DuncanHill (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 70: | Line 70: | ||
:WHAG here, but is the second resurrection a different translation of [[Ascension Day]]? --[[User:TammyMoet|TammyMoet]] ([[User talk:TammyMoet|talk]]) 15:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC) |
:WHAG here, but is the second resurrection a different translation of [[Ascension Day]]? --[[User:TammyMoet|TammyMoet]] ([[User talk:TammyMoet|talk]]) 15:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC) |
||
::The only references I found must be copies using the exact same wording. I couldn't find anything mentioning performance on a "second resurrection of Christ" in French or Russian either. I'm wondering whether it's a translation (or editing) error, and the intended meaning is "every year on the night of the first day and on the second day of resurrection of Christ", meaning during the [[Easter Vigil]] (the night of [[Holy Saturday]]) and then again on ''Paskha'' itself, on Easter Sunday. Or something like that. I have asked for assistance at WP's projects on [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Russia#Request_for_input_at_the_reference_desk|Russia]] and on [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Eastern_Orthodoxy#Request_for_input_at_the_reference_desk|Eastern Orthodoxy]]. ---[[User:Sluzzelin|Sluzzelin]] [[User talk:Sluzzelin|<small>talk</small>]] 10:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC) |
::The only references I found must be copies using the exact same wording. I couldn't find anything mentioning performance on a "second resurrection of Christ" in French or Russian either. I'm wondering whether it's a translation (or editing) error, and the intended meaning is "every year on the night of the first day and on the second day of resurrection of Christ", meaning during the [[Easter Vigil]] (the night of [[Holy Saturday]]) and then again on ''Paskha'' itself, on Easter Sunday. Or something like that. I have asked for assistance at WP's projects on [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Russia#Request_for_input_at_the_reference_desk|Russia]] and on [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Eastern_Orthodoxy#Request_for_input_at_the_reference_desk|Eastern Orthodoxy]]. ---[[User:Sluzzelin|Sluzzelin]] [[User talk:Sluzzelin|<small>talk</small>]] 10:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::According to [http://www.philharmonia.spb.ru/rus/pers/o/obuhov.php this], the Book of Life was to be performed every year on xmas day. It says nothing about the "first" or "second" resurrections.—[[User:Ezhiki|Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky)]] • ([[User talk:Ezhiki|yo?]]); February 4, 2011; 15:09 (UTC) |
|||
== Family Guy == |
== Family Guy == |
Revision as of 15:09, 4 February 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 30
Standard of review on appeal in Bangladeshi courts
What is the standard of review in Bangladesh courts in criminal appeal cases? Apokrif (talk) 02:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- "The reference desk will not answer (and will usually remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or request medical opinions, or seek guidance on legal matters. Such questions should be directed to an appropriate professional, or brought to an internet site dedicated to medical or legal questions". Sorry, can't really help with this AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Although this question deals with the legal system, I really don't see how this could be construed as a request for legal advice. I think it's a fair question and should be answered if possible. --GreatManTheory (talk) 02:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Clarification on terms - India, 1946
1) What is the difference between state, union, and province in 1945-6 India as specified in the May 16, 1945 Mission to the UK? Or at least where can I figure this answer out myself? I am looking at the briefing itself but there seem to be no definitions on the terms in such a context. I know a union territory in present day India refers to territory governed by the federal government, but for some reason I doubt this to be what the historical document refers to.
2) What is a grouping formula? Is this how the British decided to allocate territory to Pakistan? [Edit: I actually figured this part out]
[Edit: 3) Also any possible solutions to not group the provinces in the first round or to split the Hindu and Muslim areas in the second? For example, where there ever plans to keep all provinces as their own subnational units in a unified India or discussion on developing provinces on ethnic lines?
4) Was there any documentation accessible in the UK explaining the geographical distribution of different ethnic groups in the Raj that the UK representatives at the Mission could have referenced?]128.54.224.231 (talk) 04:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)--128.54.224.231 (talk) 05:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Probably the significant difference was between directly British-ruled areas and areas under native local rulers. Most current-day union territories in India weren't part of British India at all in 1945. Here's a religion map: File:Brit IndianEmpireReligions3.jpg -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Does Radcliffe Line and info on this page help? Alansplodge (talk) 14:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately it does not because I am analyzing India in the context of 1945 and 1946. So as the event never occurred there is not much I can do to include it. But does anyone know about how the Raj recognized different ethnicities in India? That would help me a great deal! Thanks! --128.54.224.231 (talk) 04:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that the British "recognized" ethnicities as such in any very meaningful sense, politically or administratively -- they more often recognized native maharajas and religious and caste groupings. However, detailed information on the languages spoken was available from the Linguistic Survey of India... AnonMoos (talk) 08:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, ethnicity was used in the recruitment of troops to the British Indian Army, using the Martial Race theory. Whether there was any master plan of who lived where, or whether they relied on the local knowledge of administrators on the spot, I don't know. Alansplodge (talk) 17:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Please provide a list of notable people on the Autistic Spectrum who hold any leadership positions.
I need to make a case for Mike T. It doesn't matter if anyone on that spectrum managed a kitchen or a whole university, I'd just like to see some kind of list of people with any kind of autism (high-functioning and etc.) who holds or has ever held any kind of leadership position and thrives or has thrived well because of it.
Some individuals have pre-conceived notions that those who have autism spectrum disorders should never hold any significant leadership positions. I hope for your responses to disprove it. Thanks kindly, --70.179.181.251 (talk) 06:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- We have an article, Historical figures sometimes considered autistic. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 09:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Is there a way to punish Fitch Ratings for opposing democracy?
I just read in 2011 Egyptian protests that Fitch Ratings had responded to Egypt's recent popular protests by giving their country a reduced rating - something which they were also proposing with Tunisia recently.[1] I can't tell you how this infuriates me, because I think of the entire profession of "credit rating" as a scam; that their industry is a cartel; that consumer credit rating agencies work like Mob blackmailers shaking people down for money to "monitor" that they aren't being lied about; that they caused the global recession through corrupt high ratings of bad enterprises... and so now I see that Fitch is out there, trying to make the world safe for dictatorship by punishing countries for an upwelling of democratic expression. Something which makes no sense when we consider that free societies, open elections, and honest officials are GOOD FOR BUSINESS! But when these vultures announce to a global capitalist elite that it is time to bandy together to screw over Egypt and Tunisia, I suspect that's just what will happen. It isn't right. So I have to ask - is there anything (other than terrorism) that ordinary consumers can do to effect their displeasure on such a company? Wnt (talk) 08:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- The ratings agency is free to rate according to how much risk they assess there is to bonds. If they had a government saying 'you must rate this crowd higher, we like their type of government' then they would not be living in a free state. You are supporting dictatorship rather than freedom, which from the rest of what you say is I guess not your intention. Dmcq (talk) 11:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- In this case, I suppose Fitch is right. Egypt is, and will be, for the time coming less reliable. It could even be at the brink of a civil war. 212.169.190.75 (talk) 11:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- There is ZERO guarantee the 2011 Egyptian protest will result in “free societies, open elections, and honest officials” (suppose it ended in a brutal military intervention/oppression, what then?). The cold hard reality is that civil disorder, riot, etc are bad for business
and credit rating agencies are simply predicting and reporting this risk. Royor (talk) 11:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)- The first part of your statement is true. The second is dubious. Credit rating agencies are very intransparent, and at least for the major ones there is a strong feedback mechanism. They are not just impartial and neutral observers, they massively influence the market. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- True, statement retracted. Royor (talk) 11:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- They have to be intransparent, otherwise, companies would concentrate on those points which make their rating go up. 212.169.190.75 (talk) 12:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- If the ratings are based on good criteria, wouldn't concentrating on these indicators also improve the companies in general? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- They have to be intransparent, otherwise, companies would concentrate on those points which make their rating go up. 212.169.190.75 (talk) 12:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- True, statement retracted. Royor (talk) 11:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- The first part of your statement is true. The second is dubious. Credit rating agencies are very intransparent, and at least for the major ones there is a strong feedback mechanism. They are not just impartial and neutral observers, they massively influence the market. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- No, that wouldn't. That would let them know how far they can go without getting penalized. For example, if you know that your rating won't drop for not paying on time minor sums of money to small companies, then, you know that you can get away with it. Not knowing how you get evaluated means you have to try your best under many factors, and the rating agencies only have to analyze some key factors. 212.169.190.75 (talk) 13:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- So what you are saying is that the intransparency of the ratings agencies allows them to use cheaper and sub-standard assessment methods that companies may or may not guess and that may or may not represent real risk. I wonder what would happen if I would start publishing credit ratings for my neighbours (or co-editors ;-) based on my own proprietary methods, and how that would work out with libel laws. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- There is nothing sub-standard here, and it correlates with real risk, but not perfectly. They just optimize the process, checking some indicators. You don't know which, so you cannot fly under the radar, push to the limit, or play games. You have to be responsible in the way you deal with debt. That's equivalent to the police not telling you exactly where and when they are on patrol.
- Your own private credit rating agency has some obvious problems. Private persons have, normally, to agree to be put into a credit rating database (had they done that?) and libel implies spreading false information about people -not companies or governments- (is that what you are planning?).
- On a last note, I have to say that no one forces you to follow the rating of rating agencies. You can always strike a good deal if you believe something is undervalued. 212.169.179.2 (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- So what you are saying is that the intransparency of the ratings agencies allows them to use cheaper and sub-standard assessment methods that companies may or may not guess and that may or may not represent real risk. I wonder what would happen if I would start publishing credit ratings for my neighbours (or co-editors ;-) based on my own proprietary methods, and how that would work out with libel laws. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- No, that wouldn't. That would let them know how far they can go without getting penalized. For example, if you know that your rating won't drop for not paying on time minor sums of money to small companies, then, you know that you can get away with it. Not knowing how you get evaluated means you have to try your best under many factors, and the rating agencies only have to analyze some key factors. 212.169.190.75 (talk) 13:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- First there's probably little way an individual could punish a ratings agency at least without resorting to something illegal. In any case, note that even if it does lead to “free societies, open elections, and honest officials” whether or not it's good in the long term, in the short term it's unsurprising it's worse from the POV of normal credit rating agencies. They aren't some sort of ethical investing guide, they never claim to be. A free society, open selections and honest officials could decide to cancel all their bonds arguing it's odious debt or something, I don't think it's likely in either of the two cases but it's clearly more likely then the situation before the current uprisings. More likely a free society, open selections and honest officials could do things like nationalise companies, make it more difficult for foreign investors etc which while they may feel is good for their country isn't good for the existing foreign investors or anyone contemplating it in the short term. Note that whether or not it's fair to those investors is a moot point for the ratings agencies. It's perhaps worth noting that in the Tunisian case in particular, but also to some extent in Egypt from what I've read and heard (and simple common sense too) the primary reason for the uprisings haven't been a desire for a “free societies, open elections, and honest officials” (which doesn't mean these aren't a factor) but bread and butter issues like rising food prices and unemployment. How any government is going to deal with these issues only time will tell but this harks back to by early point that it's quite common things will be done which are bad for foreign investors. It's perhaps also worth remembering that tourism is a key part of the Egyptian economy, I guess you may like to go Egypt despite the current situation but many tourists don't. Also it's a mistake to somehow think of these as simply punishing people because of democratic expression. In fact if Hosni Mubarak had stepped down the moment the uprisings began, with a new government sworn in promising a new constitution and elections with the year and while making efforts to reassure investors that their money was safe and everyone went back to business and the country was thriving they would have been far less likely to get a rating downgrade then they were under the current situation. And I'm quite sure things are only going to worsen the longer the current situation continues. And BTW have you been watching the news coverage? I was watching Al Jazeera where they were showing some of the neigbourhood watches that have sprung up. Living in a dictatorship where you can be tortured and murdered by the police is obviously extremely not nice, but nor is living in a place where the rule of law and order has completely broken down. Again it may be worth it but that's a moot point. Or in summary, it's a mistake to think of whole situation as a binary good/bad and or to confuse ratings agencies as being ethical investing guides. Nil Einne (talk) 13:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Let's put it this way. If credit rating agencies knew something unique and non-obvious about which countries are good or bad investments, then why would they make this information public? Logic demands that if the information were truly valuable, they would tightly limit its distribution and try to make a profit from it. Wnt (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- That requires capital, and not only information. Credit rating agencies do not know if A or B are a good investment. They have a statistical model to know how probable it is that you pay your debt. 80.58.205.34 (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Let's put it this way. If credit rating agencies knew something unique and non-obvious about which countries are good or bad investments, then why would they make this information public? Logic demands that if the information were truly valuable, they would tightly limit its distribution and try to make a profit from it. Wnt (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
The current riots in Egypt and their coverage in US media
I don't follow the US media, but I do watch The Daily Show, and in a recent segment of the show they juxtaposed the ideas that were supposedly expressed in American media, namely that the riots in Egypt were incited by the longing for democracy brought to the Egyptian people by either Condolleeza Rice in a speech in 2005 or by Obama in a more recent speech. Now, obviously, TDS is a comedy show and I have no intention of taking it seriously on this, but it does strike me as something that might actually have some currency in the American society, what with all the "we invented freedom and democracy and have sole power over their distribution" subtext you often can sense from speeches by US representatives (and even more so from comments by regular people on the Internet). What I'm interested in is this: how much currency (if any) does this kind of view hold? That is, how much of the media is in all honesty reporting on how some speech or other by an American politico made the people in Egypt riot, rather than the simple fact that the Egyptians just had enough of Mubarak's oppressive regime and saw an inspiration in the recent Tunisian riots? Is there even such media, or is this mention of the speeches just added as a footnote which was then taken out of context for comedic purpose? ( As in: "The regime was oppressive and the people had enough, so they rioted. Incidentally, a politician that our news network endorses had a speech there, and this might have had some effect as well.") TomorrowTime (talk) 08:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- I haven't been taking a great interest in it but have been listening to news of the riots on the radio (NPR and BBC). I haven't heard much at all about Rice/Obama. What I've taken away from it was that the people were fed up with what was going on and were set off by the events in Tunisia. Dismas|(talk) 09:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- If anyone's interested here is the clip: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-january-27-2011/the-rule-of-the-nile. P. S. Burton (talk) 09:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- To be fair the clip did feature a "Team Local Conditions", which as far as I understood it, was presented as the voice of sanity as compared to the opinions about the US in one way or another being the cause of the uprisings. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- If anyone's interested here is the clip: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-january-27-2011/the-rule-of-the-nile. P. S. Burton (talk) 09:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- The relevant segment of that clip seems to begin about four minutes in, and lasts a few seconds. The segment itself is about seven minutes long, and I'd say that's about proportional to the coverage those two speeches get in the US media coverage overall. Ie., it's not something that's very prominently stressed as far as I've seen.
- What's more interesting is that Egypt has long been among the top two or three recipients of US foreign aid. We've been propping Mubarak up for decades, mostly because of his "mild" political stance re. Israel and also the fear that the Muslim Brotherhood coming to power in Egypt would be "regionally destabilizing". Apparently, that aid is now "under review" and it is clear that Obama and Clinton have decided enough is enough and it's time for a change, "destabilization" notwithstanding. You are right to question the impact a couple of policy speeches might have, but those aid dollars are something to be taken seriously and the US really is in a position to have a very big say in the political direction Egypt takes in moving forward out of the present crisis. WikiDao ☯ 11:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Of course the US has leverage on the further developments on account of the financial aid, but remember the question was concerning the reasons for the uprising, and, even though the Wikileaks cableleaks revealed that the US has also supported the opposition financially, bearing in mind recent (and still ongoing) events in Tunisia, it is still very much an open question what the real reasons for the uprisings are, but one thing seems clear at least: It was not some speech made by Condoleeza or Obama that was the cause. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Nor has anyone except for Jon Stewart implied that it was, as far as I know. And certainly those speeches had zero impact on the average Egyptian (or Tunisian) protester. Nevertheless, "democracy in the Middle East" is a major foreign policy objective for the US these days, and those speeches are among the various indications of it. The opposition leaders, at least, were sure to have been paying close attention to what was being said in them... WikiDao ☯ 12:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Of course the US has leverage on the further developments on account of the financial aid, but remember the question was concerning the reasons for the uprising, and, even though the Wikileaks cableleaks revealed that the US has also supported the opposition financially, bearing in mind recent (and still ongoing) events in Tunisia, it is still very much an open question what the real reasons for the uprisings are, but one thing seems clear at least: It was not some speech made by Condoleeza or Obama that was the cause. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- TomorrowTime, this is an interesting question which is sadly not debated at all. How can we know how much the speeches of American officials and Social Media have affected the uprising vs. Local conditions? I will try to give you some elements (I am a long-time follower of Arab media (not English-transmitted Arab media)). During the urprisings, there have not been any minute sign of support towards an American official, be it Bush, Obama, Clinton or Rice. On the contrary, anti-US chants are often heard. This is not because of a natural hate Arab people have for the Western world (as Stewart illustrated, and as Pundits like us to think), but because the people perceive the US as a major sponsor for dictatorship in the region, as a major supplier for tools to enforce oppression (tear gases cans are often highlighted by protesters as "made in the USA"), and as a hypocrite for taking the role of a democracy preacher but locally maintaining dictators in power. It also would be wrong to think that those speeches inspired Arab with democracy, because (also unlike what they like us to think), democracy and politics is no stranger to the Arab public opinion. There is a long tradition of rich debates for which government system would be best suited in the Arab world (parliamentary, presidential, socialism, communism...). However, these attempts have been thwarted because of events such as army coups, and sometimes or often foreign support (The Arab-Israeli conflict played a larger role in consolidating dictatorship). Two last ideas: Social Media's role in these uprisings is a Geek's dream. Government's have not been toppled because of a flood of tweets, and as Internet was cut off in Egypt the protests only intensified. And lastly, you should take The Daily Show seriously. As you may have noticed, the ideas that Jon puts forward (albeit comically) are intelligent teasers and debate-starters that unfortunately all of the US media lack of. 89.83.20.127 (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Contrary to the OP, Glen Beck claimed the Egyptians were rioting to protest against Obama-style policies from the Egyptian government. I believe he mentioned compulsory healthcare and the prohibition of incandescent light bulbs. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Glen Beck is what we, in America, call "batshit insane". My dad is a card-carrying Fox News-watching Neocon, and even he thinks Beck is nuts. --Jayron32 15:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- They're risking their lives demonstrating for the right to use the old kind of light bulb. That's much funnier than the Jon Stewart suggestion. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Even the suggestion that compulsory health care and the prohibition of incandescent light bulbs are "Obama-style policies" is pretty hilarious. Pais (talk) 16:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- What's not so hilarious is that this is looking like a rerun of Iran in 1979. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- If you're talking about toppling a dictator, yes. If you're talking about installing an islamic government, umm..no. 89.83.20.127 (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Wishful thinking on your part. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Do you have a view into the future on this, Bugs? I have spoken to some Egyptian people in London whose views on UK politics are 100% mainstream, and they are overjoyed with the developments. I also spoke to an Iranian, who is very worried. Missing from the Iranian parallel is demonstrations by women in hijab, or any real manifestation of Islamist sentiment. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- I hope you're right, but I fear otherwise. Beware a power vacuum. Extremists will rush to fill it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Itsemjudith, yes you're right, the uprising in Egypt and Tunisia was primarily started by Leftists (i.e. secular) movements. The Muslim Brotherhood first boycotted the demonstrations and then joined in order to opportunistically try to gain a share in the power (just as Mohammad El Baradei was an opportunist by joining very late in the uprising). But just one question, does the presence of women in hijab correlate with islamic extremism? Why, for a change, don't you see it as a increased participation of women in politics. 89.83.20.127 (talk) 18:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps because they're wearing hijabs?173.11.0.145 (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, could you elaborate more... 89.83.20.127 (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Seriously, the Iranian and Afghan (Taliban) revolutionaries were always very clearly at an extreme fringe of Islam. The U.S. opposed one, supported the other... either way, in the end, the result was something we wouldn't like, though to be fair the Iranians have weird glimmers of sanity and culture mixed in with the nuttiness, thanks perhaps to America's lack of assistance. Even now, in the midst of U.S. occupation, Afghan women still aren't exactly free to let their hair down. And to editorialize, I might suggest that the Republicans act as if Franco were their dream candidate for America, and Mubarak at least rates as a poor substitute. Wnt (talk) 06:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, could you elaborate more... 89.83.20.127 (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps because they're wearing hijabs?173.11.0.145 (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Itsemjudith, yes you're right, the uprising in Egypt and Tunisia was primarily started by Leftists (i.e. secular) movements. The Muslim Brotherhood first boycotted the demonstrations and then joined in order to opportunistically try to gain a share in the power (just as Mohammad El Baradei was an opportunist by joining very late in the uprising). But just one question, does the presence of women in hijab correlate with islamic extremism? Why, for a change, don't you see it as a increased participation of women in politics. 89.83.20.127 (talk) 18:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- I hope you're right, but I fear otherwise. Beware a power vacuum. Extremists will rush to fill it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Do you have a view into the future on this, Bugs? I have spoken to some Egyptian people in London whose views on UK politics are 100% mainstream, and they are overjoyed with the developments. I also spoke to an Iranian, who is very worried. Missing from the Iranian parallel is demonstrations by women in hijab, or any real manifestation of Islamist sentiment. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Wishful thinking on your part. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- If you're talking about toppling a dictator, yes. If you're talking about installing an islamic government, umm..no. 89.83.20.127 (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- What's not so hilarious is that this is looking like a rerun of Iran in 1979. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Even the suggestion that compulsory health care and the prohibition of incandescent light bulbs are "Obama-style policies" is pretty hilarious. Pais (talk) 16:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- They're risking their lives demonstrating for the right to use the old kind of light bulb. That's much funnier than the Jon Stewart suggestion. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Glen Beck is what we, in America, call "batshit insane". My dad is a card-carrying Fox News-watching Neocon, and even he thinks Beck is nuts. --Jayron32 15:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Where can I find the data for "Investment as a share of GDP" for the US. I'd like to better understand the graph in John B. Taylor's WSJ op-ed.Smallman12q (talk) 12:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- A number of places, but the best is probably the CIA World Factbook. It says 12.8%, though another decent looking source from Google said 15% (these are both for 2009, 2010 statistics will be coming soon as the final 3 months are recorded). Prokhorovka (talk) 13:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Could I get a url...I can't seem to find the data...Smallman12q (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Your best solution for US economic data questions is to go directly to the original source, as other sources will (in most cases) be out-of-date simply because they rely on the original source. For US GDP data, annually back to 1929 and by quarters since 1947, the source ([[2]]) says (after doing the math) that gross private domestic investment in the fourth quarter of 2010 (latest data available) was 12.08% of GDP, and for the whole year was 12.42%.
If you want to include government investment (see Table 3.9.5), the totals are 15.47% for Q-4 and 15.91% for 2010 as a whole. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
What is the occupation of its residents? --DoxDex (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Apparently it mostly revolves around surviving the cold. Our article has some links that might be informative, and there's also An interview about the life in Oymyakon, the coldest village on the Earth. WikiDao ☯ 13:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Did you have a look at the sites in the References and External Links sections? They offer various clues - the valley appears to have guest houses, shops, a sports centre, a bath house, at least one horse-breeding farm; and the opportunity to go horse trekking or dog sledding. There's mention of traditional crafts, and the BBC report says that the area is rich in gold and diamond resources. And the Pole of Cold festival aims to build on the area's tourism potential. I can't find any more detailed description of the local economy, but the implication is that a subsistence lifestyle is supplemented by money from central government, tourism and possibly some heavy industry. Karenjc 13:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
What is correct: Bavaria or Simmern?
Why is Anne Henriette of Bavaria called "of Bavaria"? The article say her father was Count Palatine of Simmern, not of Bavaria.--Aciram (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- On the German Wikipedia she is called "von Pfalz-Simmern", and it's mentioned that in France she was called "of Bavaria", probably because her father was from a branch of the Wittelsbach family. Rimush (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- To amplify on that, Anne Henriette belonged to the Palatinate branch of the Wittelsbach family, while a different branch of the family ruled Bavaria. You have to trace her male-line ancestry back for as much as 13 generations to reach Rudolf I, Duke of Bavaria, the common ancestor of both branches. --Antiquary (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- I see. Should the title of the article be changed? If she was incorrectly called Bavaria in France, one could simply add to the article that she was called Bavaria in France for this or that reason. As it is know, the title of the article creates missunderstandings. Whatever name is used, should'nt this be explained and added to the article?--Aciram (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- The title should be whatever is the standard way, right or wrong. But the article could certainly discuss the name. 17th/18th century titles (esp. regarding France and the German states) are super duper complicated and were often contested even in their own time. It would be a quixotic enterprise to try and sort them out retroactively. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- It does not have to be a detailed explanation; it is sufficient to explain, that while Bavaria was not her correct title, it was the name she was known under in France. Though this should be explained more, that is the main thing. The article should also include her correct name, of course. The current state of the article creates room for misunderstanding. --Aciram (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- The current article also claims that she was "a Bavarian Princess by birth". Perhaps that is too a consequence of misunderstanding because of the name? --Aciram (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- The title should be whatever is the standard way, right or wrong. But the article could certainly discuss the name. 17th/18th century titles (esp. regarding France and the German states) are super duper complicated and were often contested even in their own time. It would be a quixotic enterprise to try and sort them out retroactively. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- I see. Should the title of the article be changed? If she was incorrectly called Bavaria in France, one could simply add to the article that she was called Bavaria in France for this or that reason. As it is know, the title of the article creates missunderstandings. Whatever name is used, should'nt this be explained and added to the article?--Aciram (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- To amplify on that, Anne Henriette belonged to the Palatinate branch of the Wittelsbach family, while a different branch of the family ruled Bavaria. You have to trace her male-line ancestry back for as much as 13 generations to reach Rudolf I, Duke of Bavaria, the common ancestor of both branches. --Antiquary (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
If there are no stupid questions
What kind of questions do stupid people ask? Wikiweek (talk) 14:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Often surprisingly clever ones. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- And indeed, clever people often ask surprisingly stupid questions. Prokhorovka (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, then stupid questions exist?Wikiweek (talk) 15:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Quod erat demonstrandum ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Stupid people don't ask questions because they aren't interested in the answers.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- True, stupid people are not interested in the answers... which begs the question... why do stupid people ask questions? Blueboar (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Would a truly stupid person bother to read Wikipedia, much less pose a question here at Humanities (the latter word isn't typically part of a stupid person's lexicon)? Or to read anything at all for that matter?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- True, stupid people are not interested in the answers... which begs the question... why do stupid people ask questions? Blueboar (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Stupid people don't ask questions because they aren't interested in the answers.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Quod erat demonstrandum ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, then stupid questions exist?Wikiweek (talk) 15:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Let's just state the obvious: the statement about stupid questions is not an absolute law. It is just a maxim meant to encourage people to feel free to ask questions. It means, at best, that even surprisingly "stupid" questions can elicit complex answers, and that, in fact, knowing a "good" question from a "stupid" one can be quite hard. (Einstein's "stupid" question, "What would a light beam look like if you could travel the speed of light?", turns out to be part of the basis for his theory of special relativity.)
- As for why people, stupid or not (however defined), ask questions, it's actually quite interesting that question asking behavior in general is cognitively quite advanced. Temple Grandin reports in Animals in Translation that teaching highly autistic children to ask questions at all is a major feat, and can be an indicator and instigator of development/progress. One of the significant findings about Alex the parrot is that he began to spontaneously ask questions, which researchers previously thought would have been impossible for birds to do. (Sign-language-taught apes can ask questions, but no bird other than Alex has done so, to my knowledge.) I found that quite interesting, on the whole. It's cognitively easy to answer questions (especially if accuracy is not an issue!) — it's actually quite hard to formulate new ones, and one of the things that human beings do exceptionally better than other animals (though it is not at all unique to human beings). --Mr.98 (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, any question that you don't know the answer to is a smart question (regardless of how simple or basic it is). Stupid questions are lazy questions (where the answer would be obvious to the asker if s/he gave it more than two seconds thought), or pointless questions (where the asker doesn't care about the answer, but is just asking to waste someone else's time or annoy them in some other way). Easiest way to tell a good question from a stupid one is to watch the asker's face: If you see that "Gee, ain't I a smartass" smirk, even a little bit, you can be 98% sure that it's intended as a stupid question. unfortunately, that doesn't work on wikipedia. --Ludwigs2 18:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- "there is no stupid question" as Mr.98 pointed above is mostly a pretty good educational attitude to motivate students to participate. Outside the class-room, in general not all questions are equally good. Question which limit the answer are not as good as questions which make you thing or that question some well-established dogma. I personally believe that loaded questions are stupid, equally stupid are questions when you already know the answer. Quest09 (talk) 19:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, any question that you don't know the answer to is a smart question (regardless of how simple or basic it is). Stupid questions are lazy questions (where the answer would be obvious to the asker if s/he gave it more than two seconds thought), or pointless questions (where the asker doesn't care about the answer, but is just asking to waste someone else's time or annoy them in some other way). Easiest way to tell a good question from a stupid one is to watch the asker's face: If you see that "Gee, ain't I a smartass" smirk, even a little bit, you can be 98% sure that it's intended as a stupid question. unfortunately, that doesn't work on wikipedia. --Ludwigs2 18:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sometimes people make assumptions they have no right to make, and their questions then become really stupid. Such as the classic "Who was the Royal Albert Hall named after? It obviously wasn't Queen Victoria's consort. But who?". Then there are the "Do fish have ethics?" questions, and I can't decide whether that's extremely brilliant or profoundly dumb. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- "Do fish have ethics?" sounds like a koan.Quest09 (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's a fine question. A stupid question would be, "What type of pants would fish wear, if they wore pants?" --Mr.98 (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Or better: if we really evolved from fish, why don't they wear pants? Quest09 (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Eh, that's at least a question that can have an answer. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- What kind of tree would a fish be? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Eh, that's at least a question that can have an answer. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Or better: if we really evolved from fish, why don't they wear pants? Quest09 (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's a fine question. A stupid question would be, "What type of pants would fish wear, if they wore pants?" --Mr.98 (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- "Do fish have ethics?" sounds like a koan.Quest09 (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- A wise teacher once told my class, "There are indeed stupid questions. But if you have a stupid question, you should ask it, and get the answer, rather than silently remaining stupid." -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- In the Australian Parliament (and hence, I would guess, the UK parliament) there is a regularly scheduled time called Question Time. Government and Opposition members take turns to ask questions of government ministers. Those asked by government members of their own ministers fall into the stupid category more often than not. HiLo48 (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- At Westminster, the Prime Minister has to answer all the questions at PMQs; and yes, there's always a few stupid questions trying to prompt a self-serving answer. Alansplodge (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, but there's method in that particular madness. These Dorothy Dixers provide a (somewhat contrived) opportunity for the Minister to spout on at length about some grand new government initiative, and to paint the opposition's policies on the topic or lack thereof in as negative colours as possible. Government members are always friends of Dorothy, and opposition members are her implacable enemies. :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 03:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- In the Australian Parliament (and hence, I would guess, the UK parliament) there is a regularly scheduled time called Question Time. Government and Opposition members take turns to ask questions of government ministers. Those asked by government members of their own ministers fall into the stupid category more often than not. HiLo48 (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Self-declaring a republic
Lets say I own a piece of land the size of Maryland. If I wanted to, could I separate myself from the United States government and form a self-declared republic if I got about 1,000 people to follow me? Would my republic be like Somaliland, in respect to its countryhood and status? Albacore (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- This has actually been attempted a few times... back in the 1790s (see: Whiskey rebellion and State of Franklin) and again in the 1860s (albeit with a larger area and population... see American Civil War). Neither attempt was successful. You could expect a similar reaction if you tried to secede. As to status... that really depends on whether you could get any other countries to recognize your new republic (unlikely). You can self-proclaim all you want... but if the rest of the world ignores you, you don't have any status. Blueboar (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- You would need to maintain de-facto control over the area (so you would need some kind of army, most likely - either your own, or an ally's). You would then need to convince other countries to recognise you and work with you as an independant state. Both of those would be difficult, since the US government controls a very large army (in fact, it controls a large enough police force that it probably wouldn't even call on the army) and has a lot of international influence so other countries are going to relunctant to annoy it by recognising your state. Somaliland has achieved the first phase (de-facto control) but has yet to achieve the second phase to any significant degree. You wouldn't even manage to achieve the first phase. --Tango (talk) 16:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- There is a recently self-declared Republic of Lakotah. Too bad for them that almost no one took any notice (and no government recognized them). In most cases the government is well advised to follow the following policy: let the fools declare their own independence if that truly makes them happy. Don't repress them with violence because that is what some of them really want: to create martyrs for the cause. They have the right of free speech and of making fools of themselves. Watch if they break the law and/or hurt other ppl. Then you arrest them for breaking the law. Flamarande (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
According to our article Militia Acts of 1792, the Act as revised in 1795 contained the passage:
- "Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act,.........it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. And if the militia of a state, where such combinations may happen, shall refuse, or be insufficient to suppress the same, it shall be lawful for the President, if the legislature of the United States be not in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient thereto, as may be necessary, and the use of militia, so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the ensuing session."
This, together with the president's power as Commander in Chief, seems to provide the necessary authority for suppressing rebellions. Looie496 (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- See Micronation for more on this. People who do this are generally considered crazier than shithouse rats. But as said, to each their own... --Jayron32 18:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Some micronations are purely personal fantasies, or spectacularly crash and burn when they attempt to meet the real world, but the proprietors of Sealand and the Hutt River Principality have made a profitable career out of them, so might be considered to be "crazy like a fox"... AnonMoos (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, being famouse does not equal being sovereign. This guy was the "Emperor of the United States", and though he was a huge celebrity for his time, didn't actually get to do anything that, like, a real monarch would do. --Jayron32 15:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sealand is special case. It was unclaimed by any nation when the new owners moved in and declared themselves a new nation. That's very different than taking part of the USA and seceding. APL (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Even if this worked and you were declared sovereign, it would be a pretty miserable existence being part of the geographical U.S. landmass without being protected by U.S. and state law. For example, someone could enter your nation and rob the treasury, then flee to a surrounding state. Technically, they wouldn't have broken U.S. law, since your nation is not governed by U.S. law; and you couldn't legally pursue them without running afoul of U.S. law in whatever state they ended up in. Your existence outside of the structure of recognized law and authority is likely to be "poore, nasty, brutish, and shorte." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.186.80.1 (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- 12.186.80.1's comments hit the mark exactly — although it's fiction, the history of Petoria might be of interest to you. Nyttend backup (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Greek and Maltese WW II refugees in India
While writing the article Gass Forest Museum, i discovered WW II refugees from Malta and Greece were housed there during 1942-47. My question is what were the refugees doing in Coimbatore, India. (that far from Europe?). Was there some allied policy to send them to all parts of the British empire?--Sodabottle (talk) 16:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- You find lots of sizable non-native communities in many parts of the British empire, which is why, for example, there are lots of South Asians in South Africa and the Carribean, or the sizable Chinese Jamaican community. I'm not at all surprised about their being Greeks and Maltese moved to India, given the high degree of mobility in the former British Empire. --Jayron32 18:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Getting across the Mediterranean from Malta to Gibraltar was very dangerous; see Malta convoys - in one convoy of 14 ships only 3 survived despite a huge escort. In the earlier part of the war, it would have been easier to go east via the Suez canal and then on to India, which wasn't under any threat of attack until the loss of Burma in 1942. Many Greek refugees would have gone straight to Alexandria. Until the Second Battle of El Alamein, there was a strong possibility that Egypt, Palestine and areas beyond would be overrun by the Axis. Persia was under threat if the USSR collapsed and there was a German inspired revolt in Iraq. All this makes India seem like a reasonable choice. Alansplodge (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Latest populated country
What is the latest populated country in the world, not counting population replacement as "populating"? What I mean is, what independent country was fully un-inhabitated at the latest point in history (or had never been inhabitated at all?) I can think of two candidates: Iceland and New Zealand. Iceland was settled in the 800s, and though some Irish had been there before, they had probably not been there for long. New Zealand, according to the article, was most likely settled by the Maori in the 1300-1400s. Any other candidates? I'm also interested in non-independent entities, but there you quickly run into problems of definition for small fringe places that have never been settled... Jørgen (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Mauritius and Cape Verde would be two other candidates. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Norfolk Island (1788) and Pitcairn Islands (1790). These are not countries as such, but territories of other countries (Australia and the UK respectively). They had both had earlier inhabitants, but were truly terra nullius when the ancestors of the current inhabitants arrived. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC) PS. Oh, I see you don't want non-independent entries: Norfolk is technically dependent but has its own self-government and is largely autonomous. Roughly similar for Pitcairn too.-- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Seychelles? Fully independent, and seemingly only permanently settled since 1721 according to History of Seychelles. --Antiquary (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Not a nation or country... but Antarctica seems to be the last place on earth to be permanently settled (or perhaps "continuously inhabited" is the better term.) Blueboar (talk) 05:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sure each year sees many uninhabited islands being settled, and some artificial islands are created. Devon Island at 55,247 km2 is apparently the largest currently uninhabited island but it hasn't always been uninhabited. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Not a nation or country... but Antarctica seems to be the last place on earth to be permanently settled (or perhaps "continuously inhabited" is the better term.) Blueboar (talk) 05:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks all! It seems the Seychelles win? Jørgen (talk) 14:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Have a look at Pitcairn Island. Corvus cornixtalk 21:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think Jørgen has, as Jack already mentioned it, but it's not an independent country. I also found list of countries by first human settlement, but it starts early and ends with New Zealand (and is incomplete in between too). ---Sluzzelin talk 21:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
The Principality of Sealand, which is seen by some as a legitimate independent sovereign state, was not populated until 1967. --Theurgist (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Seychelles seems the likely winner to me, counting only widely recognized sovereign nations (thus not Sealand or Pitcairn--anyway Pitcairn was colonized in the 11th century and only uninhabited later). Only a few seem to come even close. Mauritius was mentioned, dating to around 1638. Another is São Tomé and Príncipe, first settled about 1493. According to History of Seychelles, it is possible that some of the islands were settled by Austronesians around 200–300 BC, during the time of the Austronesian colonization of Madagascar, by sea from Indonesia. Pfly (talk) 05:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Italian Prisoners in World War Two
How many Italian prisoners were held captive in the UK in WW2, please? (I need info for a book, thanks)92.233.59.209 (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- About 75.000. [3] JustEase (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- This page suggests that the answer is less clear cut. It gives a figure of 130,000 "mainly Italian" prisoners captured at the start of the North Africa campaign, but then goes on to say that many of these later were sent on to Canada. presumably when shipping became available. Alansplodge (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
isbrandsten shipping company.
Where can i find the archives of this shipping company. THe ship i am interested in is the SS FLYING ENTERPRISE, ships number is 215133 code letters KWFZ. Type C1-B ship. Any information from 1947 to 1951,also the names of the captains during those years. many thanks.Andy Bates, Cornwall England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.33.36 (talk) 19:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- I take it you're interested in the theories surrounding her cargo when she sank? I can't find a definite location for the company's archives, but this site suggests they may not necessarily give you any clues even if you find them. The author of the page, Leigh Bishop, appears to be contactable by email if you scroll to the bottom of that page, click on the name "Leigh Bishop" highlighted in red, and follow the "contact Leigh click here" link on the page it takes you to. Maybe he can point you in the direction of the company archives? Karenjc 20:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Isabella of Mar's burial site
Does anybody know where Isabella of Mar is buried?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- This says Paisley Abbey. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 07:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- this page agrees and adds; "Her tomb has not survived". Alansplodge (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I've heard of ads placed on cars to earn the owner income. How can that happen to me?
And whenever I've seen videos of that, it would be just one advertisement on one door of the car. I don't know how much money that earned the driver of that minivan, but it sounded like an attractive sum to me.
I hope to vastly one-up that opportunity: Put ads on each of the four doors of my car, on the hood, the trunk, and the roof. The roof-based ads should have four sides in order to place four more ads on.
That is a total of 10 possible ad spaces. How much would each so placed ad earn me every month? Moreover, what companies in the region surrounding Manhattan, KS would be willing to provide these types of opportunities? --70.179.181.251 (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Most of the sources I could find were a bit shady, but it seems that there are a lot more people wanting to participate in these programs than there are advertisers interested in paying them. You're most likely to be accepted as an advertising car if you drive 1000 miles or more per month, park in highly visible areas, live and work in a major metropolitan area, and have a moderately nice car. If sellected, you could expect to make a few hundred dollars a month if selected, for whatever limited number of months the advertiser in question has decided to pay- ultimately less money than a minimum-wage part-time job. I found some companies by googling 'car wrap advertising' and 'get paid to drive advertising,' some of which appeared legit and some of which may not be. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Can I place ads on the side of our house to earn us money?
One more sibling is heading off to college in just 2 1/2 years. A couple of us already have student loans to pay off. Mom & Dad has a car payment or two to pay down, and our house could use some energy-saving renovations.
This house would be in Lindsborg, KS, so how much would companies in the region pay to advertise on the outer walls of our house and our garage? (I am looking for an average or ranged figure, in $ per square-feet per month.) --70.179.181.251 (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- First, you'll need to find out whether large-scale advertisements are legal where you live- if there are no billboards in your neighborhood, then there are probably laws governing what kinds of advertising you can do. Then, you'll need to learn how to design large advertisements, and how to apply them to the material your house is made of. You'll need to do the work of finding a company interested in this, convincing that company that they should be advertising on your house, and negotiating a price. Then you'll need to do the work of putting the ad on your house- which means hiring laborers, training them, paying them fairly, and paying the appropriate taxes. All of these require learning challenging new skills. And if you mess any of them up, the company who paid you will probably sue you for breach of contract. If you acquire all of these skills, you would be silly to simply use them to sell advertising on your own house, because you'd now have everything you needed to start a real advertising company. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know about your local advertising laws, but you'd need to check. Where I live, planning permission is required for display advertising (billboards and the like), and the local planning department can demand the removal of unauthorised adverts and even prosecute offenders. They have a very wide definition of what constitutes an advertisement, with occasionally ludicrous results, so make sure you understand local regulations before firming up any arrangements. Karenjc 22:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- See also the formerly iconic Mail Pouch tobacco ads. PhGustaf (talk) 23:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Also, how about inside my apartment?
Now even though it would take more red tape to a landlord to agree to place an ad on the outside walls of the apartment building, my gut tells me that it requires far less to place ads across the walls of my rooms. Therefore, how can I get that to happen, and how much could advertisers pay me per square foot per month?
Sorry if these questions are quite unusual, but I am desperately looking for creative ways to earn some serious passive income. With the down economy, my SPD, and student loans to pay, anything will work! --70.179.181.251 (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Why would anyone pay you to do this? You seem to be looking for a way to acquire large amounts of money without doing any work. If that were possible, everyone would already be doing it. The best way to pay off your student loans is to get a degree and use it to get a job that pays well. No one is handing out free money. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Before you respond, check the user's edit history. 24.38.31.81 (talk) 14:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- "creative ways to earn some serious passive income"? Well, it might be that there are no easy way to earn serious money. You always need to be qualified, invest your time, have luck or do something illegal/amoral. So, set for the little regular amounts that you can earn in a normal job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.34 (talk) 16:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
To sum up
- Car advertising - at least plausible if you have a reasonably new car.
- External House advertising - liable to be impractical due to planning or zoning laws.
- Advertising on your interior walls - absurd idea - who apart from you would see it?
Exxolon (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
January 31
What has changed?
Reading Julia Cherry Spurill's Women's Life and Work in the Southern Colonies it has occurred to me that not much has changed for women, except in the realm of courtship, since the 17th century. I feel this makes a fine basis for a thesis, but I must add some qualifiers that are not based on textual evidence from the reading. What other things have changed, not necessarily for women, since the 17th and 18th centuries? schyler (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- You can't be serious. What hasn't changed? That's a rhetorical question; of course some things haven't changed, but so many have. Just considering women, they have the right to vote and equal legal rights in all but a few areas. Most women now work outside the home. Many have positions of leadership in commercial and political settings. An unmarried adult woman is no longer an object of pity or shame. Women have much greater control of their reproductive and sex lives. I could go on and on. None of this was true during the 17th and 18th centuries. Marco polo (talk) 01:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Contraception. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- See History of women, History of women's suffrage in the United States, Women in the workforce, Women in the military, Women in politics, Women in philosophy, Women in science, Women in engineering, Women's writing in English, etc. etc. etc. Shall we go on? Dismas|(talk) 02:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
That's the things though, MarcoPolo. There are examples of women voting, owning places of business and being planters in their own right, as well as respected women in their old age (as opposed to old-maids, wherein you are right). I'm asking about big ideas that have changed, and women's rights is not one of them. Not even atheism or homosexuality are anything new. What, really, is a big deal today that wasn't even imaginable in the 17th and 18th centuries? schyler (talk) 02:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Those are different questions you've asked schyler. So you'd like an example of a big idea about women's rights that hadn't been contemplated in some form, however rare, in the 18th century. Voltaire probably covered most of that territory by his mid 30s. Maybe you could be more specific about the number of angels on this pin. Shadowjams (talk) 07:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Cell phones. Coca Cola. "Them Niggers lording it over us decent folks" on the Supreme Court and as President! Computers, Oh yes, judicial review. Of course if you say "cell phones are just another way of talking", "Coca Cola is just another drink", "Obama is just another human, and President is just another leader", then you can discuss any big change away. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Andy has it. The pill gave women control over their fertility. Biggest change ever explicitly for women. HiLo48 (talk) 07:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- The pill, really? How about gender equality. Being allowed to go to school, get a job in any field, and be taken seriously. Actually, sex whenever you want it doesn't sound that much worse.
- Besides pills though there have always been condoms to prevent pregnancy. Well, at least there have been condoms since some time in ancient days when someone came up with the idea to make them out of fur.
- The pill gave women control over their fertility for the first time. Using a condom depends on a cooperative male. HiLo48 (talk) 11:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- That remembers me of Julian Assange. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.34 (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- The pill gave women control over their fertility for the first time. Using a condom depends on a cooperative male. HiLo48 (talk) 11:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm gonna have to say equal rights, followed by contraception, followed by abortion and not having to wear ridiculously constrictive clothing.(unless your Muslim)AerobicFox (talk) 08:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- In 18th century England (and so probably in the colonies too), a wife was legally regarded as a chattel (ie personal property) of her husband. Beating your wife was quite acceptable. Divorce from a brutal husband was virtually impossible. Single women had no social standing and were reliant on the charity of male relatives. Unmarried mothers were obliged to give their babies away and pretend it never happened. So quite a lot of change actually. 11:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- The point I think the book makes is that there were examples of liberation for women existing in various societies at various times: however, these were merely outliers in a statistical sense, and in no way were they the norm at the time. In these modern times, with improved communications and information, not to mention technology, they are now the norm rather than outliers. You may wish to call these early examples "trailblazers", to give you a sense of how change takes time. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I think everyone here is trying to disprove my thesis rather than find it remotely agreeable. I don't blame you, though. I usually go with the more radical of ideas. The question I originally posed was "What other things have changed, not necessarily for women, since the 17th and 18th centuries?" And then followed it up with "What, really, is a big deal today that wasn't even imaginable in the 17th and 18th centuries?" I never asked how I was wrong, or what has changed for women. I in fact explicitly said "not necessarily for women." So when TammyMoet said "...with improved communications and information..." that came closest, but the other answers, while enlightening and enjoyable to read, do not answer either of my questions. schyler (talk) 12:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- What's a big deal today that wasn't even imaginable in the 17th and 18th centuries? How about spaceflight? Pais (talk) 12:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- You're off by at least about 1500 years. See True History. I suspect profound social changes are much harder to imagine than mere technological advance. See Star Wars, where medieval archetypes play out their fairy tale in space ships and with blasters... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- I guess I meant actual spaceflight rather than fictional spaceflight. Even nowadays where actual spaceflight has occurred, there's a pretty big gap between it and fictional spaceflight. For example, with the exception of 2001, science fiction movies & TV shows never seem to remember there's no sound in space. Pais (talk) 13:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- One thing which has not been touched upon is the improved social conditions for children. Beating a child for the most minor infraction was the norm in all classes; poor children were sent out to work in mines and factories as young as four or five; many children lived in orphanages and workhouses, a large percentage were homeless and survived by begging and stealing. Education was available to the middle and upper-classes...I could go on and on.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed on the improvements regarding working conditions for children. As regards frequent beatings, it's worth noting that school corporal punishment is still legal in twenty U.S. states. Even though most schools don't use corporal punishment even in those states where it's legal, it is still used on hundreds of thousands of occasions every year. Whether beatings for minor infractions was considered more normal in past centuries remains unclear; I think William Ewart Gladstone mentioned that he was only beaten once in his seven years at Eton College in the early 19th century, despite the then headmaster John Keate apparently having made "vigorous and frequent use of the birch". More shocking to modern sensibilities would be the widespread use of capital punishment for minors in the 19th century and before; some countries do still execute minors now, but it seems to be very rare. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- One thing which has not been touched upon is the improved social conditions for children. Beating a child for the most minor infraction was the norm in all classes; poor children were sent out to work in mines and factories as young as four or five; many children lived in orphanages and workhouses, a large percentage were homeless and survived by begging and stealing. Education was available to the middle and upper-classes...I could go on and on.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- I guess I meant actual spaceflight rather than fictional spaceflight. Even nowadays where actual spaceflight has occurred, there's a pretty big gap between it and fictional spaceflight. For example, with the exception of 2001, science fiction movies & TV shows never seem to remember there's no sound in space. Pais (talk) 13:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- You're off by at least about 1500 years. See True History. I suspect profound social changes are much harder to imagine than mere technological advance. See Star Wars, where medieval archetypes play out their fairy tale in space ships and with blasters... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- There are no "big ideas" which haven't been around since humankind. Since the first caveman decided he owned the women in his tribe, there's probably been women thinking "this sucks, we can't we work this out so we're equal". The battle between egalitarianism and oppression is likely as old as civilization itself. The difference between today and the past is the realization of those ideas. In most western countries, women are guaranteed equal rights under the law, guaranteed equal pay, and equal sufferage and access to power. That certain random times in the past there were women who broke through the oppression to leave a mark in history doesn't mean that their world was some how fundementally the same as it is today. There are still some real obstacles to women, even in western democracies. But can you imagine someone saying, today, "She couldn't even be the leader of her country, she's a woman!" And yet, as soon as 50 years ago, people really thought that way. This represents fundemental shifts in societal values. --Jayron32 15:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Electricity. The combustive engine. The internet. Wikipedia. etc, etc. AerobicFox (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- "There is nothing new under the sun." [4] True enough in terms of human aspiration: peace, prosperity, love, security, equality. But the OP asked "What other things have changed... since the 17th and 18th centuries?" Modern medicine, e.g. antibiotics, and surgery dependent on anaesthetic. Instantaneous global communication. Easy and safe travel, relatively cheaply. The expectation, in developed countries, that pregnancy and childbirth are not life-threatening, and that the baby will live into old age. The elimination of diseases such as smallpox. The elimination of famine, in wealthy countries. (The last one in England was 1728, according to List of famines.) How much more evidence of change do you want? BrainyBabe (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
schyler, your question is so vague you're only going to get vague (and likely unsatisfying) answers. Until you narrow down your criteria, you're not going to get a consistent answer. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 23:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I'm interested what definition of a black spot is in "The pirate dictionary" by Terry Breverton. Unfortunately Google Books don't display this particular page (or it's not available in my country) and I don't have an access to it by any other means. Any chances for anyone to get these 3-4 sentences of definition for me? Black Spot (Treasure Island) in en-wiki doesn't have "The pirate dictionary" as a source and possibly iy could benefit from it (as well as my pl-translation of this article, being sketched right now). If anyone could, please e-mail me or leave me a note in my pl-wiki talk page. Thanks in advance! Masur (talk) 13:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- http://imgur.com/xGAux - I am forbidden to edit your pl-wiki page because my entire ISP is range-blocked on pl-wiki. Marnanel. (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Given that Syria and Egypt were (very briefly) united in the United Arab Republic, would it be reasonable to expect the current revolt in Egypt to have some sort of special resonance in Syria (beyond, of course, similarities in economic and political conditions)? I know the UAR was short-lived and based on my cursory knowledge it doesn't seem like its collapse left a lot of amity between the two countries... but the Baath party is based on pan-Arabism so maybe they've "rehabilitated" the UAR to some extent? 96.246.68.89 (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Egypt is widely considered, politically, the most important Arabic nation, the lynchpin of the region. It has the largest population of any Arabic country by a long shot (almost 80 million vs. 35 million for Algeria, the next most populous Arabic nation). So yes, the problems in Egypt are having a HUGE resonance across the Arabic world, Syria included. There are serious questions right now on whether the Egyptian situation is going to spill-over/inspire a sort of "pan-Arabic" revolt in many Arabic nations. --Jayron32 15:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- There is no intimate connection between the two nations. Unrest in Syria is equally likely to be a reflection of the revolution in Tunisia.--Wetman (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Expanding on Jayron, the UAR history has not left Egypt with any special influence over Syria. However, as the main center of the Arabic-language media and entertainment industries (apart from Qatar-based al-Jazeera), Egypt has an enormous cultural influence throughout the Arabic-speaking world, far greater than that of Tunisia. Marco polo (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- As it has been said, if there will be any uprising in Syria, it's because of the Domino effect which started in Tunisia, and gained a huge boost in Egypt. As for the UAR, its political and popular legacy is insignificant if not nonexistent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.83.20.127 (talk) 14:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
sharing money vs. sharing time + information
Isn't it amazing that many people are willing to share their time + information, but not their money? Since time + information = money, why does this happen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.34 (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sharing information is not a huge deal, since it is not limited. But considering that information added with time is more valuable than money doesn't mean that you won't share it. Giving money away is not entertaining. Passing some time discussing a topic with someone, yes. Quest09 (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- I would disagree with the premise. Charitable donations of money are as common as the volunteering of time. I give part of my income away every month (i.e., share my money), and so do millions of others. Marco polo (talk) 18:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Are they really equally common? How often do you ask others for information and how often do you ask others for spare change? Quest09 (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- I would certainly disagree with the premise that time + information = money. Neither time nor information alone, let alone the sum of the two, will pay the rent or buy the groceries. Pais (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'd question the premise too. In my experience, it's easy to get parents to donate goods for a raffle, buy items in a school fundraiser or send in a small donation for the class's worthy cause. Ask for volunteers to come into school and help out, and very few step forward (usually the same few). Karenjc 19:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- In some cases, time + information can be converted into money (think about a qualified employee). In some the equation is actually time + information + money = more money. Sometimes it is money + information = more money. Or also money = more time for you. As a matter of fact, valuable things can be somehow converted from one form into the other (I'll say that this is even a tautology). 212.169.190.130 (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- I would certainly disagree with the premise that time + information = money. Neither time nor information alone, let alone the sum of the two, will pay the rent or buy the groceries. Pais (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Are they really equally common? How often do you ask others for information and how often do you ask others for spare change? Quest09 (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Some people have a lot of time and no money. Some have a lot of money but little time. And while some people's time is very valuable, other people's time has little value. And how much money could the average person earn in a few spare hours? Time and information tend to be sold in large units, e.g. signing up for a full-time job; if you have 2 or 3 hours spare a week it may be easy to help out with voluntary work but employers will want people who can make a larger commitment (in part this is explained by the fixed costs of labour - training, uniform, payroll, expenses in hiring, etc - which do not depend on hours worked). Plus many people do the reference desk while they're at work, I'm told. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Is it true that Australians are descended from criminals?
If so, how is it possible for them to have made a stable government all on their own? Wouldn't they have anarchy? ScienceApe (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- See Colonization of Australia. The first British settlement there was a penal colony at Port Jackson, but it was heavily colonized later. Grsz 11 20:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Edit Conflict: Why would they? Criminals often have non-criminal children. Anyway, as our article on Australia will tell you, there were already aboriginal people and not all of the people who went to the country were British criminals. Prokhorovka (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- (After e/c)
- The obvious answer here is that being a criminal is not genetic.
- But at least as important, they weren't all criminals. A lot of people showed up in the gold rush or as colonists at other points. (And let's not forget the natives!).
- The History of Australia is pretty interesting.
- (Also, Britain had Penal colonies in North America as well.) APL (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- OP, your question displays many ape-like qualities, but unfortunately no scientific ones. Anyway, I have criminals in my ancestry, but we're quite proud of them nowadays. My 4-greats grandfather has an official monument to the memory of his post-prison works. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- All right, fess up, Jack. What did he do? Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- This society is named after him, and there's more about him here. In case you were wondering, you won't find my surname anywhere there. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 00:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- I can vouch for that. CTRL+F did not return a single hit for 'Oz'. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Seven years transportation for burglary?! Hope he burgled something really valuable at least! I'm required at this point to mention a (probable) ancestral distant cousin, pirate captain William Fly, arrr. 'Course piracy got you hanged and gibbeted--a bit harsher than transportaion... Pfly (talk) 04:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Despite what the first ref says, he was found not guilty of burglary but guilty of stealing. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 18:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- This society is named after him, and there's more about him here. In case you were wondering, you won't find my surname anywhere there. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 00:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- All right, fess up, Jack. What did he do? Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- [After an edit conflict] Some more points from an Aussie: One of the clichés about transportation is that some of the crimes for which people were sent (to America) or Australia were things like stealing a loaf of bread for your starving family, and other "offences" that wouldn't even get you a custodial sentence these days. In my lifetime, knowing you had a convict ancestor has gone from family secret status to public boasting status. The bigger impact on Australia's early population growth came from the gold rushes of the 1850s and onwards. If you were transported as a convict, it meant surviving a very long sea journey, plus often starvation conditions when you arrived. If you made it, you were probably from pretty tough stock. HiLo48 (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, they are. And you are too, no matter where you are from. It is a matter of how much you're going back in time until you find any kind of ascendants.212.169.190.130 (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Is there a clear correlation between eighteenth/nineteenth century criminals and anarchy? 90.195.179.70 (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Rather than total anarchy, it has been suggested that Australians have a lot less respect for authority and power achieved through money than might be said for Americans. We certainly don't have the same reverence for our Prime Minister that Americans show towards their President. HiLo48 (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- But equally, we're not in the habit of shooting them dead. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 00:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Nah. Why would you bother? HiLo48 (talk) 00:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- You do seem to lose track of them though. Pfly (talk) 06:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oh come ON... its been years since a President was shot dead. Americans don't do that sort of thing anymore. Hardly EVER... It's almost like there was a law or something. Blueboar (talk) 01:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm, there have been four assassinations of US presidents. Gotta be an Australian connection somewhere. Lincoln: Attempt to rally the remaining Confederate troops. Garfield: Shot for not appointing an insane guy ambassador to France. McKinley: Shot by an anarchist inspired by fellow anarchist Gaetano Bresci's assassination of the king of Italy (ah ha!). JFK: Well, everyone knows he was assassinated by the CIA, KGB, Mafia, Israel, Fidel Castro, LBJ, and J. Edgar Hoover. Impressive teamwork. The Australian government has apparently managed to cover up its contribution. Pfly (talk) 04:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- You forgot to add Elvis.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- It has been 30 years since anyone actually shot a sitting President, and that one, like the recent incident in Tuscon, was motivated by madness, not politics. Only 5.5% of Aussies own a gun, compared to about 25% of Americans, which there are a lot more of in the first place. More guns+more people=more lunatics who can easily acquire a gun. And that's not even counting all the illegal or unregistered guns out there. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Is it worth mentioning one of, if not the most revered and certainly the most recognizable icons of "outback Australia" is Ned Kelly. Vespine (talk) 05:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- No one in America has heard of him.AerobicFox (talk) 06:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hey, fair suck, mate. Ned Kelly (2003 film) starring Heath Ledger was released in the USA on 22 screens in March 2004. It grossed the grand total of $44,000, or about $2,000 per screen [5]. It must have had a run of less than a week, and had paltry attendances to boot. The marketers were obviously hardly trying at all; or maybe they were deliberately trying to make a loss. Now, while this was not exactly an unqualified success, it's evident that there are some 3,000-odd people in the USA who have actually heard of Ned Kelly. Which is about 2,975 more than have heard of me. :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hey now, I'm American and I've heard of Ned Kelly. I'd agree that most Americans haven't heard of him though. Pfly (talk) 10:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Of course I've heard of Ned Kelly. I even saw the film starring Mick Jagger along with his dreadful rendition of a Cork accent.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Not sure why we're even discussing this anyway. The measure of notability, particularly of non-American subjects, has never been "the number of Americans who've heard of the subject". From various reports, many Americans can't distinguish between Australia and Austria, which gives me little confidence in using what they know about stuff as a guide to anything. There are of course many magnificent exceptions. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Why the increased American interest in things Australian? Why, Oprah, of course. HiLo48 (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- "Aussie chic" in America predates Oprah. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- "I know those words, but that sentence makes no sense!" Adam Bishop (talk) 02:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- "Aussie chic" in America predates Oprah. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Why the increased American interest in things Australian? Why, Oprah, of course. HiLo48 (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Land der Snowy-Berge, Land am Murray-Strome? Pais (talk) 12:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- No one in America has heard of him.AerobicFox (talk) 06:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Is it worth mentioning one of, if not the most revered and certainly the most recognizable icons of "outback Australia" is Ned Kelly. Vespine (talk) 05:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Nah. Why would you bother? HiLo48 (talk) 00:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- But equally, we're not in the habit of shooting them dead. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 00:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Rather than total anarchy, it has been suggested that Australians have a lot less respect for authority and power achieved through money than might be said for Americans. We certainly don't have the same reverence for our Prime Minister that Americans show towards their President. HiLo48 (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Since (a) many transportees had families who remained in the UK and had families of their own, (b) not all criminals were transported and (c) crimes were committed in Britain before we had transportation and are still happening, you can be reasonably certain of finding at least one direct ancestor who aroused the wrath of the law in some way if you go back a few generations. (I was chuffed to find one who was once dragged off to London in irons and locked up for his radical activities - everyone needs a black sheep in the family.) Most of us could probably dig up just as many "criminals" in our families as the average Australian, and the fabric of our society seems no more likely to spiral into anarchy then theirs, so far. Karenjc 11:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm an American who grew up in a law-abiding family. My maternal gr-gr-gr-gr-gr-gr-grandmother, Marguerite Bellanger was a Baleine Bride. She was either a prostitute or felon transported in 1721 on the La Baleine to Louisiana from Paris' La Salpetrière prison as a prospective bride to a French colonist. She eventually married twice. All of us most likely have a bit of notoriety somewhere in our family history.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- My great-great-grandfather and his brother laid in wait and shot and killed their brother-in-law, the brother stayed behind in Tennessee while my gggfather fled to Arkansas. The brother was found not guilty, my gggf was never extradited back. We probably all have skeletons in the closet which make for amusing reading these hundred or so years later. :) My grandmother was not happy when, while doing family tree research, I discovered that her grandparents were not married at the time of her father's birth. In fact, her grandfather was married to her grandmother's sister. :) Corvus cornixtalk 19:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm an American who grew up in a law-abiding family. My maternal gr-gr-gr-gr-gr-gr-grandmother, Marguerite Bellanger was a Baleine Bride. She was either a prostitute or felon transported in 1721 on the La Baleine to Louisiana from Paris' La Salpetrière prison as a prospective bride to a French colonist. She eventually married twice. All of us most likely have a bit of notoriety somewhere in our family history.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
February 1
Percentage of felons who claim they are innocent and appeal their conviction (U.S.)
I stated in a conversation at Talk:Sante Kimes that it is not at all unusual for those accused of a felony to plead not guilty, and for those convicted of a felony to repeatedly appeal. Another user has claimed that is simply my opinion. Are there any statistics on what percentage of felons in the U.S. plead not guilty and how often they appeal conviction? Beeblebrox (talk) 04:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- That is a surprisingly hard statistic to find. It should be near 100% for those who did not plead guilty. Pleading guilty waives the right to an appeal in most cases. If a person does not plead guilty (either pleading not guilty or no contest), the right to an attorney covers the first appeal. So, the first appeal takes no real effort or money on the part of the person convicted. Why not appeal? -- kainaw™ 04:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Almost all cases(80-90ish%) are settled and the felon pleads guilty for a reduced sentence(as I have been told). In the uncommon instances that someone does not plead guilty then yes, they probably always appeal. There are no statistics because it is probably understood to be near 100% anyways, and because no one is interested.AerobicFox (talk) 06:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- I doubt "no one is interested" — there are a lot of people in the country who study the American criminal justice system and are interested in all sorts of things. (Heck, I'm interested!) In any case, according to plea bargain, some 90% of all cases are indeed settled with plea bargains (though the source for that statistic dates from 1979, and so is a bit out of date now). I suspect that some useful statistics on this are out there somewhere, but probably buried in obscure legal statistics arcana, or the research data of some law school shlub. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- My wife works in the criminal justice system, and I can roughly confirm the 90% figure. It is probably higher. She has the kind of job where, if the case goes to trial, she will always be called to testify in open court for cases she has worked on. She probably only appeares in court 10-12 times a year, and probably works well over 100 cases per year; probably much more. So she only appears in court for less than 1 out of 10 cases she works on, usually meaning that roughly the other 90% never go to trial. --Jayron32 13:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- so, it's a myth that everyone in prison claims to be innocent? 212.169.191.79 (talk) 14:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- On a personal basis, I suspect they all do claim to be innocent. But that's not the same thing as what you enter into formal plea, which has really no relationship to "truth", per se, but to desired outcomes. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- A plea of innocence and a formal trial is a vestige of a bygone age, and (except for cases where even a plea means most of a life sentence) it is punished with more prison time than the crime itself. So people will plead guilty, yet maintain their innocence with some credibility. In fact, for crimes of moderate severity, for the poor, the typical sentence is "time served" - in other words, the punishment comes first and the trial (or plea, rather) follows afterward. Wnt (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- On a personal basis, I suspect they all do claim to be innocent. But that's not the same thing as what you enter into formal plea, which has really no relationship to "truth", per se, but to desired outcomes. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- so, it's a myth that everyone in prison claims to be innocent? 212.169.191.79 (talk) 14:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- My wife works in the criminal justice system, and I can roughly confirm the 90% figure. It is probably higher. She has the kind of job where, if the case goes to trial, she will always be called to testify in open court for cases she has worked on. She probably only appeares in court 10-12 times a year, and probably works well over 100 cases per year; probably much more. So she only appears in court for less than 1 out of 10 cases she works on, usually meaning that roughly the other 90% never go to trial. --Jayron32 13:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Gonzaga name
Why do many of the Portuguese and Brazilian royalties and some of the Austrian royalties in the 19th centuries have Gonzaga in their name. My first guess would be because of the House of Gonzaga, but they went extinct in the male line in the 1700s, so why would the Austrian and Portuguese/Brazilian royals 100 years later choose this group of distant ancestors to name their children?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- See Portuguese name. Like Spanish names, Portuguese names include matronyms, and when the matronymic name is prestigious, it may be carried through families, often as a second given name or as a "middle name". Some Portuguese people may carry up to four surnames, usually those of their four grandparents. In the Iberian world, there's not as much standardization to the naming system as you might find in other parts of Europe. --Jayron32 05:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think it's used as a surname though but an actual name. For example "Maria da Glória Joana Carlota Leopoldina da Cruz Francisca Xavier de Paula Isidora Micaela Gabriela Rafaela Gonzaga", none of her names are surnames. And that doesn't explain why the Austrian archdukes Franz Salvator and Karl Salvator have that name, seeing as they don't have immediate Gonzaga or Portuguese lineage.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Cost for a water pump including labor and materials in Bangladesh in us dollars...
What is the cost to purchase and install a water pump in Bangladesh.--128.54.15.47 (talk) 06:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Obviously this will depend entirely on the size and type of water pump. A pump to supply a city would have a cost thousands of times greater than a pump to supply a field or household. Even among pumps that supply a similar area, there will be a big cost difference depending on the quality and durability of the pump and on the level of expertise needed to install it. Marco polo (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Bengal Daily Wage
Is 4.38 USD a reasonable wage to pay a Bengali per day? --128.54.224.231 (talk) 08:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- That rather depends on what the Bengali is being paid to do, and whether the worker is in Bengal or in a western country with a higher cost of living. Here[6] is a chart of minimum wages for various jobs in West Bengal: $2.77 is the approximate minimum daily wage for an agricultural worker, and $3.14 or $3.53 depending on area for tailoring. The living wage is likely to be higher. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Tax not being paid by British royals
How much extra tax would the British royals pay if they paid tax like "normal" British people on their incomes? 92.28.255.71 (talk) 09:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- They'd probably pay about half of what they pay now. Since the 18th century, the monarchy pays all of surplus from crown property into the treasury, and since 1993, the Queen pays normal income tax on her private income. See British_monarchy#Finances. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- It would depend if you counted civil list payments as taxable income (and allowed tax deductions for official duties); in the UK some state benefits are taxable and others are not[7]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
That's misleading/disengenuous, since the "Crown Estate" is juast part of the government, as the Crown Estate article clearly states, and not the personal property of any person claiming to be one of our rulers. It would be like me claiming that I gave away all the income earnt by one of the bailed-out banks.
The question was motivated by reading that Prince Charles only pays 25% tax rather than the 50% tax that's soon coming into force: in the past he paid a rate of zero%. I expect he has other income that no tax is paid on, and I don't think he paid any tax on the tens of millions his mother gave him.
I also see that the "Crown Estate" only gives a yield of 2.7%, which is very bad and suggests that it is grossly inefficient: the government would get a far higher return if all of it (except any public land) was sold off.
"They'd probably pay about half of what they pay now." I cannot see that there is any truth in that statement. Can you provide your figures please? 92.28.247.121 (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- The Crown Estate is owned by the Crown - the public persona of the monarch, not by the person of the monarch herself. If you are going to separate out the personal and public personas of the royal family, then the civil list is definitely outside of your consideration here, since the civil list payments are contributions towards the cost of the royal family's public duties. The grants-in-aid are also for a public purpose, and thus would be outside your consideration.
- As Monarchy of the United Kingdom#Finances states, the Queen pays income tax on all personal income.
- I'm not sure what you are referring to about the Prince of Wales' tax rate being lower than normal people. If you are referring to the controversy in 2009 about the Prince's tax affairs, such as detailed in this article, it concerned a tax ruling about deductibility of certain public expenses paid out of the Prince's income. The article states that the Prince faced a top marginal tax rate of 40%, like other members of the royal family and like "normal" people. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- The Crown Estate is owned by the public; you seem to be suggesting that the "Crown" is outside the normal laws of accountancy, ethics, taxation or physics. Sorry there's no point in arguing if you insist upon keeping the premise that the royals are divine beings or mythological representations of Britannia and all that. It's not Harry Potter. 2.97.220.121 (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- You may "expect" that Prince Charles has sources of untaxed income, but you don't offer a shred of evidence that he does. As for financial gifts from his mother, Prince Charles is no more liable for income tax on such gifts than you or I would be if our parents were wealthy enough to hand over a suitcase full of cash. Granted, if the donor dies within seven years of the gift there are Inheritance Tax implications (see Inheritance_Tax_(United_Kingdom)#Minimising_IHT) which would have cost Charles a pretty penny if his mum had handed over the cash and then expired, but gifts in the UK are not counted as income for income tax purposes whether you're a royal or not. Karenjc 13:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Actually the IHT side gets even more interesting. If Charles becomes king when his mum dies, he doesn't pay IHT on what he inherits from her personal estate (although bequests to other Royals in her will would be liable for it). That was the quid pro quo for the income tax rule (see here). He'd probably not pay IHT on those gifts even if they were added back to the estate, provided he did inherit the throne. But if he stepped aside in favour of William, looks like he could face a pretty big IHT bill. Karenjc 17:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, where are the figures to support the "They'd probably pay about half of what they pay now" statement? 2.97.220.121 (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- OP, I'm not sure how insisting the Crown Estates is owned by the public assists your argument. I think you could benefit from reading the articles The Crown (the public persona of the monarch which I referred to above), and Public. It may surprise you to learn that the United Kingdom is not a republic. The proper way to express your frustration at this situation would be to join a republican movement and push for constitutional change, rather than manufacture a fantasy about taxes.
- There is hardly a point in asking a quesiton if you are just going to ignore all the answers because they don't suit your prejudices. Instead of pressing for figures, perhaps you can check back again on where you got the notion that the Prince of Wales somehow faces a lower tax rate than everyone else from, and also any evidence for your suspicion that the Prince of Wales has undeclared sources of income - do you suppose he is smuggling organic produce by night? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
It would be a national disgrace if the royals claimed the Crown Estates to be their personal property - I'd call it stealing. 92.24.180.229 (talk) 13:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- No-one is claiming the Crown Estates to be their personal property. The Crown EStates are owned by the Crown. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
But it was claimed that the royals deserved to pay little tax / get given a lot of money because they allowed their Crown Estates money to be paid the government! Make your mind up, you can't have it both ways. All this obfustication prevents a true picture being presented to the public and thus stops democracy doing its work. 92.24.185.155 (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Ethnicity of Europe's royals
What is the principal ethnic origin of most European royal dynasties? German, French or both? Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'd say they go back to pre-national days. What's the nationality of William the Bastard? Or of Frederick II? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Or even of Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor? He was born in Flanders (modern Beligium), which was then Burgundian territory (Burgundians being an ethnicly French people) to Castillian Spanish parents, and one of his grandparents was a from a German family that was a resident of Austria. So is he German? Flemmish? Belgian? Spanish? Burgundian? French? --Jayron32 13:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- They normally claim to be from a specific lineage, not from a specific nation. 212.169.191.79 (talk) 14:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- What I'm wondering about is their origin. For example, many dynasties descend from Charlemagne who was a Frank; then there are the Spanish royals who were descendants of the Visigoths. The Normans were Viking in origin (at least paternally). Even the early Princes of Kiev were of Viking and Slavic origin. This all leads me to presume they are primarily ethnic Germans.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well, the Franks were a Germanic tribe, but France is named after them. So it's not "either/or". Not all Germanic tribes are "German", nor are all Germans descended from Germanic people (see e.g. Prussians). You write "The Normans were Viking in origin (at least paternally)" - well, they started that way, but became culturally and linguistically "French" in a very short time. And, with 5 generations from Rollo to William, William was possibly as little as 3% "Viking". In short, there has been so much mixing in the last 2000 years in Europe that it does not make sense to ascribe modern nationalities to people from the early middle ages. Nearly all modern Europeans will have Germanic, Celtic, Roman, and probably even Greek, Slav, and Arab ancestry. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- What I'm wondering about is their origin. For example, many dynasties descend from Charlemagne who was a Frank; then there are the Spanish royals who were descendants of the Visigoths. The Normans were Viking in origin (at least paternally). Even the early Princes of Kiev were of Viking and Slavic origin. This all leads me to presume they are primarily ethnic Germans.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- They normally claim to be from a specific lineage, not from a specific nation. 212.169.191.79 (talk) 14:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Are Vikings ethnic Germans? 212.169.191.79 (talk) 14:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Germans, no. Germanic, arguably yes. At least they speak a North Germanic language (and modern variants are close enough that I can often guess what a written sentence means). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- You are not taking into account the fact that dynasties end and new dynasties replace them... for example, the Visigothic line in Spain died out... The current Spanish Royals (House of Bourbon) are essentially French in origin. Blueboar (talk) 15:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- But the Bourbons are just a branch of the Captians, and they are Frankish (hence, arguably, Germanic). Of course, over the course of history they have incorporated lots and lots of other influences, both genetic and cultural. The identity as a "lineage" is an artificial construct that only reflects a very small part of the overall influences. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- You are not taking into account the fact that dynasties end and new dynasties replace them... for example, the Visigothic line in Spain died out... The current Spanish Royals (House of Bourbon) are essentially French in origin. Blueboar (talk) 15:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Germans, no. Germanic, arguably yes. At least they speak a North Germanic language (and modern variants are close enough that I can often guess what a written sentence means). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Are Vikings ethnic Germans? 212.169.191.79 (talk) 14:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Even the modern era, ethnicity is a nearly impossible thing to keep reliably more than a few generations; what is meaningfully "French" (see Nicolas Sarkozy) or "Irish" (see Eamon de Valera) or "Chilean" (see Bernardo O'Higgins) or "Peruvian" (see Alberto Fujimori) or "Swiss" (see Stanislas Wawrinka). If we went by surnames only, you'd guess that Sarkozy was Hungarian, de Valera was Hispanic, O'Higgins was Irish, Fujimori was Japanese, and Wawrinka was Polish, and you'd be wrong in all of those cases. Each of them is the nationality they are because of Jus soli, that is you are "French" because you were born in the territory of "France" and not because your parents were both "French". The belief that ethnicity is purely inherited is called Jus sanguinis, and is problematic in that it becomes essentially abitrary when one attempts to define citizenship solely based on bloodlines. For example, how do you deal with people who were born before your country existed (like say pre-1871 Germans) or, more to the point, when your borders change to suddenly incoporate people who used to be ethnicly part of another country (in France, think of all of the Savoyards and Alsatians and Corsicans who suddenly became French one day, and not Italian or German). What about ethnically isolated communities? Do the Y Wladfa community ever become Argentine, or are they always going to be Welsh? How do you deal with groups like the Kaifeng Jews? Ethnicity is never a permanent state of being, and can only be understood within the social system it is defined, in the time and place you are defining it. Who counts as "us" and who counts as "them" is always fluid, and always changes over time. --Jayron32 15:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- People sometimes take a swipe at the British royals by saying they're all bunch of Germans anyway. Which, as the above tells us, is applying a far too simplistic analysis to what is a very complex set of relationships. They're not Germans; or English; or Greeks; or any other single thing. They're all mongrels, like every one of us is. Very comforting to know that everyone on the planet is a mongrel. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 18:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Speak for yourself. I'm pure-blooded Chordata, Tetrapod, Mammal and even Primate! And we don't talk about those procaryotes who sneaked into out pure eucariote lineage to become mitochondria --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- People sometimes take a swipe at the British royals by saying they're all bunch of Germans anyway. Which, as the above tells us, is applying a far too simplistic analysis to what is a very complex set of relationships. They're not Germans; or English; or Greeks; or any other single thing. They're all mongrels, like every one of us is. Very comforting to know that everyone on the planet is a mongrel. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 18:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's article Ethnogenesis is a useful read to understand that "ethnicity" is a self-identification".--Wetman (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Anyway, there are an awful lot of Royals with German connections. That is probably because in the 19th Century, Germany was made up of 39 independant states, all of which had a royal family. If you wanted to marry a fellow royal, as protocol demanded, then the German states were a likely hunting ground. There was the added bonus that (Austria and Prussia excepted) few of them were important powers, so marrying a German prince or princess was unlikely to have unwanted diplomatic consequences. If there was a brand-new country that needed a monarch with royal blood in his veins, there would always be an under-employed German prince who would be happy to oblige. Belgium and Greece spring to mind. Our own dear Queen is of course, half Scottish. Alansplodge (talk) 02:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Effects of U.S. government shutdown
I'm hoping you can help me. I have booked flights for a trip outside of the United States, with a flight returning to the United States on March 6. Since booking these flights, I have discovered that the last Congress extended funding for most U.S. government agencies only until March 4, 2011. Does anyone know whether my flight into the United States would be canceled in the event of a government shutdown because U.S. Customs and Border Protection would be shut down? The Federal Aviation Administration is an exception to the shutdown; for some reason, its funding was extended until March 31. So air traffic control and domestic flights should in principle be unaffected. However, would a shutdown lead to a cancellation of funding for the United States Department of Homeland Security and shut down all U.S. commercial airports? Please spare me mocking comments about the ridiculousness of a government that would shut down the country's borders and transportation systems because of an internal political fight or about the idiocy of the Republicans who would go to these lengths. As an American, I am embarrassed about the situation. However, I am looking for information and facts, not commentary. Thanks. Marco polo (talk) 13:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- In the past, government shutdowns did not shut down essential services, such as border control. They shut down office workers, such as data entry clerks, janitors, cafeteria workers, middle-management, bathroom attendants, drivers, etc... -- kainaw™ 13:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) It is hard to say, but the last time this happened certain things designated "vital services" were exempt from the shutdown, and that would likely include stuff like defense and security. The Army won't stop fighting, and things like the TSA will keep strip-searching little old ladies. What gets shut down in such events is usally "non-essential personel", which would pretty much include all of the people working in other departments, like Education and Interior and stuff like that. So the National Parks shut down, and all of the midlevel bureaucrats get some unpaid vacation. --Jayron32 13:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- You don't have to shutdown anything -vital or not- to save money. Just make it more restricted and you save money. It is a common practice, for example, to limit the opening hours of a library, but not shutting it down completely. In the case of border control, they probably will make it slower. 212.169.191.79 (talk) 13:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- The thing is that you don't want to shut down services that tend to make you more money than they cost; and customs is definately one of those things. While paying park rangers and paper-pushers is generally a costly endeavour, and so you can save money by just not paying them, restricting the flow of goods and people into and out of your country will generally hurt your revenue streams (you know, because of duties and tarrifs and taxing commerece in various ways) more than it saves you on costs. So those things will likely keep going. However, as you note, such government shut downs are usually a purely political statement. After all, it is the government. All the money is theirs anyways. They could generate revenue simply by printing more of it (there are VERY GOOD reasons why they may not want to do that, however!) Unlike state governments or private enterprise, who may find furloughs and layoffs to be the only ACTUAL means to stop the bleeding, the feds have other tools at their disposal, technically speaking. --Jayron32 14:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Don't worry about your flights. As the above responses state, the U.S. government can go several months without a debt ceiling or a budget, just by some creativity in the executive branch. The legal and practical precedent will be the United States federal government shutdown of 1995. In addition, there are laws dating from the Civil War and World War One era that make it clear that the Army (and, arguably, the rest of the national security apparatus) can go on forever without pay -- although see Bonus Army. for a sense of how unpopular that was. --M@rēino 17:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
A logical answer to these questions?
Is there a logical answer to these questions?
"What is the weight of a heart of gold?"
"How great is the force of love?"
"How many birds in the bush are worth one in the hand"?
Just wondering... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.112.128.153 (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Questions 1 and 3 can be calculated. Question 2 is meaningless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.169.191.79 (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- I wonder-wonder, who-m-ba-do-oo-who, who wrote The Book of Love? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well, one could calculate the compressive/tensile strength of the erect human penis, and then get a maximum force it could withstand before failing. That would be the maximum force of love...--Jayron32 17:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- I read something about that once. As I recall, the answer is about 20 miles per hour. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Your love is measured in per hours? I'm impressed. Sadly, mine is measured in per minutes. Per seconds if it's been more than a week. --Jayron32 17:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- That "per hour" is extrapolated. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, and another observation I read long ago: "One in the bush is worth two in the hand." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Your love is measured in per hours? I'm impressed. Sadly, mine is measured in per minutes. Per seconds if it's been more than a week. --Jayron32 17:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps:
- If we know the volume of the heart, the purity of the gold, and the composition of any impurities, then we can determine its mass and hence its weight at Earth gravity. Or else, we can just put the heart on a scale.
- Love, however, is not composed of matter and thus not measurable in terms of mass, and since f=ma, love's force is not measurable.
- Two, by unchallenged precedent.
- Hope this helps! --M@rēino 17:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- According to Geico Insurance Co. ... 1 bird in the hand has an estimated value of 2 birds in the bush (I assume this is an estimated value for Insurance and Estate Tax purposes. It could bring in as much as 3 or 4 birds in the bush at Auction) Blueboar (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- I suppose that would depend on the value of the bush and whether the bush came with the birds or had to be purchased seperately. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- According to Geico Insurance Co. ... 1 bird in the hand has an estimated value of 2 birds in the bush (I assume this is an estimated value for Insurance and Estate Tax purposes. It could bring in as much as 3 or 4 birds in the bush at Auction) Blueboar (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- The logical answer is: "The question is invalid." 66.108.223.179 (talk) 01:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
The thing you need to consider about logic is that it doesn't deal in the truth in an absolute sense, but rather truth within some system. With that understanding, it becomes clear that we are able to construct systems to deal with these questions logically:
"What is the weight of a heart of gold?"
If you have a system with axioms that hold that A) one's kindness, and goodness can be quantified, B) that the "heart" contains these qualities and C) the capacity for kindness and goodness makes a heart weigh more...well then you have a perfectly sound logical system dealing with your question. Greg Bard (talk) 07:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Newt Gingrich instead of Newton Gingrich
Why did he choose or accept being called 'Newt'? Newts are such horrible creatures. 212.169.191.79 (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- It's a common nickname for Newton. And what's horrible about amphibians? Try spending some time with a wolverine, and you'll appreciate amphibians better. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- And what more apt name for someone who would take out a contract on America than a slimy relative of the toad? Pais (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Please don't troll... --Mr.98 (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Without wanting to take this discussion too OT I'm going to call a [citation needed] on the description of newts as slimy. [8] says they are not particularly slimy and [9] says they have less slimy skin then salamanders. Nil Einne (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- There's a satirical song by the Austin Lounge Lizards about how all true newts repudiate that Gingrich guy... AnonMoos (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- And what more apt name for someone who would take out a contract on America than a slimy relative of the toad? Pais (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- There are worse things for a man to be named after. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- You have no idea. --Jayron32 19:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed. Corvus cornixtalk 19:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- And so forth... Adam Bishop (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed, but I chose someone in politics to reflect the thread's topic. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- OK, this is fairly silly. I mean, it's meant to be silly, but it's sillier than that. Dick is a perfectly respectable name and has been forever. The slang for penis presumably derives from the man's name, not vice versa.
- On the original subject, I can't believe no one's brought up: She turned me into a newt!. (Everyone gets quiet). Well, i' go' be'ah. --Trovatore (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed, but I chose someone in politics to reflect the thread's topic. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- And so forth... Adam Bishop (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed. Corvus cornixtalk 19:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- You have no idea. --Jayron32 19:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Sometimes I pine for the old days of the Ref Desk thread of the week award. --Dweller (talk) 12:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm tempted to say that the person who complained the loudest and single-handedly put the kibosh on your award in the face of general approval from other editors is no longer around, so maybe you could quietly reinstitute it, Dweller. After all, we operate on consensus around here. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 18:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm tempted to say that, amusing though they may be, this thread and the one above are good examples of exactly what we shouldn't be promoting in any way. Matt Deres (talk) 18:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
17/12/93
So, when it says Henry IV of France was crowned on February 27th, that would be Sunday the 17th in the Julian calendar, right? Anyone know why that particular day?
148.197.121.205 (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Many royals such as Elizabeth I of England consulted their astrologer, who then chose the date most auspicious for the coronation based on the monarch's natal horoscope.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Just a WAG here, but February 17th was a Sunday in 1594 (see 1594 and Common year starting on Tuesday), which would have allowed Henry IV to take Mass during his coronation. Having recently converted to Catholicism to end the French Wars of Religion, Henry is said to have quipped "Paris is well worth a Mass." My guess is that he chose to be coronated on a Sunday so as to keep the religious symbolism of his coronation occuring in conjunction with a Catholic Mass. See this section of this article.--Jayron32 19:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- France was using the Gregorian calendar in 1594, so the Julian dates don't matter (and it was 1594, not 93, although maybe we are counting wrong, if they didn't start the year on January 1). February 27 is February 27 (which was also a Sunday). All French kings were crowned on Sundays (or some other important feast days). I don't know why February 27 specifically...it is the feast day for numerous saints but none of them seem to have any connection to Henry. He had to wait years to be crowned, for various religious and political reasons, so maybe this was just the best "let's get it over with" date. (I am looking in "The French wars of religion, 1562-1629" by Mack P. Holt and "Vive le roi!: A history of the French coronation from Charles V to Charles X" by Richard A. Jackson, and I'm sure there are more books about Henry IV and this period.) Adam Bishop (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC) (Sorry, deleted Jayron's post again.)
- Oh, were Masses limited to Sundays in those days, or was it just a coronation thing? That seems odd. 86.164.58.119 (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well, it depends on how well-Reformed things were at that point; you're not supposed to have more than one mass per week, but sometimes there were more, sometimes less. It didn't have to be on Sunday, but like now, that's when it usually was. Also, lay people sometimes tend to call any service in a church a "mass", but there are many other kinds of services that happen every day, which are not a mass but may have some of the same elements. The service at a coronation may not necessarily have been a mass. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- you're not supposed to have more than one mass per week - where does that come from, Adam? Daily mass has always been the ideal practice to my knowledge. Mass on Sundays and other Holy Days of Obligation is a minimum requirement, not a maximum. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 18:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well, it depends on how well-Reformed things were at that point; you're not supposed to have more than one mass per week, but sometimes there were more, sometimes less. It didn't have to be on Sunday, but like now, that's when it usually was. Also, lay people sometimes tend to call any service in a church a "mass", but there are many other kinds of services that happen every day, which are not a mass but may have some of the same elements. The service at a coronation may not necessarily have been a mass. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- I recommend you look up the relevant sections in Canon Law and the Catechism (both available online), because you are quite mistaken about current practice, Adam, and current rules. You're not supposed to receive communion more than once a day, unless you're a priest, or it's Christmas or Easter. I think there might also be an exception for being gravely ill? I'd have to check. There are generally daily Masses, and two or three for Sunday, in a parish. I'd be interested in knowing if the Church felt differently about this in the past (I know they felt differently about going to a church that wasn't your parish church), but that is how the Church feels now! 86.164.58.119 (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, sorry, I'm definitely confusing mass and communion, and probably other things...nevermind, pay no attention to my crazy ramblings. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- I am more familiar with Polish coronation customs than French ones, but I'm convinced that the Polish order of coronation was modeled on West European ones and that things were quite similar all over Christian Europe. Anyway, in Poland a coronation would always take place on Sunday, the holiest day of the week. Ceremonies related to the coronation normally took four days, from Friday to Monday. Friday was the day of a symbolic reburial of the previous king. On Saturday the king-elect prepared spiritually for his coronation by confessing, fasting, charity donations and making a short pilgrimage to a local shrine. Sunday was the day of the main coronation and enthronement ceremonies which took place during a solemn mass in a cathedral. Finally on Monday, the new king would make his first public appearance in a city square and knight a few selected people. This kicked off public festivities with feasts, dances, jousts and fireworks. (Online source in Polish) — Kpalion(talk) 12:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Also, related question, does anyone know which exact day he first entered Paris after the start of that last war? I can't seem to find it anywhere. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Oil shocks with low inflation
In the 1970s there was high inflation due to the price of oil rising rapidly. However, I do not think there was either a depression or a recession as far as I know.
What would happen if we had the same big increases in oil prices now, but central banks used increases in interest rates to keep inflation at 2%? Would we inevitably be forced into a 1930s style depression? Thanks 92.28.247.121 (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- There was a rather deep recession in the 1970's, see 1973–75 recession. Also, in the late 1970's there was the era of Stagflation in the U.S., and a memorable reflection on the rather crappy econmic times in the late 1970s (even if it wasn't an "official" recession) was the famous Malaise speech of Jimmy Carter, which seemed to capture the zeitgeist of the time. The 1980 presidential campaign was won by Reagan basically using the shitty economy to his advantage; the rallying cry that year was "Are you better off today than you were 4 years ago." That really resonated with the American people, and Reagan won pretty easily against Carter, one of the few sitting presidents to lose a re-election bid. --Jayron32 19:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, high oil prices are recognized as a main cause of the 1973–75 recession, as well as of the early 1980s recession, and a period of negative growth in the first half of 1980, which contributed to the defeat of Jimmy Carter in that year's U.S. presidential election. While Jayron and I have mentioned events in the United States, the recessions of the mid-70s and early 80s were global in scale. Marco polo (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- This is kind of what happened in the early 80s. Inflation was 14.8% in March 1980 after the Iranian Revolution. In 1981, the Fed raised the discount rate to 14%. Inflation subsided, but the unemployment rate went from around 7% in 1980 to 10.8% in December 1982. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Would allowing high inflation in responce to oil shocks reduce the severity of a recession or depression? 92.24.191.10 (talk) 10:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- There is no simple answer to your question. The answer is that it depends. In our current case, we have a vast overhang of debt that is suppressing economic activity in many countries. Inflation is one way to reduce the burden of debt, and so it might reduce the severity of the current recession. Certainly raising interest rates to combat inflation in this economic climate would be likely to worsen economic conditions for most people (though such a move might benefit those whose income comes mainly from financial assets). Marco polo (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
President of the US stopping a death sentence of a state government
Can he do it? Quest09 (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- No, see Presidential_pardon#State_law. --Jayron32 19:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Except that state governments don't impose death sentences or any other types of sentences. They're matters for courts. There is separation of powers even at the state level. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- The courts are part of the government. At least, in the US English sense of the word government, which means the same as state in the sense of, well, government. --Trovatore (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed that courts are considered part of the government in US English. In the United States, the government consists of three branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. The balance of powers exists among these three branches. Marco polo (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- The courts are part of the government. At least, in the US English sense of the word government, which means the same as state in the sense of, well, government. --Trovatore (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- State courts do not impose penalties. City and county courts do. Corvus cornixtalk 21:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- State_court_(United_States)#Criminal_cases has another opinion on this matter. 212.169.191.79 (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- That sure doesn't seem right. Courts are "In and of the district of Manhaatan", or "Alameda County Court". District attorneys are not state officials. Corvus cornixtalk 22:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- It's a slightly subtle point, I think. In California, courts are typically organized at the county level, but they enforce state law. There is no death penalty for violation of county ordinances. I don't know if violations of county/city ordinances can ever be criminal matters (but I'm also not sure they can't). --Trovatore (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Also see the Kenneth Bianchi case, where the local prosecutors wanted to drop the case, so the judge, Ronald George, reassigned it to the state AG's office. I honestly thought he should have recused himself from the case after that — it was a reasonable decision given the facts, but I think it compromised his neutrality as a judge. Instead he got an appointment to the state Supreme Court. I wasn't too happy about that. --Trovatore (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- I had the wrong case. I mean, it was the right string of murders, but the wrong defendant. It was Angelo Buono. --Trovatore (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- That sure doesn't seem right. Courts are "In and of the district of Manhaatan", or "Alameda County Court". District attorneys are not state officials. Corvus cornixtalk 22:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- State_court_(United_States)#Criminal_cases has another opinion on this matter. 212.169.191.79 (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- The real question by the OP, if I'm reading it right, is simply whether the U.S. President can commute a state-level death sentence. The answer is no. He has no such authority. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, could overturn it via the judicial process, if there was a constitutional question. It's maybe possible that the Congress could pass a law prohibiting capital punishment, but it would likely immediately be challenged in court. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Right on the point.Quest09 (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Has this ever been tested in court? It's generally assumed that the president cannot issue pardons for state crimes, but the Constitution does not say this explicitly. We won't know for sure unless some president tries to do it. Has that ever happened? My guess would be no. --Trovatore (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- The President can only do stuff that he's overtly authorized to do, by the Constitution and the federal laws. He has no jurisdiction where individual state's crimes are concerned, as such. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, but the question is what that overt authorization covers. What the text says is
- and he shall have power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
- Now, it's true that the "against the United States" thing probably means federal-only. That's what everyone assumes. But I doubt it's ever been tested. --Trovatore (talk) 03:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- A violation of strictly a state law is not a crime against the United States. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- In matters of internal affairs, the states are (with certain explicit exemptions, more on that) considered sovereign and are not subject to federal law except in the domains expressly enumerated in the constitution. See Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the prior Enumerated powers which the Tenth Amendment clarifies. The basic principle is that in areas NOT specifically enumerated by the constitution (such as regulating foreign affairs, printing currency, regulating interstate commerce, establish citizenship requirements, run the post office, etc.) are expressly reserved for the states themselves. This situation was slightly modified by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution which basicly applies the Bill of Rights to the states directly. However, other than the Bill of Rights and the Enumerated Powers, the federal government is expressly forbidden from interfering in the business of the individual states. The only time Federal law takes over is when a) some aspect of the Federal government is a direct part of the violation (such as murdering a Federal official, or committing fraud through the mail; which uses a federal agency which is expressly the domain of the Feds, even if the fraud is committed wholy within one state) or b) when the crime crosses state lines (such as carrying a kidnapping victim across state lines, or the rather maligned Mann Act,). If you kill someone in your own state, are arrested, tried, and convicted under state law, there's not a damned thing the feds can do about it, unless the U.S. Supreme court can find something about the state law which is in violation of the U.S. Constitution itself. --Jayron32 03:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- In a separate specific subject, but in the same general states-rights topic, if the health care laws do indeed require every citizen to have health insurance (which I don't know is true, but it's the argument being made), then that part of the law, at least, is almost certainly unconstitutional, because there is nothing in the Constitution allowing the feds to tell you that you must have health insurance. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, there very well might be. The interstate commerce clause could be invoked to give Congress this right. Furthermore, there is nothing inherantly unconstitutional about the extreme case; which would be fully government funded health care. The Federal government collects taxes and runs all sorts of agencies which duplicate or supplement either state-run agencies (c.f. the FBI and various state investigative agencies) or private business directly (c.f. the Post Office and UPS/FedEX/DHL). They could effect the same exact sort of healthcare system by charging everyone in the country taxes, and providing healthcare, with a full dollar-for-dollar tax credit for premiums paid for people who have private insurance, and then the government could then use the rest of the tax revenue to purchase private insurance for everyone else, or simply pay health care providers directly. It would have the practical effect of the exacts same legislation they just passed, i.e. requiring everyone to purchase insurance. Its quite unclear how the courts will rule in this situation; at least two courts have ruled the mandate constitutional, and at least two have ruled it unconstitutional. The net result is this will probably go to the Supreme Court... --Jayron32 21:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- In a separate specific subject, but in the same general states-rights topic, if the health care laws do indeed require every citizen to have health insurance (which I don't know is true, but it's the argument being made), then that part of the law, at least, is almost certainly unconstitutional, because there is nothing in the Constitution allowing the feds to tell you that you must have health insurance. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- A violation of strictly a state law is not a crime against the United States. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, but the question is what that overt authorization covers. What the text says is
- The President can only do stuff that he's overtly authorized to do, by the Constitution and the federal laws. He has no jurisdiction where individual state's crimes are concerned, as such. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Has this ever been tested in court? It's generally assumed that the president cannot issue pardons for state crimes, but the Constitution does not say this explicitly. We won't know for sure unless some president tries to do it. Has that ever happened? My guess would be no. --Trovatore (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Right on the point.Quest09 (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- A point. Murder is a federal crime, though different states have different statutes extending that. The president could certainly commute the death sentence of anyone charged with murder solely under federal law, but whether he could commute the sentence of someone charged under both state and federal laws is something that the courts would need to decide. The more likely scenario would be for a president to instruct the FBI to investigate the case and use the court system to overturn the conviction if needed. --Ludwigs2 22:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)--Ludwigs2 22:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Murder per se is not a federal crime. Under certain circumstances, which keep getting broader, it can be a federal crime, but I think it's safe to stay that it still ordinarily isn't. For it to be a federal crime, it has to be directed against a federal official in performance of his duties, or be on federal property, or involve crossing state lines, or be at an international airport, or.... --Trovatore (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- For example, that Loughner guy is being charged with murder and attempted murder by the U.S. government, but only for the federal officials that were shot; whereas he will be or has been charged in connection with the others, at the state level. Somewhere down the road, the President could theoretically pardon the shooter for the federal crimes, but not for the state crimes. He has no jurisdiction to do so. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Murder per se is not a federal crime. Under certain circumstances, which keep getting broader, it can be a federal crime, but I think it's safe to stay that it still ordinarily isn't. For it to be a federal crime, it has to be directed against a federal official in performance of his duties, or be on federal property, or involve crossing state lines, or be at an international airport, or.... --Trovatore (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- A point. Murder is a federal crime, though different states have different statutes extending that. The president could certainly commute the death sentence of anyone charged with murder solely under federal law, but whether he could commute the sentence of someone charged under both state and federal laws is something that the courts would need to decide. The more likely scenario would be for a president to instruct the FBI to investigate the case and use the court system to overturn the conviction if needed. --Ludwigs2 22:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)--Ludwigs2 22:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Take a look at Office of the Pardon Attorney and List of people pardoned by Bill Clinton, which links to it as well as to a list of pardons and commutations by other Presidents. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Some people above seem to suggest this is an open question. It's not. The President can only pardon for federal crimes, and indeed it is States (not cities, counties, or municipalities) that impose police power. The double jeopardy clause explains a lot here: independent sovereigns, such as the State and the federal government, have unique powers to prosecute crimes, unless the federal constitution says otherwise. Shadowjams (talk) 09:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Can you cite a specific case that is on point? --Trovatore (talk) 09:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Here's an essay looking at whether an entire-in-state murder-for-hire charge could ever be considered a federal crime as well. Julie Hinden cites diverging opinions from the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits. --- OtherDave (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Interesting, but not on point. The question is, what happens if a president issues a pardon or commutation for a person convicted by a state? He just claims that that state is one of the United States, and so the crime is against the United States, and he just does it. If it's a capital case, I'm pretty sure that some federal judge will at least issue a stay until the matter can be worked out. It doesn't seem to be the intent of the pardon clause, but judges have stretched language further than that. --Trovatore (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Under the Constitution, he simply can't do that. Unlike other Federal systems (like Canada and Australia) where the powers of the states are enumerated, while the powers of the Federal government are reserved (that is the States have specific named powers, and the Federal Government reserves all other powers for themselves), in the U.S. the situation is exactly reversed: The Federal Government has a list of specific enumerated powers, and all other powers are expressly reserved for the states. In other words, unless the constitution specifically says that the Federal Government can do it, it cannot, while the states are given much more leeway. In the case of pardons, the relevent bit comes from Article Two of the United States Constitution, Section II, clause 1, in part " he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States,". The bold is mine. The phrase "United States", in the constitution, ALWAYS refers to the federal government as distinct from the contituent states. The constitution, when it refers to the states themselves always uses the phrase "the various states" or some close approximation of that. In other words, the text is clear: The president has the power to grant pardons against people convicted of violating Federal laws, in the Federal court system. He has no jurisdiction to grant pardons against people convicted of violating any single state's laws. He simply cannot do it. The federal government does NOT have supreme sovereignty in the U.S., except in the case of the Enumerated powers. The individual states have sovereignty in all other matters.--Jayron32 21:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- The question is still whether there has ever been a case testing the meaning of against the United States as it appears specifically in Article II Section 2. I'm sure you know that the same words can be construed differently in different places. I doubt there has ever been such a case.
- As for "he simply cannot do it", well, he certainly can do it. So can I, for that matter. If I do it, it's pretty obvious that nothing will come of it. It's less obvious to me that nothing will come of it if the president does it. --Trovatore (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- There's nothing to test. The President has no jurisdiction in regard to individual state crimes. Notice that the last appeal in a state capital case is always to the governor of the state. In a federal case, it would be to the president. I recommend you talk to your Civics teacher about this. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- There's nothing to test? So how does the scenario go down in your opinion? President Obama calls up the warden at San Quentin and says "I hereby commute the sentence of ---- to life without parole". He also informs the convict's lawyer. Do you think the warden and/or lawyer just ignore it?
- I think at the very least, the lawyer files a suit in federal court against the warden, alleging that the warden is illegally planning to go ahead with the execution in the face of the pardon, and the judge routinely issues a stay until it can be worked out. Do you dispute that part of it? --Trovatore (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- In practical terms, I can't see any actual president doing that, however. I can declare myself Grand Vizier and order all women in a 30 mile radius to bow down to me. I won't, because I am not insane. Likewise, the President doesn't make seemingly rediculous decisions on how to operate. The president has lawyers and advisers which scritinize and give advice on every situation he encounters, he rules by committee, not by fiat. I have no doubt that Presidents may have wished to pardon people who have been convicted of state-level crimes. I also am fairly certain that every constitutional lawyer who was anywhere within shouting distance of the President when he proposed such a thing would advise so strongly against it that it would never actually make it out of private conversation. We can invent hypothetical insanity all day "Well, the President could do XYZ, and since no one has tested it, we'll never know..." Sometimes, given the realities of how things operate, the President really would never do XYZ. --Jayron32 02:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- But if he did, you agree that the court system would respond in some way and not simply ignore it, I assume. You can't get away with "it's an improbable scenario". I know it's an improbable scenario. That isn't a response. --Trovatore (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, the courts would respond. And what they would say would be "You can't do that". In the case of a man scheduled to be executed, it may buy him a day or two, but this isn't one of those iffy sorts of things. The reason it has never been tested is that it is pretty much a foregone conclusion as to how it would go. --Jayron32 15:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- But if he did, you agree that the court system would respond in some way and not simply ignore it, I assume. You can't get away with "it's an improbable scenario". I know it's an improbable scenario. That isn't a response. --Trovatore (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- In practical terms, I can't see any actual president doing that, however. I can declare myself Grand Vizier and order all women in a 30 mile radius to bow down to me. I won't, because I am not insane. Likewise, the President doesn't make seemingly rediculous decisions on how to operate. The president has lawyers and advisers which scritinize and give advice on every situation he encounters, he rules by committee, not by fiat. I have no doubt that Presidents may have wished to pardon people who have been convicted of state-level crimes. I also am fairly certain that every constitutional lawyer who was anywhere within shouting distance of the President when he proposed such a thing would advise so strongly against it that it would never actually make it out of private conversation. We can invent hypothetical insanity all day "Well, the President could do XYZ, and since no one has tested it, we'll never know..." Sometimes, given the realities of how things operate, the President really would never do XYZ. --Jayron32 02:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- There's nothing to test. The President has no jurisdiction in regard to individual state crimes. Notice that the last appeal in a state capital case is always to the governor of the state. In a federal case, it would be to the president. I recommend you talk to your Civics teacher about this. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Under the Constitution, he simply can't do that. Unlike other Federal systems (like Canada and Australia) where the powers of the states are enumerated, while the powers of the Federal government are reserved (that is the States have specific named powers, and the Federal Government reserves all other powers for themselves), in the U.S. the situation is exactly reversed: The Federal Government has a list of specific enumerated powers, and all other powers are expressly reserved for the states. In other words, unless the constitution specifically says that the Federal Government can do it, it cannot, while the states are given much more leeway. In the case of pardons, the relevent bit comes from Article Two of the United States Constitution, Section II, clause 1, in part " he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States,". The bold is mine. The phrase "United States", in the constitution, ALWAYS refers to the federal government as distinct from the contituent states. The constitution, when it refers to the states themselves always uses the phrase "the various states" or some close approximation of that. In other words, the text is clear: The president has the power to grant pardons against people convicted of violating Federal laws, in the Federal court system. He has no jurisdiction to grant pardons against people convicted of violating any single state's laws. He simply cannot do it. The federal government does NOT have supreme sovereignty in the U.S., except in the case of the Enumerated powers. The individual states have sovereignty in all other matters.--Jayron32 21:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Interesting, but not on point. The question is, what happens if a president issues a pardon or commutation for a person convicted by a state? He just claims that that state is one of the United States, and so the crime is against the United States, and he just does it. If it's a capital case, I'm pretty sure that some federal judge will at least issue a stay until the matter can be worked out. It doesn't seem to be the intent of the pardon clause, but judges have stretched language further than that. --Trovatore (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Here's an essay looking at whether an entire-in-state murder-for-hire charge could ever be considered a federal crime as well. Julie Hinden cites diverging opinions from the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits. --- OtherDave (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
(undent) In re Adams, 689 A2d 6, 10 (DC Cir 1997) cites In re Bocchiaro, 49 FSupp 37, 38 (WDNY 1943) for the proposition that the "President lacks authority to pardon state offenses." I haven't read either case closely, and the DC circuit citing a district court is not entirely dispositive, but I can't imagine any other court would seriously consider disagreeing with it --68.51.75.10 (talk) 07:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- OK, this is a serious response, thank you. You're probably right. I just don't think that can be taken for granted from general impressions picked up in civics class. --Trovatore (talk) 09:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I know that at least a few of the people above who answered similarly are going on more than their civics class education for the answer. This is an interesting way to ask other people to do legal research for you, particularly when you're this abrasive towards what are ultimately proved to be correct answers. Shadowjams (talk) 10:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Bashing of Religion
Closed |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Why when theres certain problems in our world religion gets involved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlennRichardAllison (talk • contribs) 19:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Well don't you agree that it gets alittle out of hand sometimes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlennRichardAllison (talk • contribs) 20:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, I guess... GlennRichardAllison Mr. 900 Jr. bowling —Preceding undated comment added 21:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC). |
Malaysia and Muslim population of Philippines and Thailand
Isn't Thailand and Philippines suspecting Malaysia for supporting the insurgents in their land? I mean Moro rebels and Southern Thai Muslims rebels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.40.106 (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think so. According to various sources I found, there were accusations of Malaysian support for southern rebels in Thailand during the 1990s, but more recently there has been cooperation between the two countries in trying to end the rebellion. At worst, Thai authorities may not be satisfied with Malaysian efforts to eliminate private support for the rebels on the Malaysian side of the border. As for the Moro rebels in the Philippines, I can't find any evidence that the Filipino government accuses Malaysia of supporting the rebels. I can only find evidence that the two governments have cooperated in efforts to suppress the rebellion. Marco polo (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- There may be some support from Malaysians but while the Malaysian government may not always agree with some of the actions of either governments and may for a variety of cultural and religious reasons have sympathy for some of the demands of the rebels I don't think it's commonly claimed they offer much support not surprising considering I'm quite sure they don't want the same thing spreading to Malaysia. I'm also not to sure many Malaysians whether in government or ordinary citizens were particularly pleased with these particular Moro rebels Abu Sayyaf#2000 Sipadan kidnapping. Note that some former (and I expect current) Moro rebels also have views about the North Borneo dispute that aren't likely to resonate well with most Malaysians either [10] Nil Einne (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- With respect to the Philippines, rumors have been swirling that Malaysia supports the so-called memorandum of agreement on ancestral domain between the Philippine government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front because when the MILF declares its territory independent of the Philippines (this declaration was one of the reasons why the MoA-AD was shot down by the Supreme Court), Malaysia will annex the territory and exploit Mindanao for its natural resources. Some in Mindanao have even called for Malaysia to be replaced by another country which will mediate talks between the Philippine government and the MILF because of those rumors. There's also the Sabah dispute to talk about: rumors have also circulated in the past that Malaysia covertly supports Muslim rebels in the Philippines because with the Philippine government busy trying to fight the MILF, it won't pursue its long-dormant claim over Sabah. --Sky Harbor (talk) 07:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
What makes a song catchy and danceable?
Some songs appear to be just as rhythm-oriented, complex, and talentfully-performed as others, yet are boring somehow, or just never catch on. Other songs seem frankly rather retarded and simplistic or use annoying bits of music like the "place in france" melody, yet become major hit singles and fill the dance floor.
What exactly determines what makes a song become something that fills up the dance floor and sticks in your head?
173.11.0.145 (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- If we knew that, we'd be out there writing hit after hit and becoming multi-millionaires. Honestly. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 22:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Just four chords, apparently. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- This is a good question, and one that has been wondered since the ancient times. Firstly, you must realize that your concept of what makes good music is ingrained in you from the time of conception. This is based largely on geographical location and the era in which you were born. E.G. Plato's idea of good music was probably much different from Justin Bieber. Next, good contemporary local music is mostly based on the Octatonic scale and the triad, which is what the four chords linked above consist of. This is all not to say that you may enjoy music from Feudal Japan, but that would msot likely be because of the idea of the music rather than its harmonic qualities. Lastly, something must be said about the Music Industry, hype, and transient stardom. This is a veritable plague on music today (in my opinion). It seems to be cyclical, though, as almost everything in Earth's history has been, and we may very well be om the cusp of a revolution in music. That is, with the distribution of free msuic, illegally for the time being, but many believe art should not carry a price. And we all know that an unjust law is no law at all. schyler (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- What exactly determines what makes a song become something that fills up the dance floor and sticks in your head? A good hook, a lot of promotion, and a strong dose of luck. Pfly (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Having a beat helps, but it has to have the kind of beat that accommodates dancing. One of the complaints about much of the Beatles music, ironically, even the early stuff, is that you couldn't dance to its beat. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Songs, as memes, are designed consciously and subconsciously to be memorable. It should not be surprising, then, to find that some are really memorable. When you've figured out the secret you'll have figured out the secret to music. Maybe one day we will. I hope so. 66.108.223.179 (talk) 01:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Despite the best intentions of the composers, you would be hard-pressed to find a song that everyone likes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
February 2
what is the name of this artwork?
I need reference of this artwork and have no idea. Please inform me with its artist, published date and its title
thank you very much. greatly appreciated.
[[11]]
blind clown leading the blind —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.255.43.173 (talk) 01:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Blind Leading the Blind by Ed Miracle apparently. meltBanana 09:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Egypt's Revolution >>>>Europe
What effects will Egypt's imminent revolution have on Europe, politically, economically, and religiously? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.210.182.8 (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- "The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events." Clarityfiend (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- If you google that question, you will probably find hundreds or thousands of opinions. We can't even guess until or if something happens. Egypt could be liberated relatively peacefully, as with East Germany; it could be taken over by Muslim extremists, as with Iran; or any number of other possible scenarios. Which direction it takes will at least start to answer your question. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- We can at least provide some information on this, see Foreign_relations_of_Egypt#European_Union for some background on the connections between Europe and Egypt which are likely to be affected by the current troubles. --Jayron32 04:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- A moment's thought will make it clear that the answer is entirely dependent on what occurs in "the imminent revolution", and nobody knows yet what will occur. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- There's all the usual things that war and civil uprising can lead to, but the Suez Canal is special part of Egypt that a lot of the world's trading nations and organisations would hate to see disrupted. HiLo48 (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, we might have to invade again if that happens, and then anything could happen. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 10:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Last names
What are some ways to guess things about a person's (patri)lineage from their last name? I don't necessarily mean memorizing the origins of a bunch of common last names, but a few suggestions similar to last names (such as 'Smith') often have to do with an ancestor's occupation. I would also like tips on identifying the linguistic/national origin of a last name please. Thanks. 24.92.70.160 (talk) 05:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well, you kinda have to know the languages themselves. Most of the time, names are built of the same sets of phonemes (sounds) as the languages they come from, so if you know what sounds there are in French, its pretty easy to tell when someone's last name also comes from French. Additionally, many native last names are actual words or place names native to a place. So if you know the Italian language you'll recognize that actress Hayden Panettiere's last name is the Italian word for "Baker", i.e. one who bakes bread. In French the equivalent last name is Boulanger, which is also identical to the occupation itself. It is not always obvious, however. The last name Costello, for example, has sounds and spelling which make it seem either Italian or Spanish (compare to Castillo, an obviously spanish name). The name is clearly Irish, and is attested in various forms in Ireland back to the 12th century. Names can also change as languages change, for example, when "Guilio Mazarini" moved to France to become chief minister to the French King, his name gets "frenchified" to "Jules Mazarin". If you have any specific questions about specific names, perhaps we can help you research them. --Jayron32 05:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- It's hard to give general rules because it would depend on the country the name/person was from, and groups with non-European heritage would have completely different rules to Europeans. As an example, in Scotland certain surnames are associated with specific clans which in turn are linked to geographical areas. I suspect you would find in many countries that aristocratic names came from different sources than names of people of lower social status, and different regions had different naming customs which will provide a clue to origin, e.g. British names ending in -s are often Welsh. Wikipedia has articles on the naming traditions, customs, and laws of many individual countries, e.g. Spanish naming customs, Italian name, Eastern Slavic naming customs, Chinese name, and more general pages like Family name which together offer a lot of information: when surnames came into common use, what their sources were, etc. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- For Chinese names, there are unlikely to be any general rules for most common surnames - your best bet at finding out about a person's ancestry through their surname is looking it up in a book or on Wikipedia or elsewhere on the web.
- There are only a few surnames which are not rare today that derive from occupations - most of these are two syllables instead of the more common one syllable surname - see, for some examples, Chinese compound surname. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- You mean he wasn't called COSTello just because he was the treasurer? :-) Mitch Ames (talk) 12:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
As well as the suggestions above, don't forget religion is often given away by surname, and even caste within religion (eg Cohen), but it can be misleading - someone with, say, a biblical surname in the USA may well be a Christian, rather than Jew, and I've met someone called Cohen who was a Levite - and this World Cup-winning Cohen wasn't even Jewish. --Dweller (talk) 12:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Thriller writer called Patterson
First name please? Kittybrewster ☎ 12:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- James? DuncanHill (talk) 12:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- ... or possibly Richard North. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- ...or Harry --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Has the OP checked our article: Patterson (surname)? Mitch Ames (talk) 03:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Belfast's Little Italy
Does anyone happen to know where Belfast's Little Italy was located? At one time Italians formed a sizeable community, but Little Italy no longer exists. Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Little Patrick Street. Some info here and here. DuncanHill (talk) 13:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- There's a fleeting mention in our article about Cathedral Quarter, Belfast. DuncanHill (talk) 13:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oh thank you. That would be very close to the city centre. I just had a look at a site which shows the street today. Not a sign left to indicate Italian culture once flourished there; it's now a dreary rundown street with garages, warehouses, etc. Would anyone know roughly how many Italians immigrated to Belfast?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know if it helps at all, but this article from 2003 gives a figure of about 1500 people of Italian descent living there as a result of earlier immigration. Karenjc 17:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you everybody for providing answers and interesting links. My questions have been answered.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know if it helps at all, but this article from 2003 gives a figure of about 1500 people of Italian descent living there as a result of earlier immigration. Karenjc 17:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Russian Orthodox question: "first" and "second" resurrections
Greetings -- I'm writing an article on a mystic Russian composer who was a bit of a nut -- he wrote parts of his scores in his own blood -- (thanks to Sluzzelin for the lead, and to JackofOz for the Russian translations!) -- but I've stumbled over a question I haven't been able to satisfactorily answer. His magnum opus, La livre de vie, is intended to be performed every year on the "first" and "second" resurrections of Christ. Is this part of a Russian Orthodox Easter service? Here is the line from Jonathan Powell's article in the New Grove: "Described by the composer as ‘l'action sacrée du pasteur tout-puissant regnant’ it was intended to be performed (or ‘accomplished’) uninterruptedly every year on the night of the first and on the day of the second resurrection of Christ." What does this mean? Was Christ resurrected more than once, or is one a resurrection of humanity and the other of Christ? Antandrus (talk) 15:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- WHAG here, but is the second resurrection a different translation of Ascension Day? --TammyMoet (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- The only references I found must be copies using the exact same wording. I couldn't find anything mentioning performance on a "second resurrection of Christ" in French or Russian either. I'm wondering whether it's a translation (or editing) error, and the intended meaning is "every year on the night of the first day and on the second day of resurrection of Christ", meaning during the Easter Vigil (the night of Holy Saturday) and then again on Paskha itself, on Easter Sunday. Or something like that. I have asked for assistance at WP's projects on Russia and on Eastern Orthodoxy. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- According to this, the Book of Life was to be performed every year on xmas day. It says nothing about the "first" or "second" resurrections.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 4, 2011; 15:09 (UTC)
- The only references I found must be copies using the exact same wording. I couldn't find anything mentioning performance on a "second resurrection of Christ" in French or Russian either. I'm wondering whether it's a translation (or editing) error, and the intended meaning is "every year on the night of the first day and on the second day of resurrection of Christ", meaning during the Easter Vigil (the night of Holy Saturday) and then again on Paskha itself, on Easter Sunday. Or something like that. I have asked for assistance at WP's projects on Russia and on Eastern Orthodoxy. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Family Guy
Why a conservative conglomerate like Fox (part of News Corporation) produce anti-religious and anti-family TV series like Family Guy? --GarotBugrer (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- What makes you think it is anti-religous or anti-family? Fox also produces a similar comedy, The Simpsons, which has been praised as being strongly both, despite its comedy. Grsz 11 16:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Fox itself does not have a political standing (either conservative or liberal) anymore than any other conglomerate. Fox News does because that channel fills a niche market. For example, NBCUniversal, the conglomerate that owns the Golf Channel, is not staffed by rabid fans of Golf that hate all other sports. They just found a niche market that allowed them to tap into a revenue stream that other channels were not. Its the same thing with Fox News. Its existance is based on a business decision, not a politicial one, by its parent company. In other words, Fox News exists to monetize the fanbase of the American Conservatism, in exactly the same way that the Golf Channel exists to monetize the fanbase of golf. To answer the original question; the Fox parent company doesn't necessarily have the same political opinions as those espoused on Fox News, indeed it probably doesn't have any opinion beyond "what actions will maximize the value of this company for our shareholders". Insofar as producing a conservative political network does that, it will produce that network. Insofar as Family Guy does that as well, there is no contradiction when you realize the actual motivations of the parent company. --Jayron32 16:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- For a while the Fox network had a reputation of showing salacious, lowest-common-denominator shows such as Temptation Island, and it's certainly never had a reputation for devout, god-fearing religious programming (in fairness, there's not much devout or god-fearing about Fox News either). Fox and its owners aren't necessarily right-wing in everything they do: Murdoch-owned papers endorsed the British Labour Party[12], and earlier the Australian Labour Party under Gough Whitlam (see Rupert Murdoch). Murdoch is a brilliant populist, good at appealing to the public mood, and in politics prefers to back winners. --Colapeninsula (talk) 18:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- FOX is an entertainment network: everything they do (including their news and punditry) is geared towards a kind of low-brow entertainment that happens to sell very well. As far as I can tell, Murdoch caught onto the idea that a large number of people enjoy kick-in-the-crotch slapstick humor, and so pretty much everything FOX does (animated shows, reality TV, news programs...) involves someone physically, emotionally, or metaphorically kicking someone else in the crotch. The fact that FOX News is conservative has more to do with the fact left-wingers don't go so much for the low-brow humor thing than with any overt political agenda. --Ludwigs2 18:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- This is an entirely incorrect analysis. The low-brow aspects of Fox predate Murdoch taking it over. There is no real connection between Fox News and the other Fox programming. The idea that left-wingers don't go for lowbrow comedy is itself ridiculous and unsupported. I suspect that there is little correlation in general between politics and how witty you enjoy your comedy to be. In any case, again, you conflate Fox News and the Fox network; they are not the same thing, and they are not a single, coherent entity when it comes to programming. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- (ec) Jayron32 is correct. Their mission is to make money. Ludwigs2 would have to cite sources for his fanciful claim that lowbrow humor is less popular among left-wingers. Aside from The Simpsons, as mentioned above, which was famously criticized by President George H.W. Bush, a right-of-center president, for being "anti-family", basically, the Fox network was perhaps first accused by critics of lowering America's moral values with the show Married... with Children. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps a better comparison is between NBC and MSNBC. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Shows like Married with Children are sometimes called "sophomoric". P.J. O'Rourke once said that "sophomoric" is "a liberal's code word that means 'funny'." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- And P.J. O'Rourke knows this because he is neither. Pais (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Sure he didn't say "soporific"? :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 23:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Shows like Married with Children are sometimes called "sophomoric". P.J. O'Rourke once said that "sophomoric" is "a liberal's code word that means 'funny'." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
While it's true that Fox News has found a market niche, I think it's true that it to some degree reflects Rupert Murdoch's ideology. It's not a coincidence that News Corp. newspapers tend to have conservative editorial lines. I don't think the Fox broadcast network would air Michael Moore documentaries, even if it somehow made business sense. If Murdoch were more of a social conservative and less of a fiscal conservative, I don't think you would have seen Married With Children and The Simpsons appear on the lineup in the '80s. You can compare Murdoch's Fox to Bud Paxson's Pax network, which specialized in so-called family-friendly programming. Paxson is an evangelical Christian. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Why is it that Sub Saharan Africa is so primitive?
A little while ago I asked a question on the science desk about how to design an experiment to determine if certain races are smarter than others, and it seemed that the consensus was that no test could be performed. I've encountered racists who claim that Black Africans are so primitive because they are genetically dumber than other races. I don't buy this, I've attempted to posit an explanation to why their civilizations are not as technologically advanced as European's. The following is my explanation,
I think Sub Saharan Africa is not as technologically advanced as Europe because it was not exposed to Old World innovations and technology. Gunpowder was invented in China, mathematics was invented in the middle east, etc, etc. All of these innovations spread throughout Asia, North Africa, and Europe, but the Americas, Australia, and Sub Saharan Africa was isolated, and thus was not exposed to these innovations. The Americas and Australia were of course isolated because of the great oceans that separated them from the Old World. Even though Sub Saharan Africa is connected to North Africa, it is separated by a large desert that was nearly impossible to cross at the time, so these great innovations in science, military tactics, medicine, technology, etc were not able to reach them until Europeans became sufficiently advanced to cross these physical barriers and then by that time, the gap in technological progress was significant.
Is my explanation true? If it isn't, why is it that Sub Saharan Africa is technologically inferior to Europe?ScienceApe (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- See Guns, Germs, and Steel for a plausible hypothesis about why world history has played out the way it has. Plus a great deal of chance, I'd bet... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) The answer to this question is complicated and not well understood. Your explanation is a reasonable hypothesis and isolation is possibly a contributing factor. This lecture (and great animation) by Phil Zimbardo (not the animator) [13]has another interesting hypothesis. I was going to mention GGS as well. --Daniel 20:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- I don't agree that you can't test it. I think rather that the consensus is that it's so politically poisonous that no one will touch it. Personally I've seen 2 points of view: There is a difference in intelligence. Or: There is no such thing as race and this is untestable. (Or alternatively, Intelligence is unmeasurable/undefinable, and can't be tested.) I have not however seen anyone say that: There is race and measurable intelligence, and the intelligence is equal. As a practical matter few dare study this, and especially few dare talk about intelligence, so you will not find much to go on. BTW Your explanation does not explain why they didn't come up with those things themself (perhaps with a delay). Also historically the Chinese invented tons of things, and then abandoned them. So it's not just intelligence but also a culture of using new things - perhaps due to competition. Ariel. (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Also, sub-Saharan Africa isn't primitive; it's different from Europe, sure, but that's hardly the same as "primitive". What is "primitive" anyway? Adam Bishop (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- "Primitive" means they have lower-tech weaponry. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- That's precisely it. Or even more accurately, HAD lower-tech weaponry. Now they just have less wealth because the colonial powers who became that way because of their better weaponry took all the good stuff out of the countries and left them in a mess. HiLo48 (talk) 22:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, the "advanced" civilizations tend to rape and pillage the "primitive" ones. Hence the Irony Age. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think this is a little over-simplistic. It's not that these countries lack natural resources — in fact, natural resources are in many cases responsible for their problems. See Resource curse. When you have an economy that is disproportionately devoted to oil, or diamond, or uranium, or whatever, you don't develop the diverse political, economic, and social institutions that you need if you have fewer resources. One of the reasons why Europe became so successful in the 17th century is because it was politically heterogenous, with everyone fighting over the same resources. Countries that found easy resources (such as Spain, with its influx of New World silver) stagnated; countries that were constantly out of money (Netherlands, England) figured out how to be clever at trade and financing — economic instruments which ultimately allowed them to use a lot more capital than the countries that were actually dependent on things mined out of the ground. Anyway, one other aside, the Africans have plenty of pretty-good weapons tech — they buy it from the US and other countries. What they lack is not technology, but political stability and reliable economic institutions. How they got to this position is the kind of Guns, Germs, and Steel question, and entails a lot of discussion of colonialism. But the relationship to colonialism is not one of the colonial powers robbing them of their resources and now they are poor — they still have the resources, but all of the profits are going to corrupt institutions.
- It is not an intelligence issue at all — even if the Africans were, on average, some percentage point less intelligent than Europeans or Asians on the aggregate (which is entirely possible; there's no reason to think that all human populations have exactly equal average innate intelligence), there would still be abundant geniuses to fill the upper ranks. The average intelligence of your population group should have very little effect on what kinds of political and economic institutions you have — you aren't letting the "average" people run those institutions, generally speaking. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- That's precisely it. Or even more accurately, HAD lower-tech weaponry. Now they just have less wealth because the colonial powers who became that way because of their better weaponry took all the good stuff out of the countries and left them in a mess. HiLo48 (talk) 22:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- "Primitive" means they have lower-tech weaponry. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Also, sub-Saharan Africa isn't primitive; it's different from Europe, sure, but that's hardly the same as "primitive". What is "primitive" anyway? Adam Bishop (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- They didn't have a tradition of capitalism. No capitalism means no industrial revolution and no factories and all the resulting mass produced goods. According to History of capitalism which I just started to read a few seconds ago, capitalism required people who were earning their living by seeking a wage who could be employed by capitalists. In Africa I speculate that people never needed to be wage earners because they could just wander off into the bush and hunt and grow crops and build a hut. So the ultimate cause may be that land was not so tightly owned as in Europe, allowing people to have a smallholding rather than seeking a wage. 92.24.190.211 (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- In general, the lands exposed to the Mediterranean had a sometimes contiguous shipping routes, or alternate land routes, to the east through Asia Minor, India, Khymer, and China. So Egypt, Crete, Carthage, Greece, and Rome were centers of learning, while for millennia the dark hearts of Europe and Africa remained mysterious realms of isolated tribesmen. Even so, Timbuktu for example was the site of one of the first great universities, and techniques such as basic steelmaking were long known. I think that if you had compared Europe and Africa in the days when Carthage and Rome faced off, you would not have found one more advanced than another, even in their more remote regions - perhaps not even much later when the Ottomans seemed invincible. It was only very late in Europe's history that it advanced beyond other regions, and to me this is the clearest argument against any racist genetic nonsense. Where religion is concerned, this is a different matter - there are fair arguments that fundamental principles of Christianity ended cruel institutions in Europe, perhaps allowing people to rise to greater heights. Wnt (talk) 08:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Did europe and africa have similar technology up to just before the Industrial Revolution? 92.24.180.229 (talk) 10:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- In general, the lands exposed to the Mediterranean had a sometimes contiguous shipping routes, or alternate land routes, to the east through Asia Minor, India, Khymer, and China. So Egypt, Crete, Carthage, Greece, and Rome were centers of learning, while for millennia the dark hearts of Europe and Africa remained mysterious realms of isolated tribesmen. Even so, Timbuktu for example was the site of one of the first great universities, and techniques such as basic steelmaking were long known. I think that if you had compared Europe and Africa in the days when Carthage and Rome faced off, you would not have found one more advanced than another, even in their more remote regions - perhaps not even much later when the Ottomans seemed invincible. It was only very late in Europe's history that it advanced beyond other regions, and to me this is the clearest argument against any racist genetic nonsense. Where religion is concerned, this is a different matter - there are fair arguments that fundamental principles of Christianity ended cruel institutions in Europe, perhaps allowing people to rise to greater heights. Wnt (talk) 08:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Any democratic royalty?
Has there ever been any royalty anywhere in the world who have been democratically elected? 2.97.220.121 (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Don't they all start that way? Someone popular gets the will of the people and establishes himself as king. Afterward it's self perpetuating, but I think most of them start by the will of the people being ruled. Otherwise where would the new king get an army or resources? Ariel. (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Popular? You mean the most feared and the most deadly tyrants. They got into and maintained positions of power by killing people, often lots of them. 92.15.14.91 (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- The article elective monarchy is informative here. You have to decide how large the franchise is in order to "count" as democratic. For example, the voting franchise that elected the Holy Roman Emperor consisted of Only seven men, while the voting franchise that elected the King of Poland consisted of up to 40-50,000 voters, which may be comparable to some highly-restricted franchises in nominaly republican states. --Jayron32 21:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- See also Haakon VII of Norway. --NorwegianBlue talk 21:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Papal elections are democratic, according to a certain definition of democratic... Adam Bishop (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Elective is not the same as democratic. The papacy is elective, but utterly undemocratic. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 22:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- No-one's mentioned the Witenagemot. They had the power to "choose the king" of England, for example choosing Harold Godwinson, rather than any of the other claimants, to succeed Edward the Confessor - with dramatic consequences. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Elective is not the same as democratic. The papacy is elective, but utterly undemocratic. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 22:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Papal elections are democratic, according to a certain definition of democratic... Adam Bishop (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- See also Haakon VII of Norway. --NorwegianBlue talk 21:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- William the Conqueror, the ancestor of every British monarch since 1066, would not qualify as being democratically elected. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- That doesn't count since he didn't start the monarchy. Tracing him back stops at Rollo, but there doesn't seem to be much information on how he started. Ariel. (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- According to the Alexiad and history, Rollo was a horrible murderous thug. So that's who the Brit-royals are descended from. The fearful-respect has over generations become habituated into just respect. 92.15.14.91 (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Are you sure you have your history sorted correctly? The Alexiad was written around 1148 by Anna Comnena, and where it deals with Normans, it deals with the Italian branch of the Hauteville family. Robert Guiscard is a different Robert from Rollo (sometimes called Robert I), and Robert I, Duke of Normandy (also known as Robert the Devil) is yet a different character. It's not impossible that Anna Comnena wrote about Rollo, but I'd be fairly surprised, and her sources about events 7 generations ago and on the other side of an (admittedly small) continent would be highly dubious. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- There was a Norman Rollo who attacked the Byzantine empire when Anna Comnena's father was emporer; or perhaps it was the son of Rollo, I don't really remember. You meant somebody else? The Alexiad offers an interesting account of how her father grabbed power in a kind of revolution rather than inherating the role. 92.15.7.74 (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Rollo is just a version of Robert, so any of the three Roberts are potentially also knows as Rollos. Robert Guiscard aka Robert d'Hauteville was a Norman adventurer who conquered much of southern Italy, became Duke of Apulia and Calabria and, in the 1080s, attacked the mainland of the Byzantine Empire. As far as I know, he is not related to his contemporary, William the Bastard/Conquerer. The "original" Rollo, and the one best known under this name, is the founder of the Duchy of Normandy. He lived from around 870 to 932, and after a lot of pirating and plundering, in 911 got Normandy as a fiefdom from Charles the Simple. He became the first Duke of Normandy. Rollo is the great-great-great-great-grandfather of Robert I, Duke of Normandy, also known as Robert the Magnificent, or, sometimes, Robert the Devil. Robert the Magnificent is the father of William the Conqueror. But no matter how much Anna Comnena badmouthed Robert Guiscard, this does not reflect on any of the two Roberts who are ancestors of (one strand of) the British monarchy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Nevertheless, British Kings were still murderers. For example Henry the Eighth, and Richard III to name just two. Be interesting to know when the last British royal murder was (that we know about). 92.24.190.211 (talk) 23:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Rollo is just a version of Robert, so any of the three Roberts are potentially also knows as Rollos. Robert Guiscard aka Robert d'Hauteville was a Norman adventurer who conquered much of southern Italy, became Duke of Apulia and Calabria and, in the 1080s, attacked the mainland of the Byzantine Empire. As far as I know, he is not related to his contemporary, William the Bastard/Conquerer. The "original" Rollo, and the one best known under this name, is the founder of the Duchy of Normandy. He lived from around 870 to 932, and after a lot of pirating and plundering, in 911 got Normandy as a fiefdom from Charles the Simple. He became the first Duke of Normandy. Rollo is the great-great-great-great-grandfather of Robert I, Duke of Normandy, also known as Robert the Magnificent, or, sometimes, Robert the Devil. Robert the Magnificent is the father of William the Conqueror. But no matter how much Anna Comnena badmouthed Robert Guiscard, this does not reflect on any of the two Roberts who are ancestors of (one strand of) the British monarchy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- There was a Norman Rollo who attacked the Byzantine empire when Anna Comnena's father was emporer; or perhaps it was the son of Rollo, I don't really remember. You meant somebody else? The Alexiad offers an interesting account of how her father grabbed power in a kind of revolution rather than inherating the role. 92.15.7.74 (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Are you sure you have your history sorted correctly? The Alexiad was written around 1148 by Anna Comnena, and where it deals with Normans, it deals with the Italian branch of the Hauteville family. Robert Guiscard is a different Robert from Rollo (sometimes called Robert I), and Robert I, Duke of Normandy (also known as Robert the Devil) is yet a different character. It's not impossible that Anna Comnena wrote about Rollo, but I'd be fairly surprised, and her sources about events 7 generations ago and on the other side of an (admittedly small) continent would be highly dubious. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- According to the Alexiad and history, Rollo was a horrible murderous thug. So that's who the Brit-royals are descended from. The fearful-respect has over generations become habituated into just respect. 92.15.14.91 (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Biggest badass around is a good bet for Viking nobility. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Have sword, will conquer (pun not intended!)--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- What pun do you mean please? 92.15.7.74 (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Have sword, will conquer (pun not intended!)--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Think we'll be here a while if we start on not democratic royalty though Bugs. The British monarchy may not be directly elected, but the line of succession which decides the monarchy was decided by Parliament (see Succession to the Crown Act 1707) and while the parliament at that time might not be considered very democratic, it was most recently legislated on in His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936, when everyone could vote. There is certainly precedent for Parliament to settle the succession, which is probably indirectly democratic. Interestingly this goes back, in some form, to the middle ages. The removals of Edward II, Richard II, the line of succession after Henry VIII, right up to the Civil War, Restoration and Glorious Revolution all involved parliament at the very least giving an air of legality to the decision.90.217.64.202 (talk) 22:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- The British royal line as we know it did not arrive democratically. However, I think it's fair to say that over time, the situation with the royals has become that they do indeed rule by the consent of the governed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- We have an article on Elective monarchy, however as noted above, elected does not necessarily mean democratically elected. Vespine (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- The British royals do not "rule" at all. They reign. Big difference. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 23:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, they reign by consent of the people. They could be abolished tomorrow if the people wanted it. But that tourism money is important. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think we've had this discussion before, but it's really not down to the "tourism money". It's down to the deep-rooted conservatism (small "c") of most British people, a feeling in recent decades that the monarchy is usually fairly benevolent, and (looking around the rest of the world) an absence of any examples of a manifestly better system. Unfortunately. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think it can be said that any monarch reigning in a country where the people have a democratic means of changing their constitution can be said to be reigning democratically - that is by the consent of the governed. If the people can change the constitution and abolish the monarchy if they so desired, then their refraining from doing so means they acquiesce to the reign of the monarch. Most of the western European royals probably fall within this category. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, they reign by consent of the people. They could be abolished tomorrow if the people wanted it. But that tourism money is important. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- The British royal line as we know it did not arrive democratically. However, I think it's fair to say that over time, the situation with the royals has become that they do indeed rule by the consent of the governed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- That doesn't count since he didn't start the monarchy. Tracing him back stops at Rollo, but there doesn't seem to be much information on how he started. Ariel. (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Simeon Sakskoburggotski was democratically elected, though of course that was long after he stopped being Tsar of Bulgaria. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 23:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- NorwegianBlue already mentioned it above, but it seems to have gone unnoticed, so let me cite this part of an article from TIME Magazine in 1930 (the article is perhaps a bit inaccurate, but close enough):
- The authentic Norwegian Royal House had been extinct for some 27 generations, for more than half a millennium. The Norwegian people had learned to speak Danish under Danish kings for several hundred years before their "union" with Sweden. In 1905, although they might not exactly want to pick a king from Denmark, could the Norwegian people, all things considered, do better than to choose the husband of Tomboy Princess Maud, daughter of Mighty Britain, niece of Colossal Russia? In a second plebiscite 259,563 Norwegians voted for the young man who used to darn socks, sew on buttons; 69,264 voted against him. He was proclaimed King of Norway just 25 years ago last week, changing his name from Carl to Haakon.
- In short, Haakon VII of Norway was elected. Jørgen (talk) 08:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Didn't I read somewhere that the monarchist party of Cambodia won an election recently and reinstated their former king? Would that count? I shall have to go and read a bit more about it, though. Alfred the Great was sort of democratically elected too. Well, maybe not democratically, but elected still. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 10:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Spain has democratically decided to have a king (even if he was not elected). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quest09 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- I wish British monarchy could be elected, then we could elect ones that wouldnt spend many times what other european monarchies cost, and prefereably have none at all. Secretly, they must be laughing up their sleeves at British people for being such gullible suckers. I don't think that in pre-democratic times their cronies choosing their distant ancestors makes the current bunch democratically elected. Elect me and I will sell up everything and give the money back to the government, keeping a mere £1M annual salary for myself. I'd cost you less than 2p per person. 92.15.14.91 (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- You know, Britain has a democratic system of government, and if the majority of Britons wanted to get rid of the monarchy or the current monarch it really would be no more difficult than getting rid of a prime minister. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- The problem is that they are regarded as being outside democracy - it is impossible to vote them out. That's not democracy. 92.15.14.91 (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Not really: Organize a political party with a platform of abolishing the monarchy. Get a majority of seats in parliament. Enact said legislation. Done and done. The fact that it hasn't been done yet even though there is no legal or practical barrier to doing so is that there is not a majority of Britons who wish to do so. --Jayron32 17:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Not impossible at all... the Americans did it back in 1776. On the other hand, without the Royals, England would get a lot less tourist revenue from visiting Americans. Go figure. Blueboar (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think that's necessarily true. Did Ireland lose a lot of tourist revenue when (most of) it became a republic? Pais (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- It's not a real issue. All republics have their own varieties of pomp and ceremony, so a republican Britain would keep many of those - and the old buildings, castles and so forth would still be there for Americans to admire. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- France has a bigger tourism industry than Britain, yet they've been royal-less for centuries. 92.24.180.229 (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- It's not a real issue. All republics have their own varieties of pomp and ceremony, so a republican Britain would keep many of those - and the old buildings, castles and so forth would still be there for Americans to admire. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think that's necessarily true. Did Ireland lose a lot of tourist revenue when (most of) it became a republic? Pais (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Of course, this belies the fact that Britain did abolish its Monarchy and then decided that they liked it better with a King. --Jayron32 17:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Not impossible at all... the Americans did it back in 1776. On the other hand, without the Royals, England would get a lot less tourist revenue from visiting Americans. Go figure. Blueboar (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Not really: Organize a political party with a platform of abolishing the monarchy. Get a majority of seats in parliament. Enact said legislation. Done and done. The fact that it hasn't been done yet even though there is no legal or practical barrier to doing so is that there is not a majority of Britons who wish to do so. --Jayron32 17:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- The problem is that they are regarded as being outside democracy - it is impossible to vote them out. That's not democracy. 92.15.14.91 (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- You know, Britain has a democratic system of government, and if the majority of Britons wanted to get rid of the monarchy or the current monarch it really would be no more difficult than getting rid of a prime minister. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Quite so. Also, we get to have useful historical and architectural terms like Georgian, Victorian and Edwardian. Kings and queens are just more romantic (and indeed wromantic) and memorable than presidents. Our parliament once gave the Crown to an orange, which was both democratic and memorable. DuncanHill (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why 92.15.14.91 thinks the monarchy is outside of the democratic system of government (or indeed, thinks that most people think that). If there are other untapped resources like him or her in the UK, then the Republican movement in the UK really isn't doing a very good job of recruiting. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 19:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- None of the political parties currently have it on their agenda, so it is impossible to cast an anti-royal vote. 92.15.7.74 (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- (ec) I think it's the usual thing: to most people, there's assumed to be a 1-to-1 correspondence between "elected" and "democratic", but that is simply not so. My example above of the papacy being elective (because the cardinals elect the next pope at a conclave) but utterly undemocratic (because the millions of Catholics who are the "subjects", religiously speaking, of the pope, and even the citizens of Vatican City, who are the legal subjects of the pope, have no say whatsoever about it) is at one end of the spectrum. The British monarchy is at the other end - it's hereditary, which is as far away from elective as you can get, but it's highly democratic because the people through the parliament are able to have a say about the laws that keep the monarchy in place, and by common consent they want it. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- I do not believe that to be true. Its inertia, the feeling that there is no realistic way of getting rid off them. A major part of the annoyence with them is that they are such greedy so and so.s, who have incomes of tens of millions of pounds and fabulous lifestyles. 92.15.7.74 (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Most British people, currently, are fairly content with the old dear who's looked down on them for the last (nearly) sixty years - she's seen, at worst, as harmless, and even benevolent. The cost question is a minor irritant, but little more. But, if and when we get someone in the post who is unpopular and arrogant, I think that things could change quite substantially. The problem is that there are very few obvious good examples in countries elsewhere of elected heads of state who are seen as being "above politics" in some sense, and representative of the whole country. Electing a career politician to the position of head of state - or, worse, electing a "celebrity" - could be even worse than what we have now, and I say that as a staunch republican as a matter of principle. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- 92.15.7.74, the major political parties are to a significant extent poll driven, meaning that their policies reflect the demands of their constituency. There is simply no demand for the abolition of the monarchy in the UK. According to oft-cited polls, if you asked Britons to put their hands up as either anti- or pro-monarchy, 70% would be on the pro side and less than 30% would be on the anti side. You seem to be part of the 30%, but until your ranks swell to more than 50%, it is quite unlikely that your views would be implemented within Britain's democratic system of government. As you may know, bills have been introduced into parliament in fairly recent years aiming to abolish the monarchy, but there has not been enough support for them to proceed.
- Imagine if the opposite was true - that 30% of the population could impose their will on the other 70%. That would hardly be a sign of a democracy, would it?
- I agree with what Ghmyrtle says above about the difficulties of choosing a head of state - and I speak too as a republican as a matter of principle. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk)
- Most British people, currently, are fairly content with the old dear who's looked down on them for the last (nearly) sixty years - she's seen, at worst, as harmless, and even benevolent. The cost question is a minor irritant, but little more. But, if and when we get someone in the post who is unpopular and arrogant, I think that things could change quite substantially. The problem is that there are very few obvious good examples in countries elsewhere of elected heads of state who are seen as being "above politics" in some sense, and representative of the whole country. Electing a career politician to the position of head of state - or, worse, electing a "celebrity" - could be even worse than what we have now, and I say that as a staunch republican as a matter of principle. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- I do not believe that to be true. Its inertia, the feeling that there is no realistic way of getting rid off them. A major part of the annoyence with them is that they are such greedy so and so.s, who have incomes of tens of millions of pounds and fabulous lifestyles. 92.15.7.74 (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Quite so. Also, we get to have useful historical and architectural terms like Georgian, Victorian and Edwardian. Kings and queens are just more romantic (and indeed wromantic) and memorable than presidents. Our parliament once gave the Crown to an orange, which was both democratic and memorable. DuncanHill (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- And another thing is, why do the royals get paid tens of millions, but Tory Boy the prime-minister gets comparative peanuts as a salary? What is the extra money needed for? 92.24.190.211 (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- The Queen doesn't get a salary as such, but there is the Civil List. "Civil List is the name given to the annual grant that covers some expenses associated with the Sovereign performing of his or her state duties, including those for staffing, state visits, public engagements, ceremonial functions and the upkeep of the Royal Households." Alansplodge (talk) 09:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Whatever you name it as, its still tens of millions of income every year. So why does the Prime Minister, who carries out similar duties, only need £200000 while the royals need tens of millions to do the same thing? 92.24.180.229 (talk) 10:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Because the PM doesn't have to drive the President of Russia or whereever around in a coach-and-four, lay on a state banquet for him and put him up in palatial splendour. The PM's £200,000 is his take-home pay, the Civil List is the Queen's expenses for doing her job. And if you didn't have a Queen, you'd still have to pay for a President to do those things and pay him a salary on top. Alansplodge (talk) 10:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Whatever you name it as, its still tens of millions of income every year. So why does the Prime Minister, who carries out similar duties, only need £200000 while the royals need tens of millions to do the same thing? 92.24.180.229 (talk) 10:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- The Queen doesn't get a salary as such, but there is the Civil List. "Civil List is the name given to the annual grant that covers some expenses associated with the Sovereign performing of his or her state duties, including those for staffing, state visits, public engagements, ceremonial functions and the upkeep of the Royal Households." Alansplodge (talk) 09:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- It's not "income". That is money you earn, which you are free to spend any way you like, or save. What the Queen gets is an "annual grant that covers some expenses associated with the Sovereign performing of his or her state duties". Were it not for this grant, she'd have to pay these expenses out of her own pocket. The Prime Minister also has a lot of official entertainment etc to perform, but those costs are all covered separately and he is never out of pocket personally. So why should the Queen be? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- If that is the case then its well overdue for the royal monies to be publically accounted for properly, with seperate figures for salary and so forth. Currently its hidden behind a smokescreen - why? Suggests they've got something to hide. And a justification as to why the money is many times more than the hereditary rulers of other European countries or so far in excess of the Prime Minister. The publics sentiment is controlled by the spin the mass media puts on it, and they are constrained by trying to avoid seeming to damage their boss's boss's....boss's hopes of being given a royal gong. This breakthrough article, however, has 306 comments most of which are not in favour http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/17/royal-wedding-monarchy-microscope 92.24.180.229 (talk) 13:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, readers of The Guardian are not representative of the entire British people. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Life would be unutterably boring if they were. Anyway, hasn't everyone had enough of feeding this troll yet? DuncanHill (talk) 14:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Please keep to the issue being discussed. Without being informed of the facts, a democracy cannot make an informed decision, as this http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/22/right-royal-insult article says. Only 202 comments this time, but they are as far as I am aware remarkably high numbers for that kind of thing, which suggests a lot of submerged discontent. 92.24.180.229 (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Is anyone else beginning to see a pattern of somewhat ill-informed republican soapboxing by an IP editor here? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, a very well-fed troll. And discontent is rarely "submerged" with Guardian readers - just like Telegraph readers and Mail readers they need their dose of half-informed bile each morning to help them get through the day. DuncanHill (talk) 14:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Is anyone else beginning to see a pattern of somewhat ill-informed republican soapboxing by an IP editor here? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Please keep to the issue being discussed. Without being informed of the facts, a democracy cannot make an informed decision, as this http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/22/right-royal-insult article says. Only 202 comments this time, but they are as far as I am aware remarkably high numbers for that kind of thing, which suggests a lot of submerged discontent. 92.24.180.229 (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Life would be unutterably boring if they were. Anyway, hasn't everyone had enough of feeding this troll yet? DuncanHill (talk) 14:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, readers of The Guardian are not representative of the entire British people. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- If that is the case then its well overdue for the royal monies to be publically accounted for properly, with seperate figures for salary and so forth. Currently its hidden behind a smokescreen - why? Suggests they've got something to hide. And a justification as to why the money is many times more than the hereditary rulers of other European countries or so far in excess of the Prime Minister. The publics sentiment is controlled by the spin the mass media puts on it, and they are constrained by trying to avoid seeming to damage their boss's boss's....boss's hopes of being given a royal gong. This breakthrough article, however, has 306 comments most of which are not in favour http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/17/royal-wedding-monarchy-microscope 92.24.180.229 (talk) 13:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- It's not "income". That is money you earn, which you are free to spend any way you like, or save. What the Queen gets is an "annual grant that covers some expenses associated with the Sovereign performing of his or her state duties". Were it not for this grant, she'd have to pay these expenses out of her own pocket. The Prime Minister also has a lot of official entertainment etc to perform, but those costs are all covered separately and he is never out of pocket personally. So why should the Queen be? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
"Top secret"
What kinds of secrets are classed "topic secret" by the US government (obviously if you knew specifically what secrets you couldn't tell me, so I just want to know what kind of secrets)? What might happen if they were all released or leaked on a large scale at once? I'm not looking for random speculation, but I am looking for reasonably likely responses by the government and by the public and other countries. Again I understand since you don't know the actual content of the secrets you might have trouble saying for sure, so again I just want a geenral idea. 24.92.70.160 (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Radar and the atomic bomb come to mind as past examples. Any kind of military thing that we have that we don't want the enemy to know about, much less have. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- On the Reference Desk, we supply references. Classified information in the United States is one article, though it doesn't have many examples beyond atomic bomb secrets and submarine propulsion secrets. For examples of Top Secret CIA documents, visit www.foia.cia.gov and type top secret in the search box, and click the arrow. This returned 2059 search results for me, many of them formerly Top Secret documents, available as GIFs or PDFs. Some documents still have some text redacted. This is not going to be a completely representative sample of all the documents that are Top Secret — this is from the CIA, and not the Army, for example — but it may serve. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- There is a misconception (given a voice here by Bugs) that "Top Secret" is applied to just anything that is secret. That is not true. There are a variety of secrecy definitions in the United States, and they carry with them different handling requirements. Ideally classification authorities would keep classifications at the minimum necessary. So "Top Secret" is often overkill, when "Secret" might be enough. (Why the minimum? Because it costs money, manpower, and a lot of red tape to deal with "Top Secret" information, much more so than "Secret", and much much more so than "Confidential." "Top Secret" papers must be guarded by a guy with a gun 24 hours a day, for example — that don't come for free! Presuming the secret is something that might actually be useful to someone on your OWN side, you don't want it to be totally unusable. One of the big criticisms in the 9/11 Commission Report was that different agencies, like FBI and CIA, were too concerned with keeping secrets, and not concerned enough with using them. As a result, they never realized what the other agency had — and missed vital clues that could have prevented the attack.)
- The "Top Secret" classification rating was created during 1944 in order to "information the security aspect of which is paramount and whose unauthorized disclosure would cause exceptionally grave danger to the nation".[14] This was in contrast to just "Secret", which was "information the disclosure of which might endanger national security, or cause serious injury to the Nation or any governmental activity thereof". It was initially meant to be things that were HUGE military secrets, like the exact time and place of D-Day, where if the information got out, it would really be awful. It was also applied to the atomic bomb, at least the parts of the program where you could tell they were for an atomic bomb (some parts of the program would have only been considered "Secret" or "Restricted" because you couldn't really figure out what the end goal was.)
- In other realms, say the diplomatic cables, "Secret" seems to be used for any communication from the field that might be dangerous or embarrassing or troublesome, but not world-shakingly dangerous. It is also used for all communications that originate with Washington, rather than with a field office, and can thus be considered "orders from on high." Hence it is interesting what is in the Wikileaks cables — the guy who leaked them only had access to "Secret" cables, not "Top Secret," so you never see Washington's responses, and you never see things that we expect they must be talking about (like the death of Pat Tillman).[15]
- Of course, in practice, many more things are classified "Top Secret" than really should be, and the many of the things which we now know used to be classified "Top Secret" seem to fail any reasonable interpretation of posing "exceptionally grave danger" to the nation. The Pentagon Papers, for example, were classified "Top Secret," and the sky did not fall in when they were released. I don't have a count of documents classified "Top Secret" at my fingertips, but I'll try to look it up later; these kinds of things are kept track of by the Information Security Oversight Office and their website has a lot of useful information on it. Don't get sucked in by the allure of "Top Secret" — it's another form of bureaucracy, and most secrets are deadly dull. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Side note for the easily amused: NATO countries have a designator for something that is clearly beyond the mere "Top Secret": Cosmic Top Secret. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Statistics: this report by the ISOO is pretty interesting in terms of numbers. Note that in 2009, only 2% of all NEW classification decisions (e.g. the stamping of the document) were "Top Secret", whereas 77% were just "Secret". Considerably less (21%) were "Confidential." (page 2) This is what I would expect — you want to restrict how many things are under "Top Secret," so you put things into "Secret" if you can. If something is just "Confidential," though, it's not a huge step from not classifying it at all. But now look at the number of DERIVATIVE classification decisions — e.g., things that are secret because they contain things that have been previously referenced as secret (page 8). Top Secret makes up 34% of those; Secret makes up 55%, Confidential makes up 9%. Why? Because we have a huge base of Top Secret things that still get discussed (like atomic bombs, for example), and so Top Secret, even though it probably consistently makes up the least of the "new" secrets, becomes a very persistent category. (It also doesn't necessarily downgrade: the exact atomic bomb designs were Top Secret in 1945, and they are Top Secret today.) Unfortunately there are no estimates as to the TOTAL volume of Top Secret documents, but it must be quite large, since millions of new such documents are generated each year, far more than are decreased through declassification. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- An intersting article here from the UK National Archives on the origin of the use of "Top Secret" and why it's not as ungrammatical as it appears. Alansplodge (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
February 3
Veiling under Atatürk
I'm watching Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, and I just got to the scene where Jones' friend reaches İskenderun. To my surprise, the women in the scene are veiled; is this an anachronism, or would it have been realistic? I vaguely remember reading that Atatürk outlawed the veil, but our article on him only says that he considered outlawing it. Nyttend (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- According to our article on Atatürk's Reforms: "Another control on the dress was passed in 1934 with the law relating to the wearing of 'Prohibited Garments'. It banned religion-based clothing, such as the veil and turban, while actively promoting western-style attire". Since The Last Crusade was "set largely in 1938", I guess it was anachronistic by law. I didn't find any references on actual customs in İskenderun of 1938. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- I wouldn't mistake any of the Indiana Jones films for documentaries. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- True, (see my long explanation of a similar issue at WP:RDE), but historically, Iskanderun wasn't part of Turkey, formally, until 1939. So it would not have been subject to Ataturk's reforms during the Last Crusade period. See İskenderun#Republic of Hatay and French_Mandate_of_Syria_and_Lebanon#Sanjak_of_Alexandretta. During the period of the Last Crusade, the area was part of the Hatay Republic and/or French Syria (depending on the exact dates), though the many in area had long agitated for annexation to the Republic of Turkey. It is likely that the reforms of Ataturk may not have had full acceptance given the split loyatlies present and shifting political sands prior to the annexation by Turkey in 1939. --Jayron32 03:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- I wouldn't mistake any of the Indiana Jones films for documentaries. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Nelson A. Boylen
Who was Nelson A. Boylen? There is a high school in Toronto named after him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.107.14 (talk) 03:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- The external link from Nelson A. Boylen Collegiate Institute turns out to be a Malware site, and I have deleted it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
David and Mary Thompson
Who are David and Mary Thompson? There is a high school named after them in Toronto. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.107.14 (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- The first paragraph of the article David and Mary Thomson Collegiate Institute explains the name. Bielle (talk) 03:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
US Presidents unpopularity
Why is it that George W. Bush is so universally hated-especially in Europe, yet Richard Nixon, who was thoroughly detested in the US, is rarely mentioned? As for LBJ, likely the man responsible for the thousands of Vietnam War casualities, there is hardly a bad word levelled against his name. I find this bizarre? It's easy to say the war in Iraq is to blame, but I'd say the media is largely the culprit.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Time. That is all. Public opinion about a President during (or shortly after) his term has little correlation with public opinion about him much later. If you want a very extreme anecdote (and if you will allow me to over-generalize for humor's sake), consider this: A President calls up as many men as possible to go to war. The war is not popular. The general public has no interest in fighting it. The President appears to have no idea how to go to war as is demonstrated by not even planning ahead to have room for the new troops to sleep when they arrive for service. The war drags on and on. Far too many people die. Everyone hates it, but sticks with the President for the simple reason that they hope he will figure out how to get out of stupid mess. Then, the President is finally assassinated. Many many many years later, he is considered the absolute best President that ever was or ever will be. Go figure. -- kainaw™ 14:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- One big difference between the Vietnam War and the Iraq War is that the Vietnam War was already happening when the U.S. got involved, while the Iraq War was initiated by the U.S. Thus the Iraq War is seen as a war of aggression on the part of the U.S., while the Vietnam War (however ill-conceived) isn't. That could play a big role in the difference between Johnson's and Bush Jr's unpopularity in Europe. As for Nixon, Watergate was a purely U.S.-internal affair that had no impact on Europe, so it didn't influence his popularity much there either. Kainaw's point that Bush is more recent in people's memories is of course important too. Finally, when Johnson and Nixon were president, people in Western Europe couldn't afford to be too anti-American, because in the Cold War the U.S. was clearly the lesser of two evils. Nowadays it's easier to be critical of U.S. foreign policy without seeming to be pro-Communist. Pais (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- It is nonsense to claim that "The Vietnam War" was "already happening" when Johnson's and Nixon's policy decisions resulted in tens of thousands of US combat deaths and many times that of Vietnamese deaths. Granted, Eisenhower had refused to allow national elections in Vietnam in the late 1950's, because Ho Chi Minh would have won a national election as surely as George Washington did in the US in 1788, but there was very limited US involvement and very low grade conflict after the French (typically) lost at Dien Bien Phu in 1954, while trying to reassert colonialism after WW2. There were only a few US advisors in Vietnam when Johnson escalated involvement by sending combat troops in 1965. Nixon continued the involvement and escalated before executing an exit strategy akin to George Aikin's recommendation to "Just announce we've won, and leave", finally allowing the corrupt puppet regime in Saigon to collapse in the 1970's. Edison (talk) 03:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- The anti-war demonstrations against US involvement in Vietnam, however, were far more vitriolic than the recent ones against the Iraq War.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Americans demonstrated against the Vietnam War mostly because they did not want to get drafted to go there and get shot. There is no longer a US draft, thus the motivation to protest is less. Edison (talk) 03:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- The vast majority of US Vietnam War protestors were university students who were already exempted from the draft.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, the war itself was highly unpopular (both in the U.S. and in Europe), but Bush is seen as more to blame for the war in Iraq than Johnson was to blame for the war in Vietnam, because Johnson didn't start the war in Vietnam, and Bush did start the war in Iraq. Pais (talk) 15:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Americans demonstrated against the Vietnam War mostly because they did not want to get drafted to go there and get shot. There is no longer a US draft, thus the motivation to protest is less. Edison (talk) 03:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- To give this some historical perspective... Lincoln was extremely unpopular during his term in office (not just in the Southern States - his re-election in 1864 was hardly a forgone conclusion). Today he is one of the most revered Presidents.
- Also, I think it is inaccurate to characterize G.W. Bush as being "universally hated". Yes, there was (and continues to be) a vocal group that hated him and his polices... But there was (and continues to be) another group (even in Europe) who actually liked him, and supported his policies. In time, these factions will move on to arguing about other Presidents... and Bush's reputation will be left to the Historians. Blueboar (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- I would also like to question the OPs claim that Nixon is rarely mentioned in Europe. To my knowledge he is generally viewed as the worst of US presidents in recent times, also by a majority of Europeans. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- At least he inspired some worthwhile art. Actually, I'd say Nixon is seen as a crook who managed to do some good, George II is more of an honest man who accomplished great evil. DuncanHill (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- And Reagan was a crook who accomplished great evil, thus becoming one of the most popular presidents of recent history, while Carter was an honest man who managed to do some good, thus becoming one of the most unpopular. Go figure. Pais (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Carter was a good man who made possibly the single stupidest Presidential decision in the last 50 years - to embrace the Shah of Iran after he was overthrown, and we're still feeling the ripple effect for it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- And Reagan was a crook who accomplished great evil, thus becoming one of the most popular presidents of recent history, while Carter was an honest man who managed to do some good, thus becoming one of the most unpopular. Go figure. Pais (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- At least he inspired some worthwhile art. Actually, I'd say Nixon is seen as a crook who managed to do some good, George II is more of an honest man who accomplished great evil. DuncanHill (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- I would also like to question the OPs claim that Nixon is rarely mentioned in Europe. To my knowledge he is generally viewed as the worst of US presidents in recent times, also by a majority of Europeans. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- One big difference between the Vietnam War and the Iraq War is that the Vietnam War was already happening when the U.S. got involved, while the Iraq War was initiated by the U.S. Thus the Iraq War is seen as a war of aggression on the part of the U.S., while the Vietnam War (however ill-conceived) isn't. That could play a big role in the difference between Johnson's and Bush Jr's unpopularity in Europe. As for Nixon, Watergate was a purely U.S.-internal affair that had no impact on Europe, so it didn't influence his popularity much there either. Kainaw's point that Bush is more recent in people's memories is of course important too. Finally, when Johnson and Nixon were president, people in Western Europe couldn't afford to be too anti-American, because in the Cold War the U.S. was clearly the lesser of two evils. Nowadays it's easier to be critical of U.S. foreign policy without seeming to be pro-Communist. Pais (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- LBJ was widely respected in Europe in the mid-60s for his actions on civil rights, and as a result of the shock over JFK's death, although he certainly became less popular in 1967-68 as the Vietnam War escalated (and as mentioned above some people blame Kennedy or Robert McNamara more than LBJ for that war). George W Bush didn't do much visible good to make up for the unpopular things he did (he mainly benefited wealthy Americans, who tend not to be European): he started controversially, with the contested election and the horrible judgment of Bush v. Gore; 9/11 made him briefly more popular, but he soon squandered that, so you had almost 8 full years of infamy. Nixon, as already mentioned, was always unpopular with large sections of the American population and internationally, but had undeniable achievements from the moon landing to his visit to Mao. Watergate seemed to be a deep psychic shock for much of the USA (where the president was regarded as more than just a politician), whereas the rest of the world took it less personally, like the difference between your father doing something bad and someone else's father doing something bad.
- Also, Nixon and Johnson are dead. It's less fun hating on dead people. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Part of the problem with Bush, to Europeans, was that he apparently knew nothing, and cared even less, about the world outside the US. And as well as seeming to be ignorant, he appeared arrogant about it. Indeed, it sometimes seems that it's difficult to get votes in the US if you do show much knowledge or interest in the rest of the world. Nixon was just seen as corrupt and sleazy, but that's par for the course. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- You've overlooked John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton who were glaring exceptions to that rule.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that arrogance, plus saying he had to invade Iraq to stop al Qaeda, which was non-existent there, didn't help Dubya's image. His public persona of a person who couldn't string a sentence together was a problem too. Note that I am talking about image here. I don't know how smart or dumb he really was, but there were far too many examples of him sounding dumb in public. (Did he have bad minders?) To have such a person as the leader of the most powerful nation on earth was scary to many. It's important too for Americans to realise that most non-Americans have little interest in internal American party loyalties, which no doubt colours Americans' views of their President, i.e. non-thinking love or hatred based on party allegiance. Those who do pay some attention see two parties both well to the right of most parties in Europe. HiLo48 (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Sometimes, appearing to be an idiot who can't manage a simple declarative sentence is no barrier to a successful political career. Remember Joh Bjelke-Petersen, HiLo48? His famously incomprehensible utterances made Dubya sound like the Laurence Olivier of politics. Yet, he was the longest-serving Premier of Queensland (19 years) and the second-longest-serving premier of any Australian state, ever. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Part of the problem with Bush, to Europeans, was that he apparently knew nothing, and cared even less, about the world outside the US. And as well as seeming to be ignorant, he appeared arrogant about it. Indeed, it sometimes seems that it's difficult to get votes in the US if you do show much knowledge or interest in the rest of the world. Nixon was just seen as corrupt and sleazy, but that's par for the course. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Both LBJ and RMN are somewhat tragic figures, and I think the anger at them has tempered somewhat. LBJ is a guy who desperately wanted to be loved, yet ended up being reviled. He was a great Senator, but a lousy President. The fact that he purposefully took himself out of the reelection race (and died not long afterwards) makes him feel a bit more "redeemed" than some. RMN was a wily, unpleasant, cruel, yet unarguably brilliant politician (and diplomat) whose paranoia led him to do all sorts of unnecessary "dirty tricks" for an election he would have won handily anyway. He was similarly the source of his own undoing (quite literally, in the case of making all of those exhaustive tape recordings of his conversations). If he had not done Watergate he'd be remembered as one of our most accomplished Presidents. I think people today, helped by the Frost v. Nixon style depictions of him, are more sympathetic with him than they would have been right after the 1970s. He was politically corrupt, to be sure, but it was always about power, never about money or women or the sorts of other scandals that have such a slimy air to them. At some level he must have been aware of what he was doing (who else names their re-election campaign CREEP?). Anyway, time lets us see this people as tragic, or Shakespearean, or even laudable, in ways that they were not seen at the time. FDR and JFK and Lincoln are all heros, but they were viewed with more jaundiced eyes by many of their contemporaries. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, time erases the details from memory and makes it easy to come up with summaries that are flawed. Johnson "purposefully took himself out of the reelection race" not for any redemption, but because Eugene McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy were stomping him in the polls and he probably would not have even won the nomination as the Democratic candidate for president. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
ACT/SAT prep
Hello again. I noticed that most ACT/SAT prep guides are focussed on raising a below-average score to average or an average score to above-average. Their tips are mostly assuming you will make mistakes and focus on "getting done in time" or "guessing effectively" (which I do not have probleme with). I can already get a very good (top 5%) score on both these tests and I want to see if I can get a perfect score (not out of any real need for college admission or anything but just to see if I can do it, as an interesting personal challenge). How would I do this kind of test prep? Are there any good guides for my situation "out there"? Thanks. 24.92.70.160 (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well speaking as someone who did get a perfect SAT score (in the verbal section only). Unless you are supremely intelligent, it is mostly luck. I took the SATs once and took PSATs (which if I recall correctly, is functionally identical) twice. I never did any serious studying. My PSAT verbal scores were in the high 700s, but when I took the real SATs I lucked out and got all questions I could answer correctly. You can increase your chance of getting a perfect score, but it is still going to come down to the questions that they ask that day. If you can score in the top 5% you could probably get a perfect score by taking the test a number of times. If that doesn't sound fun (it sure doesn't to me) then you could try studying hard (also not very fun). I can't speak for anything but the verbal section, but the real trick is to fully understand the meaning of all the words on their word list, if you can do that and you are good at taking tests, you are probably in business. A final bit of advice though: don't bother, if you don't need this for college admission. I can think of many more fulfilling personal challenges and no one really gives a damn about SAT scores outside of college admissions (and maybe sperm banks). --Daniel 17:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Even college admissions doesn't split hairs over exact scores either. They use the SAT as a weeding tool, assigning students into pools based on minimum scores, and then usually having differing requirements for students in the different pools (for example, they may be looking for extenuating circumstances in students with lower scores, and very high scores may be able to help overcome a few bad grades). But if you are already in the top 5% or higher, there is nothing at all that a "perfect score" will gain you that a slightly-less-than-perfect test (say missing only 2-3 questions) wouldn't also get you. Admissions officers are well aware of the limitations of the test, and of the role that chance plays in the scoring, and you can't actually help yourself in any conceivable way by getting those last 2-3 questions right. You need to score good enough on the test. But perfection is not anything that will get you any net benefit. If you want to "go for it" just for amusement or the challenge of it, then have at it. But it isn't necessary for your college prospects. --Jayron32 21:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- I improved my scores from the PSAT by 100 points (high 600s to high 700s) by taking a dozen or so practice tests (from those test booklets that bookstores sell (or sold), though no doubt there is now an online equivalent, since I did this 30 years ago). For the GRE, I did more practice tests and managed an 800 on the verbal part. Beyond ability and background knowledge—in my case, having been a voracious reader since the age of 6—I think practice is the key. It may not be tons of fun, but I treated the practice tests like a game, and they were mildly fun. Marco polo (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Daniel, you may find that these days ova banks care about such scores too. BrainyBabe (talk) 14:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- I improved my scores from the PSAT by 100 points (high 600s to high 700s) by taking a dozen or so practice tests (from those test booklets that bookstores sell (or sold), though no doubt there is now an online equivalent, since I did this 30 years ago). For the GRE, I did more practice tests and managed an 800 on the verbal part. Beyond ability and background knowledge—in my case, having been a voracious reader since the age of 6—I think practice is the key. It may not be tons of fun, but I treated the practice tests like a game, and they were mildly fun. Marco polo (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Even college admissions doesn't split hairs over exact scores either. They use the SAT as a weeding tool, assigning students into pools based on minimum scores, and then usually having differing requirements for students in the different pools (for example, they may be looking for extenuating circumstances in students with lower scores, and very high scores may be able to help overcome a few bad grades). But if you are already in the top 5% or higher, there is nothing at all that a "perfect score" will gain you that a slightly-less-than-perfect test (say missing only 2-3 questions) wouldn't also get you. Admissions officers are well aware of the limitations of the test, and of the role that chance plays in the scoring, and you can't actually help yourself in any conceivable way by getting those last 2-3 questions right. You need to score good enough on the test. But perfection is not anything that will get you any net benefit. If you want to "go for it" just for amusement or the challenge of it, then have at it. But it isn't necessary for your college prospects. --Jayron32 21:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Land
Hi, you know every land mass on earth like Eurasia, Africa, The Americas etc are they all like embedded in the seabed or do they just bob like a cork so they can move gradually?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadseys (talk • contribs) 16:27, February 3, 2011
- Plate tectonics has the explanation. Moving this to science reference desk. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Ancestors of Qais Abdur Rashid
I am looking for genealogical information of Qais Abdur Rashid. It is said in Wikipedia that Qais Abdul Rashid is the 37th descendant of King Saul, but I couldn't find the genealogical ancestry tree anywhere. I would be grateful if furnished with the requested information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saying silence (talk • contribs) 16:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Edward Carpenter Poetry
When I was young (50 to 60 years ago) my father read to me two poems by Edward Carpenter. One was about his body (which was doing its own unwished for activities) and his mind (which was also on its own). I cannot remember the names of these two poems. Any ideas what they are and where I might find the? 75.165.86.253 (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Sadly I'm not as familiar with Edward Carpenter's works as I should be. There are some potentially helpful links in our article (at this section), Wikisource is sadly deficient (s:author:Edward Carpenter). DuncanHill (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- You might try asking at The Edward Carpenter Forum. DuncanHill (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
The first actress in Italy and Europe
Who was the first actress in Italy? By first, I mean professionall, not a woman performing temporarily in a festival or similar, and the starting point is Christina Europe, not antiquity. I have heard, that Italy was the first country in Christian Europe to allow women performing professionally on stage. The first actresses in Italy - and thereby Europe - was to have performed in travelling theatres in the 1530s. Is this correct? Can anyone verify this? When was the first actress noted to have performed, which year and where? Thank you--Aciram (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- This article (which is used as a reference at the Wikipedia article Actor) reports on an unnamed woman as an actress in Venice in 1611. While not strictly considered "plays", that same article also reports women appearing in Masques in England during the reign of Henry VIII and says that such practice came from Italy, Spain, and Portugal and proposes that it is likely that women appeared in Masques in those locales as well. You can read the article yourself for more background on the history of women as actresses. --Jayron32 21:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Empress Theodora was an actress (or an "actress", which probably included prostitution). So was her mother, and this was the 5th/6th century, so well into the Christian era. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- The first known Italian professional actress was Donna Lucrezia of Siena, who signed a contract in 1564, but France is known to have had actresses as early as 1545. [16] [17]. In the 12th century Hildegard of Bingen wrote Ordo Virtutum, a play intended to be performed by the nuns in her German convent. Hrotsvitha (c. 935 - c. 1002) was another dramatist nun, but I believe her works weren't actually performed in her time. --Antiquary (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- I never really thought about it before, but would mystery plays have had female actors? Adam Bishop (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
history
So, when did the iron age end? I know, it stops being used as a description once better documented and understood civilizations appeared to name the eras after, but other than that, when did iron stop being the most popular material for making tools and such like, and what replaced it? Steel? Aluminium? Plastic? Something else? Or is it still?
148.197.121.205 (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Try Iron Age. There's likely to be some good information there. --Jayron32 20:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- For those too lazy - the term "Iron Age" is a way of categorizing pre-historic societies. To qoute the article linked above; "The Iron Age in each area ends with the beginning of the historical period, i.e. the local production of ample written sources. Thus, for instance, the British Iron Age ends with the Roman Conquest." So people didn't stop using iron, we just know a lot more about them and can give them more accurate descriptions. Alansplodge (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- To see some of the regional variety following the three age system, take a look at list of archaeological periods. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- The term "plastic age" is used occasionally, by the way, but I don't think it's a scholarly term for a historical period. We don't have an article on it (only on a novel, film, and song of the same name). I guess atomic age is somewhat similar to stone, bronze, and iron, in that it refers to technology. The articles on history of technology and timeline of materials technology might interest you as well. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- For those too lazy - the term "Iron Age" is a way of categorizing pre-historic societies. To qoute the article linked above; "The Iron Age in each area ends with the beginning of the historical period, i.e. the local production of ample written sources. Thus, for instance, the British Iron Age ends with the Roman Conquest." So people didn't stop using iron, we just know a lot more about them and can give them more accurate descriptions. Alansplodge (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Iron is still the most popular material for making tools and parts. Mainly because it's quite abundant (so cheap) and it's very strong. Plastic is used where wood used to be used, but it's rare for it to be structural. Concrete is probably second. (When did the concrete age begin?) I read somewhere that iron and concrete are by far the two most studied materials. Ariel. (talk) 22:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- See also The Diamond Age. ;)
- Technically, it's not iron, but steel that's used. It's true that steel is predominantly iron, but that small (carefully controlled) amount of carbon which turns it from iron to steel makes a big difference in material properties. The ability to reliably produce steel on a large scale (starting with the Bessemer process) actually marks a turning point in construction and tool making. Indeed, the Second Industrial Revolution is largely defined by new availability of Bessemer process steel. If I were to carve up all of history into material ages, I would certainly include a "Steel Age" starting in the 1860s. -- 174.21.236.191 (talk) 06:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
If the Iron Age refers to prehistory, as the article says, one can say it ended with the onset of "recorded history." In Egypt and Mesopotamia, that would be about 5,000 years ago. The problem is, those first civilizations were still in the Bronze Age at that time. Perhaps a better threshold would be the rise of Classical Greece about 2,500 years ago. At this time, the Greeks were not only leaving written records but writing history themselves. Other civilizations could still be considered as being in the stone, bronze or iron age at that time, as the case may be, although that categorization is not really applicable in some places. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think the best answer anyone can come up with is this: the Iron Age ended when the Classical Era began. It was a Tuesday. Blueboar (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thats not entirely true though. In Northern Europe the Roman Iron Age (followed by the Germanic Iron Age) extended well into the the first millenium. But it is a good example of how these chronological terms are completely dependent on geography. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think the best answer anyone can come up with is this: the Iron Age ended when the Classical Era began. It was a Tuesday. Blueboar (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- What age are we in now? 92.24.190.211 (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think ages can only be defined when they are over, but some candidates are Information Age, Space Age, Social Age, Imagination Age. You should probably look here Category:Historical_eras. Ariel. (talk) 01:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- While the stone, bronze and iron ages refer to "prehistory," "history" is often divided into ancient, medieval and modern periods. Ancient times are often said to have ended with the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 CE, while the medieval period, or Middle Ages, are often said to have ended with the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire, or Byzantine Empire, in 1453. This mainly applies to European history; other civilizations have their own divisions of history. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think ages can only be defined when they are over, but some candidates are Information Age, Space Age, Social Age, Imagination Age. You should probably look here Category:Historical_eras. Ariel. (talk) 01:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Part of a series on |
Human history |
---|
↑ Prehistory (Stone Age) (Pleistocene epoch) |
↓ Future |
- The Modern Age? This, of course, raises the question of what the era after it will be called. (The Postmodern age?) The Human history info box (shown at right) terms the current period "Contemporary history", but I dislike this implied usage, as "contemporary" simply means "at the same time", so one could say things like "Plato works discussed contemporary politics" and not have it mean that he talked about things which happened 2000+ years after his death. I feel "contemporary history" would be better taken as descriptive (history contemporary with current people) rather than a formal name of an age. -- 174.21.236.191 (talk) 06:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think it's probably fair to think of "contemporary age/history" and possibly "modern age/history" as something that moves along with time, that is, contemporary history is always the era most immediate to the time of discussion, and modern age is the time next nearest. However, as these "caps" move along and close off a period of history that can be definitely identified as an "age", then we can apply further labels to it.
- For example, to give a retrospective example, to a person living in the renaissance period, that time was his "contemporary" period, the immediately preceding period, say the middle ages, would have been his "modern" period, as opposed to the classical or ancient periods. As time moved on and out of the renaissance period, what was previously the "modern" period became the middle ages and the "contemporary" period became the renaissance, while the labels "contemporary" and "modern" similarly moved on. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- The Modern Age? This, of course, raises the question of what the era after it will be called. (The Postmodern age?) The Human history info box (shown at right) terms the current period "Contemporary history", but I dislike this implied usage, as "contemporary" simply means "at the same time", so one could say things like "Plato works discussed contemporary politics" and not have it mean that he talked about things which happened 2000+ years after his death. I feel "contemporary history" would be better taken as descriptive (history contemporary with current people) rather than a formal name of an age. -- 174.21.236.191 (talk) 06:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Killer kings
British historical kings were well known for killing people, for example Henry the Eighth, Richard III and Elizabeth I and many more. 1) What was the most recent known murder or killing by or at the direct command of a King? 2) Were there any historical kings who never killed anyone? 3) Who killed the most? Thanks 92.24.190.211 (talk) 00:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- English kings have never, at least since the Norman conquest, had the legal authority simply to order somebody to be killed, except perhaps on the field of battle for disobeying a direct order. There have of course been cases where a king has commanded his servants to secretly murder somebody, but the number of cases of that wouldn't be very large, and in most such cases the commands were given in somewhat ambiguous language. The more usual way to have somebody killed was to accuse them of treason or some other capital crime. Looie496 (talk) 01:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- George VI is probably a safe bet for a king who never killed anyone. A thoroughly decent man. Broody Mary may not have killed anyone with here bare hands, but killings she instigated are still commemorated every year here in Sussex. DuncanHill (talk) 01:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I would say that none of the three above examples count unequivocally as murder. Henry VIII's "killings" were the executions of two of his wives for adultery, which was considered treason because of the clear constitutional crisis the adultery of the Kings wife could cause (since it raises into doubt the legitimacy of the succession). To be fair, there is considerable belief that, at least in the case of Anne Boleyn, the charges may have been trumped up. Catherine Howard's adultery was most likely genuine. But, at least officially, execution for treason was a legitimate reason to kill someone (though, as noted, the charges against Anne Boleyn were spurious at best). Richard II's alleged murders of the Princes in the Tower isn't proven by any means; the fact that we believe it to be true is likely because of William Shakespeares characterization of Richard II, and not because of any hard evidence. Elizabeth's ordered execution was of Mary, Queen of Scots was likewise probably justified as treason given her involvement in the Catholic uprisings in England against her cousin, as well as at least three plots to assasinate Elizabeth herself. Elizabeth likely didn't want to execute her cousin (she had ample opportunity given that she was under arrest for 19 years!). The most famous muderous King was likely Henry II who is reported to have ordered the murder of Thomas Becket. --Jayron32 01:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Minor correction - Richard III, not Richard II, was fingered by his (possibly actually guilty) successor for the Princes in the Tower job. I recommend Josephine Tey's The Daughter of Time for an entertaining and thorough, though perhaps not unbiased, examination of the matter. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 11:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Various species of murdering scum are likely to justify their deeds by specious definition: "She betrayed me!" Etc. Still considered murder by most of rational humanity. Edison (talk) 03:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Unless the entire governmental stability of your country depends on your wife keeping away from other men's penises. There's a valid point to be made if there's a likely civil war that would result from your wife's pecadillos... --Jayron32 04:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Murder being the unlawful taking of life, it's questionable whether very many British monarchs were out-and-out murderers. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Richard I prdered the wholesale slaughter of captured Muslim prisoners which included women and children. His brother King John left a trail of blood leading up to and beyond his throne. His crimes include blinding and killing his nephew Arthur, walling Maud de Braose and her son alive in a dungeon. The hero of Agincourt gave orders for captured French soldiers to be killed. Henry VIII ordered executions like we order take-away pizzas. Richard III has been accused of killing the Princes in the Tower, but there is compelling evidence which lays the deed at the door of the usurper Henry VII (father of Henry VIII, so go figure). I have read that some of the horrific torture devices were put into use during the reign of Edward IV who became cruel towards the end of his reign. Then there was Edward I, who treated the Scots with pitiless barbarity.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- To be fair to Henry V of England, the execution of prisoners was in retaliation for the French sneaking round to the rear of the English line and capturing the baggage train. Shakespeare shows him upset at the women and children that were killed in the process but this, more contemporary report suggests it was the loss of horses that vexed him so. Alansplodge (talk) 09:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- I believe Henry ordered the executions out of fear that they might rearm, and being such a large number completely overpower the battle-fatigued English soldiers who wouldn't have been able to put up much of a defence. That vexed many of the English who were hoping to take French nobles for ransoms.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- To be fair to Henry V of England, the execution of prisoners was in retaliation for the French sneaking round to the rear of the English line and capturing the baggage train. Shakespeare shows him upset at the women and children that were killed in the process but this, more contemporary report suggests it was the loss of horses that vexed him so. Alansplodge (talk) 09:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Richard I prdered the wholesale slaughter of captured Muslim prisoners which included women and children. His brother King John left a trail of blood leading up to and beyond his throne. His crimes include blinding and killing his nephew Arthur, walling Maud de Braose and her son alive in a dungeon. The hero of Agincourt gave orders for captured French soldiers to be killed. Henry VIII ordered executions like we order take-away pizzas. Richard III has been accused of killing the Princes in the Tower, but there is compelling evidence which lays the deed at the door of the usurper Henry VII (father of Henry VIII, so go figure). I have read that some of the horrific torture devices were put into use during the reign of Edward IV who became cruel towards the end of his reign. Then there was Edward I, who treated the Scots with pitiless barbarity.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Murder being the unlawful taking of life, it's questionable whether very many British monarchs were out-and-out murderers. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Unless the entire governmental stability of your country depends on your wife keeping away from other men's penises. There's a valid point to be made if there's a likely civil war that would result from your wife's pecadillos... --Jayron32 04:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I would say that none of the three above examples count unequivocally as murder. Henry VIII's "killings" were the executions of two of his wives for adultery, which was considered treason because of the clear constitutional crisis the adultery of the Kings wife could cause (since it raises into doubt the legitimacy of the succession). To be fair, there is considerable belief that, at least in the case of Anne Boleyn, the charges may have been trumped up. Catherine Howard's adultery was most likely genuine. But, at least officially, execution for treason was a legitimate reason to kill someone (though, as noted, the charges against Anne Boleyn were spurious at best). Richard II's alleged murders of the Princes in the Tower isn't proven by any means; the fact that we believe it to be true is likely because of William Shakespeares characterization of Richard II, and not because of any hard evidence. Elizabeth's ordered execution was of Mary, Queen of Scots was likewise probably justified as treason given her involvement in the Catholic uprisings in England against her cousin, as well as at least three plots to assasinate Elizabeth herself. Elizabeth likely didn't want to execute her cousin (she had ample opportunity given that she was under arrest for 19 years!). The most famous muderous King was likely Henry II who is reported to have ordered the murder of Thomas Becket. --Jayron32 01:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
World population pyramid
Where can I find a population pyramid of the entire planet? (Not a country) 76.69.186.194 (talk) 01:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Primer to List of Philosophies?
Is there a crash course, or primer to List of philosophies? Short of reading every single article or partaking in undergraduate studies in philosophy? Something that traces the history, evolution and relationships of at least the "main ones". I'm not after a primer to philosophy it self, I've got that mostly covered. just the reading I've been doing recently someone will bring up Libertarianism, or Utilitarianism, or Post-structuralism or something and I have to go away and read up on it, and that's ok, i'm not against doing that, neither am expecting an "easy answer," I understand people devote an entire life of scholarly study to each one of those, so I'm not expecting to learn about all of them in one sitting, but I've never even come across anything like an "origins of" or time line or how they relate to each other, which is a subset, which is a moral stance etc… Even if it takes a text book to get the basics, I'm open to any suggestions. Thanks. Vespine (talk) 04:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- In my English class, we had to read (an English Translation of) Sophie's World. It's a novel, but pretty explicitly written as an introduction to the history of (Western) philosophy, for kids or young adults. Buddy431 (talk) 04:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Every philosophy class is a primer to some set of philosophies. There are too many to cover in some "Intro to philosophy" class. They are divided according to subject matter ethics, epistemology, metaphysics, etcetera. Greg Bard (talk) 05:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Right! Of course, so i should just read what's linked in the Branches of philosophy section and i just noticed each does seem to have an introduction to its main theories. Thanks, seems obvious now I've seen those sections.. Vespine (talk) 05:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'd recommend Bertrand Russell's A History of Western Philosophy. Very well written. DuncanHill (talk) 14:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- It is well written, but not a primer as it's doorstop size as far as I recall. And it has been criticised by philosophers, dont remember why. 92.24.180.229 (talk) 14:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- It's a primer because you don't need any prior knowledge of the subject to read and benefit from it. It's been criticised for missing out certain areas (e.g. Kierkegaard), and for partisanship, but as Russell said "I was sometimes accused by reviewers of writing not a true history but a biased account of the events that I arbitrarily chose to write of. But to my mind, a man without bias cannot write interesting history — if, indeed, such a man exists." If you confine yourself to works which have not been criticised by philosophers, you won't actually read anything. DuncanHill (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- And furthermore, one should only read well-written books. DuncanHill (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Abbreviation for Senior Sergeant
Is there any abbreviation for the Senior Sergeant rank? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.76.224.253 (talk) 14:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- The Australian police section in our article on Sergeant suggests "SENSGT", but "Sen-Sgt" or "Sen Sgt" seem to be used quite a bit more frequently. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)