04:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Or, you could learn Chinese so you'll better understand the people and culture. If that isn't a good enough reason, think of all the money you'll save if you visit China, and don't have to pay for the services of a tour guide. Full disclosure: I started learning Chinese in 1978, and it resulted in a very nice career for me. (I'm an American). DOR (HK) (talk) 08:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- If the question is whether a student with the choice to learn a(single) language learn Chinese, I think this is at least as reasonable as almost any other choice. When I was in High School the choices were French and Spanish. For people in the US Spanish still seems a useful choice. French less so. Chinese would likely be useful. None of this addresses the issue of how much of a language one learns in High School is retained (in my case, basically none). Pfly (talk) 10:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Tang-era Nanzhao sword
The Kingdom of Nanzhao was known for its swords during the Tang Dynasty. One research paper I recently read said their most famous sword was a duoqian (鐸鞘). A "bell sheath" sword sounds like a dao of some kind because a blade that widens towards the end is reminiscent of a bell. I can't say I've ever heard of a duoqian sword, though. Does it appear in other records beyond the Man shu (蠻書, referenced by the author of the paper)? Are there any such pieces in modern museum collections? I would love to see pictures of it if there is. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 04:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Countries ordered by level of centralization
It is common to rank countries according to various statistics. I would like to see a list of countries ordered by centralization: (political, economic, demographic, cultural, etc) in order to assess my intuition about these things. My intuitive sense of certain countries is that some are highly centralized around a particular city (France, Argentina, Ireland, Mexico, Japan, UK, Czech Republic), while others are highly decentralized, or at least lack an undisputed center (United States, Australia, Germany, Spain, China, India, Canada). I want to see how my intuition compares to data. And in many cases I can't even hazard a guess. Is Russia more or less centralized than the United States? Is Chile more or less centralized than Argentina? What about Brazil, Nigeria, Indonesia, Pakistan? Are some countries highly centralized in one way (culturally, for instance) but highly decentralized in other ways (economically, say)? LANTZYTALK 05:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- In what way do you mean "centralized"? Greater London may be the population center of the UK, but in no way is the UK government centralized. Grsz 11 05:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- As I said, there are multiple ways in which a country may be centralized: politically, economically, culturally, demographically, etc. Notwithstanding the devolved parliaments, I doubt if there is any category in which London is not overwhelmingly preeminent over all other places in the UK. Compare that to the situation in the US, where we can pinpoint a political center (Washington D.C.), but no other clear center in any category. (What is the cultural center of the US? Hollywood? New York? DC?) It seems to me that some countries have an unambiguous center while others do not. LANTZYTALK 08:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- I did not find such a list in Category:International rankings, but if one is found or started, it can be categorized there.
- —Wavelength (talk) 06:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- By "centralised", your first thought seems to mean "proportion of population (or economy) in the capital (or largest city)", rather than political centralisation. Is that right? Clearly there are many ways in which different aspects of centralisation could be measured. If we know what you mean, we can see whether they have been. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Googling "population concentration index" finds some academic articles on the topic. Jørgen (talk) 08:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- How about the proportion of GDP generated in the capital city region as an indicator of economic concentration? If it's not in OECD stats then you will have to go to national stats databases. For the UK it's in Regional Statistics, and for France it must be in INSEE stats. It will be somewhere in EU stats - you will need to interpret the NUTS classification system. US economic stats will give GDP by state and presumably for DC as well. Will be interesting, good luck. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Iceland and Mongolia would be prime examples. Reykjavik has two thirds of Iceland's population, and Ulan Bator is ten times as big as the next largest city in Mongolia. TomorrowTime (talk) 10:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
How many countries can you think of that do not have the political capital in the largest business center? Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, Burma, Canada, the US, China, UAE, Turkey, India, Vietnam, maybe the Netherlands or Germany? Not that many. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Did Columbus really underestimate the size of the Earth by 30 percent?
The following comment was posted to the Christopher Columbus talk page by editor Norloch:
- "... if there was a surviving 15th. century document which claimed that Columbus's calculations were in error (i.e. due to some confusion between Arabic miles and Italian miles) such a document would still have to be questioned because it would conflict with other evidence from the period. For example, Columbus's own journal of his first voyage indicates that he knew the true distance between the Azores and Portugal. He wasn't using measurements that were 30 per cent in error. It therefore seems unlikely that the mistake suggested in [Wikipedia's] article was ever a factor in his 'geographical considerations."
In my opinion, it would be inappropriate to engage in discussion over the merits of this argument on the article's talk page. I have therefore copied it here to give anyone who might be interested in responding to it a chance to do so
David Wilson (talk · cont) 07:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think it would be inappropriate to discuss at the talk page in question. But since it's here now: the argument holds no water. You can know the distance from Portugal to the Azores from one set of maps, and still mistranslate numbers about the size of the Earth from another source. At Columbus time, there was no good way to determine longitude (or a standard time), so knowing the east-west distance of two points does not tell you the circumference of the Earth. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- In those days, longitude estimates were more than a little crude, so I don't see any real contradiction. AnonMoos (talk) 09:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) The fact that Columbus estimated the distance spanned by a degree of latitude—or an equatorial degree of longitude—to be about 56⅔
Italianmiles, and that this is some35% 30%30-37% too small, is so well documented in reliable sources that it would be contrary to Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view for any of its articles to express any doubt about it. In his Geographical Conceptions of Columbus, for instance (pp.6–11), George Emra Nunn cites several marginal notes by Columbus, in the latter's copies of cosmographical texts (mainly Pierre d'Ailly's Imago Mundi), where he asserts that the distance spanned by an equatorial degree is 56⅔ miles. In one of these (cited on page 10 of Nunn's book) Columbus actually claims to have measured the distance himself, finding "agreement with Alfraganus, that is to say, each degree corresponds to 56⅔ miles ...". There seems to be some uncertainty among historians as to whether Columbus's mile was an "Italian" mile of 1,240m or a "Roman" mile of 1,480m—unfortunately also called an "Italian nautical mile" by some authorities—, but I haven't yet found any who credit him with having known that the Arabic mile of Alfraganus was actually about 1,830m.
- None of this is at all inconsistent with Columbus's knowing the true distance between the Azores and Portugal. At the time, the only practical method for determining the longitudinal separation between any two locations was to calculate it from the known or assumed distance between the locations and the supposed value of the Earth's radius. Columbus's underestimate for the distance spanned by a degree simply meant that his supposed value for the longitudinal separation between the eastern tip of the Azores and the west coast of Portugal would have been greater by roughly one half than its true value. But at that time there was no independent means of detecting the discrepancy.
- David Wilson (talk · cont) 10:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Others have pointed to sources, and I don't have one at hand--but from what I can recall this is basically it: Eratosthenes amazingly got the Earth's circumference about right, but later researchers, following up on his methods, got it about a third too small--and this figure became the de facto figure among those (few) who cared about such things, including Columbus. Lucky thing for him America was about where Asia shoud be, else his voyage would have died at sea. Not so lucky for the native Americans, of course. Pfly (talk) 10:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Gentlemen, my thanks for your thoughts on the subject. In that regard, I would quote the words of Dr. Irene K. Fisher - an eminent Geodesist - with a lengthy academic career in U.S. Government service. In Chapter 13 of her book "Geodesy ? what's that ? " - Fischer wrote of her research concerning the Ancients' work in determining the size of the Earth. On page 286 she stated the following, with reference to Columbus -
" True, Columbus had collected ancient quotes such as Aristotle's surmise that one could sail from Spain to India 'in a few days', and Esdra's wisdom that the waters took up only one seventh of the globe, and Liarinus' overestimate of the uncertain length of Asia in longitude degrees so that few longitude degrees were left for the ocean width and several other references, all needed and welcome to prove that the westward sea passage to India was so much shorter than the Eastward land route, in a plea for funding his plans for a sailing venture.
But that was not enough, he needed persuasive numbers to find and convince patrons. There was an impressive juggling of numbers in an attempt to allocate an overlong land part and a very narrow ocean width on a circle around the (unchanged) Earth. It involved dazzling conversions back and forth between degrees and miles and, in between, an easily unnoticed switch between miles and miles; that is, between the mediaeval Arabic mile (more than two kilometres) and the Roman or Italian mile (about one and a half kilometres). So here was the 25% reduction through switching miles. It had nothing to do with the dimensions of the Earth."
Now, Fischer couldn't know with absolute certainty that Columbus didn't somehow confuse Arabic miles with Italian miles. However, in her expert opinion, the balance of probability was that he switched numbers to make an even better case for himself. In my less than eminent opinion, as a practical navigator, I'm inclined to agree with Fischer. If Columbus had experience as a practical navigator it's questionable that he would have made such an elementary mistake.
(As a small footnote on Irene Fischer - in her earlier years, she did some notable research on the oblateness of the Earth. She was denied permission to publish her findings because they did not agree with the "accepted literature" on the subject. It was only when satellites came to be used for a geodetic survey of the Earth that the precision of her work was duly recognised and she was finally allowed to publish. ) Norloch (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
WW2 British Home Fleet
What was the name of all the ships that was in the British home fleet in 1939? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.202.153 (talk) 10:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- A summary of RN strength is here and a breakdown giving names of ships in each command in August 1939 is here. Alansplodge (talk) 11:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Declaring war
Why do countries declare war? Is there an obligation if you pretend to attack another country? Quest09 (talk) 13:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't understand the second part of your question. What do you mean by "pretend to attack another country"? I take it you mean bluffing.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, I meant 'intend'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quest09 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Japan did not declare war on the United States before it launched its aerial attack against the Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I know. And the UK indeed declared war on Germany. But, what the UK did was the right thing to do, or simply a question of 'politeness'? Quest09 (talk) 13:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Not quite politeness, but honor, certainly was part of it. Some countries felt that it was the proper way to do it, when they were run by people who beleived themselves to be "gentlemen". --Lgriot (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- In both World Wars the UK's declaration of war was a chance to state clearly the purpose (as we wanted it to be perceived) of commencing hostilities - not an act of agression but a response to an attack on a country that we had promised to protect (Belgium in 1914 and Poland in 1939). There were several audiences for that message; our own people, the people and Governments of the Dominions who were not obliged to join us but did anyway, and various nuetral countries whose co-operation we would need. In 1939 there wasn't much we could actually do to help the Poles except drop some leaflets on Cologne, so the declaration of war was for moral support only at that time. Alansplodge (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Does our article on declaration of war answer your question? It seems to be one of the defining differences between conventional warfare and unconventional warfare.--Shantavira|feed me 13:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- In both World Wars the UK's declaration of war was a chance to state clearly the purpose (as we wanted it to be perceived) of commencing hostilities - not an act of agression but a response to an attack on a country that we had promised to protect (Belgium in 1914 and Poland in 1939). There were several audiences for that message; our own people, the people and Governments of the Dominions who were not obliged to join us but did anyway, and various nuetral countries whose co-operation we would need. In 1939 there wasn't much we could actually do to help the Poles except drop some leaflets on Cologne, so the declaration of war was for moral support only at that time. Alansplodge (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Not quite politeness, but honor, certainly was part of it. Some countries felt that it was the proper way to do it, when they were run by people who beleived themselves to be "gentlemen". --Lgriot (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I know. And the UK indeed declared war on Germany. But, what the UK did was the right thing to do, or simply a question of 'politeness'? Quest09 (talk) 13:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Japan did not declare war on the United States before it launched its aerial attack against the Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, I meant 'intend'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quest09 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Formal declarations of war don't often happen anymore (they still do sometimes, but not often), the reason being is that such events are part of an attitude towards warfare that included set piece battles and the like; i.e. when war had a certain formality to it; as the goals and aims of wars have changed, the nature of them has changed as well. --Jayron32 13:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- What do people mean when they write "The reason being is..."? I've seen this a number of times lately. I thought it was momentary confusion and they didn't realize what they'd said. Now I've come to suspect that they think there's something called a "reason being". In standard English one would write "Formal declarations of war don't often happen anymore, the reason being that such events are part of an attitude...", with no "is". Michael Hardy (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Japan had intended to deliver a document ending negotiations (but not exactly declaring war) to the US immedeately before the Pearl Harbour attack, but the Japanese embassy in Washington was unable to decode the transcript quickly enough. See Pearl Harbor Attack#Japanese declaration of war. Alansplodge (talk) 14:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ending negotiations isn't a declaration of war although it should set off warning bells. Pearl Harbor was still a surprise attack. This leads me to pose another question. Was the US declaration of war against Japan the speediest declaration of war in history?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- That might be difficult to calculate since not all declarations of war are the direct result of one specific act of provocation like Pearl Harbor. Pais (talk) 14:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- The declaration of war in 1941 essentially gave extra wartime powers to the President, including the power to censor the news and to do stuff like herding the Japanese-Americans into camps. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- And German Americans, too; that doesn't get as much publicity, but it did happen. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't question that, necessarily, but I'd like to see a source for that. However, one famous German-American was the commanding general of the Allied forces in Europe. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- (WHAAOE) German American internment, section World War II. Rmhermen (talk) 15:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Excellent. There's an article about Italian-Americans as well. It appears that about 1/10th the number of Germans were interned as were Japanese, which in part tells you why the Japanese internment gets more publicity. The number of Italians was rather smaller than the number of Germans. The Japanese situation was so overtly racist that people of Chinese origin took to wearing buttons saying, "I am Chinese". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- The article about internment of "German Americans" in WW1 and WW2 is a cesspool of POV. The US properly interned citizens of Germany, which was at war with the US. A country just does not let citizens of a country which has declared itself at war , "enemy aliens," to wander around and do whatever they please. The US did not lock up US citizens whose grandparents were immigrants from Germany. There were instances where family members of an enemy alien voluntarily went into internment with them. Whole communities in some midwestern states were predominantly of German ancestry, spoke German in the home, the grocery store, the church and the school, and were taught English as a second language, in 1941. The promoters of that article seek to blur the distinction. By contrast, during WW2 the US certainly did lock up US citizens whose ancestors immigrated from Japan. Edison (talk) 04:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- So should we (I being American myself) have done the same thing to Afghanis after September 11th? The idea was tossed around. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- The article about internment of "German Americans" in WW1 and WW2 is a cesspool of POV. The US properly interned citizens of Germany, which was at war with the US. A country just does not let citizens of a country which has declared itself at war , "enemy aliens," to wander around and do whatever they please. The US did not lock up US citizens whose grandparents were immigrants from Germany. There were instances where family members of an enemy alien voluntarily went into internment with them. Whole communities in some midwestern states were predominantly of German ancestry, spoke German in the home, the grocery store, the church and the school, and were taught English as a second language, in 1941. The promoters of that article seek to blur the distinction. By contrast, during WW2 the US certainly did lock up US citizens whose ancestors immigrated from Japan. Edison (talk) 04:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Excellent. There's an article about Italian-Americans as well. It appears that about 1/10th the number of Germans were interned as were Japanese, which in part tells you why the Japanese internment gets more publicity. The number of Italians was rather smaller than the number of Germans. The Japanese situation was so overtly racist that people of Chinese origin took to wearing buttons saying, "I am Chinese". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- (WHAAOE) German American internment, section World War II. Rmhermen (talk) 15:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't question that, necessarily, but I'd like to see a source for that. However, one famous German-American was the commanding general of the Allied forces in Europe. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- And German Americans, too; that doesn't get as much publicity, but it did happen. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- The declaration of war in 1941 essentially gave extra wartime powers to the President, including the power to censor the news and to do stuff like herding the Japanese-Americans into camps. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- That might be difficult to calculate since not all declarations of war are the direct result of one specific act of provocation like Pearl Harbor. Pais (talk) 14:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ending negotiations isn't a declaration of war although it should set off warning bells. Pearl Harbor was still a surprise attack. This leads me to pose another question. Was the US declaration of war against Japan the speediest declaration of war in history?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Am I wrong in thinking that a declaration of war meant that captured soldiers would be treated--at least in theory--as something better than the "unlawful combatant" we have today? Pfly (talk) 10:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Possibly so. Those folks are the unfortunate victims of the perpretrators of 9/11/01. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Or, to look at it another way, they are the victims of the government that passed the resolution authorizing use of military force. --Viennese Waltz 10:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- They chose to join their particular armies, and found themselves the scapegoats after we were attacked on 9/11/01. If they want to blame someone for their condition, they should blame the 9/11 attackers, as it is the attackers actions that resulted in those combatants ending up at GTMO and elsewhere. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- There was nothing inherent in 9/11 which led inevitably to purgatorial incarceration in as doubtful a place as gitmo. Certainly, an enemy combatant risks capture. But it is the US that made decisions on the location of its prisons and the legal framework under which they operate. It's just silly to suppose that gitmo was the only alternative and that hence its inmates - including the innocent ones - somehow conspired to make it happen. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- They chose to join their particular armies, and found themselves the scapegoats after we were attacked on 9/11/01. If they want to blame someone for their condition, they should blame the 9/11 attackers, as it is the attackers actions that resulted in those combatants ending up at GTMO and elsewhere. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Or, to look at it another way, they are the victims of the government that passed the resolution authorizing use of military force. --Viennese Waltz 10:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- The US certainly did/does have options... for example, given that the gitmo detainees were not in uniform when captured, they could have been summarily shot for being Francs-tireurs (and folks like the Underwear Bomber could be tried and executed as saboteurs). Blueboar (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sure. But given that many of the Gitmo prisoners were grabbed off the street or countryside without any direct connection to military action, that would have been plain murder. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Which would lower ourselves completely to the level of the enemy. The USA is a lot nicer to its prisoners, in general, than the enemy tends to be. The reason that the USA gets yelled at in these cases is for not living up to our own presumed principles. The enemy doesn't draw appropriately scaled complaints for doing much worse things, because they have no principles - they're totally living down to expectations. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sure. But given that many of the Gitmo prisoners were grabbed off the street or countryside without any direct connection to military action, that would have been plain murder. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Possibly so. Those folks are the unfortunate victims of the perpretrators of 9/11/01. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Sephardic Jews in Latin America
I had a friend from Cuba who discovered some of her remote ancestors were Sephardic Jews who had converted to Catholicism. I'm wondering how many people in Latin America have distant Sephardic Jewish ancestry.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Vast numbers I would think. No source for that though. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Nearly everyone will have some Sephardic ancestry - it's in the nature of exponential functions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- I have read that Mexico had large numbers of Sephardic Jewish colonists who fled the inquisistion in the 16th century. Some of Brazil's first colonists were Jews, as were many of New Amsterdam's Dutch settlers. I believe The Roosevelts were originally Sephardic Jewish, although Roosevelt is not a Sephardic name. Common Sephardic surnames in the New World appeared to have been Mendes, Costa, De Souza, Perez, Guzman, Gomez.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- + Pereira. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- I have read that Mexico had large numbers of Sephardic Jewish colonists who fled the inquisistion in the 16th century. Some of Brazil's first colonists were Jews, as were many of New Amsterdam's Dutch settlers. I believe The Roosevelts were originally Sephardic Jewish, although Roosevelt is not a Sephardic name. Common Sephardic surnames in the New World appeared to have been Mendes, Costa, De Souza, Perez, Guzman, Gomez.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Nearly everyone will have some Sephardic ancestry - it's in the nature of exponential functions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- See History of the Jews in Spain especially the 1391 -1492 and Conversos sections. Rmhermen (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- There are said to be quite a few Latinos of Jewish descent in New Mexico: More than one-third of New Mexicans claim Hispanic origin, many are descendants of colonial settlers, and converted Sephardic Jews, Who_is_a_Jew?#New_Mexico.27s_Crypto-Jews, etc. Corvus cornixtalk 20:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I have heard about the Crypto-Jews of New Mexico. I believe there were a lot of conversos, Marranos, and indeed Crypto-Jews in Northern Mexico especially around Monterey. I'm curious about the Tejanos, Californios, and the Spanish colonists of Cuba, Puerto Rico, and South America.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Psychological label
What is the label for somebody who has absolutely no interest in matters not relating directly to herself? Kittybrewster ☎ 13:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Narcissistic? Pais (talk) 13:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes it certainly seems to be in Cluster B. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- It could also be some extreme forms of autism depending on how you define "interest". --Jayron32 13:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Of course, if the person exhibiting this behavior is under the age of, oh, about 6 months, it probably wouldn't be considered pathological. Pais (talk) 13:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- True. I have in mind a person in her 50s. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- I would describe such a person as self-obsessed.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- True. I have in mind a person in her 50s. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Of course, if the person exhibiting this behavior is under the age of, oh, about 6 months, it probably wouldn't be considered pathological. Pais (talk) 13:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- It could also be some extreme forms of autism depending on how you define "interest". --Jayron32 13:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes it certainly seems to be in Cluster B. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
A philosophical label would be "solipsism"... AnonMoos (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Just as a note, psychological labeling of this sort is notoriously problematic. The first big hurdle is distinguishing whether the person in question is actually disinterested in others, or whether others are disgruntled because the person in question is not as interested as they would like her to be (narcissists are usually convinced that other people are self-centered). After that you need to separate out age issues (children under 16 have a difficult time properly assessing the emotional states of others, people in their later years often assess others needs and emotions well, but have sufficient experience not to get overly-attached to things that younger people find desperately important). then you have to start looking at broader patterns of behavior (human perception has a skewed view of other humans: we tend to over-represent 'bad' acts that other do, and tend to identify people with their bad acts). In other words, if you want to call her selfish, call her selfish; leave clinical diagnoses up to those qualified to make them objectively. --Ludwigs2 18:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry for the wet blanket, but I would say "normal". Pfly (talk) 10:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- BUT! If you're talking about something that is actually anti-social or harmful, I'd go with narcissistic. 10:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Parodied by Dogbert, who once said, "You're not me, therefore you're irrelevant." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Another label could be "self-sufficient", meaning someone who doesn't "need" anyone else, or thinks they don't. Charles Schulz used that phrase to describe his cartoon character Lucy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- BUT! If you're talking about something that is actually anti-social or harmful, I'd go with narcissistic. 10:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
"What should one's life be?"
Does anyone know who the author of this piece of verse is?
- What should one's life be?
- Neat and orderly,
- or messy and chaotic?
- Quiet desperation,
- even quieter compromise?
- or daring thrills,
- creative experiments?
- Walking carefully along
- looking down at gray sidewalks
- to avoid crack or pebble?
- or leaping from peak to peak
- across gaping canyons
- looking down
- from dizzying heights?
- No one should decide for another.
- One can only live what one believes.
- If you ask, we believe:
- Life should not be
- a methodical journey to the grave
- with the goal being sure, safe arrival
- in a well-preserved body,
- but rather to skid in sideways,
- flute of champagne in hand,
- screaming "What a ride!"
Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- It resembles the Gestalt prayer by Fritz Perls.—Wavelength (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- This and this suggest the last verse is a quote (rather than a poem) by Hunter S Thompson, possibly from the book Hell's Angels: The Strange and Terrible Saga of the Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs. This and this indicate that there have been variations by a few others (but I haven't been able to check against the actual book, and it's not in HST's Wikiquotes page). --Kateshortforbob talk 17:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- This is a bit too inspirational to be directly from Thompson. It may have been inspired by him, but I suspect this is just an example of the kind of uplifting Christian prosody that you find on sympathy cards, funereal postings, or framed and hung in people's kitchens - something that's been passed around and had the kinks smoothed out of it by multiple editors improving it a little at a time, rather than something written by a single author. Cathartic textual muzak (which isn't to say I don't think it's nice.
). --Ludwigs2 18:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- This is a bit too inspirational to be directly from Thompson. It may have been inspired by him, but I suspect this is just an example of the kind of uplifting Christian prosody that you find on sympathy cards, funereal postings, or framed and hung in people's kitchens - something that's been passed around and had the kinks smoothed out of it by multiple editors improving it a little at a time, rather than something written by a single author. Cathartic textual muzak (which isn't to say I don't think it's nice.
Reading the Bible in English -- a book?
I seem to recall reading a review of a book, published probably within the last five or ten years, describing how the author, who had grown up speaking only Hebrew, first came to read the Bible in English as an adult. The review made the book sound like both a memoir (of growing up in a Hebrew-speaking household in the US) and a commentary on the process and end-product of translation. One example that I remember is the reflections on the name of the first man: should the translators keep the sound, and give him the English name Adam? Or should they translate the meaning, and call him something like Earth-man? The author, a modern bilingual adult, was reflecting on how much is lost in translation. I may have got some of these details wrong, but any ideas on what the book's called? BrainyBabe (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- It should also be noted that Biblical Hebrew was probably no more a single, cohesive language than one would consider Old English, Middle English and Modern English as completely cohesive. Since different books of the Hebrew bible were written down at different times, by people often seperated by wide spaces and vastly different times. There's also the problem that Biblical Hebrew had no written vowel sounds, which makes interpreting the exact intended pronounciation of a word almost impossible; the pronounciation intended in the original oral tradition may have changed drastically by the time it was first written, and it also may have drifted over time until the Hebrew scripture was eventually standardized. It's just way too indeterminate to decide what the "orginal" authors may have intended any translation to be. I know this does not directly answer your question regarding your source book, but it is important to understanding the context of your question. --Jayron32 16:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Also, most English bibles are translated not from Hebrew, but from Greek. Blueboar (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think BraninyBabe was referring to the Old Testament. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm worried Blueboar might have been referring to the OT as well - but it hasn't been true for centuries that most English Bibles were translated from anything other than the original Hebrew (most of the OT)/Aramaic (a few passages of the OT)/Greek (all of the NT). Even the King James Bible's Old Testament is translated from the Hebrew and Aramaic, not from the Septuagint. Nevertheless, I suspect that modern translations of the Bible into lesser-studied minority and endangered languages are translated from some intermediate translation rather than from the original. For example, I strongly suspect the Navajo Bible was translated from English, not from the original languages. Pais (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Your description sort of reminds me of David Plotz's Good Book, which was the reflections of a not-especially-religious Jewish American who read the Bible. However, I don't remember his being a native Hebrew speaker, so this is probably the wrong book. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- In fact most bibles in English are not "translated from the Greek" Septuagint.--Wetman (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Your description sort of reminds me of David Plotz's Good Book, which was the reflections of a not-especially-religious Jewish American who read the Bible. However, I don't remember his being a native Hebrew speaker, so this is probably the wrong book. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm worried Blueboar might have been referring to the OT as well - but it hasn't been true for centuries that most English Bibles were translated from anything other than the original Hebrew (most of the OT)/Aramaic (a few passages of the OT)/Greek (all of the NT). Even the King James Bible's Old Testament is translated from the Hebrew and Aramaic, not from the Septuagint. Nevertheless, I suspect that modern translations of the Bible into lesser-studied minority and endangered languages are translated from some intermediate translation rather than from the original. For example, I strongly suspect the Navajo Bible was translated from English, not from the original languages. Pais (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think BraninyBabe was referring to the Old Testament. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Also, most English bibles are translated not from Hebrew, but from Greek. Blueboar (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- (OP here) Thanks for your contributions, but none of them have helped me find it, not even Good Book (of which I had previously not heard, so extra thanks to FisherQueen). More ideas welcome. BrainyBabe (talk) 22:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe check one of the Jewish English Bible translations. Ariel. (talk) 01:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- (OP here) Thanks for your contributions, but none of them have helped me find it, not even Good Book (of which I had previously not heard, so extra thanks to FisherQueen). More ideas welcome. BrainyBabe (talk) 22:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Kansas in the American Civil War
Our Kansas in the American Civil War article says that:
Statistics indicated that losses of Kansas regiments in killed in battle and from disease are greater per thousand than those of any other State.
I'm assuming this means that Kansas lost more people per thousand than any other state. What are the causes of this if Kansas only had a small impact on the war? Albacore (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- You correctly quoted that sentence, including the implicit error ("in killed in battle"), which I've now edited out in the article. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- The source of the statistic is exactly the fact that Kansas had such a "small impact" on the war. The smaller the sample size, the greater the opportunity for statistical abberations like the outlier effect. The fact that there just weren't many Kansian in the civil war means that the averaged per capita statistics have less reliability; it would only take a small number of deaths, one way or the other, to throw the numbers off by a large amount. Compare that to states like Virginia, which had a much larger number of soldiers; the statistics from those states are likely to be more reliable, so that you can actually extract meaning from them. Take it to an extreme example, lets invent a state, like Kerblakistan, and lets say that the tiny state of Kerblakistan only had a single soldier fight in the civil war. If he died, then we can accurately say that 100% of Kerblaki soldiers died in the American Civil War. But to then say "what external factors can you come up with for Kerblakistan to have such a high death toll"? There isn't a reason. The reason is, they had only one soldier, and he died. Had the soldier lived, you could say that Kerblakistan had a 0% death rate, and THEN you would be asking "What external factors caused Kerblakistan have such a low death rate?" Again, there was only one soldier. The deeper meaning behind statistics only exists where the sample size is sufficiently large. In the case of Kansas, the cause of the death rate being so high could just be "random chance"; an effect of the small sample size of the Kansas contingent in the Civil War. --Jayron32 20:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed, Kansas in 1860 had a population less than 110,000--far smaller than most other states. This is a case of how statistics can mislead--comparing percentages of a whole tend to shroud just how large the "whole" is. Using my favor indication of population (perhaps less meaningful if you've never been), 110,000 is only slightly more than 2 Burning Mans. Pfly (talk) 10:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Or, in British terms, just under two-thirds of a Glastonbury. Warofdreams talk 12:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Large Greek Island Invaded by Greeks, Displacing Landowners in Classic Times
During the "Glory that was Greece," one of the large islands was taken over by the mainland Greeks, and the inhabitants, including the landowners were enslaved, serving those who took over their homes, villas, etc., on their own land. I saw this on a History Channel documentary three years ago, but I need to know which island it is. I've searched, and my only find is the island of Cephalonia (or Kefalonia), but that's on the Western side of Greece in the Ionian Sea. From the documentary I had thought that the island is on the the Eastern side, in the Aegean Sea, not far from the mainland.
I greatly appeciate any help you can give me. I'm writing a book, and I'll get roasted if I were to get this wrong. Thanks much! Rolland — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rollandopuk (talk • contribs) 19:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- This is probably Melos, which refused to submit to Athens during the Peloponnesian War, and was then occupied and enslaved, etc. Thucydides has a lengthy account of it, known as the Melian dialogue. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Chalcis, the main city of the large island of Euboea, seems to have suffered similarly in the 6th century BCE. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
January 18
Is fiction a means of mental ventilation?
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
Thomas Harris writes creepily detailed books about murdering other people. Obviously there are other authors, but after reading his article, I almost wonder if he is an example of a murderer who never was? I know for a fact that if I wrote a book like he does, my parents would be extremely concerned about me lol. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 04:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- If there are N number of authors in the world, there are at least N+1 possible motivations for their writing. In simpler terms, it's quite impossible to make a blanket statement that "writing fiction serves X purpose for the author" which is universal, or even widespread. Certainly, for some authors, writing fiction serves as catharsis (mental ventalation's actual scientific term), or a means to act out fantasies. But it could just as easily be any of a number of other reasons, including as simple as being a job; some people are good at it and it makes them money. It's tempting to psychoanalyze authors by what they write, but it's also futile. Take someone like Stephen King, whose writing often cause people to question what kind of person he is really like. Basically, he's a suburban middle-class dad who coaches little league and belongs to the local PTA and is a big Red Sox fan. There's nothing all that unusual about his life or personality. He'll sometimes play up some aspect of weirdness for marketing purposes, but on the balance, mostly he's an average American Joe. Not to say there is, or isn't, anything psychologically abnormal with Harris, just that you shouldn't try to judge whether there is solely on his writing. --Jayron32 04:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- As a general rule, any person is capable of most any act - be it evil, good, or neutral - given the proper self-justification and context. Most people try to do the right thing, and try to avoid bad acts, of course. Authors are not more prone to odd acts than others, they are just better at expressing that generic human internal turmoil. --Ludwigs2 04:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Reminds me of something I read years ago, that J.D. Salinger griped about those who tried to equate him to the main character in The Catcher in the Rye. The quote was something like, "I am NOT Holden Caulfield. I created him from my imagination." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, there is a short story about seppuku that goes into long, gruesome details on several pages by Yukio Mishima, a suicide that was. TomorrowTime (talk) 08:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- And Krystian Bala may be of interest. Karenjc 09:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, there is a short story about seppuku that goes into long, gruesome details on several pages by Yukio Mishima, a suicide that was. TomorrowTime (talk) 08:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Reminds me of something I read years ago, that J.D. Salinger griped about those who tried to equate him to the main character in The Catcher in the Rye. The quote was something like, "I am NOT Holden Caulfield. I created him from my imagination." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Wow, Bala was an interesting read! – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 18:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- That article reminded me of If I Did It. Pais (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Wow, Bala was an interesting read! – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 18:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- The reason people produce the art they do is complex. I for one quite enjoy making music that has a sinister somewhat death-loving edge, but by no means do i love things sinister or deathly--the reason is far more complex than that. For me, I get something positive out of emphasizing death, even if on a superficial level it may seem nihilistic. At at extremely simple level I might say it has something to do with Zen. The point being--artists, especially great artists, usually have extremely complex reasons for focusing on what they focus on. Don't take it too simplistically. Pfly (talk) 09:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Interesting responses, thank you all! – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 18:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
There are an infinite number of interpretations for any given set of facts (Pirsig's Law). So, "N+1" is not really even close to sufficient. Human beings are far to complex to speculate reliably about their motivations.Greg Bard (talk) 01:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- This thread reminds me of the quiz Programming Language Inventor or Serial Killer? (requires Flash). -- BenRG (talk) 07:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Largest democratic country with many parties
I'm not sure weather the Humanities desk is the best place for this question.
I'm wondering what is the largest (by inhabitants) democratic country with many parties. Specifically, there have to be so many parties that any party getting over 50% of the votes is extremely rare and coalition governments are the norm.
Belgium, the Netherlands, France , Germany, bigger then Germany?
Thanks in advance 213.49.109.166 (talk) 07:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- India. They've had a multiparty system for pretty much their entire history, especially so after Jawaharlal Nehru died. More detail forthcoming, sometime later. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, definitely India. World's second biggest population, after China (which nobody would claim is democratic). HiLo48 (talk) 07:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- However, I believe the legislature has been massively dominated by the Congress Party for most of the time, so coalition governments have not been the norm. Rojomoke (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- See Elections in India. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- However, I believe the legislature has been massively dominated by the Congress Party for most of the time, so coalition governments have not been the norm. Rojomoke (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, definitely India. World's second biggest population, after China (which nobody would claim is democratic). HiLo48 (talk) 07:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- We have a List of parliamentary republics, from which it looks like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Germany are the four largest countries (by population), in that order. WikiDao ☯ 19:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- The OP made no mention of republics, they asked about democracies. Democracies do not have to be republics, as our old friend the democracy/republic chart makes abundantly clear:
Republics Monarchies Democratic Italy, USA Canada, Netherlands Not democratic Cuba, Turkmenistan Saudi Arabia, Vatican City
- Yes, but the request was for the largest. Democratic monarchies tend to be on the smallish side. I think the biggest one is the UK, which if it were a US state, would be the biggest one by population, but not by a factor of two. --Trovatore (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Canada is the second-largest country in the world. Japan is a democratic monarchy, with a population slightly under half that of the US.
- But all this is muddying the waters. The OP wants to know what is the largest country that tends to have coalition governments more often than not, and all this talk of republics is irrelevant. 87.112.177.117 (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- The OP specifically said largest by population. Canada, spacious but unpopulous, certainly is not the world's second largest by that criterion. BrainyBabe (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, but the OP's criterion of multiple parties, none of which tends to have an outright majority, so that coalitions are "the norm", makes the question more specifically about the "Parliamentary system" form of Democracy, so I answered the question in terms of the largest Parliamentary republics. The US, for example, is a large democracy but has only two main political parties, so would not count as an answer to the question. WikiDao ☯ 20:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- The entire bottom 2/3rds of this discussion is irrelevent, as the OP's question was clearly answered already, without any regards for monarchy or republicanism, since the obvious answer is India, which as the second most populous country in the entire world, and a democratic one, meets the OPs requirement splendidly, without need for even worrying about the definitions of monarchies and republics, and trying to figure out if one or the other was required. --Jayron32 05:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- <points at 87.112.177.117> "S/He started it!" ;) WikiDao ☯ 05:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- A lot of westerners tend to overlook India as a big player in a lot of categories, perhaps because of its historical third world status. I've seen it argued that it may be the country with the largest number of English speakers (albeit not all as a first language and not all very well), and the largest middle class (that one is highly debatable no matter who you suggest because of the difficulty of definition). HiLo48 (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- <points at 87.112.177.117> "S/He started it!" ;) WikiDao ☯ 05:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- The entire bottom 2/3rds of this discussion is irrelevent, as the OP's question was clearly answered already, without any regards for monarchy or republicanism, since the obvious answer is India, which as the second most populous country in the entire world, and a democratic one, meets the OPs requirement splendidly, without need for even worrying about the definitions of monarchies and republics, and trying to figure out if one or the other was required. --Jayron32 05:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, but the request was for the largest. Democratic monarchies tend to be on the smallish side. I think the biggest one is the UK, which if it were a US state, would be the biggest one by population, but not by a factor of two. --Trovatore (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hang on a minute. 87.112.* is right, the question has not been answered in full already. Everyone keeps saying India is the answer, but there has been little attention paid to the point of the OP's question, which was specifically about the incidence of coalition governments in populous countries. Only Rojomoke has addressed this in his/her post mentioning that coalitions are indeed not the norm in India, which if true would mean that India was not the right answer. Ghmyrtle linked to the article on elections in India, which might shed some light on the matter, but I am disinclined to trawl through the article looking for information on the prevalence of coalitions. --Viennese Waltz 08:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Quite. My suspicion is that the OP is probably correct in thinking that Germany is the largest country in which coalitions routinely occur. The question of which democracy is the largest per se doesn't address this. 87.112.177.117 (talk) 09:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Germany certainly had coalition governments more often than not. I think the same is true of several other European countries (Italy comes to mind), though none I can think of is as large as Germany. Switzerland seems to have institutionalized a permanent coalition government. Israel is famous for coalition governments including some very "interesting" parties. But to move this along: Does India have coalition governments below the national level? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Coalition governments are the norm in India, so the question has been answered. In recent years, it has been governed by the United Progressive Alliance and the National Democratic Alliance, both of which are coalitions. Warofdreams talk 12:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- But this is not static. National coalition governments were unheard of in India for decades, but now non-coalition governments are unthinkable. The political culture is everchanging. Now UK has a coalition gov't (for the first time), maybe thats a pattern that will follow for many year to come? Maybe we will see coalition gov't in the US in 10-20 years (if either of the two big parties suffer a major split)? To Schulz, most Indian state gov'ts are coalitions. It is definately the norm. --Soman (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Coalition governments are the norm in India, so the question has been answered. In recent years, it has been governed by the United Progressive Alliance and the National Democratic Alliance, both of which are coalitions. Warofdreams talk 12:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Germany certainly had coalition governments more often than not. I think the same is true of several other European countries (Italy comes to mind), though none I can think of is as large as Germany. Switzerland seems to have institutionalized a permanent coalition government. Israel is famous for coalition governments including some very "interesting" parties. But to move this along: Does India have coalition governments below the national level? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Quite. My suspicion is that the OP is probably correct in thinking that Germany is the largest country in which coalitions routinely occur. The question of which democracy is the largest per se doesn't address this. 87.112.177.117 (talk) 09:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
In Search of Giovanni Antonio da Brescia
Does anyone have any knowledge of any oil paintings in existence from the artist Giovanni Antonio da Brescia?
Did he create any artwork in this medium? Is there anyone with enough knowledge to confirm or deny?
I have an oil painting with a few identifiable printed letters. The letters that I can discern are Anton--- da--- Bres--- are in the right place to complete his full name. The name is followed by the numbers 99. There is no indication of Giovanni anywhere. It appears to be very old, quite damaged. It is a an equestrian piece with pretty good details of the horses structure, standing in a field with trees behind. It looks quite good to me. I can send pictures if there is any interest or questions.
Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pukinpups (talk • contribs) 08:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- (I deleted the telephone number to save you possible unwanted attention. If we can answer your question, it will be done so here.) If you can post the photo to an off-wiki site, and link it to here, that would helpful. Please do not post the photo here. (It slows down the loading of the page and creates problems for a lot of users.). Someone here may be able to give you some ideas about the painting, especially if it is a (copy or print of a) known work. However, you will need to see experts for true authentication. Our article on Brescia is not very helpful. Bielle (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the response, I will find a site to link for pictures. With the age and condition of the canvas and the clear reference to the year 99, it was only natural for me to then question the century, 19th, 18th earlier????? The quality of the painting as to certain anatomical details and attention to detail, in my opinion, is very good and what are the odds of an 1899 landscape/equestrian painter having the same or similar name of the aforementioned? Even a crude joke, as was once mentioned, seems far fetched. If there is a known specimen that has survived from that era, attributed to him, with his signature and style, I could put this quest to rest. In the meantime, I am buoyed by the fact that this forum exists and may lead to a conclusion. Thanks, Mike PS, I also knew when I hit the send button, that putting my # down was probably a mistake. Thank you for the quick catch and fix!
- Well Giovanni Antonio da Brescia was born in in the 15th century so should we assume it is 1499?--Lgriot (talk) 09:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
That was where my mind eventually ended up. As you can imagine, I was at first incredulous and then quite skeptical. I am wondering if I could get the canvas carbon tested for age. Does anyone know the procedure and cost of such testing??? Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pukinpups (talk • contribs) 18:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, da Brescia was an engraver, not a painter. Any of the images for sale are all, while valuable, engravings. Here is a site with a brief bio of the man and a description of his signature, as follows: "usually IO.AN.B or IO.AN.BX". It doesn't sound much like what you have. I could find no discussion of, or images of, oil paintings by this artist. ArtPrice.com shows a lot of activity in his engravings, but I no longer have a subscription, so I cannot check further for you. As for authenticating the painting or finding the painter, any good auction house (Bonham, Sotheby's, Christie's) would tell you, usually for free, if the matter is worth pursuing, and what that pursuit might cost. Bielle (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Other cities surrounded by water
Is there a name for a city like San Francisco, CA that is surrounded by water? What other cities are surrounded by water like San Francisco, CA? Nedsgal (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Venice, Italy is situated on a lagoon and is surrounded by water.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- You mean "mostly surrounded", right, Nedsgal? Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- As for terminology... San Francisco would be called a peninsula. But that term is more geographical, and does not really imply that the land is urban in character. Blueboar (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Largest in the UK is Portsmouth on Portsea Island. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Stockholm. Corvus cornixtalk 19:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Boston, Massachusetts used to be this way. See Shawmut Peninsula. 19th century land-reclamation projects all but eliminated the peninsula. Once upon a time, the Back Bay was, like, an actual bay. --Jayron32 21:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- There's the Isle of Ely, only not really. Marnanel (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- The "Hong Kong Island" part of Hong Kong is surrounded by water. And the Manhattan Island part of New York City, too... WikiDao ☯ 21:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Istambul springs to my mind. Flamarande (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- That's more your city divided by water than surrounded by water. That map in the Cityscape section highlights the absurdity of the artificial divide between Europe and Asia. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 22:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- It isn't my city and proving that I was merely considering the old city (which was formerly restricted to the European side). "the absurdity of the artificial divide between Europe and Asia" is your own opinion. In the opinion of many (including my own) it's a diffrence of history, religions, cultures, languages, wealth, mutual suspicion and similar things. There is a tangible division between the two regions (and I'm not interrested in expanding this subject). Flamarande (talk) 02:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Clarification: correct me if I am wrong, but Jack may have been using the word 'your' in one of its colloquial senses, to mean 'an example of', and I don't think he was using it to mean specifically the city you yourself live in, Flamarande. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Correct. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 04:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Historically, Byzantium/Constantinople/Istanbul was surrounded by water on three sides, Marmara to the south, the Bosporus to the east, and the Golden Horn to the north. Of course, there were suburbs across the Horn and the Bosporus even in the Middle Ages, and now the city is enormous, but the core is still on the little peninsula. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Correct. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 04:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Clarification: correct me if I am wrong, but Jack may have been using the word 'your' in one of its colloquial senses, to mean 'an example of', and I don't think he was using it to mean specifically the city you yourself live in, Flamarande. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- It isn't my city and proving that I was merely considering the old city (which was formerly restricted to the European side). "the absurdity of the artificial divide between Europe and Asia" is your own opinion. In the opinion of many (including my own) it's a diffrence of history, religions, cultures, languages, wealth, mutual suspicion and similar things. There is a tangible division between the two regions (and I'm not interrested in expanding this subject). Flamarande (talk) 02:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- That's more your city divided by water than surrounded by water. That map in the Cityscape section highlights the absurdity of the artificial divide between Europe and Asia. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 22:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Helsinki. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure the first part of the OP's questions has been answered. I'm thinking "port city" or maybe "maritime city" or something that indicates water.
- Someone mentioned Manhattan. Actually 4 of the 5 boroughs of New York are on islands, the exception being the Bronx, and even the Bronx has water as 2/3 or 3/4 of its border. Cities that are actually on islands are numerous in the US, especially along the east coast where there is a chain of barrier islands. We've already covered New York City, which is part of that chain. Other examples would be the towns on Cape Cod, which is now an island thanks to the canal. Nantucket, Atlantic City, Kitty Hawk, Miami Beach, Key West, Galveston, come to mind offhand. Internationally, Mumbai would seem to be a fair approximation of the San Francisco layout. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- In Italian school geography books Venice is referred to as a maritime republic, so I have to agree that maritime city is an accurate description of a city mostly surrounded by water.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- But "maritime" implies the sea; it wouldn't apply to a city mostly surrounded by freshwater. (Not that we've found any examples of that yet, I think.) I thought of the term peninsular city; when I googled it, I couldn't find any indication that it's a common term for the phenomenon, but it did lead me to two more examples: Halifax, Nova Scotia, and South Perth, Western Australia. Pais (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- I can't think of any significant freshwater American cities that are largely surrounded by water. Duluth, Minnesota is not surrounded, but is referred to as a "port city". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ooh, ooh, Madison, Wisconsin, is built on an isthmus between two freshwater lakes. Pais (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yep. And the city of Montreal seems to be surrounded by water, or at least a good portion of it is. That's assuming the river at that point is considered to be fresh water. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Most of it is on a bunch of islands, yeah...and the St. Lawrence doesn't enter the ocean for at least another 200 km after that, past Quebec City, so it's definitely freshwater in Montreal. (Actually, the Gulf of St. Lawrence is largely freshwater too, because of the enormous discharge from the river). And although not totally surrounded, Vancouver and Victoria in British Columbia have water on three sides (although I don't know if the Strait of Georgia and the other straits are freshwater). Adam Bishop (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yep. And the city of Montreal seems to be surrounded by water, or at least a good portion of it is. That's assuming the river at that point is considered to be fresh water. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ooh, ooh, Madison, Wisconsin, is built on an isthmus between two freshwater lakes. Pais (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- I can't think of any significant freshwater American cities that are largely surrounded by water. Duluth, Minnesota is not surrounded, but is referred to as a "port city". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- But "maritime" implies the sea; it wouldn't apply to a city mostly surrounded by freshwater. (Not that we've found any examples of that yet, I think.) I thought of the term peninsular city; when I googled it, I couldn't find any indication that it's a common term for the phenomenon, but it did lead me to two more examples: Halifax, Nova Scotia, and South Perth, Western Australia. Pais (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- In Italian school geography books Venice is referred to as a maritime republic, so I have to agree that maritime city is an accurate description of a city mostly surrounded by water.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Then there are cities like Seattle, which was built on a kind of isthmus, but with marine salt water on one side and fresh lake water on the other. My off the cuff term for cities of all these sorts is "transporationally challenged". Pfly (talk) 10:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- At least places like Seattle and Vancouver have bridges. Last I heard, Juneau, Alaska was only reachable by water or by air. That's a more serious "transportation challenge". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Historically, Tenochtitlan. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Île de la Cité, Paris? BrainyBabe (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Manhattan would be the prototype city surrounded by water, along with Staten Island, and The Bronx is a peninsula. Acroterion (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- As for a term; Waterlocked is considered an option, as is Island City. Nanonic (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Peninsula cities were sort of a standard in colonial Africa, as forts constructed on islands or peninsulas could be easily defended. See Dakar and Conakry om google maps. Also, one of the early French cities in Senegal was Gorée Island, built on an island (now not much of a city, but still has some population). --Soman (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Senegal) Saint Louis (I bet the early city began on the peninsula). Banjul, the capital of The Gambia, is built on an island. --Soman (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
What is the slashed zero that amateur radio operators use in callsigns with a 0? It doesn't look like 0̸ (won't work with IE) because the slash is perfectly through the 0 rather than offset to the side, it's not Ø or ∅ or ⌀ because it appears oblong like a 0 rather than like a circle. According to my amateur radio license textbook, it can be represented by an ALT code, but I couldn't get this to work the last time I tried it (and I no longer remember what it is), so knowing what the character is so that I can copy-paste it would be useful. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 20:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's a zero, 0. It means exactly the same as 0. The fact that you don't see a slash through your 0 is a property of the font. Marnanel (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- We have an article on the Slashed zero, but I'm not sure I see what I think you are looking for there, either. WikiDao ☯ 20:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
![How do I render this as text?](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/Slashed_zero.jpg)
Rephrase: How do I render the character at right on my computer in text? Ks0stm (T•C•G) 21:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- By typing a zero while using a font whose zero looks like a O with a slash through it. Sorry, there's no special character for this other than the number zero. In some fonts, the zero has a slash, and in other fonts, it doesn't. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- According to the picture in the Slashed zero article, the font used for the top line is called Consolas. If you can find that font and install it, you'll have your slashed zero. I think it's included with many versions of Windows (it's on my machine at work, for example), so you may already have it - it's not exactly like the picture you posted, but it's a slashed zero. Matt Deres (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Try "<math>\not 0</math>" which renders . I believe that there are some government entities which require it's use so as to distinguish from the letter "O." Greg Bard (talk) 01:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Way back with the old MS-DOS the zero was automatically slashed, as can be seen here. --Saddhiyama (talk) 06:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- You wrote "It doesn't look like 0̸ because the slash is perfectly through the 0 rather than offset to the side"; but that slash is supposed to bisect the 0. Unicode renderers just do a bad job with it (or perhaps it's the font's fault). The MS-DOS photo linked by Saddhiyama has dotted zeroes, not slashed zeroes. I think it may be a screenshot of a Windows DOS box. The IBM PC's built-in text font did slash its zeroes (photo). MS-DOS has nothing to do with this; it just writes zeroes and doesn't choose the font. In LaTeX I would write a slashed zero as \emptyset () because it looks right, though it's technically wrong. -- BenRG (talk) 07:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- As a "hack", you could always use Ø, which is not a circle but formed like an O (and hence will be oblong in some fonts). Or use the font Terminal_(typeface). Jørgen (talk) 08:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC) (used to type in my name in old ascii-only computer games as J0RGEN - the zero would be slashed)
- Of course I also meant the original MS-DOS on the IBM PC. I remember them from personal experience, but my Google search turned up various examples, including DOS-boxes from various versions of Windows, some which did not have either dotted or slashed zeros, obviously because at the time of Windows 95 the screen resolution was so high that the program could make 0's that was visually differentiated from O's without resorting to such methods.
- The Terminal font still displays 0's this way (0) but it is surprisingly rare nowadays, considering not so distant history. And I'm not sure why - the need to distinguish O from 0 is no less than it was before. Wnt (talk) 09:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- That's showing up without a slash for me, because Terminal looks completely different at different sizes. Here it is big: 0. 81.131.61.245 (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- The Terminal font still displays 0's this way (0) but it is surprisingly rare nowadays, considering not so distant history. And I'm not sure why - the need to distinguish O from 0 is no less than it was before. Wnt (talk) 09:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Correction by schoolteachers
How do schoolteachers nowadays correct their students without embarrassing them?
—Wavelength (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- If I understand the question correctly, I used to have an English teacher who would ask a (general) question, pick someone to answer and listen to their answer. He would then agree with whatever point the student had made, before giving his own opinion. If the opinion was close to yours, you could feel like you'd given the right answer; if not, you were essentially corrected, but it was never that embarrassing. - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 22:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Which teacher? Which student? What was the question- something with a factual right/wrong answer, or something that asks for analysis? Was the wrong answer something the student ought to have known from recent instruction, or a failure to make connections appropriately, or the inability to analyze fully, or an intentional wrong answer for a laugh? There are many different ways to correct a child, and they vary based on the personalities of the individual people involved, and also on the nature of the question and the answer. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- I find the question to be somewhat flawed... it assumes that embarrassment is a "bad thing". Sure, we don't want to traumatize a student, but a little bit of embarrassment can be a great motivator to do better next time. Sure, everyone wants to get the right answer all the time... but in reality we all make mistakes, and we all fail to achieve goals. Students need to learn that lesson, and they need to be taught how to overcome a mistake or a failure. The teacher who taught me the most was my 8th grade math teacher... he purposely designed his first test of the year to be so difficult, even his best students failed... just so everyone in the class had the experience of failure and could learn what to do when we fail. His lesson plan when the test was handed back centered on dealing with, and learning from failure. Blueboar (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- What it's more likely to motivate a student to do is to give up. Why try something if you're going to be put down for it? If you give up, then they at least have a reason to show you up, and then things are in balance. Then it's just a matter of being tough and persevering through the school year and then moving on to something else. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see how it's "more likely," given that people do fail on a regular basis without giving up. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- What it's more likely to motivate a student to do is to give up. Why try something if you're going to be put down for it? If you give up, then they at least have a reason to show you up, and then things are in balance. Then it's just a matter of being tough and persevering through the school year and then moving on to something else. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- I find the question to be somewhat flawed... it assumes that embarrassment is a "bad thing". Sure, we don't want to traumatize a student, but a little bit of embarrassment can be a great motivator to do better next time. Sure, everyone wants to get the right answer all the time... but in reality we all make mistakes, and we all fail to achieve goals. Students need to learn that lesson, and they need to be taught how to overcome a mistake or a failure. The teacher who taught me the most was my 8th grade math teacher... he purposely designed his first test of the year to be so difficult, even his best students failed... just so everyone in the class had the experience of failure and could learn what to do when we fail. His lesson plan when the test was handed back centered on dealing with, and learning from failure. Blueboar (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Blueboar, what did your eighth-grade mathematics teacher teach you and your classmates about dealing with failure and learning from it?
- —Wavelength (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, it was over thirty years ago, so I don't remember the details of his lesson plan, but... what sticks in my mind after all this time is the lesson that life isn't always fair and sometimes, no matter what you do, you will fail. Suck it up and move on (I don't think he used those exact words... but that's what I got out of it). I remember him saying "Failure isn't bad... giving up because you failed is". Failure is not something to be ashamed of, it happens to everyone. He taught us to learn from failure... to examine what went wrong so that you reduce the likelihood that it will happen again. When you fail, you must get up, dust yourself off and keep at it until you succeed. Blueboar (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- It depends on how he handled it. If he put you down and then lectured you about how "life isn't fair", then his primary (and unintended) lesson was that he himself was an abusive jerk, plain and simple. If he was gentler about it, then his lesson could be more positive and useful. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, it was over thirty years ago, so I don't remember the details of his lesson plan, but... what sticks in my mind after all this time is the lesson that life isn't always fair and sometimes, no matter what you do, you will fail. Suck it up and move on (I don't think he used those exact words... but that's what I got out of it). I remember him saying "Failure isn't bad... giving up because you failed is". Failure is not something to be ashamed of, it happens to everyone. He taught us to learn from failure... to examine what went wrong so that you reduce the likelihood that it will happen again. When you fail, you must get up, dust yourself off and keep at it until you succeed. Blueboar (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
One thing I've heard is "Praise twice, criticize once." In otherwise, emphasize what the pupil did correctly, then point out where he or she can improve. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Along the same lines, one teacher shared with us a technique they learned in a workshop one time. It was called the "compliment sandwich;" give praise, give correction, then find a secondary on which to give praise. schyler (talk) 02:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps we should be asking why are teenagers almost always "embarrassed" nowadays by anything adults say or do (whether teacher or parent)? I don't recall being constantly embarrassed when I was a teenager. Astronaut (talk) 06:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think this is a new phenomenon. Read Portnoy's Complaint, for example. However, there are ways to soften criticism and minimize "showing up" an incorrect responder. Something that comes to mind is Alex Trebek, who often says, "You're right", but always says, "That's wrong" rather than "You're wrong". Some teachers, then and now, take the time to consider their students' feelings. Others don't. That's just how things are. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps we should be asking why are teenagers almost always "embarrassed" nowadays by anything adults say or do (whether teacher or parent)? I don't recall being constantly embarrassed when I was a teenager. Astronaut (talk) 06:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your replies. Various methods are discussed in the article "Corrective feedback".
—Wavelength (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
As someone who became a teacher not too long ago, I was taught that a great teacher has a constantly growing toolbox of approaches to students' behaviour, effort and levels of achievement. Obviously there's a lot of overlap between those three characteristics. I use very different approaches for the kid trying his hardest and the kid who has been wasting his time or finding ways to disrupt the class. And of course it's pointless using the same approach every time too. Kids see through every teacher strategy eventually. And every kid is different. Some work best with gentle persuasion. Some respond best to kicks up the butt. Some actually respond quite well to being briefly embarrassed, despite our questioner ruling it out. And every day is different. Answer to the question? Whatever is going to work best at the time. HiLo48 (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- If parents (and spiritual counselors, as the case may be) would correct the behavioral problems of school students, then schoolteachers would be able to concentrate on correcting their academic problems.
- —Wavelength (talk) 07:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- But in practice, the parents (and spiritual counselors, as the case may be) may be responsible for the "behavioural" problems, which the teachers then have to deal with. A lot of people don't really know how to deal appropriately with children: many teachers do. And in any case, even the best-behaved children won't do what you want if you're incompetent enough. But we're getting off topic. 86.164.164.183 (talk) 10:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
In Germany at least: you get the teacher rolling his eyes, interrupting you if the answer is wrong, saying 'argh, not again', ... You won't see this "correcting without embarrassing" thing. 212.169.188.187 (talk) 10:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
baby doc
I was under the impression that "papa doc" got his name from a mispronunciation. The real "doc" was actually the French word spelled as "duc' which is believed to mean Duke. Whereas when the French ruled, the leader of Haiti was referred to as a Duke, but was translated as "duc," not doc. Is my source correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.236.222 (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Not according to the first and second paragraphs of our François Duvalier article. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) According to our François Duvalier article, "Duvalier first won acclaim in fighting diseases, earning him the nickname "Papa Doc" ("Daddy Doc[tor]" in French)." However, I believe the French for doctor is "médecin" so that's somewhat strange, unless perhaps the word "doctor" or at least the shortened form "doc" is commonly used in Haitian creole... WikiDao ☯ 00:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- French for doctor is indeed médecin, but docteur can sometimes be used. One would not say "je vais au docteur" because the correct meaning of docteur in French is simply someone who holds a doctorat. Like in English however, docteur does imply medical doctor to some extent (as this is the only kind of doctor most people are in even relatively frequent interation with), though not so much as in English (i.e., the example above).24.92.70.160 (talk) 00:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- In France when we say docteur or docteur X with no other information, this word means médecin (physician). Il is very, very usual. What's wrong with "je vais au docteur"? This sentence is not grammatically correct, however it is used by "less educated" people. Instead you should say: je vais chez le docteur. You can refer to the French dictionnary Le Petit Robert, where this latter is used as an example. — AldoSyrt (talk) 08:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- French for doctor is indeed médecin, but docteur can sometimes be used. One would not say "je vais au docteur" because the correct meaning of docteur in French is simply someone who holds a doctorat. Like in English however, docteur does imply medical doctor to some extent (as this is the only kind of doctor most people are in even relatively frequent interation with), though not so much as in English (i.e., the example above).24.92.70.160 (talk) 00:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Our article on Haitian creole indicates that the word for doctor is doktè. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
January 19
I'm in a Predicament
OK here's my situation: I currently attend a high school offering the International Baccalaureate program. 4 years are required in the core academic subjects, obviously including math. However I was able to test out of Calculus (quite easily), but if I decide not to take calculus I will have completed the highest maths class available at my school (IB Math Topics) by junior year, so I might not meet this requirement to graduate with the IB Diploma. I'm gonna talke to my counselor about it tomorrow, but I'd like some outside advice: What should I do? 24.92.70.160 (talk) 00:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Many High Schools will grant credit for classes taken at a local university or community college. If you tested out of Calculus, you may be able to take a more advanced math class at a local community college or university, and count that as high school credit as well. You should definitely talk to your guidance counselor, as they will know best how to navigate these issues, but you could perhaps come to him with this idea. --Jayron32 00:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
sorry, I was not clear enough. I do not actually need the credit for my high school diploma (only 3 years of math are required), but I do need it for the IB programme, and the class I take for this programme must be an IB class, not a non-IB class. The IB diploma is extra that looks really good on college apps, so I'd like to get it. 24.92.70.160 (talk) 01:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- You know what looks really good on college apps? Already having college credit. Seriously, try the approach I have laid out for you. Ask your counselor about options. If you are so advanced that you have qualified out of calculus without having taken the course yet, then colleges will be seeking you out. The extra little bit of having the IB diploma isn't going to help you much beyond that, and if colleges ask "why didn't you get it", you can say "because I was already taking differential equations at the local university, and didn't think I needed to go back and take calculus just to get some silly tag on my diploma." Colleges love that much more than they will IB. If you are worried contact an admissions officer of your first choice college. Ask THEM what their opinion would be. --Jayron32 03:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
A specific kind of very important city...
is called what? I vaguely remember reading a Wikipedia article about certain cities that were dominant in their entities, but I can't remember the title of the article. Such cities are the leaders of their entities (e.g. countries, provinces/states) in every way: the article gave all of the Australian state capitals as leading examples of this phenomenon. I've tried searching for "primary city", but that's definitely not it. Nyttend (talk) 04:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Primate city? Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 04:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Or perhaps it is Global city? Astronaut (talk) 06:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Seems too obvious, but Capital city? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 07:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's the primate city; the article history shows that all of the Australian state capitals were included as primates of their states, so this is definitely what I was looking for. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 13:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Primate city makes me think of Planet of the Apes. Blueboar (talk) 14:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Whenever I hear a reference to the "Primate of Australia", I picture a gorilla in a bishop's costume, carrying a staff and wearing a mitre. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Metropolis?--Wetman (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Nyttend has his answer: primate city. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Metropolis?--Wetman (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's the primate city; the article history shows that all of the Australian state capitals were included as primates of their states, so this is definitely what I was looking for. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 13:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Discrepancy in The King's Speech?
In the recent movie The King's Speech, Lionel Logue is shown in a car heading for Buckingham Palace when air raid sirens are sounding and people are entering shelters. He arrives when only 40 minutes remain before the king is to address the whole empire on the radio. Then we see people listening to the radio, some of them clearly in London, and after the speech the king steps out onto a balcony and waves to the immense crowd below. Those people were not in air raid shelters.
- Was there in fact a German air raid on September 3rd, 1939?
- Did such a crowd in fact gather outside the palace on that day?
- How long were people in shelters on that day?
- What proportion of the population heeded warnings and went to shelters?
Michael Hardy (talk) 05:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- There was no German air raid on 3 September 1939 - that was the day Britain and France declared war on Germany. Details of early air raids on Britain are in the Phoney War article; the first was on 16 October. Warofdreams talk 10:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- But apparently air raid sirens were tested on 3 September. According to this article, they were (quite sensibly) tested just after the King's speech, rather than before. Warofdreams talk 10:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- But that article says the air raid siren test was after the prime minister's brief radio address, not after the king's longer speech. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's called dramatization, which IMO is particularly heavy-handed in this otherwise excellent film.--Shantavira|feed me 11:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- But apparently air raid sirens were tested on 3 September. According to this article, they were (quite sensibly) tested just after the King's speech, rather than before. Warofdreams talk 10:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- There was no German air raid on 3 September 1939 - that was the day Britain and France declared war on Germany. Details of early air raids on Britain are in the Phoney War article; the first was on 16 October. Warofdreams talk 10:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
So it appears that:
- The prime minister made a brief speech on the radio at 11:15 AM that day, announcing the declaration of war.
- Air raid sirens were then tested at 11:27 AM.
- The king gave a longer speech by radio later in the day.
What time was that later speech? Michael Hardy (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- These extracts from Logue's diary:
- "At 10 o’clock came the announcement on the wireless that Germany had until 11 o’clock to withdraw her troops from Poland and at 11.15 the Prime Minister in sorrowful and heartfelt tones announced that we were at war with Germany. A marvellous relief after all our tension; the universal desire is to kill the Austrian house painter [Hitler]. At 11.30 out of the blue came the [air raid] siren – no good to even think it is a rehearsal. I call [Logue’s youngest son] Tony who is in the garage mending his bike and we shut up the house. A wonderful sight from our windows – to see the barrage balloon go up. The charwoman turned a tense situation into one of great comedy. Her boy Ernie was taken to the country yesterday, and as she went downstairs, she said 'Thank God my Ernie has been excavated'. At 12, [the King’s assistant private secretary, Sir] Eric Mieville rang to say that the King would Broadcast at 6 o’clock. Laurie drove me in to the Palace and I got there at 5.20."
- He doesn't mention the crowd, but this page describes a large crowd at Downing Street after Chamberlain's speech. The palace is only 15 mins stroll away, so it seems probable. Whether the king waved to them, I don't know, but Logue doesn't seem to have been there if he did. Alansplodge (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you. (As for Logue being there when the king waved to the crowd, isn't it possible that Logue was still inside the building at the time?) Michael Hardy (talk) 06:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Possible but you'd have thought he would have mentioned it. If you follow the link above, he describes after the speech a conversation in the passage with the King & Queen and then going downstairs and "out in the sunshine". Probably seeing the King wave to a huge crowd would have been more notable than seeing a barrage balloon. Also, the Royals waving from the balcony has an air of jubilation about it - coronations, jubilees, the Trooping of the Colour, VE Day etc but going to war was a more sombre affair especially for a generation who had lived through "the last lot". Just an impression; Mr Google and his elves have been unable to find me any references at all for the "huge crowd" on 3 September. Alansplodge (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you. (As for Logue being there when the king waved to the crowd, isn't it possible that Logue was still inside the building at the time?) Michael Hardy (talk) 06:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
speakers and connections
After the shooting rampage at Wedgwood Baptist Church in Ft. Worth, Texas, how many Columbine High School massacre survivors speak at the memorial service? Plus, what are the church's colors?24.90.204.234 (talk) 07:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Colors? Churches don't generally have colors (especially non-liturgical churches like Baptists), unless you're meaning something different from the church itself. Nyttend (talk) 13:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- The church has a web page that talks about the shootings in general,[4] which occurred a few months after the Columbine shootings, both in 1999. I don't see anything offhand about speakers other than the minister, but you might be able to contact someone there and find out. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know about "colors", but if you google [baptist church flag] and [baptist church colors] you might find something useful. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia doesn't have an article on the incident per se, but it does have an article on Larry Gene Ashbrook, the person who did it. Pais (talk) 14:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Non-coalition democratic governments
The above question about the largest democratic country with a coalition government got me thinking. Isn't it fair to say that coalition governments are pretty much the de-facto norm in democratic countries? I went searching through wikipedia and found this list of countries with coalition governments, which seems to include just about every democratic government other than the US. Besides the US, is there any other democratic countries in the world that don't have a coalition government? TomorrowTime (talk) 12:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- That list only has three countries from the americas. Algebraist 12:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Australia currently has a Labor government, with the Coalition in opposition. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- The UK currently has a coalition government, but that's unusual there, and caused much discussion and hand-wringing at the time. France currently does not have a coalition government, but I don't know if that's unusual there or not. Pais (talk) 12:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ah yes, how could I have forgotten the UK... France, as far as I remember, usually does have coalition governments. Australia, from what I can see in the links is also a country with a two party system, or am I misreading something? TomorrowTime (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Offhand, Spain and Canada are examples of other democratic countries which rarely or never have coalition governments. Warofdreams talk 14:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ah yes, how could I have forgotten the UK... France, as far as I remember, usually does have coalition governments. Australia, from what I can see in the links is also a country with a two party system, or am I misreading something? TomorrowTime (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- The UK currently has a coalition government, but that's unusual there, and caused much discussion and hand-wringing at the time. France currently does not have a coalition government, but I don't know if that's unusual there or not. Pais (talk) 12:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Regarding Australia, it's pretty much a two-party system very similar to the UK, from my understanding. Under most normal understandings, a "coalition government" is a political expedient; a temporary arangement to form a parliamentary majority and to prevent deadlock and stalemate. In Australia, the "Coalition" is an essentially permanent arangement between the two rightist parties, and at least on the national level, almost always operates as a single "party" for all intents and purposes. Because of this there have been several attempts at a formal merger between the two parties. The state-level parties have already merged in Queensland. As already noted, the coalition in the UK is extremely rare, indeed the unusual result of the United Kingdom general election, 2010 led to the classic strange bedfellows-type coalition whereby the centre-left Liberal Democrats are in coalition with the rightist Conservatives. Normally, the UK operates on a non-coalition type system. In U.S. history, there have been a few "coalition"-type moments, one may possibly argue that the Era of Good Feelings represents a sort of national coalition of sorts, where the Democrat-Republican and Federalist parties operated on a more-or-less coalition mentality, without opposition. The other coalition would have occured at the United States presidential election, 1864, whereby the Republican Party and (most of) the Democratic party merged under the National Union Party (United States). As back to the original question, the article Two-party system gives some additional non-coalition countries which have only two parties, being Jamaica and Malta. Other than those two, and the ones already mentioned, most countries have so many parties that coalitions are common enough. --Jayron32 14:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Much of the answers hinge on the type of voting system deployed in country X. In the US, UK and most Anglo-Saxon countries (where there exists a plurality voting system), coalitions are quite unlikely. In countries which employ proportional representation (like most of mainland Europe) it is much more common. A single party in Europe may easily gain a plurality but not have a majority. In such a circumstance the only options are a) a coalition, grand or small; b) a minority government where the ruling party seeks the temporary support of another group. Option b) is generally considered to be unstable and thus undesirable.
- In many EU states you have two largish parties (equivalent to Conservative and Labour) and two smallish parties (essentially Liberals and Greens). Given the method of a proportional representation it is rather exceptional for any of these parties to get a vote of > 50%. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Jayron's right about Australia usually having either Labor or a Coalition in power at any one time. In 1975 the Liberal Party could have governed in its own right but it had gone into the election with the Country Party as partner, so they chose (wisely imo) to maintain the Coalition in government. The last time there actually was a non-Labor non-Coalition government was in 1939-40, when Robert Menzies headed a United Australia Party government. Earlier cases were: 1932-34, Joseph Lyons - UAP; 1917-23, Billy Hughes - Nationalist; 1913-14, Joseph Cook - Commonwealth Liberal; 1903-04, 1905-08, Alfred Deakin, 1901-03, Edmund Barton - Protectionist. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Portugal has a majority government; the party of the government has absolute majority. Flamarande (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think the question is whether that arrangement is standard, or a short-term coincidence of the latest election cycle. As in, does one or another party normally always have a majority, or does the government usually rule via coalition most of the time. --Jayron32 21:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, the OR asks if "Besides the US, is there any other democratic countries in the world that don't have a coalition government?". Portugal has had a couple of single-party-elected-majority governments but there have been more coalitions.
- It has to be pointed out that (IMHO) most democratic countries have more than 2 parties in the parlament/congress/whatever. The USA only has two main parties. In such a situation the winner is bound to have simple majority. In countries where more than parties enter parlament it's quite hard to a have a simple majority; leading to coalitions. Flamarande (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- The UK has many parties in Commons, but other than a rare hiccup, it very rarely has coalition governments. --Jayron32 02:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Canada had a sort-of coalition government once, during World War I (the Unionist Party). Otherwise there is always either a majority government, or a minority government which tends to fall quickly. The current minority government has survived for five years, and occasionally one of the smaller parties choses to vote with them to avoid having to call yet another election, but it's certainly not a coalition government. There are more than two parties here, but only the Conservatives and Liberals have ever been in charge; the New Democratic Party is sort of the major third party, but it isn't really a nationally-popular party. The other major party is the Bloc Quebecois, which doesn't even run candidates outside of Quebec (and was originally dedicated to separating Quebec from the rest of Canada). I think the problem here is that it never occurs to anyone that a coalition is possible. Everyone acts like Canada is a US-style republic, with the Prime Minister as head of state. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- The UK has many parties in Commons, but other than a rare hiccup, it very rarely has coalition governments. --Jayron32 02:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think the question is whether that arrangement is standard, or a short-term coincidence of the latest election cycle. As in, does one or another party normally always have a majority, or does the government usually rule via coalition most of the time. --Jayron32 21:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- I thought someone would mention this who could explain it better but since there's been none... It seems we also need to consider those countries where there is a dominant party. The article is a bit crap without any citations and democratic credentials of quite a number of countries there may seem questionable, with at least some of the countries there, e.g. post apartheid South Africa, Japan a few years ago it's difficult to argue they aren't democratic despite the existance of a dominant party. While in some of those the dominant party is in coalition (whether or not it's needed) this isn't always the case.
- Getting at the complexity of course, you have a case like Japan where as I understand it even though the LDP is one party it is made up of factions vying for control. Japan is also perhaps notable for the short their prime ministers tend to last. In a similar vein to both that and the comment about Australia we get examples like Malaysia where if we ignore the flaws in democracy there, you have a formal coalition who's members may occasionally change but compete basically as one party in elections and realisticly despite the occasional noise it's difficult to imagine any of the main parts of the coalition breaking apart any time in the future. The coalition itself is dominated by one party. (And that is all mired in the race and religion issues in Malaysia.) As others have said, this is quite different from what people think of whey they discuss coalition goverments in say NZ, (the recent example in the) UK or even I think places like Germany, Israel and India.
- To put it a different way, you need to consider what's a democracy, what's a party and what's a coalition if you want to answer this question.
- Nil Einne (talk) 12:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Lists of dates books published on
Where can I find a list of books published on certain dates, eg February 1970? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.24.88 (talk) 13:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- In which country? Your national ISBN agency distributes this information by subscription to libraries and book retailers. The monthly list is also available in public libraries. No doubt it's available on line but it depends on your country. This is one website for book data, and I see they offer a free trial.--Shantavira|feed me 14:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Allusions in Prose Literature
Hey all! I love the allusiveness of The Waste Land and Joyce's Ulysses. I'm wondering if there are any other novels that so richly and consistently reference the works of past authors. (Lolita comes to mind, but as far as I can tell, there are few others). Thanks! 75.92.250.14 (talk) 18:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)MelancholyDanish
- Our page on intertextuality will give you a few hints towards a reading list. --Antiquary (talk) 18:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
January 20
Worlde War 1 medals
He was a pilot and served in France for the army. I know he did receive the French legion of Honor medal.They are all mounted in shadow boxes but I will try and take pictures to forward them to you.```` My husbands father served in World War 1 and has several medals that we have no idea what they mean or why they were awarded to him. How can I go about finding out this information? Any info would be helpful```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.45.110 (talk) 02:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Epifanio Garay - English Language References
Recently I created a page on the Spanish language wiki for the Colombian painter, Epifanio Garay. Although I've found his name mentioned on several pages in the English language wiki I haven't found any English language references to use on a translated page. His named is mentioned, or his work is featured, in the following articles.
mrtony77 (talk) 02:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- If you can translate the information into english, and it meets WP:GNG, there's nothing stopping you from writing the article in English as well. English language sources are nice where availible, but there's no prejudice against using sources from other languages. --Jayron32 02:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Multiculturalism in Quran and Hadith
By any chance does the Qur'an and hadiths ever mention anything about multiculturalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.149.76 (talk) 02:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- The Quran does permit a male Muslim to wed a chaste and pious woman of Jewish or Christian belief. I suspect this may be considered to be an example of multiculturalism. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 11:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Islam has a lot to say on treatment of People of the Book (mainly Jews and Christians). One example of a time when this was put into practice is the Al-Andalus betwen 711 and 1492 CE. You may also be interested in Islam and other religions. But of course the reality of how Muslims live and lived is not always what Islam specifies, as is true for all religions. Slavery was rife, and was usually between different race, as in the Arab slave trade (see especially Arab_slavery#Arabic_views_on_black_people). BrainyBabe (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
From Muhammed's final sermon:
- All mankind is from Adam and Hawwāʾ, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action.
Michael Hardy (talk) 06:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Lipstick
Do men use lipstick? --Questesns (talk) 04:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Has a male ever used lipstick? Indisputably. Do any use it regularly? Undoubtedly. Is it a common aspect of average, contemporary, Western, heterosexual male culture? Not in my experience. --Mr.98 (talk) 05:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- (ec) I can't think of any "mainstream" Western cultures where they normally do. Some subgroups like Goths will. Rmhermen (talk) 05:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- ...and actors. [Maybe that includes Goths :-) ] HiLo48 (talk) 05:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- And hair metal musicians; I love Dee Snider's, in particular. Also, when you get really into the deep recesses of black metal you'll find some of that; a lot of groups have abandoned it but not quite all. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- ...and actors. [Maybe that includes Goths :-) ] HiLo48 (talk) 05:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Traditionally when men used makeup, it was called "Greasepaint" (no very useful Wikipedia article...) -- AnonMoos (talk) 08:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, greasepaint is a specific type of make up, very resistant to sweating off, commonly used on stage. What makes you say it was typically what man make up was called? (And it is annoying that geeasepaint redirects to foundation (cosmetics), but it does at least mention what greasepaint is in a passing sentence) 86.164.164.183 (talk) 10:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- By chance; for those that can receive BBC television broadcasts, a bit about the Gerewol beauty contest is showing tonight Deserts - Life in the Furnace Today, 20:00 on BBC One.--Aspro (talk) 12:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- British comedian Eddie Izzard has often appeared wearing lipstick. Astronaut (talk) 13:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- On the train a few days ago I saw this average-looking twenty-something man sitting opposite me apply something to his lips, which I assumed was lip balm although it was not very cold. I think Gene Simmons wears a discrete dab occasionally, even though he's over 60. 92.28.255.115 (talk) 13:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- OK... so we have established that some men do wear lipstick (usually for professional reasons) but most men don't. I think we can leave it at that. Blueboar (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- I wonder why the OP needs to ask? Surely the answer is already well-known to everyone? 92.28.255.115 (talk) 13:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- OK... so we have established that some men do wear lipstick (usually for professional reasons) but most men don't. I think we can leave it at that. Blueboar (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Pee Wee Herman and Ronald Reagan.--Wetman (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Who has declared war lately?
Inspired by the Declaring War section above...
Since WWII, which countries have declared war, when and on whom? And who keeps track of such things? HiLo48 (talk) 06:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- It depends on what counts as a "declaration of war". The Iraq Resolution seems to do everything just shy of sending a postcard to Saddam Hussein saying "We'll be stopping by in March, make up the guest bed for us". Does that count? --Jayron32 06:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- No. I'm of the understanding that there is such a thing as a formal declaration of war, in words somewhat like that. It certainly happened in WWII. And I've just remembered that Wikipedia is your friend and looked at Declaration of war. But my question still stands. HiLo48 (talk) 07:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- I was actually of the impression that the US formally declared war on Iraq, but I guess judging from the article that that was not the case. Which again makes me uncertain whether anyone has formally declared war since WWII. It just seems to have gone out of fashion. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- In the Falklands War, there was no declaration of war from either side, but there was a declaration of a ceasefire. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- The Falklands War was referred to by HMG as a "conflict" at the time - it seems to have become a war after it was over. What was likely to happen to anyone who got in the way of the Task Force was spelled out in no uncertain terms. The Argentinians arrived unannounced however; described by Rex Hunt as "An Ungentlemanly Act". Alansplodge (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- The lack of formal declarations of war in the modern world indicates a changing attitude towards wars. Prior to the modern era, in the Western world, wars were considered a normal, even acceptable means, towards resolving disputes between countries. Wars were usually highly regulated by convention; concepts which came to fruition during the 19th century (but which clearly existed before that) include the idea of Balance of Power, which informed the alliance system that led to World War I, the Concert of Europe, which was the system of congresses that attempted to provide a structure to resolve disputes and set "rules" for when warfare became necessary. A much older concept was casus belli, which was the list of reasons which would justify going to war with another country. Since war before the 20th century was a) limited, b) honorable, and c) an acceptable means of dispute resolution, it makes sense for a formal declaration between nations. The 20th century introduced the concept of total, expansive, world wars. The age of small-scale wars was gone as the death tolls skyrocketed from the thousands or tens of thousands into the millions, and as a result war became a less honorable venture. As a result, the UN charter specifically forbids almost all wars except wars for defending oneself against a prior act of aggression. If another country invades yours, its kinda pointless to declare war. Many of the post WWII wars are civil wars, with foreign participation on one side or both, such wars also don't often feature the need to formally declare war. Finally, given the speed at which war can be conducted, it makes little strategic sense to declare war. It just lets your enemy know you are coming. --Jayron32 13:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Even before the United Nations were formed, the Kellogg-Briand Pact, adopted in 1928 by almost all the major powers of the day, prohibited the use of war as an instrument of national policy. It was useless in preventing World War II, but it reflected a significant shift in thinking about war. --Xuxl (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
can someone explain this joke?
What does the joke "physics is to math is what sex is to masturbation" mean? I really want to understand this science joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.198.9.100 (talk) 13:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's not a terribly funny joke (to me, at least) - it means that physics and math are basically the same but physics is inherently superior because math is self-centered, does nothing productive and has no connection to the real world. -- Ferkelparade π 13:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Physics is productive, while mathematics isn't. Physics applies the principles of mathematics to produce workable theories about how the world operates. Math, in isolation, doesn't produce anything practical in that way. Masturbation, while fun, is useless in a similar manner, as sex makes babies, while masturbation just makes dirty towels. That is at least the sentiment behind the joke. (To halt the coming criticism; yes, I know that is probably a gross misrepresentation of the importance of math, but that misrepresentation is inherant in the joke, so must be explained as such). --Jayron32 13:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- At the same time, physics would get nowhere without a solid grounding in maths. Being all in the mind, new mathematical insights are rare, but when they come they can solve otherwise intractable problems in physics.--Shantavira|feed me 13:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- And I daresay few people have ever had sex that didn't already have a solid grounding in masturbation. The joke is a form of rebuttal against the so-called "purity" of math (pure of course because it's unsullied by reality...) as explained neatly in this xkcd. Matt Deres (talk) 14:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC) edit: For people unfamiliar with xkcd, hover your pointer over the cartoon to get the other half of the joke. Matt Deres (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- well, just to give the counter-view, Plato would have said that it takes a mathematician to truly understand a horse, and a physicist to figure out how to yoke it to a plow.
--Ludwigs2 18:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- The joke is normally credited to Nobel prize winning physicist Richard Feynman, who may have been a bit biased. Right, but biased. 90.217.64.202 (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
The point of the joke is that all of truths of mathematics are such that they can be discovered while sitting by oneself on the couch. To discover the truths of physics you actually need to get out in the real world and get your hands dirty.Greg Bard (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, I dunno. Stephen Hawking seems to do alright. (But I'd agree with your statement in general.) HiLo48 (talk) 01:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Masturbation means getting your hands "dirty" too. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 00:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Math is the building blocks of physics; masturbation is the building blocks of sex. It is absurd. That, I guess, is funny. Bus stop (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, no. It's not absurd at all, from a certain point of view, and I think that's the point. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Math is the building blocks of physics; masturbation is the building blocks of sex. It is absurd. That, I guess, is funny. Bus stop (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Daily online cartoon?
What daily online cartoon or cartoon strip would people recommend? I've already tried searching on Google. I'm looking for cartoons that make me laugh or are witty or clever. Thanks 92.28.255.115 (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- 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. You will find a variety of things to check out at Category:Webcomics, but you have to do the judging and choosing yourself. –Henning Makholm (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Structurally the question is no different to asking people to recommend literary books to read, which has often been asked here without quibble. 92.29.123.151 (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- You'd have to be more specific than that - we can't possibly know what you think is funny or witty or clever. TomorrowTime (talk) 15:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- My two favorites are xkcd and Dinosaur Comics, but you probably have different tastes from me. Pais (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- http://www.comics.com Has alot of nice daily comics. xkcd and Cyanide and Happiness are also very nice (although not daily) comics. 216.120.192.143 (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Dilbert.com is also a good choice. Quest09 (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well it doesn't qualify as a daily cartoon, actually it's discontinued, and you can probably get through the archives in one decent sitting, but IMHO it qualifies as witty, clever and funny, perry bible fellowship. Vespine (talk) 02:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- If we're going to drop non-daily titles, here's one I cannot recommend enough: subnormality, a let's-say-sort-of-weekly-shall-we? wall of text comic - most of the time it's more insightful than witty or funny, and sure, most of them would take half a workday to read, and most people would just go tl;dr, but I find it very good. TomorrowTime (talk) 08:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- I find the thrice-weekly Basic Instructions (comic) very funny. (direct link) AndrewWTaylor (talk) 09:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- If we're going to drop non-daily titles, here's one I cannot recommend enough: subnormality, a let's-say-sort-of-weekly-shall-we? wall of text comic - most of the time it's more insightful than witty or funny, and sure, most of them would take half a workday to read, and most people would just go tl;dr, but I find it very good. TomorrowTime (talk) 08:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well it doesn't qualify as a daily cartoon, actually it's discontinued, and you can probably get through the archives in one decent sitting, but IMHO it qualifies as witty, clever and funny, perry bible fellowship. Vespine (talk) 02:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Who are Haddanites?
In a genealogical essay, I found this sentence: “Marriage between close kin of various types is permitted in Jewish law, and such alliances are still common in groups like the Haddanites, of Israel, whose first-cousin marriage rate was recently determined to be fifty-six per cent.” However, I cannot find a single mention online of a group known as the Haddanites (except for another copy of the same essay). Does anyone know who these are? And if they do not exist, why does the author of the essay think they do, and how does he know their first-cousin marriage rate? (By the way, if there is an endogamous ethnic group small enough not to be found on Google, I should be surprised if they can avoid inter-sibling marriages, let alone marriage between cousins.) Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Typo or spelling mistake, or mistransliteration? c (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Had-Dani in Hebrew means "the Danite", i.e. the descendant of the Tribe of Dan, one of the Ten Lost Tribes (cf. Eldad Hadani). According to our article on the tribe, the Ethiopian Beta Israel claim to be descended from Dan, so maybe that article is using "Haddanites" to refer to Ethiopian Jews living in Israel??? There's also an Arabic name Haddani, as in the Moroccan songwriter Ali Haddani. Pais (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Or maybe the guy in the essay is just pulling numbers and names out of his ass. TomorrowTime (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I've resolved it myself - BrainyBabe is right, it's a typo, it should say Habbanites, and it refers to Habbani Jews, whose first-cousin intermarriage rate is indeed 56% according to this article. Many thanks! Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Or maybe the guy in the essay is just pulling numbers and names out of his ass. TomorrowTime (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Had-Dani in Hebrew means "the Danite", i.e. the descendant of the Tribe of Dan, one of the Ten Lost Tribes (cf. Eldad Hadani). According to our article on the tribe, the Ethiopian Beta Israel claim to be descended from Dan, so maybe that article is using "Haddanites" to refer to Ethiopian Jews living in Israel??? There's also an Arabic name Haddani, as in the Moroccan songwriter Ali Haddani. Pais (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
"Shield of arms" for surnames?
Am I correct in thinking that there are no coat of arms for surnames, in the same way that there are no tartans for surnames? That coat of arms only apply to the descendents of someone who had a coat of arms granted by the College of Arms?
In which case, the section that describes the "shield of arms" in the Portillo (surname) article should be deleted. 92.15.24.22 (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- The College of Arms has relevance only to the British Isles or parts thereof. They cannot dictate to people from other countries what arms they may or may not have. Portillo may be a well-known name in the UK these days, but it's of foreign origin, and who knows what rules apply in its country of origin in relation to coats of arms? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- According to the article it has jurisdiction (sp?) over all the Commonwealth except Canada and South Africa. And over any coat of arms that are purported to originate in Britain, unless you are just some foriegn-based con-artiste ripping off Americans. 92.29.123.151 (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Did Scotland leave the Commonwealth since I last checked? –Henning Makholm (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- According to the article it has jurisdiction (sp?) over all the Commonwealth except Canada and South Africa. And over any coat of arms that are purported to originate in Britain, unless you are just some foriegn-based con-artiste ripping off Americans. 92.29.123.151 (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- There are several companies in the UK and Ireland that will "research" the "family coat of arms" of credulous Americans. (Don't have one? No problem, we will create one for you and include it in our "register"). The fact is, anyone can create a coat of arms for themselves. Blueboar (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- But the OPs perception was not incorrect. A coat of arms belonged to a noble family, and was only bestowed to members of that particular family, not everyone that happened to share the same surname as that family. But there does seem to be a number of companies, that makes their money by not taking that fact very seriously. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- However, you could run foul of the Law of Arms and be hauled up before the Court of Chivalry - a bit unlikely though, since it doesn't seem to have convened since 1954. Alansplodge (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- But the OPs perception was not incorrect. A coat of arms belonged to a noble family, and was only bestowed to members of that particular family, not everyone that happened to share the same surname as that family. But there does seem to be a number of companies, that makes their money by not taking that fact very seriously. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the offending, unsourced, section from Portillo (surname). If anybody can source a way in which it makes sense for a surname to have a coat of arms, feel free to reinstate it from the article history. –Henning Makholm (talk) 00:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- A few brief points.
- (1) As Henning Makholm alludes, heraldic jurisdiction in Scotland lies with the Lyon Court, which (unlike the England/Wales/Northern Ireland College of Arms whose Court of Chivalry is indeed defunct) still exercises legal powers within Scotland and can, for example, confiscate objects bearing Scottish arms incorrectly and fine the usurper (who is perpetrating a form of identity theft). Scots or descendents of Scots living outside the UK can choose to apply for arms to the Lyon Court rather than the College of Arms.
- (2) Contrary to Saddhiyama's belief, arms in Britain have for many centuries not been restricted to 'noble families.' Anyone in 'good standing', which now broadly means without a criminal record or similarly murky associations, can apply for and be granted arms from the College or Court as appropriate (as can Corporations, Companies and other non-human legal entities).
- (3) Arms (in the UK) are granted not to a family (still less to all families with the same name), but to an individual, and are inherited by the grantee's heir on death: until recently a UK arms holder's descendents during his/her lifetime were supposed to use 'differenced' versions of those arms (see Cadence) provided that they "matriculated" them with the granting body, who would rule on what the differences should be. When the current holder died, all the differences changed according to the cadency system being used and should have been re-matriculated: fees were due for the administration of all this. It appears that the College of Arms has recently relaxed these rules, but the Lyon Court (which also uses a different form of cadency) still applies them. Some European continental heraldic jurisdictions, however, have always operated differently and allowed all living male members of a family to use the same arms. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- A few brief points.
- Yes, I know that it is and was not only noble families that could purchase a coat of arms, I admit I misused the term "noble". But the main point of my answer still stands (and I am speaking as a "continental" here, and I guess that would also apply to the rules concerning the "Portillo"-family of Spain, which I doubt is under the jurisdiction of the UK rules): the coat of arms of the family is only for the family for which it was made, not for everyone that just happens to share the same surname. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- If the Court of Chivalry really is defunct and not just having a very long tea break, could someone find a reference and add it to the article please? Alansplodge (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I know that it is and was not only noble families that could purchase a coat of arms, I admit I misused the term "noble". But the main point of my answer still stands (and I am speaking as a "continental" here, and I guess that would also apply to the rules concerning the "Portillo"-family of Spain, which I doubt is under the jurisdiction of the UK rules): the coat of arms of the family is only for the family for which it was made, not for everyone that just happens to share the same surname. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- How are Spanish coat of arms organised? 92.15.25.92 (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
January 21
Impromptu speaking
Hey all. I'm pretty good with public speaking when I have something written down or when I have beforehand preparation. However if I'm asked to speak impromptu, as in give a speech about something without organizing my ideas first, I'm worse than King George VI in the King's Speech (which was a very good film, I highly recommend it if you haven't seen it ;). How can I improve my impromptu speaking? THanks. 24.92.70.160 (talk) 00:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Practice. A Google search for impromptu speaking yields dozens of relevant hits (and, of course, our article on the topic. There are few things that don't improve with repeated practice. Matt Deres (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- One trick is to have a three sentence prepared speech with which you respond to every situation where an impromptu speech is required. Classically it can refer to your fear of making impromptu speeches. Get that out of the way, and your mind will have had time to get into speaking mode and subconsciously prepare for the actual topic. (Obviously it doesn't have to be exactly three sentences, but I'm sure you get my drift.) HiLo48 (talk) 01:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Category:Public speaking includes "Toastmasters International".
- —Wavelength (talk) 02:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've found experience/practice really makes a huge difference. I started having to do talks of this sort about 5 years ago and was awful. But after having taught for a number of years, and being forced to give little lectures and explanations off the cuff for that time, my speaking skills have greatly improved. Part of it is just confidence (it doesn't make me nervous), but I think most of it is that I have a better sense of what kinds of things one should say, and a better sense of how long it takes to communicate ideas (I can "budget" 15 minutes without really trying, and hit all the points I want to hit). I do not think I am exceptionally talented in this regard (I am no great orator) — it seems like something probably most people can learn. --Mr.98 (talk) 04:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- I recall there exist many checklists, some from classical times, that you can memorise and use to generate verbage about any topic. Sorry I cannot be more specific 92.15.25.92 (talk) 14:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Good speaking habits can come more easily if you maximize your exposure to good speaking and if you minimize your exposure to habits of speaking that are not so good. This can involve any of the following.
- correct grammar (http://www.confusing-words.com/; http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/index.html)
- correct pronunciation (http://www.forvo.com/; http://www.howjsay.com/)
- avoidance of profanity
- avoidance of filler words
- Also, practicing good speaking habits at leisure is helpful. You and a friend might agree to catch each other's mistakes.
- —Wavelength (talk) 08:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Have you considered joining a public speaking organisation such as Toastmasters or the English Speaking Union? BrainyBabe (talk) 08:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- BrainyBabe, the indentation of your message indicates that it is addressed to me. If it is, then the answer is "Yes".
- —Wavelength (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Loss of citizenship
Normally, denaturalization is a long, drawn out process. Yet, Solomon Adler and Lauchlin Currie lost their U.S. citizenship simply by being out of the country and not being allowed to renew their passports. How does this work? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Both the men were accused of working with the Soviets. I am pretty sure, under such allegations, it works exactly as the government wants it to. They were personas-non-grata, conveniently out of the country, and doubly convieniently not born in the U.S. The U.S. in the 1950's was a much different place, and the government was known for doing things of "questionable legality" regarding how it treated perceived "enemies of the state", and such actions often went unchallenged in the courts, or even supported by them. It worked because the Government got away with it. Lots of things work that way. --Jayron32 04:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Um, ..... OK I haven't studied Latin. But I'd have guessed the term would be personae non gratae. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- ...That's confirmed by the article titled persona non grata. I win! Michael Hardy (talk) 05:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- (ec) Comment 1: Much more recent US governments have been accused of "doing things of questionable legality regarding how it treated perceived enemies of the state".
- Comment 2: The plural of persona non grata is personae non gratae. Not many people know that. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 05:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- 1: Entirely true, and irrelevent to the time period in question. Abuses by governments that occured chronologically later than the people in question lived cannot, even by the greatest stretches of the imagination, be credibly said to have an effect on their situation.
- 2: I can barely spell English words correctly, and its the only language I have any fluency in. I apologize for my butchering of the Latin tongue. --Jayron32 13:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Don't underestimate yourself, Jayron. The expression is not only Latin, but is now considered part of the English language by some (see wiktionary:personas_non_grata), so an English plural form is permissible. This is frowned upon by Latin pedants. Dbfirs 17:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Trust me, it is quite impossible for me to underestimate myself. I am constantly surprised by my ability to be wrong on a daily basis. I have become quite adept at it. --Jayron32 19:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- ...which would imply you are underestimating your ability to be wrong. Therefore your statement above that "it is quite impossible for me to underestimate myself" is incorrect. :) --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Trust me, it is quite impossible for me to underestimate myself. I am constantly surprised by my ability to be wrong on a daily basis. I have become quite adept at it. --Jayron32 19:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Don't underestimate yourself, Jayron. The expression is not only Latin, but is now considered part of the English language by some (see wiktionary:personas_non_grata), so an English plural form is permissible. This is frowned upon by Latin pedants. Dbfirs 17:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
My guess is the legal justification is based on allegations of obtaining citizenship by fraud. If it was based on fraud, the the naturalization could be regarded as void from the beginning. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Bicycle races, brakes
Is it standard practice that in indoor bicycle races, bicycles lack manually operated brakes (and maybe have brakes operated by pedals, or lack brakes)? Michael Hardy (talk) 06:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- According to our Velodrome article: "Bicycles for velodromes have no brakes." Dismas|(talk) 07:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Surprisingly, this is a safety feature. There is extremely rarely a reason to stop during an indoor race. On the other hand, someone braking will provoke back-enders in the confined situation of such a race. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- The bikes are also (AIUI) fixed-wheel; ie you can't stop pedalling! Alansplodge (talk) 10:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Surprisingly, this is a safety feature. There is extremely rarely a reason to stop during an indoor race. On the other hand, someone braking will provoke back-enders in the confined situation of such a race. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Interesting. My question was prompted by this video. About half-way through, Nena, who fired the starting pistol, comments that the bicycles have no brakes. But I don't find that mentioned in the German counterpart of the velodrome article (but I've only glanced at it so far). Michael Hardy (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Track bikes are usually fixies with no freewheel. If you want to slow down, just stop pedalling. The pedals will push up against your feet, and resisting them with your muscles makes the bike slow down. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 10:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/StateLibQld_1_100440.jpg/150px-StateLibQld_1_100440.jpg)
Is this the same ship as Manunda?. The image is part of the donation from the Queensland state library. The ship is identified as "Mununda" but i believe it is spelled wrong and is indeed Manunda. Can someone familiar with ship structures confirm this?--Sodabottle (talk) 13:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Note that name in the actual photo starts with MAN?N?A not sure about the last A and the others are not clear as it is covered with ropes. MilborneOne (talk) 17:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed; it looks like the Manunda. Compare it with this photo and this - apart from the paintwork it seems to be identical. Additionally, about the only result Google brings up for "Mununda" is a bakery in Queensland (and that's probably a typo too) or a village in the Congo! Alansplodge (talk) 03:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
The specific term for a legal clause
Hello.
I am looking for the specific term used to describe a legal clause that gives an investor priority to recover his stake in a company over other shareholders (particularly the management) in the event the company is sold or otherwise transferred.
Thank you a lot.--62.161.107.212 (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's not a legal clause, it is a specific type of financial instrument called preferred stock. Preferred stock is a hybrid between common stock and bonds and as such it is usually dealt with after bonds, but before other types of stock, when a company is liquidated. Preferred stock usually also carries no voting rights. IIRC, this was the type of stock the U.S. Treasury Department purchased during the bailout of GM; that gives the U.S. Government the first rights to recover its investment in the case of bankruptcy or liquidation of GM, but it also gives the U.S. government no voting rights in shareholder meetings. --Jayron32 14:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Right of first refusal? --Sean 14:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- The legal term you are looking for is "liquidation preference."[5][6] The clause in the contract or articles of incorporation will usually be identified as the "liquidation preference clause." The wikipedia article on liquidity preference (venture capital) needs some expanding. This term and right is not limited to preferred stock although generally all preferred stock has a liquidation preference over common stock. A corporation may have multiple classes of stock all with different liquidation preferences. It is possible for individual investors to be granted a liquidation preference superior to all other investors independent of the class of stock such an entity or individual may own. Gx872op (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- On the bond side, there is senior debt, which indicates bonds that have priority over more "junior" bonds when it comes to paying bondholders in the event of a bankruptcy. Like Jayron32's example of preferred stock, this isn't a legal clause; it's just a type of bond. You mention priority over the management — theoretically, a bankruptcy can suspend any arrangement a firm has with its managers, including golden parachute contractual terms. Presumably, though, every manager in a near-bankruptcy situation fights tooth and nail to try to get his parachute paid before the bondholders or stockholders have a chance to recover any money from the firm. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Safest country to live in
A) Which country in the world is the safest country to live in: ie where you have the least chance of being killed or assulted etc? B) Similarly, which is the safest english-speasking country? Thanks 2.97.212.158 (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- List of countries by intentional homicide rate suggests Liechtenstein and Iceland as good candidates for A), and Singapore and Ireland as good candidates for B) (or New Hampshire if you also want to go into subnational divisions). Note, however, that I) there are more to crime than murder (as you say in your question), and that II) dictatorships or countries with dubious human rights often have lower crime rates, as they keep their citizens more "reined in"; you might want to take other "freedoms" into account when you pick your definition of whether a country is "safe" (for example, the murder rate in China is less than half that of the US). Jørgen (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Side question:: According to the list above, the DC area is much more dangerous than any other region of the US (even Puerto Rico)? Why?Quest09 (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quest09 (talk • contribs)
- Partly because D.C. is a city and only a city, unlike any state... AnonMoos (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, I see. The absence of peaceful rural folks skews the statistics towards one side. Quest09 (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's also the case the DC does have a legitimately high crime rate, much higher than most other places in the US. It is a big city with a huge amount of poverty, despite (or because of?) its being the center of the federal government. I go there pretty often and consider it to be a pretty dodgy place once you are outside of the tourist spots. There are huge income disparities there. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, I see. The absence of peaceful rural folks skews the statistics towards one side. Quest09 (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Partly because D.C. is a city and only a city, unlike any state... AnonMoos (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm going to have to call [citation needed] on number II) there. What evidence is there that people murder and rob and rape less in countries with oppressive regimes than in those which allow basic freedoms and human rights? I am not aware of any reliable study which claims that it is safer to live under an oppresive dictatorship than a free society. I mean, Ireland is generally free, and it is much safer than China. --Jayron32 21:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- I would guess that it is a problem getting exact crime figures from any dictatorial state. And that if you get them one can't be sure they haven't be doctored (they could have been doctored in non-dictatorial countries as well, but there usually exist some sort of checks and balances system that should in theory prevent these sort of things). --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not saying this holds on average - surely some of the most dysfunctional states in the world are both dictatorial and lawless. However, "well-functioning" dictatorships (think Asia, not Africa) have often succeeded in both economic growth and rule of law. And my point was precicely that it might not be safer to live there - crime, as defined as things the government defines as criminal (such as random assault) could be lower, while imprisonment based on "thought crimes", danger of running afoul of the wrong people, etc., could be higher. I only meant to say that low chance of "being killed or assaulted etc" (original poster wording) might not correspond 1-to-1 to "safest country to live in". Jørgen (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- On the other end of the spectrum, Tunisia was up until recently considered to be the most stable (and I suppose safest) of the North African dictatorships. TomorrowTime (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not saying this holds on average - surely some of the most dysfunctional states in the world are both dictatorial and lawless. However, "well-functioning" dictatorships (think Asia, not Africa) have often succeeded in both economic growth and rule of law. And my point was precicely that it might not be safer to live there - crime, as defined as things the government defines as criminal (such as random assault) could be lower, while imprisonment based on "thought crimes", danger of running afoul of the wrong people, etc., could be higher. I only meant to say that low chance of "being killed or assaulted etc" (original poster wording) might not correspond 1-to-1 to "safest country to live in". Jørgen (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Japan: low crime rates, no guns, long life expectancy, very hygienic people.AerobicFox (talk) 07:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- I was just about to suggest Japan.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- There have been some reports that Japanese life expectancy was being overestimated a little by the way it was calculated, ultimately meaning Japanese life expectancy is comparable with "the West". That is, of course, of little concern to an immigrant; it might be because of cultural factors they would naturally adopt. I was reading about the flaws in the Japanese crime reporting system - very serious allegations indeed - but it wasn't from a reliable source. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- On the other hand, Japan has these extremely terrifying insects. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- There have been some reports that Japanese life expectancy was being overestimated a little by the way it was calculated, ultimately meaning Japanese life expectancy is comparable with "the West". That is, of course, of little concern to an immigrant; it might be because of cultural factors they would naturally adopt. I was reading about the flaws in the Japanese crime reporting system - very serious allegations indeed - but it wasn't from a reliable source. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
There's a semi-famous quote about the Mongol empire at its height, that a virgin (maiden) carrying a bag of gold could walk from one end of the empire to the other in perfect safety. (Having difficulty finding the original source...). AnonMoos (talk) 10:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Genghis Khan: Conqueror of the World by Leo de Hartog, 1989 p.144. "A contemporary Persian historian wrote that in the region between Persia and Turfan, public safety was so widespread that a traveller could journey without interference from the Levant to Central Asia with a gold plate on his head." You must have imagined the virgin maiden! Alansplodge (talk) 13:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- AnonMoos explained it perfectly. Safety is a relative concept. You can cherry pick statistics all you want but at some point day to day life becomes the most important consideration. If you're persona non grata in a hostile country then all those stats are meaningless. And if you live in a bad part of town then the broader country isn't your first concern. AerobicFox might be interested to know that, until recently, D.C. is virtually "no [legal] guns" too. Shadowjams (talk) 11:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Looking at preliminary 2010 crime stats, I see New Orleans' murder rate was about three times D.C.'s. Baltimore's was quite a bit higher too, same with St. Louis and Detroit. The U.S. state with the lowest rate of violent crime in 2009 was Maine, with 119.8 violent crimes per 100,000 people, with a 50% lower rate in non-metropolitan counties. There were zero violent crimes reported by the Aroostook County sheriff's office (which does not include the cities of that county) and none in towns including Topsham and South Berwick. So if you want to be safe, you might want to try rural Maine. Just bring a jacket. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 13:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Another place to consider is Tecumseh, Ontario, Canada, which had the lowest "Violent Crime Severity Index" among Canadian cities in 2009 ([7]). It's also noteworthy that there were only three homicides in the 2005-09 period in Prince Edward Island. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Looking at preliminary 2010 crime stats, I see New Orleans' murder rate was about three times D.C.'s. Baltimore's was quite a bit higher too, same with St. Louis and Detroit. The U.S. state with the lowest rate of violent crime in 2009 was Maine, with 119.8 violent crimes per 100,000 people, with a 50% lower rate in non-metropolitan counties. There were zero violent crimes reported by the Aroostook County sheriff's office (which does not include the cities of that county) and none in towns including Topsham and South Berwick. So if you want to be safe, you might want to try rural Maine. Just bring a jacket. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 13:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
""no [legal] guns""
Lol I lived next to DC for three years, and that doesn't stop anyone from getting a gun if they want. Japan actually has very few guns. Criminals will mug a convenience store with a knife typically, thus is Japan.AerobicFox (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
UK police fudging crime figures?
Although the police say crime rates are falling, an independant survey says they are rising according to http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12238962 A) Is there any more evidence that the police are manipulating the figures? B) What motive would they have to do this? C) How else could the contradictory figures be explained?
I have to admit some personal interest in this - last year I had a lot of criminal damage to my property, which cost about £1000 to repair, and even then its still much worse than it originally was. I was disgusted that the police would not interview the person to whom all the evidence pointed to; in fact I do not think they even registered it as a crime, so it will not appear in their statistics. 2.97.212.158 (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- That's not quite how I read that report. The British Crime Survey always report somewhat different figures to those recorded by the police, not surprising as they are collected in quite different ways. As I recall on many occasions they have actually recorded lower levels of crime rather than more. If you look at the BCS report itself [8], it shows an overall fall of 5% in all the crime that they record, compared to the 7% fall reported by the police, not such a big difference. Mikenorton (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'd like to point out, that if last year you had nine burgalies and one murder, and this year you have one burgalry and eight murders, then on average that's a drop in crime. In other words its not appropriate to average different types of crime. 92.15.7.223 (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, but the OP was talking about overall crime rates. Mikenorton (talk) 08:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- That was the point of the previous paragraph - that it is misleading to average them and open to manipulation. 92.29.126.0 (talk) 11:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, but the OP was talking about overall crime rates. Mikenorton (talk) 08:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'd like to point out, that if last year you had nine burgalies and one murder, and this year you have one burgalry and eight murders, then on average that's a drop in crime. In other words its not appropriate to average different types of crime. 92.15.7.223 (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
The police said burgalries, for example, fell by 7%, yet the British Crime Survey says they rose by 9%. I'd call that a large difference. 92.29.124.249 (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Note that regarding the burglary increase shown by the BCS their report says 'BCS burglaries showed no statistically significant change compared with the previous year', presumably the sample was too small. Mikenorton (talk) 08:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Don't the police rely on recorded crime whilst BCS rely on sampling of people? Not all crime that occurs is reported to the police, and whilst some crimes such as car-theft/burglary will have much high report rates (mainly due to insurance reasons than a real expectation of recovery of goods), the surveys are likely to pick up things that aren't official reported. As for 92.15.7s comment - serious crime is separated out in almost all crime statistics reporting i've ever seen (but I agree that a reduction in the high level crime figure is an indicator of very little without looking into the numbers further). ny156uk (talk) 10:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
The situation I had was that although a crime had clearly been committed, they didnt as far as I am aware issue a case number, in other words it was not added to the crime statistics. I wonder if the police have been manipulating the stats to show themselves in a good light? 92.29.126.0 (talk) 11:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- It should be noted that though recorded crime figures to come under significant scrutiny when compared to the BCS there is no decisive reason that the BCS should be perfect either. False recall and other factors can harm it but not the official figures (which are subject to their own errors as noted above). In other words, it isn't just a case of "Police say one thing, BCS says another, Police are lying". We could also do to remember that though both the BCS and Police Figures show overall crime falling almost every year for over a decade, fear of crime continues to rise. Prokhorovka (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Headstone Foundation
Is it normal in the United States for the monument company that delivers a gravestone to a cemetery to make the foundation (picture link)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/22738816@N07/3643227599/in/set-72157619909680727/
-OR- is it more normal for the cemetery sexton to make the foundation for the gravestone that is to be placed at the grave site by the monument company?
IF the monument company usually makes the foundation, then is it marked out by the sexton where it is to be placed? Then does the monument company first come by and make the cement foundation, THEN so many days later places the gravestone on the new dry foundation? What is the normal procedure for MOST cemeteries in Michigan? Does the price of a gravestone then usually include the foundation?--Doug Coldwell talk 21:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- I suggest trying to find out who was paid to put your 'stones in place. They had a contract (actual or implied, in British law anyway) to do them as they should be done. If they didnt do them right, then they are responsible for fixing them, not you. 92.29.124.249 (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Bhagavad Gita Translation
I probably mispelled the title. Having read the scriptures long ago in college, I wish to reread them. When I accessed commercial sellers and read reviews, it seems there is much controversy about translations. It even seems worse than the best Bible battles. I don't want a translation by a partisan of any faction. Rather what translation would be used at CAmrbidge or Harvard?yale in the Oriental Civilizations department? Thanks in advance. I'd like a hardcover copy. 75Janice (talk) 23:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)75Janice
- This Google search brings up any references in Harvard courses. The common one seems to be by Barbara Stoller-Miller. Alternatively, you could go with the one by Arthur W. Ryder, who was the one who taught Oppenheimer the Gita. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- It depends what you want. If you are after accuracy of translation then the above recommendations are good. If you want a less accurate translation that preserves the poetry and mood then I like [this translation]. -- Q Chris (talk) 17:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
The dangers of pregnancy and childbirth
I don't think it is an exaggeration to claim that, until the past century, becoming pregnant and giving birth were grave dangers to women. Even now, maternal mortality in poor countries is shocking. I'd like to know what degree of danger it still holds now, in developed countries. Is it fair to say that getting pregnant is the most dangerous activity (risk of death, illness, persistent or possibly permanent disability) the average woman is likely to engage in? (Very few of us really go bungie-jumping or drive race cars.) Or are the real statistics dwarfed by, e.g. traffic accidents? I realise this must vary considerably if we are looking at risk over a lifetime (during which the average Western woman will drive or be driven untold thousands of miles, but undergo only a couple of pregnancies) or over the year of the pregnancy itself. I know that a senior scientist advising the UK government got a lot of flak for calculating that taking ecstacy was on a par with horse riding -- one bad outcome per 700 experiences, or something like that. We are apolitical and can afford to be rigorous. BrainyBabe (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- I believe that the most dangerous time of life is when you are being born as a baby. 92.15.7.223 (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'd say that, for pre-20th century women, BrainyBabe is spot on. When I was researching for the article Plymouth Colony, one of the books I used was the work A Little Commonwealth by John Putnam Demos. The section Plymouth Colony#Demographics summarizes some of his data, but basically women died, on average almost 7 years earlier than men, and twice as many women died before their 50th birthday than men did; a discrepency due almost entirely to the dangers of giving birth. The section Plymouth Colony#Marriage and family life has information on infant mortality from Demos's numbers, about 12% of children, or one in eight, died before their first birthday. By comparison, in most modernized democracies, the number of infant deaths has dropped to less than 1% for most countries, that 12% figure is comparable to countries like Afghanistan and Liberia, and would place Plymouth Colony as the 5th highest infant mortality in the whole world today. See Infant mortality. While I don't have numbers for mothers dying in childbirth today, I suspect that the figures would be roughly to scale with the infant mortality numbers; that is there is probably a 10-fold increase in the survivability of childbirth due to modern medicine. Its quite clear in that today women out live men by 7 years, which is almost exactly the reverse of the 17th century numbers. --Jayron32 00:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- To get started on the numbers, the world total for maternal mortality is 342900 (year 2008) while traffic accidents are 1200000 (year 2004). (from this and this article, didn't check the sources). If we divide traffic accidents by two (though I think men are more likely to die in traffic accidents), that means that women are twice as likely to die in traffic accidents as in childbirth. However, it is not clear how this translates into "developed" countries, where more people drive (though under safer conditions) and health services are vastly better. My guess would be that driving is more dangerous on an "entire-life" horizon, but perhaps the odds come close when you just consider the year giving birth. Jørgen (talk) 06:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- (after edit conflict): Some recent US figures: Maternal death rates gives a range of 11 - 17 maternal deaths per 100'000 live births, as the most recent estimates in the United States (I didn't check the references in this case). The Fatality Analysis Reporting System's numbers for the past decade range from 11.01 - 14.87 for "Fatalities per 100,000 Population", 14.53 - 19.33 for "Fatalities per 100,000 Registered Vehicles", and 17.96 - 22.00 for "Fatalities per 100,000 Licensed Drivers". The number of traffic fatalities in the European Union is generally lower per population, but as the article points out, the fatalities are also counted differently in the US. I don't know how maternal death figures vary within rich countries. For one example: the German article on Müttersterblichkeit (maternal death) writes that fatalities per 100,000 childbirths in the Netherlands have increased from 9.7 (1983 - 1992) to 12.1 (1993 - 2005). The recent figure for people killed in traffic accidents in the Netherlands is 4.6 per 100,000 (from the table linked to above). ---Sluzzelin talk 06:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- As an editor who has contributed to many articles on medieval women, I have noticed that infant mortality as well as maternal deaths in or as a result of childbirth were noticeably lower in the medieval period compared to the 16th century. A noticable example being two of Henry VIII's wives having died of complications following childbirth. According to biographer Antonia Fraser in Mary, Queen of Scots, women would make their wills prior to giving birth as they ran a very high risk of death.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- (after edit conflict): Some recent US figures: Maternal death rates gives a range of 11 - 17 maternal deaths per 100'000 live births, as the most recent estimates in the United States (I didn't check the references in this case). The Fatality Analysis Reporting System's numbers for the past decade range from 11.01 - 14.87 for "Fatalities per 100,000 Population", 14.53 - 19.33 for "Fatalities per 100,000 Registered Vehicles", and 17.96 - 22.00 for "Fatalities per 100,000 Licensed Drivers". The number of traffic fatalities in the European Union is generally lower per population, but as the article points out, the fatalities are also counted differently in the US. I don't know how maternal death figures vary within rich countries. For one example: the German article on Müttersterblichkeit (maternal death) writes that fatalities per 100,000 childbirths in the Netherlands have increased from 9.7 (1983 - 1992) to 12.1 (1993 - 2005). The recent figure for people killed in traffic accidents in the Netherlands is 4.6 per 100,000 (from the table linked to above). ---Sluzzelin talk 06:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- OP here. Thank you for your responses so far! Re infant mortality, yes, I had heard, and it seems intuitively likely, that the single day of your life on which you are most likely to die is the day you are born. But that can't be a surrogate indicator for maternal mortality. Re previous centuries, and Afghanistan now: I'm well aware of the general awfulness, but thanks for the extra statistics for context. I am, however, interested in the situation now in countries with a modern health care system. Jørgen, the problem with the raw numbers is that while 100% of people who die in childbirth are women, the same is not nearly true of traffic accidents, and for an often overlooked reason: statistics that divide male-female say nothing about how many children are involved. Sluzzelin, thanks for digging, especially the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. So if I interpret that correctly, then there is a striking similarity between the 11 - 17 maternal deaths per 100 000 live births, and the 11 - 15 for traffic accident fatalities per 100,000 population. If we do assume -- almost certainly a false premise -- that these deaths are distributed evenly over the population, by age and gender, then a pregnant woman has as much chance of dying of her pregnancy as any of us do of dying in a motor vehicle accident in any given year.
- From the NHTSA website: "A total of 41,059 people lost their lives in motor vehicle crashes in 2007. Another 2.5 million people were injured." I wonder if a similar proportion holds true for pregnancy, childbirth, and lactation - 60x as many injured (or ill) as killed. BrainyBabe (talk) 09:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- I drive a lot more than I give birth... I've got the feeling you're driving towards some point... what might that be? Shadowjams (talk) 11:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- It should also be pointed out that a typical woman reaches menopause long before she gives up driving so......I don't drive myself but I must admit that I felt safer (four times) in the delivery room than I do on the Italian roads.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Modern doctors are remarkably good at healing wounds from both childbirth and automobile accidents, no matter the country. That the childhood mortality rate in countries with that kind of care have fallen to the rates they are would be called a miracle in any other time. I'm being glib because we're forgetting how absolutely amazing it is that we have childhood survival rates that we do, and that modern humans find it a matter of course.
- Most mammals don't have this luxury, at least not without our help.
- We ought to find that amazing for a second, and consider that we've done a lot of things right as a society. Shadowjams (talk) 11:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- It should also be pointed out that a typical woman reaches menopause long before she gives up driving so......I don't drive myself but I must admit that I felt safer (four times) in the delivery room than I do on the Italian roads.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- I drive a lot more than I give birth... I've got the feeling you're driving towards some point... what might that be? Shadowjams (talk) 11:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- See Health-US: Maternal Deaths on the Rise — Global Issues.
- —Wavelength (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
January 22
Patent/Copyright Paradoxes
What was the name of the scientist/mathematician who tried to patent/copyright paradoxes and failed?Smallman12q (talk) 00:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Is that like a joke? Something like ironic patent lawyers tell at cocktail parties when the get really drunk? --Jayron32 04:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- 'Ironic patent lawyers'? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- There are a lot of lame jokes at those parties... I don't remember any this bad. Shadowjams (talk) 11:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- No...this was no patent lawyer. Google returned an excerpt from Slaves of the Machine: The Quickening of Computer Technology where on page 85 it says:
- Paradoxes caused so much fear and loathing for mathematicians that by 1900 a German named David Hilbert, the greatest mathematician of his age, had had enough. He wanted a completely infallible, purely mechanical method anyone could follow to show although some deeply flawed piece of reasoning looked reasonable, it is in fact nonsense. Armed with such a method, he though, he could banish paradoxes forever.He sought a foolproof way to turn disguised nonsense into patent nonsensical. He failed utterly.
- I'm fuzzy on the details, but I thought I read a mathematician actually tried to patent/copyright paradoxes.Smallman12q (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ah! the other meaning of wikt:patent, from the Latin: patens ... "Explicit and obvious". Astronaut (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm fuzzy on the details, but I thought I read a mathematician actually tried to patent/copyright paradoxes.Smallman12q (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
What is "the fall of the Synagogue"
The description of File:Vitrail Varennes Jarcy MNMA Cluny.jpg says that it depicts "the fall of the Synagoge."
- Question 1: Does this refer to any specific event in the history? I found there occurred the fall of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70CE, but I'm not sure if the Temple is called the Synagogue.
- Question 2: Which is the picture of the "fall" in this stained glass?
Thank you. --Sushiya (talk) 00:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- The middle panel on the right represents the "fall of the Synagogue". It is a woman with a broken staff, a bowed head (or a broken neck?), and the Ten Commandments at her feet. This is a common medieval representation of "Synagoga", the Latin word for "synagogue", represented as a woman because the Latin word is feminine. It doesn't refer to the destruction of the Temple by the Romans, but the symbolic role of Christ as the new Law, replacing the Old (Jewish) Law. Also, I've spent 20 minutes looking for information and images about this, and then I realized, of course Wikipedia would have an article about Ecclesia and Synagoga. It even has an image of the statues from Notre Dame de Paris! Adam Bishop (talk) 03:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I would venture to guess, and it is just a guess, that it refers to the fall of the First Temple in the early 5th century BCE. I say it is the fall of the first and not the second because the fall of the second synogogue (which is the greek word for "assembly") because the later is not recorded in The Hebrew Bible.
For question 2, it is probably the decapitated man in the upper right side, because the bother lower images are the angels playing stringed instruments and the upper left are the shepards that are also mentioned in the description. schyler (talk) 03:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I would venture to guess, and it is just a guess, that it refers to the fall of the First Temple in the early 5th century BCE. I say it is the fall of the first and not the second because the fall of the second synogogue (which is the greek word for "assembly") because the later is not recorded in The Hebrew Bible.
- But then it doesn't really fit with the other images relating to Christ's birth. And even though the destruction of the Temple in 70 is not mentioned in the Bible, it is at least supposed to be prophesized in the New Testament, and that event was far better known to medieval people than any previous Temple-destruction. (There are numerous medieval poems and romances about the events of 70, there is an important one in Middle English for example.) Also, medieval people love allegory. They love allegory a lot, way too much really. This is definitely not meant to represent a real event. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Dudes! We totally have Allegory in the Middle Ages and Siege of Jerusalem (poem). Hooray for Wikipedia! Adam Bishop (talk) 04:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- But then it doesn't really fit with the other images relating to Christ's birth. And even though the destruction of the Temple in 70 is not mentioned in the Bible, it is at least supposed to be prophesized in the New Testament, and that event was far better known to medieval people than any previous Temple-destruction. (There are numerous medieval poems and romances about the events of 70, there is an important one in Middle English for example.) Also, medieval people love allegory. They love allegory a lot, way too much really. This is definitely not meant to represent a real event. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you Adam and schyler. Now I have made my translation of the Commons Picture of the Day caption for that image, which required me to understand the concept of the picture. --Sushiya (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
HMT means HM Trawler or HM Troopship?
In my recent tinkerings with various WWII naval stub articles, I've noticed that we seem to be using the initials HMT to mean both His Majesty's Trawler and His Majesty's Troopship. They can't both be right. Can anyone find a definitive reference as to how these titles should actually be abbreviated please? Alansplodge (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- As far as I can make out they are both right, however unlikely that seems. This supplement from the London Gazette from 1940 [9] refers to the HMT Tamarisk, which was a trawler, and here is a postcard of the troopship HMT Asturias [10]. Mikenorton (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- My favourite duplicate acronym is OM, which usually means the Order of Merit but could also mean the Order of Manitoba. One day, some lucky Manitoban is going to get both gongs, and then she'll be Mary Smith OM OM. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 13:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Albert Terhune's parents
The article about Albert Terhune's father says that there were only two children - Albert and one more.
The article about Albert's mother says there were SIX children.
Which - if either - is correct?
EoGuy (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- There are several sources that give six children, with three who survived to adulthood, Christine Terhune Herrick, Virginia Terhune Van De Water and Albert Payson Terhune. Virginia is not mentioned in the article about her father, but she was a published author and I don't think that there is any doubt about her existence e.g. [11]. Mikenorton (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Irish politics question
Actually, this is a question about parliamentary-style democracies in general. Currently, Brian Cowen is resigning from leadership of his party but somehow remaining taoiseach, that is, prime minister, for the next month or so. Apparently this is not unprecedented in Ireland. Has this sort of thing happened outside of Ireland? It seems very bassackwards to me. I thought that the position of PM basically proceeded ex officio from leadership of the ruling party, so that if the PM were to lose or relinquish control of his party he would thereby cease to be PM, end of story. But apparently not. Apparently the two positions are technically independent. And apparently it is sometimes advantageous to exploit that independence so that you can have your cake and eat it too. So why not just have two completely separate offices: party chairman and PM? Another thing: it appears to me, reading these Irish news stories, that there are two kinds of no confidence vote: one affecting a government and one affecting a premiership? The idea here is that the Green Party, the coalition partners of Fianna Fail, won't vote against the government of which they are a part, but might vote "against the PM". Once again, I didn't think that was a separate option. Can someone clear up my rather copious pile of confusion? LANTZYTALK 19:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, someone has to fulfill the function and duties of PM while a new leader is selected. The office can not be left vacant. Blueboar (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)As Ireland follows the Westminster Model, the leader of the largest party is asked by the head-of-state (presumably the Irish President) to form a government; the party leader can nominate any member of the Dáil to be the PM. Convention, however, is that the PM and the party leader is the same person. Another interesting question is why are the opposition raising a vote-of-no-confidence when Ireland is going to the polls on 11th March this year anyway? CS Miller (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
What psychological problems are likely to be faced by North Koreans upon unification?
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the new Kim (or whoever) doesn't markedly change the nature of regime, and it collapses rapidly. What psychological problems are likely to be faced by the average North Korean during reunification, and in paritcular, in discovering the true nature of the Dear and Great leaders? Egg Centric (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)