Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

October 29

Statue on the Zeil in Frankfurt Germany

I recently took a trip to Europe and took a picture of this statue located on Zeil in downtown Frankfurt, Germany. I would love to know the name of it! Any help would be appreciated. This is a link to a picture of the statue.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2149/2155356410_33b3603a9e.jpg?v=1200433263 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.229.125 (talk) 01:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It's "David and Goliath" ("David und Goliath" in German) by Richard Hess. With Google image searches I found more images [1][2][3][4] with no name but enough info to then find [5] and finally [6]. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Chair not allowed to vote?

Is it common that the chair of a meeting should not be allowed to vote? In at least two student associations I know of, the chair is not allowed to vote and is not allowed to chair if they have an interest in the topic being discussed. Why? How can the chair influence decisions? ----Seans Potato Business 09:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The chair of a meeting has a lot of power to influence a vote. One who even inadvertently misuses that power is a menace. They should take great care that they solicit opinions properly. They should very clearly say of any of their contributions whether it is purely personal or on the spot or whatever. Being a good chair is a skill an perhaps also requires some talent. Otherwise very much less than optimal things are done. Their not voting except as a decider is a very good idea as it emphasises that they should act neutrally. Dmcq (talk) 10:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

In my past experience of student affairs, it was not at all common, but perhaps I am out of date? Surely, a casting vote should always be within the rules, so that you can break a deadlock?

On your statement "the chair is... not allowed to chair if they have an interest in the topic", do you mean a financial interest? That may generally be a good idea, but even with financial interests you sometimes find that everyone in the room has the same interest in a discussion, so a rule like that needs to be carefully written. Strawless (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

In some bodies, the chair isn't allowed a casting vote and a tied vote always fails. --Tango (talk) 21:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Always 4 years between US elections?

It seems that there are always 4 years between each US presidential election. In the UK, the prime minister can call an election at any time during his term in office (I notice that this can be done, and recently was, in Canada too). Can that happen, and has it ever happened, in the US? WAYB (talk) 10:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there are always 4 years between US presidential elections. No, the president cannot call for an election. 12.10.248.51 (talk) 12:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

This is set forth in Article Two of the United States Constitution. Dismas|^(talk) 12:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Although it does not say that the Vice President shall serve the full term as President in case of vacancy; the Framers might have expected/intended a special election in such cases, or simply not thought about it. As it happened, the question didn't arise for 52 years. I wonder whether it was debated in 1841. —Tamfang (talk) 05:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The Twelfth Amendment changed the field of such a debate. —Tamfang (talk) 23:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Primarily difference between a Westminster system and a presidential system. Grsz^Review! 13:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, part of the complaints about the "Westminster" system that led to the writing of the U.S. Constitution was that (especially in the 18th century) it largely depended on the whim of the Monarch as to when to call election, and that the Monarch (executive) could also dismiss Parliament whenever. The U.S. system was based on the idea that regular elections would lead to increased accountability to the people. It was also based on the ideas of seperation of powers, and on checks and balances and other principles which are entirely absent in the Westminster system. The Federalist papers, written by the framers of the U.S. Constitution, are an excellent discussion as to why the U.S. government was created as it was. It gives all the details and justifications for every aspect of what would become the American system of government. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, it should be noted that there aren't 4 years between elections in the U.S. The "Federal" elections run every two years; Presidential elections run at every-other election cycle. State and local elections may or may not run at the same time as Federal elections, it is up to the smaller jurisdictions as to how they organize themselves. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

"Where annual election ends, tyranny begins" was a phrase often quoted by Founding Fathers of the US, although in writing the Constitution they decided that Federal elections every two years were more practical. (Many state officials, including governors, continued to be elected annually, although this changed over time.) The point of course was that elections should be regular, and that the executive should have no power to alter this. —Kevin Myers 21:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a debate now in Canada over whether to switch to "fixed" election dates. The Canadian federal government did so, but recently, the ruling party declared that Parliament wasn't working and called a new election, essentially ignoring the fixed-election law. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that there’s nothing about this at Canadian House of Commons#Elections or Parliament of Canada#Term. I wonder what could explain this. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

There is some discussion of it at Canadian federal election, 2008, Jack. In reality, yes, the government did ignore their own new law before it could ever be implemented, but obviously they can't really fix an election date when they are not legally the head of government. The Prime Minister could advise the Governor General to call an election on February 19 every four years but it was not enshrined in the constitution like it is in the US. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. Fixed election dates in Canada#Parliament of Canada tells us: "In effect, the "fixed-date" law changed only the maximum duration of a Parliament, by ensuring that it ends no later than October in its fourth calendar year after commencement, but the law leaves the possibility of an earlier end unaffected". I'd interpret that to mean that, unless the parliament is dissoved earlier, the election will be held every fourth year in October. It's interesting that it's portrayed as Canada having a fixed election date when it very clearly is not necessarily fixed at all, as this election showed. I don't see what happened recently as a case of "ignoring the fixed-election law", but one of exercising the suite of perfectly legal constitutional options available to the government and the Governor General. If any law had been broken, I'd bet some legal action would have been taken by now. Australia has a similar law. It's not framed in terms of a specific month, but in terms of a maximum duration of a parliament, counted from the day it first sits following a general election. Unless the parliament is dissolved sooner, it "expires through effluxion of time" 3 years after it first sits. This is usually described as "three-year terms", but the truth is that only one of our 42 parliaments has ever gone the full 3 years, and that was back in 1910. It's more accurate to describe it as "maximum three-year terms". -- JackofOz (talk) 04:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the stated purpose of the "fixed election dates" law was to eliminate the advantage the ruling party has through its ability to control the time of the election. So while the Conservatives' decision was constitutional, it was against the spirit of the fixed election dates law. There is really no way to have truly fixed election dates in a Westminster system. Even if the ruling party were prevented from asking the governor-general to dissolve Parliament, all of the members of the ruling party could simply resign, forcing the governor-general to call an election to get a quorum. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

How large are the Canadian quorums (quora?). In Australia it's 25% for the Senate and 20% for the House of Representatives. If it were simply a matter of government members resigning en masse, wouldn't this simply hand government to the opposition, by virtue of the fact that they now control the numbers in the House of Commons? And wouldn't they hold a bunch of by-elections to replace the members who resigned, rather than a general election? No, I don't think it has to do with quorums. Resignations of one or more members would not normally be a legitimate reason to hold a general election, particularly if this were not one of the exceptional circumstances that could require the holding of an election on a date other than that otherwise fixed by law. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right -- quorum in the House of Commons is only 20 members. But I remember reading something to the effect of the majority party would always be able to basically force the governor-general to dissolve parliament -- perhaps by withholding supply against its own government or refusing to pass any legislation. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

This has shades of the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, where Gough Whitlam's Labor government was unable to get its supply bills through the Senate. The Liberal opposition led by Malcolm Fraser kept on stalling, demanding that the PM call an election, which he kept on refusing to do, on the principle that a government that has the numbers in the lower house is entitled to be given the funds to implement the legislative program on which its mandate was based. It went on for 3 months, from August to 11 November. To break the impasse, the Governor-General Sir John Kerr sacked the Whitlam government even though it commanded a sizeable majority in the lower house, and installed Fraser as Prime Minister on the understanding that he get the supply bills passed and immediately advise a general election. He did both of these things, and the parliament was dissolved later that day. Fraser remained caretaker PM throughout the election period even though the Labor-dominated House had expressed lack of confidence in his government, and the Liberals won by a record margin. Hypothetically, a government could refuse to pass its own supply bills - for what possible reason, I cannot imagine - but that would place them in the same position as Whitlam was in Australia, and with the precedent set by Kerr, the Canadian Governor General might take similar action. But this is so hypothetical as to be unimagineable. Why would a government want to go to the polls before it had to, or before it would normally even be permitted to? I can imagine an opposition trying to force such a circumstance, but not a government. I can also imagine a PM who'd taken over from a PM who resigned or died mid-term, and who wanted a mandate in his own right, wanting an election earlier than it might otherwise have been called, but voting against his government's own supply bills would certainly not be the way to go about it. The electorate would likely take the view that if the government was prepared to vote itself down, why should they do otherwise? If it were a case of government members being so disaffected by the direction their Prime Minister was taking the country as to not want to be associated with the governing party any more, they'd much more likely resign from the party and sit as independents, or even cross to the opposition party, and if there were sufficient numbers of such members, the government would fall, but an election would not necessarily eventuate. We've had this occur in Australia: in 1941, 2 independents who supported the UAP/Country Party coalition government switched their support to the Labor Party, and the government changed, but there was no election. The next election was not till 1943. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Good discussions above. I do see one hole: travel time. At the time the rules were determined in the US, regular elections allowed people to plan their travel (horseback). Calling a snap election could very easily be timed to catch people far from their place of voting, or unable to receive news in a timely fashion. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Wearing motorcycle helmets inside shops (UK)

Frequently you see the signs saying the wearing of full face motorcycle helmets is prohibited inside shops/stores/petrol stations in the UK, but is there an applicable law that applies or is it a shop by shop internal rule? Nanonic (talk) 11:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Internal rule. Wearing a helmet obscures the face, frustrates CCTV, worries staff concerned that they might be targeted by robbers &c. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Many petrol stations (gas stations for you USA types) won't activate the pump until you remove your helmet so your face is caught on CCTV (in case you ride away without paying). Exxolon (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

There's also the risk that they may actually be serving the body of a coltan alloy T-888 (with wireless head-body interface) when the helmet stays on [7] Nil Einne (talk) 13:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The daily lives of people in history

Are there any Wikipedia articles where I can read about the daily lives of "average" people in history -- slaves, laborors, merchants, soldiers, etc. in Roman times, the Middle Ages, and even in more recent history? I've been browsing some of the Portals but I'm not finding the correct articles. Thank you, in advance! 157.127.124.15 (talk) 14:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

For the Middle Ages you could try Medieval household and check out the navigation box at the bottom for more articles. Rome is better-represented here, try Culture of ancient Rome and the associated box with more articles. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

(I was the original poster, I just wasn't logged in). Thanks Adam -- those articles are pretty close to what I was looking for. I'm reading a book right now by James J. O'Donnell, The Ruin of the Roman Empire (HarperCollins: 2008), and just finished another, Drink: A Cultural History of Alcohol (Gotham: 2008), which both give some greater detail into the daily lives, cares, worries, etc. of persons throughout history. I will see if I can work some of these details into the appropriate Wikipedia pages, and I will look into their sources for even more. Thanks again. Sarcasticninja (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Culture of ancient Rome is very good. I'm hoping to discover more detail somewhere, but the 'Customs and daily life' section is what I wanted to see. Sarcasticninja (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You have to read social history. Just search under social history in WP and elsewhere. --Omidinist (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

That definitely helps to point me in the correct direction. Thanks Omidinist! Sarcasticninja (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Paul Veyne edited A History of Private Life in several volumes, available in paperback. Fernand Braudel's Civilization and Capitalism and The Mediterranean in the Age of Philip II are filled with details drawn from private life, as they reflect larger political and economic trends. Some of the best social history I've ever read. --Wetman (talk) 16:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You might also look at this book Daily Life in Medieval times. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a wonderful classic book called The diary of a nobody I can't recall the author but it's very good and that is basically a great account of everyday life of a 'nobody' in victorian times. Can't see how it would've been exciting to read at the time but these days it's a fascinating insight into daily life. An area you might be interested in is Mass observation which was a social-research program in the UK (and perhaps beyond?) that offered an insight into everyday life. I suspect similar types of studies may exist for further back in history. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 11:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The Diary of a Nobody was by George Grossmith. I know all about Mass Observation but I didn't mention it because it's not directly relevant to the original question. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 11:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Lilith Fact or fiction?

As of to date, I am sitting and pondering the entire misconception of others, as to read the Bible and develope some twisted concept that there was another wife for Adam before that of Eve.

What is not to understand? It is simple to grasp the concept that Adam and Eve were the first to be crated in the form of man by that of GOD. People are taking a myth, a fable a story and doing their best to disprove that the Bible is the truth, and that God is a telling tales. So my question is simple ( 1 ) Is there a Lilith in connection to Adam? ( 2 ) Where is she mentioned in the dead sea scrolls, as per the home page of Lilith it states " Lilith mentioned in dead sea scrolls. "

Maybe to explain to thoes who do not quite understand, how simple it is is thus: When God is implimenting the creation of Adam and Eve, in eariler passages of Genesis, God is simply stateing Hey I am making man in my own image, He knew He was gonna make man and woman as God knows all, and knew He was gonna make both, this does not by any means say God created Lilith for Adam as his first wife. Also in biblical days, as people wrote what they were told, they wrote in the the foremat of future context, and that of present context which can explain the theroy of double creations. They both were refering to the same creation of Adam and eve.

10-28-2008 C.T.Minner

Have you tried the article on Lilith? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 16:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You may also want to read our article on Documentary hypothesis, which discusses the "JEPD theory" and is a fairly straightforward and rather scholarly approach to explaining the apparent contradictions between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 (such as, why is the entire creation story told twice, and why don't the two stories match up in terms of timeline and details?). The basic idea is that the information in the Pentatauch (the first 5 books of the bible) were compiled from 4 different sources, and cobbled together into a single narrative from creation through the Moses story. The contradictions between the Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, which is the basis for the "Lilith" tradition, can be more conveniently understood if one assumes that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 were written by completely different authors, and only put together later. The JEPD theory is not without its detractors, but it has widespread acceptance from both non-believing biblical scholars, and believers as well. I have an NIV Study Bible which, while it does not endorse JEPD, does discuss it and does not explicitly discount it either. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Lilith doesn't appear in either story in Genesis and a possible origin for the Lilith story may lie in trying to read the double account as a single story, not in the contradictions between the accounts. Rmhermen (talk) 01:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly the point I was making; thanks for making it more clear. The contradiction between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 is explained in some traditions to mean that God created two women, the first (Lilith) equal to Adam, and the second (Eve) to be subservient to Adam. Since Lilith disappears from the story, and Eve is who persists, it is her relationship to Adam that God prefers (or so the Tradition goes. Not that I agree with that interpretation). --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Some folk, and they have been numerous through Christian history, claim to have a direct line to the thoughts of God: "Hey I am making man in my own image, He knew He was gonna make man and woman as God knows all, and knew He was gonna make both..." Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, can only report the texts and describe the historical interpretations of those texts.--Wetman (talk) 01:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Volkswagen

I'm not sure that I understand what really caused the strange behaviour of the Volkswagen shares on the stock market in the past few days. Can someone explain this? User:Krator (t c) 17:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

One explanation is here. I won't pretend to understand all the details, but it sounds like a classic short squeeze. --LarryMac | Talk 17:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Porsche now owns about 75% of Volkswagen Stocks and the German state Lower Saxony owns another 20%. Since there are now only 5% of stocks on the market and accessible, trading with these stocks is frequent and frentic. There is high demand for these stocks, and as there are only very few available, prices started to soar.

The FT article pointed out by LarryMac says,

hedge funds, rushing to cover short positions, were forced to buy stock from a shrinking pool of shares in free float.

That it is accurate but only part of the story. The extreme demand/supply mismatch that drove up the price of VW ordinary shares (or common stock), so that at one point it had the highest market cap of any company in the world, also came from two other groups.

Besides the short sellers, there were the option writers with whom Porsche had long ago agreed on call options giving Porsche the right to buy VW stock at a pre-determined price. Porsche was starting to exercise those options, and some of the option writers did not actually own VW stock so they had to buy it in order to make good on their promises. (These were not simple call options; details are sketchy and Porsche is very secretive about them.)

The third force driving up the price of VW common stock were investment funds tracking the DAX (Germany's 30 biggest public companies). By their own statutes they are bound to mirror the relative weight of companies in the DAX, so when VW went up to account for 27 percent of the DAX the index funds had to scramble to buy VW at almost any price.

Those three factors taken together amounted to a perfect storm for some people, who got caught out in the cold.

One aspect that I have not seen mentioned in the media is whether or not this puts a damper on recommendations to invest in index-tracking funds. There seems to be an inherent flaw here, and the comforting thought that you could "invest and forget" in an index fund while saving on management fees may be less well-founded than previously thought.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 22:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, contrary to what someone wrote above, Porsche does not actually hold 75% of VW stock yet, though it is their stated intention to achieve this in 2009. If I remember right, a few days ago they owned a little over 40% of VW and held options to a little over 30%. THis last figure will have declined somewhat in recent days as they gave back some of their options in order to, as they said, take some of the upward pressure off VW's share price.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 01:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

tag British news presenter and politicians are wearing at the moment

What kind of pin or tag are British news presenter and politicians wearing since 27 October? (it is red, green, and black tag in the shape of an apple) Is there a Wikipedia article about it?

I'm guessing you're referring to the Remembrance Day poppy. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

If you ever wondered what the pretty nurse selling poppies on a tray in Penny Lane was about, that's it... AnonMoos (talk) 22:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I've seen some Australian politicians wearing them recently, and I have to wonder why they're wearing them so early. Remembrance Day is 11 November, still 12 days away, and it's a single day, not a season like "the Christmas-New Year season". A couple of days early is ok, but up to 3 weeks early is like having office Christmas parties in early November, or selling hot cross buns in late December. It's fine to remember the fallen throughout the year, not just on one day of the year, but the wearing of poppies so far removed from the day set aside for that commemoration seems almost disrespectful. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It's like Christmas (and Halloween), people start doing things for it earlier every year... I'd say poppys should be worn for at most a week prior to the 11th, more than that is silly. --Tango (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought the reference desk was about facts. Richard Avery (talk) 08:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Because the Royal British Legion launched their annual campaign a few days ago? I'd have thought most people get their poppy from the first place they see them when they have a free moment and some change, and wear them once they've bought them. Although politicians probably put more thought in... I wonder what's up with the larger, more Canadian-style poppies I've seen a few people wearing (in the UK). Are they symbolic of something in particular, or are they just more ostentatious? As in "I remember harder than you do", which doesn't really seem the point. 79.66.86.162 (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

October 30

the lords prayer

What is the difference between the catholoic and protistant version of the lords prayer? The end part before THINE IS THE KINGDOM THE POWER THE GLORY FOR EVER AND EVER AMEN.

see the article on the Lord's Prayer Rmhermen (talk) 01:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Have you seen Lord's Prayer? There you will find a discussion of the various versions in use. Note that it appears in two gospels: Matthew and Luke. Luke omits the doxology, a form often used within the Catholic liturgy. Note that Catholic mass often uses the Latin version (Pater noster). Gwinva (talk) 01:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The Latin version has not been in regular use since the 1960s. --Nricardo (talk) 00:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The article Lord's Prayer actually refers only to Roman Catholic and Anglican/Episcopal versions. Protestant versions ('debts' for 'trespasses', 'for ever' for 'for ever and ever'would need to be found elsewhere. --frjbdc+ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.134.155.174 (talk) 16:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Willian McGonagall

Did McGonagall write deliberately in the way he did? I looked up the external links in his article page and they offered different views. Is there any general consensus in the literary community?Leif edling (talk) 03:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

If there were different views expressed then probably there isn't a consensus. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I considered it possible that the particular listed external links are varied in their opinions but the literary community sees the matter only in a certain light. That is why I asked the question on the humanities r.d. in the hope that someone aware of McGonagall's work and life may answer my question.Leif edling (talk) 16:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It's really hard to be that bad that long, on purpose. --- OtherDave (talk) 19:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The key seems to be that he discovered his own greatness and thought, when you're on a good thing, flog it to flitters. I can't think of the name but early Australia had a tuneless female self-designed opera singer with heaps of confidence and personal wealth that made her career possible – people crammed her concerts to laugh themselves silly and there was a play about her a couple of years ago. What was her name? Julia Rossi (talk) 00:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Florence Foster Jenkins? She was American, though. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

That's it! I was out on the country part. Thanks AdamB Julia Rossi (talk) 07:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Asian to White Racial Transformation

Is there a true story of an oriental who was living in a western country, and he or she changed himself or herself into a white-looking person by having a racial surgery transformation?? Is there an asian to a white transformation story? 72.136.111.205 (talk) 03:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed sentence that was a potential WP:BLP problem. Its absence does not change the question or make it less comprehensible, except to underscore that the OP is interested only in Asian-to-white surgical transformations, and not, for example, in possible black-to-white changes. ៛ Bielle (talk) 05:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Every year hundreds of thousands of oriental people have surgery to 'westernize' their eyes. I don't believe the surgery is referred to as 'racial tranformation surgery', i think they refer to it as Blepharoplasty, which can be cosmetic or required. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hundreds of thousands? Hotcheetos (talk) 00:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

What I am asking is has there ever an asian who had transformed himself or herself into a white person by surgery? Please provide with a news article. 72.136.111.205 (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you STFW? – What would qualify as "into a white person"? Does an eyelid job suffice? How about a coat of white paint? —Tamfang (talk) 02:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

A coat of white paint is not surgery. I believe the OP is looking for an instance of an asian who had surgery with the intent of looking like a white person. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Fred Korematsu is a famous example, though his attempt at passing was apparently unsuccessful. —Kevin Myers 13:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Fred Korematsu is not an example. He was a Japanese American who went to the internment camp. 72.136.111.205 (talk) 16:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

He was that too. And he was an example of an Asian person who had surgery with the intent of looking like a white person, as the article and the linked obituary will reveal to those who read them. —Kevin Myers 23:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Jackie Chan has had surgery on his eyes to make them look more western. ScienceApe (talk) 01:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Jackie Chan looks asian. You need to provide a better example. 72.136.111.205 (talk) 02:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually I don't need to do anything. But to answer your original question, no there is no story of an asian person who became white. ScienceApe (talk) 06:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Abraham killing an Idolator

When I was in jewish school way back in the mid 70's,one of the rabbis related a story about how one day as Abraham was strolling thru a town of like minded folks, maybe relatives, he came upon a a guy worshipping an idol and promptly slew him; i guess this story was to relay just how vigorous a faith must be in order to please the lord, but it caused me to reject the whole enterprise outrite. Because this story has had some impact on my Psyche I am intersted to find out if the incident is actually depicted in the Bible, I have tried to find it but can't,have any of you come across this passage and if you have do you know where it is in Genesis?

It's not in there. Sounds apocryphal. Wrad (talk) 17:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It does sound like something being conflated with the story of Abraham smashing Terah's idols. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a close parallel, but would definitely need to be conflated since Abraham doesn't kill anyone in it. Also, that story is not in Genesis. Wrad (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

One of the traditional practices of rabbis is (or at least was) making up stories using biblical and later figures. The stories were not meant to be taken literally but rather to make a point in much the same way as a parable. --Halcatalyst (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Is that what I know as a Midrash? Steewi (talk) 23:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It's what I know as a false statement manipulation technique for the purposes of crowd control. But a Rabbi wouldn't do that, would he? Julia Rossi (talk) 00:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It's fanfic! —Tamfang (talk) 03:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat off-topic: a great book about the Trouble With Orthodox Rabbis: Foreskin's Lament by Shalom Auslander. I thought it was hilarious. Apparently threats of instant death from Biblical figures or God himself are quite common in Orthodox pedagogy. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Lying in polls

What percentage of respondents lie to polling organizations? How many even say the opposite of what they think? How would one be able to answer these questions?

I'm thinking about the Bradley effect. --Halcatalyst (talk) 21:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Methodologically it may not be possible when it comes to actual political voting, assuming that by law the voting is allowed to be done without observation. Thus the two interpretations of the alleged Bradley effect: one that those who responded lied, and another that those who responded self-selected. I don't see any way to even determine which of those is the cause without being able to actually compare to the original ballots, which by law you can't do. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not possible to know what percentage of respondents lie. As the anon stated, you can only compare the respondents to the polls. But, it is not possible to know exactly who the respondents are (since they could lie when responding) or what the respondent's vote was. As an anecdote, I always attempt to figure out if it is a Democrat or Republican running the poll (usually very easy since they start out by asking things like "Can we depend on your support of our next President, Obama, in the upcoming critical election?"). Then, I strongly and emphatically support the opposing party with as many ridiculous or offensive comments as possible. -- kainaw™ 01:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't get the Bradley effect - couldn't it be negated by doing the polls as a secret ballot? --Tango (talk) 15:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not even clear the Bradley effect exists. If it does exist, a secret ballot for polls wouldn't necessarily fix it. If it exists because of self-selection, there's still that to contend with. If it exists because of deception, it's potentially the case that secret ballots would fix that, but not necessarily. From a methodological point of view I don't see any clear way around it. If it even exists—even in the canonical "Bradley" case, the numbers were so close anyway that it might just have been within the error margins anyway. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The obvious approach to answering a query like this would be ask respondents about other people they know - to get people who will probably given honest answers to tell the truth about the people who lie - but it's going to be difficult to phrase the questions, as many people will have little idea of whether their friends or family might lie to polling organisations. Warofdreams talk 16:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The "1 twin always lies and 1 twin always tells the truth" problem (which I'm assuming is where you got the idea) only works because the twins are assumed to have complete knowledge. A lot of people choose not to discuss politics with friends and family, so people would just guessing how they would vote and could well be wrong. --Tango (talk) 18:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

And you're probably more likely to have people lying to their own family members about this sort of thing than to a polling organization. If I was voting Republican, I'd probably not tell my mother—who would probably disown me ;-) —though I might tell a pollster, for example. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

My idea has nothing to do with the "1 twin always lies" approach. This approach is quite common in surveys of behaviour which people are unlikely to admit to, but which is apparent to those around them. The difficulty here, of course, is that this behaviour is probably not obvious to those around them. Warofdreams talk 19:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The legal importance of a comma

A friend and myself were having a discussion / argument over the following hypothetical; If someone is notified by a team of solicitors that 'We will be claiming the principal sum interest and court costs.' Would that be taken as legally different to 'We will be claiming the principal sum, interest and court costs', I have argued that the 'principal sum interest' is merely the plaintiff claiming the amount of interest on the principal sum, whereas my partner argued that the ommission of the comma would be overlooked and disregarded. I have heard of 'the million dollar comma' case in the US but have no idea what the legal situation is in the uk.

Someone more learned in the law can answer this properly, but I too have often noticed the absence of commas in legal documents, actual laws, etc, in sentences where, in any other context, the comma(s) would naturally be found and, indeed, not only would it be considered ungrammatical not to have them, but also, without them the meaning can become unnecessarily ambiguous, as in the very case you're asking about. There was the Roger Casement case in which he was said to have been "hanged by a comma" (see Roger Casement#Capture, trial and execution), so it can sometimes be a matter of life and death. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes it's not even just the comma. There was an American case in which a woman was on trial for murdering her baby. It was said that she had confessed in the 911 call. A linguist was called in and it was found that her words "I killed my baby," did not constitute a confession, as it was ambiguous given the context. In fact, the woman had fallen asleep while breastfeeding and smothered it. In her emotion, she called 911 and made the statement. Wrad (talk) 23:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

See also this. (Although the writer there thinks it's not really about the comma, but still.)--Rallette (talk) 07:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• There's a fascinating bit about commas in legal documents in Mark Alder's "Clarity for Lawyers". In the unlikely event that I remember(!!!) I'll post some of his comments back here in the next few days. AndyJones (talk) 09:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• OK, I'm back, with that book in front of me. There's far too much to post here in full. However the drift of it is that in the early days of printing, legislation would be punctuated in the printers' house style (which was often just the idiosyncracy of the compositor who happened to be typesetting it) rather than having the punctuation it had when Parliament enacted it. As a result, a rule of law developed that punctuation had no legal effect. In turn, that led lawyers to develop a style of drafting documents without any punctuation at all, and that style continues to be used in the 21st century, even though many lawyers (especially members of the Clarity movement) have noticed how stupid this is, and have made partly-successful efforts to introduce a culture where legal documents are written in plain English, with normal punctuation. In light of this history, I think the answer to the OP's question is that a Judge would treat the comma as implied, and the claim as including principal. (Also I don't necessarily agree that "principal sum interest" without a comma unambiguously means just the interest, but that's another question.) Above isn't legal advice, just a history lesson. AndyJones (talk) 15:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

October 31

Enjambment

I can't seem to find the answer to my question anywhere. If you are reciting a poem that has a line that runs into another, should that line break be considered a pause or should the reciter treat it like an extra long line? —User:FuzzyBunnyJihad (talk)

Generally, no pause. Pauses are signified by punctuation, not by the ends of lines. An exception might be in a humorous poem where the enjambment is part of the humor. - Nunh-huh 00:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

In prose, pauses are marked by punctuation, and this is true of poetry too. But poetry is more than prose, and it's a very bad idea to read it like mere prose. This is especially true for free verse; poets such as Marvin Bell insist that, when a poem is read aloud, line endings call for a least a brief hesitation. --Halcatalyst (talk) 01:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Worth knowing if you're going to be reading Marvin Bell's poems aloud, but his insistence on a pause is the exception, and certainly not the rule. - Nunh-huh 01:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

If the way the poem looks on the page is part of its character, as in some of George Herbert's poems and Wallace Stevens', the hearer should have an unobtrusive sense of the shaping of the line, as it hangs in the air, and where the enjambment falls. Not easily done. --Wetman (talk) 02:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Herbert's "Easter Wings" is a prime exemplar of a poem that's intended to be seen on a page. (I can't think of any of Stevens' poems that depend on that.) The question is about how to read a poem aloud; obviously, it depends on the poem, the reader, and the audience. Reading poetry, aloud or in one's mind, when done well requires both skill and a bit of poetic sensitivity. --Halcatalyst (talk) 01:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Homosexuality

You know how some humans are gay or lesbian? Is homosexuality found only in humans or do some other animals exhibit this kind of behavior? -- penubag  (talk) 02:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Yup, see homosexual behavior in animals. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the quick reply.  :) -- penubag  (talk) 02:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Sierra Leone Civil War

Who were the Vice Presidents of Sierra Leone at the time of the 1992 coup by the Revolutionary United Front. Vice President of Sierra Leone says one, while President Joseph Saidu Momoh's article says another I believe. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 03:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Yet another US election question

On my friend's absentee ballot, it notes that if she leaves a referendum question blank--it counts as a vote against the referendum. Is this true in all of the states? Why is there not a system in place whereby you can vote for president, senate, etc. but abstain from voting on a referendum?

Thanks!

207.172.71.243 (talk) 05:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

That seems unusual, which state is she in? Its certainly not true of all States, most require a simple majority of "yes" vs. "no" and discount those left blank.

Are you sure your friend is not referring to Arizon Prop 105, which - if passed next week - would essentially institute that system for future referenda in Arizona. See [8] Rockpocket 06:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

she's from Minnesota207.172.71.243 (talk) 07:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Normally in referendums (and elections generally), only formal votes are taken into consideration. That is, votes filled out in accordance with the rules, and where a YES or NO vote is clearly expressed. Informal votes (blank; ambiguous; illegible; crosses or ticks instead of numbers, or vice-versa; not fully completed; etc) are put aside and don't figure in the count. It sounds like they're deeming blank ballots to be formal votes, and against the proposal. This is very unusual. The choices seem to be:

• If you want to be counted as YES, you have to vote YES formally.
• If you want to be counted as NO, you can either vote NO formally, or submit a blank ballot.
• If you want NOT to be counted, you have to mark your ballot paper, but in a way that deliberately makes it an informal vote.

How very odd. It may be an attempt to minimise informal votes and make people think about what they want, but from what you've told us, it seems somewhat undemocratic. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It certainly sounds unusual, but perhaps there is a clue in this article. As noted in the very last paragraph, "The amendment needs to be approved by at least 51 percent. Leaving the question blank is essentially a vote against it." The key word being "essentially." Anything that is not explicitly a yes vote won't count toward the 51%. --LarryMac | Talk 15:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. What they're saying is that they're going to consider the "yes" vote 51% of all votes, not 51% of all votes that give an opinion. It's a way to make sur that supporters of it don't just overwhelm because most people don't care or don't understand it. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 16:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't really make sense. You should be allowed to purposefully not decide; philosophically, you shouldn't be required to have an opinion. One may not be apathetic, they may genuinely want to not vote for whatever reason, and this is not the same as wanting to vote "no". Also, it doesn't make sense that people who don't vote at all aren't counted towards the 50%+1, but those that do vote but leave it blank DO count. That's just plainly illogical... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it makes no sense. In cases where you can expect near 100% turnout (a corporate board meeting, say), it can sometimes make sense to require a majority of the population to support rather than just more supporters that opposes (basically you count an abstention as an opposition), but when you're going to have a large number of people that just don't vote at all (and aren't actively abstaining), then it makes no sense. What they're doing is requiring support from a majority of the people that vote in the presidential election, which is a nonsensical population to be using to determine support for an unrelated resolution. --Tango (talk) 18:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not that a non-vote is identical to a negative vote, it's that a negative vote is identical to a non-vote. Only positive votes count and they are taking it out of the total population. Again, it's a way to make it so that a bloc of people can't push it through with only 10% of the vote if everybody else just leaves it blank because they don't know or don't care. It's a reasonable check to make sure that a small interested minority doesn't end up making disproportionate policy. On some issues I can imagine that being something you'd want to do, if the issue was important but its importance was not widely understood. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 22:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

No, that's comparing different populations of votes.

• Some people choose not to vote at all, as is their right. It’s impossible to know how they would have voted had they voted.
• Some people turn up at the voting booth in order to write obscenities or other comments on their ballots, but leave them otherwise unmarked.
• Some vote properly, but still add comments. In some jurisdictions, these ballots are counted as formal, in some as informal. I can see pros and cons for both approaches.
• Some people vote in the election, but don’t have a particular view about the referendum question - or vice-versa – so they leave that ballot paper unmarked. It’s just as impossible to know how they might have voted had they chosen to express a view, as it is to know how the people who didn’t turn up at all might have voted had they turned up. In relation to the referendum, to make a distinction between the people who turned up and did not vote, and those who didn’t turn up at all, seems wrong in principle. That's why the only "population" that has any meaning is the population who lodged formal votes, and formal votes have never in my experience included blank ballots.

The question is: what constitutes a "blank ballot"? If it’s utterly blank, that’s clear cut, and in this scenario it’s counted as a formal NO vote. But if it has a small doodle you did while thinking about how you wanted to vote, is that a blank ballot, or is it added to the pile of informal votes and not considered at all? If your pen wasn’t flowing and you had to scribble on the paper to make it work, is that a blank ballot? If it has some smudge from the ink stain on the side of your hand that got put on while you were filling out the other ballot paper, is that a blank ballot? If it has a deliberately written comment or obscenity, but nothing else, is that a blank ballot? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

In Australia you don't actually have the right to not vote at all do you? Compulsory voting (not sure about referenda but for normal elections I'm pretty sure it applies). You do still have the right to leave the ballot blank but you do actually have to turn up to vote if you don't want to be fined unless you have a legitimate reason (and I don't think I didn't want to vote is one). Nil Einne (talk) 09:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

In cases where they don't want a minority to be making policy (most commonly, tax increases), it's common to include a quorum requirement, ie. 51% of the vote, and at least 20% of the registered voters must cast votes. The irony of quorum requirements is that there are cases where a "no" vote is identical to a "yes" vote. --Carnildo (talk) 23:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, there are cases where a quorum is required - that's a percentage of total people eligible to vote, rather than a percentage of people that turn up to the polling booths, which is a big difference. (And yes, turning up to vote "no" can actually cause the vote to pass, that can be resolved by requiring 10% of the total population to vote in favour (and more supports than opposes, obviously), rather than requiring 20% to vote and 50% of those to vote in favour - the total amount of support required is the same, but the amount of opposes doesn't matter (unless it is more than the supports).) --Tango (talk) 00:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, if you want to allow people to offer no opinion, it's best to actually offer that option. Otherwise you're going to confuse people with no opinion with people who didn't even notice the refenda for example. You can also offer people the option to have no vote if you want. Nil Einne (talk) 09:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

UN

With the growing discontent in the congo, I would like to know, if what happened in Rwanda happens again in say congo, and the UN once again spends its time pussyfooting around instead of acctually doing some thing, can anyone at the UN be held responsible and be sent to the Hague or some thing equivalent? Last time the UN soldiers on the ground were not allowed to do anything (shoot back I mean) this can be seen in movies such as Shooting Dogs or Hotel Rwanda. Was any one at the UN made accountable for this? who will be made accountable next time, as I am sure it will happen again somewhere. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 11:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Read Peacekeeping. It is not for the UN to be held accountable, since they can only act in accordance with whatever treaties, laws and UN resolutions apply. It is lack of international support for the UN, not the UN itself, that may lead to the failure of UN peacekeeping operations. If you want to blame anyone, blame the people doing the shooting, not those who are trying to prevent it. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 12:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Firstly it's important to note that just because the media suggests the UN isn't doing anything, it is incredibly unlikely that behind the scenes they aren't working on trying to improve the situation. International law is pretty much unpredictable, it's highly unlikely the UN would be held responsible in any way, though such failure to resolve issues diminishes its standing and will make people further question its purpose and ability to react. Diplomacy and peace-keeping are incredible complex issues that require much work and thought, the UN is loathe to send troops, and will try everything in its power to not have to 'use' the troops, given the situation there are many more avenues to look down before action may be taken. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Quite frankly if three quarters of Belgium marched into france with meat cleavers killing anyone and every one, Ban KiMoon would not form a commitee to discuss wether or not they should form a commitee to hold a meeting on wether or not they should have a meeting to decide wether or not to intervene. They woukld just send it troops. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 13:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Ban Ki Moon couldn't actually send troops unless the security council agreed. To use the reverse example, if 3/4 of France marched into Belgium since France is part of the Security Council, it's actually rather unlikely the UN would send troops unless France didn't attend the meeting, or they were somehow expelled (which has never been done before unless you count the replacement of the USSR with Russia or the ROC with the PRC). Definitely, it's a lot more complex then you seem to think Nil Einne (talk) 09:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at articles such as International relations United Nations Diplomacy and areas of study such as (hope there's an article titled it) Conflict resolution. Sending in troops without at least some discussion is extremely unlikely, especially for an organisation that is maintained by many nations, rather than simply being responsible to itself. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

My understanding of the situation on Congo is that it's actually a lot more complicated then you seem to think. The current mission has quite a strong mandate and also quite a complex one. The trouble is, they have neither the resources nor the manpower to actually effectiely enforce that complicated mandate. If more countries had been willing to commit resources and people to the current mission earlier, it's likely it would have been more effective. The other thing is that the mission was complex and never going to be an easy one to do (I mean look at how much the US has commited to Iraq, they're still a long way away from achieving the goal whatever you believe their goal may be). For example, they're supposed to train the Congolose troops except the Congolose army is in extremely poor shape. They're supposed to keep the rebels away from civilians but the Congolese army likes to fire on the rebels and then run away leaving the UN troops to deal with the retaliation. As others have stated, international diplomacy is incredibly complicated and building up a country which is in a complete and utter mess is even worse. As the US in particular (and the USSR previously) have shown time and time again, just going in there with a lot of troops and shooting everyone who doesn't do what you want doesn't actually work most of the time Nil Einne (talk) 09:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Baby slapping

Is is still normal practice for a baby to be slapped to start it breathing? Is there an alternative? I could find nothing about this in the childbirth article.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I've read at least one first aid book that specifically said there was no need to slap a baby to start it breathing - it will breath on its own (breathing is instinctive, even in adults, after all). You may need to clear any gunk from its mouth, but that's about it (unless there are complications, of course). --Tango (talk) 17:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The old joke went "When I was born, I was so ugly the doctor took one look and slapped my parents!" Edison (talk) 02:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Halloween, an adult holiday?

Halloween used to be a kid thing. It still is, of course, but it’s also become a big holiday for adults, who for some time have been wearing costumes to work and displaying Halloween decorations outside their homes. Why has this happened? --Halcatalyst (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Where is this? The US? It isn't celebrated that much in the UK - there's lots targeted at kids, but that's about it in my experience. --Tango (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I know that my grandmother wore a costume to work when she worked at Tinker AFB in the 50s. She liked to say how much she liked being able to dress up on Halloween while all the Air Force guys had to stay in uniform. So, what is your assumption (that Halloween recently became popular with adults) based on? Personal experience? Most kids don't realize that the adults dress up and go to adult parties, so it isn't surprising for someone to grow up and think that adults using Halloween as an excuse to party is something new. -- kainaw™ 17:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

My parents used to dress up and go to adult Halloween parties when I was a kid in the 1980's, so the phenomenon is hardly "new"... 25 years ago, it was just as prevalent. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You really need to say where you are if your comment is going to helpful... --Tango (talk) 18:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

At the time I was living with my parents in a town called Hudson, New Hampshire, located in the south-central part of the state. They frequently went to parties at my mom's brother's house. He lived in a few different places, but the two I remember best were Gloucester, Massachusetts and Lawrence, Massachusetts. They attended these parties every year that I can remember, so that means from at least 1980 (I was born in 1976, but my memory does not stretch back that far), continuing at least until 1994, when I moved out to go to college. I hope that help to provides some context. Sorry my prior posting was so lacking in this regard. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm 27 and from America. My mom never skipped the chance to dress up for Halloween. One year she painted her face yellow and went as Jaundice. Another, she spiked her hair up, sowed underwear and socks to a sweatshirt, and went as Static cling. I'm an adult and I at least paint my face up like a skull whenever I escort my niece and nephew. My older sister dresses up everyonce in a while. So, it's not really a new thing. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a source handy, but I seem to recall that Halloween (as practiced in the US) was mostly celebrated by adults up until the 40s or 50s. It was only then that it became more focused on children, but adults still celebrated. - — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

No source handy here as well, but Halloween seems to allow adults to express their personal interests and /or become "someone else" for a night, which many people find very enjoyable. Other holidays in the US such as Christmas or Thanksgiving don't give them the chance to wear costumes and be something other than themselves. I was actually this guy this year: [9]..cheers. 10draftsdeep (talk) 21:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Coca-Cola

Does anyone know how much money a 1.5L bottle of Coca-Cola cost in the united states? Gridge (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC).

Hmmm... offhand, I don't recall ever encountering a 1.5L bottle. Naturally, the answer is "it depends", but I can provide some guidance. A 1L bottle, chilled, is generally in the $1.50 - $2 range. A 2L bottle, warm, is generally in the $1 - $1.50 range. The primary question, then, is whether a 1.5L bottle would be chilled or warm. Depending on the answer, I'd put it at either the high end of the 1L or the low end of the 2L. — Lomn 17:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I just came from the convenience store (purchasing a Coke). They don't sell 1L or 1.5L. The choices are 20oz, 2L, and 3L. I bought a 20oz, which is $1.38. -- kainaw™ 17:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

1.5L is what they call "share size" in the UK (I've no idea why), and isn't sold chilled. The other available sizes are 500ml (usually chilled) and 2L (un-chilled). The 500ml bottles cost around 90p-£1, 2L bottles are around £1.60, I've no idea what 1.5L bottles cost, but it's somewhere inbetween. Are you sure the chilled bottles in the US are 1L and not 500ml (or an imperial equivalent)? If so, any idea why they sell larger bottles in the states than elsewhere? (Other countries I've been to have always sold 500ml bottles.) --Tango (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that I've seen an actual Coca-Cola 1L bottle -- being a good southern boy, all carbonated syrup drinks are colloquially "cokes" -- but Pepsi-related brands often have larger 1L bottles in the coolers beside the standard 20oz bottles. More dastardly are the attempts to replace the 20oz bottles with the 500mL ones without adjusting price. — Lomn 19:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, per Lomn, the real question is whether refrigeration of 20 oz of soda is really worth such a huge markup. I can usually buy a six-pack of warm 20-oz bottles for less than TWO identical chilled 20-oz bottles. Seriously, cold soda has got to be the biggest racket in the U.S.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I meant warm bottle. In Israel we pay almost 7 ILS ($2). Thanks guys. Gridge (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC).

As already mentioned, 1.5 L isn't a standard size in the U.S. Some bottling plants use them, but most seem to have the standard sizes of 12-oz can, 16-oz bottle, 20-oz bottle (20 ounces = 590 mL, so its about 0.5 L), 2L bottle. A few make 8-oz cans (at the low end), 24-oz bottles (about 900 mL) , 1L bottles, or 3L bottles (the largest I have seen), but these sizes are rarer than the standards I listed first. I have never encountered a 1.5 liter bottle in the U.S. Remember that the Coca-Cola company (or Pepsico, or generally whatever the brand name is) only manufacture and sell soda syrup, that is concentrated unsweetened flavorings. This syrup is purchased and bottled by "bottling companies" which are usually independently owned and operated franchises and are unaffiliated with the parent company, except as a liscensee of the brand and purchaser of the flavorings. The bottle sizes are somewhat "industry standard", but its largely up to the bottler how they package the product. Given ALL of that, the closest common size in the U.S. is the 2L bottle, which as mentioned generally sells for $1.00-$1.50... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

They used to sell 1.5 liter bottles of Coca Cola and Dr. Pepper (and nothing else) at my local supermarket here in the U.S., until about 2 years ago... AnonMoos (talk) 20:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

If your supermarket sold nothing but 1.5 liter bottles of Coca Cola and Dr. Pepper, AnonMoos, I think you would have been well advised to shop elsewhere. Indeed, I can't quite understand how you managed to survive to the present. Deor (talk) 01:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

No it sold a wide variety of beverages in various sizes (and continues to do so) -- but only Coca Cola and Dr. Pepper were carried in the 1.5 liter size. AnonMoos (talk) 02:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

He was kidding... Gridge (talk) 18:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC).

I just saw 2 liter Coca Cola (warm) at 2 for $1.99 (U.S.). Edison (talk) 02:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Extra information for Australia: The usual sizes are can (375mL) 'buddy' (600ml) and bottles (1.25L and 2L). I have seen 1.5L bottles that are sold chilled, but they're not as common. Unchilled prices for 1.25L bottles are ~A$2.20 at a supermarket to as much as A$4.00 at smaller convenience stores and fast food stores. Steewi (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

does someone know about this book

i have recently bought a book titled a notebook of medieval history AD323 AD1453 published by oxford university at the clarendon 1917 and wondered if this book was produced on a large scale or just a few because i have searched the web and have found nothing any info on this book would be appreciated thanks dave —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dav83 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I've searched a few online catalogues, including the British Library, and can't find any mention of the book. Does it specify an author? --Tango (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You can get it used from Amazon, and it's in my university library (digitized online, even!), so it doesn't seem particularly rare. The author is Charles Raymond Beazley. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

President

Why isn't Bush part of the presedential election? 124.180.143.48 (talk) 22:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Because McCain wants to distance himself from Bush. As Bush is extremely unpopular among American voters at the moment—his lowest popularity ever, and potentially the most unpopular president in American history. Less than 3 out of 10 Americans are happy with Bush at the moment, by one poll. (The fact that you can get 7 out of 10 Americans to agree on anything political is astounding.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 22:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution --Nricardo (talk) 00:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

To expand on Nricardo's oblique reference, the U.S. President is currently limited, by law, to serving no more than 2 full terms, rounded, in office. If a president dies in office more than half-way through his first term his successor may run for election twice. If he dies less than half-way through his term, his successor may only stand for election one more time.

Thus, Lyndon Johnson, who took over for after John F. Kennedy's assassination in 1963, with less than 2 years remaining in that term, could have stood for re-election in both 1964 and 1968. Being only marginally more popular than Bush is today in 1968, Johnson somewhat wisely declined to seek an additional term. As a counter example, Ronald Reagan was shot in 1981, having only served a few months of his first term, but he survived the attack. Had he died, and George H. W. Bush (the current president's father, and Reagan's VP) taken over as President, Bush Sr. would only have been eligible to run again in 1984, and not in 1988.

The two-term limit had been a long tradition in the American Presidency. George Washington, who was under no restrictions not to, declined to run for a third term, because he did not want to see the presidency become an office-for-life. Most presidents, leary of tarnishing Washington's image, and not wanting to display the hubris of "showing up" the revered president, followed his lead and refused to run for a third term, even if they had the popularity to pull it off. The first to even attempt it was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who successfully won 4 consecutive elections; though his health was so bad in the 1944 campaign that he died only months after the start of his 4th term in 1945. The 22nd Ammendment, passed congress in 1947, and ratified in 1951, made a law what had been a tradition before Roosevelt... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of breaking up that massive paragraph.

It's not correct that Franklin Roosevelt was the first president who attempted to run for a third term, although he may have been the first to run for a third consecutive term. At least two others had tried for a third term after one term out of office, though. They both failed to gain their party's nomination: U.S. Grant in 1880 and Teddy Roosevelt in 1912. In Roosevelt's case he went on to run as a third-party candidate, splitting the vote and giving the election to Wilson. By the way, the last president eligible to run for a third term (in his case a second complete term) was Harry Truman; he made a short-lived attempt for it, dropping out after the first primary. --Anonymous, 04:50 UTC, November 1, 2008.

Note that I was assuming you were asking why Bush was not part of the campaigning to any appreciable degree, and why he was keeping his head down for the most part, not why he wasn't running again. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Did an American soldier ever kill a Russian soldier in the Cold War?

Or vice versa?--208.19.15.207 (talk) 22:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Quite likely. There were Soviet anti-aircraft crews involved in the Vietnam War, the United States provided assistance to Afghanistan during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, probably including military advisors, and there were a number of incidents where units from one side attacked units from the other. Plenty of opportunities for things to happen. --Carnildo (talk) 23:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you consider spies to be soldiers? -- kainaw™ 01:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Many spies were military attaches working at embassies, and thus soldiers. Not all soldiers are spies, not all spies are soldiers, but there is certainly overlap. Some soldiers of country A were spies for country B (and countries D and E, if they were adept enough). Edison (talk) 02:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

In the Korean War, U.S. and Soviet airmen fought each other in MiG Alley. There were certainly casualties on both sides. There may have been casualties among the Soviet ground forces (anti-aircraft batteries, mainly) caused by U.S. attacks as well. Our Korean War article lists 315 Soviet dead, some of whom must have been killed by Americans. There were always rumors of losses on both sides in the submarine "mock wars". Rmhermen (talk) 02:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It's an interesting question, and I've come up empty so far on specific examples. Do "friendly fire" incidents count? The Russians accidentally killed Sr. Lt. Sergei Safronov while trying to shoot down Gary Powers in his U-2 in 1960 (his plane had already been shot down, and he parachuted to relative safety). Antandrus (talk) 02:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, see http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/nicholsn.htm (American officer killed by Soviet troops). --91.32.105.90 (talk) 11:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

During the Cuban Missle Crisis, American pilot Rudolf Anderson's Lockheed U-2 plane was shot down by Soviet anti-aircraft missles while flying a reconaissance mission in the vicinity of Cuba. He died in the attack. At the time it was unclear whether Cuban or Soviet authorities ordered Anderson's plane to be fired upon. There is general agreement now that Soviets were at the time in control of those AA missles, and so he was attacked and killed by intentional action of the Soviet military. That's probably the most famous example of regular US military personel being killed by Soviet personel during the Cold War. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Arguments could be made that JFK was killed by Soviets... Grsz^{11 →Review!} 03:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Those arguements are generally made by people who wear tinfoil hats and who try to claim that we never landed a man on the moon... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

That is true, just throwing it out there. Though Lee Harvey Oswald was a commie. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 05:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Commie != Soviet. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 20:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Commie, not soviet (=Rätekommunismus). Has everybody forgotten that first North Korea and then North Vietnam fought with with massive soviet russian support and thus killed US soldiers in huge numbers. The only country perhaps attacking (more likely defending itself with weapons) poor helpless Soviet Russian in the Cold war was China. --Radh (talk) 21:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Except that the people pulling the triggers in those cases were North Koreans and North Vietnamese. There is a big difference between selling (or providing) the weapons to people to use against the U.S., and even providing the training to use those weapons, and actually sending troops to shoot and kill the other guys troops. Sure, the North Koreans and North Vietnamese had Soviet backing, but those were not cases where Soviet military personel and American military personel faced off in a battle situation, and one killed the other. That;s the question the OP asked. Again, other than Rudolf Anderson, I can't recall one... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference. It's debatable how big it is. --Tango (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I already provided the links above. Yes, in the Korean War, U.S. and Soviet airmen fought and killed each other in MiG Alley. Rmhermen (talk) 05:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Did I say commie=Soviet? Nope. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 21:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

November 1

information on law

i m 24,n planning to open an educational society.for which i need a detailed information about the law in india in respect 2 an educational society.I have been through the article given on this site,the information in the article was very brief n not enough to satisfie my requirementRahulseth (talk) 02:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Its probably best to contact a legal representative in the jurisdiction where you intend to open this society. If you contact established societies in that local area, they may be able to put you in contact with the proper authorities who can answer your question more specifically than can a volunteer-written encyclopedia. Cheers! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Depends on murder?

I was in a conversation recently where the claim was made that our enjoyment of our lifestyles as Americans (this conversation was in the US) depends on the killing of others in other parts of the world. Someone called BS on this point (which seems fair), and the person making the point said they'd have to do some research to get specifics. I'm wondering, is this true? Can a reasonable argument be made that, by enjoying the standard of living we know in the first world, we've got blood on our hands? Thanks in advance for any reasonable opinions on this admittedly controversial point. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I think its absolutely bogus that our lifestyle is impossible without getting blood on our hands. I don't see any reason why everyone can't live this way. Prosperity does not equal murder. Wrad (talk) 04:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a warped view of the notion of economics as a zero-sum game. There is a common notion, especially among certain political viewpoints, that there is a fixed amount of wealth in the world, and that wealth gained by one person is by necessity lost by another. Such an idea is patently and demonstratably false. The program This American Life did an EXCELLENT program on the issues of the current economic problems here: [10], and one point they say that the global supply of money, which sits at about 70 trillion dollars, was only 36 trillion dollars in 2000. That increase in cash is not a result of inflation, there has been a net increase in worldwide wealth over the past 8 years or so. We don't have to steal/kill/murder whatever less advantaged people in order to get our own wealth. The data doesn't bear that out. Sure, many of our practices, in some roundabout ways, do negatively impact the developing world, but there is no reason why this must be so. Indeed, most of the increase in wealth comes from places like China and India which are, on the balance, becoming rapidly wealthier, and such growth is generally positively affecting ALL of their citizens... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the question is whether is must be so. The question is whether it is currently so. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

If you say, though, that our lifestyle "depends on the killing of others in other parts of the world", then you are necessarily saying that it must be so. You are saying that if we no longer killed people, then we would lose our wealth, aren't you? Wrad (talk) 05:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Caution: GTBacchus is not saying that; GTBacchus is saying someone else is saying (something like) that, and asking for advice on whether to adopt that view. —Tamfang (talk) 09:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Tamfang; you're right. I'm not making any particular claim here. That said, I would disagree with Wrad's analysis. Consider: what if I go out and mug someone each day in order to get money to buy lunch? Now, I might be qualified for a job in which I could earn enough money without mugging others. In that case, it would be true that my lifestyle depends on victimizing other people, but it would be false that it must be that way. I'm wondering whether (or to what extent) the wealth of the first world is currently a result of the victimization of people outside of the first world. Do first-world nations beat up third-world nations and take their lunch money? -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I reckon it would be nearer true to say that poverty depends on violence. Most of the poor countries are that way because commerce is actively stifled by the state, which by definition functions through the threat of violence. —Tamfang (talk) 07:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not in the US, I'm in Australia but I think the lifestyles are pretty much the same. I live in a large house, have access to good medical care, cheap goods, plenty of food etc. I also know that plenty of other people overseas don't have access to these things. Therefore I am taking a disproportionate amount. Those people without access to good medical care/food may die as a result. So I think it could be argued that I, in taking my disproportional amount, have blood on my hands. 124.182.99.22 (talk) 12:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Just because people in other countries have less access to the things we take for granted, does not mean we're taking a dispoportionate amount. If you chose to reduce your consumption of goods and services, people in other countries would still have less access to them. There's more than enough food etc for everyone in the world; it's the distribution system that's imperfect. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

During the colonial period, European empires 'stole' raw materials from their colonies and used them to become wealthy. Some would argue that that still continues to some extent today, and I would agree that to some extent they do. There is plenty of corruption to go around. Wrad (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

If there's corruption resulting in poor countries being stripped of resources without benefit to its people then that corruption is in the poor country, not the rich country buying the resources. The rich country may be supporting that corruption, but the real problem is with the poor country, not the rich one. --Tango (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Not always. Ever heard of the Opium War? Britain's superior military crushes China into submission in order to force them to buy opium. A similar thing, as I recall, happened in America with tea... until Americans paid a heavy price in their own blood. Wrad (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The original question does not ask to place blame. It asks if our lifestyle depends on it, regardless of who does it. We could depend on something, but not cause it in the same way that we depend on, but not cause, sunlight. If, hypothetically, our 'lifestyle' depended, in part, on the Chinese people being kept in poverty through sometimes violent means, wouldn't that mean that GTBacchus's friend was correct? Regardless of who was responsible for the oppression? APL (talk) 23:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

You aren't taking the medical care from poorer countries. Your country has a good education system and has trained good doctors and scientists, those scientists have produced good medicines for the doctors to use, etc., etc.. None of that has been taken from the third world. (There is a possible exception where doctors from a poorer country go to a richer one because of better pay, they do often send money home, though, so their home country does benefit to some extent.) --Tango (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, if the people making our goods were paid as much as us in the 'first world', then we wouldn't be able to afford nearly as much stuff. If "Buying lots of stuff" isn't our "lifestyle" then I don't know what is. Killing people is a harder link. Perhaps it's easier to say the lifestyle depends on poverty. That's probably enough to make the shocking point that GTBacchus's friend was going for. APL (talk) 23:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Tea in America = Opium in China. Strange ideas the maoist propaganda has produced. Is the Opium war "fact" not much more than a p. c. thought crime? Marxists used to be sure the industrial revolution was paid by the slave trade. This has been shown by all real economists not have been so. Also the Arab slavetrade, about a third of Western slavery in size, did not produce much industrial revolution--80.137.201.157 (talk) 03:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the discussion on this question. You've all given me food for thought. Sweatshop labor is probably the closest to an example of what I was asking about. I don't think one could make a very strong case, for example, that bombs over Baghdad lead to lower prices at the pumps, which would put blood more directly on the hands of gasoline consumers.

One could perhaps argue that, in any democracy, the electorate are complicit in any crimes committed by the government (in the sense of unjust military actions), but that's straying a bit further from the present topic.

Thanks again for the considered opinions. I'll point my friend to this thread. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

This question is actually a lot like the one above that asked whether any American soldiers had killed any Soviet soldiers in the Cold War. Since the answer there is very few or none, there's a temptation to say that it therefore wasn't a very serious matter; I don't have a reference handy, but I'd bet that American soldiers killed more American soldiers than Soviet (training mishaps, friendly fire, etc.), so why call it a war at all? That's the superficial answer, just as it's a superficial answer to state that very few or no people in the Third World were literally murdered so the First World nations could maintain their standard of living. Multinational companies have a huge financial gain to make by keeping the workers they use as poor and dependent on them as possible. That leads to poverty and that demonstrably leads to crime, reduced access to health care, and shorter lives. We are complicit to that misery by our continued support for the companies behind it by buying their products. See Fair Trade. Matt Deres (talk) 14:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Lack of foresight in government?

I'm trying to make the argument (it's non-partisan) that there's a serious lack of foresight in government, or rather there's foresight but we only act on problems when it's too late. The US economy is a great example. But, are there times in the past when we did have foresight? Like when we proactively improved our infrastructure, invested in future alternative fuels,etc.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legolas52 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Any example would be controversial, I imagine. What one sees as necessary investment in infrastructure, another may see as a criminal encouragement to pollution and waste. —Tamfang (talk) 07:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...Point taken. But, I mean there's no arguing that there weren't any warning sign for the recession. We just didn't listen to them though. In the same way though, as controversial as they might be, are there example of trying to avoid them in the past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legolas52 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

When the Constitution was made. When Washington only went two terms in order to avoid dying in office and setting a precedent. Wrad (talk) 07:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice! Any more recent ones (the last few decades)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legolas52 (talk • contribs) 08:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hm! In another thread above, Jayron32 mentions that Washington wanted to avoid letting the Presidency look like a lifetime office; Wrad's nuance escaped me then! On the other hand, to illustrate what I said before, I'll mention the view that the Constitution of 1787 was a bad thing: that the "failures" of the Confederation were mainly in the eyes of the power-hungry, and that (in hindsight) the form adopted has important structural flaws (as measured by the framers' expressed ideals). —Tamfang (talk) 09:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Seward's purchase of Alaska and Jefferson's Lousiana purchase. It's going to be difficult to get anything in the last few decades that isn't very controversial. Wrad (talk) 16:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The Iraq War? Somehow, they didn't foresee the country still existing afterwards. --Tango (talk) 17:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

He's asking for good examples of foresight. There are plenty of examples of lack of foresight. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I need to read questions before answering them, sorry! --Tango (talk) 22:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that in successful cases you are asking a very problematic hypothetical about what might have happened otherwise. It's easy to ask when things went wrong but a lot harder to ask when things go right. One might call the Manhattan Project a great gift of foresight—Roosevelt dedicated almost unlimited resources to producing something that may or may not have even worked, but ended up being immensely important in the postwar/Cold War period. Of course, weighing whether that was a good idea or a bad idea requires creating an imaginary world in which something else happened, and depending on ones inclinations you can either see it as a happy place or a horrible place. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Could a government that lacks foresight be called "politically circumcised"?  :) (sorry) -- JackofOz (talk) 23:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Another example: dropping atomic bombs on Japan prevented the necessity of invading the home islands. Say what you will about the (lack of) humanity of using those weapons, but it certainly showed foresight. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Balignant episode

According to several translations of The Song Of Roland, the Balignant episode starts at 2609. None of these translations, however, inform the reader which line ends this interpolation. Anyone know what line ends it? DahiJynnuByzzuf (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC).

minor parties

Game theory suggests that plurality election encourages a two-party system. In the USA we've certainly seen this; yet in Britain the minor parties have clung to a handful of seats for generations. What institutional differences account for that? Is it simply that British constituencies are smaller (half again as many seats for, what, a quarter as many people) and so some of them are not contested by one of the major parties? And what's the story in other top-tier legislatures elected by plurality from single-member districts? (How many are there?) —Tamfang (talk) 09:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll stick to just one of your questions. In the British model - forget Northern Ireland - you need to distinguish regional parties, that is Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National Party, and the Liberal Party, a third party on a British level. In the late 40s and early 50s, the UK Liberal Party came close to extinction. It really survived only because the Conservative Party preferred not to contest those handful of seats where the Liberals were better placed to defeat Labour than they were. This is no longer the case, and Labour and the Conservatives now contest every [?] seat in Britain. But by the time this de facto electoral truce entirely broke down, the charismatic Jo Grimond had entrenched himself as an immovable object in the Northern Isles. Thanks to Grimond, and his complete lack of interest in joining Labour or the Tories, the Liberals remained on the national stage. The examples of Gwilym Lloyd George and Megan Lloyd George, one of whom left for the Tories and one for Labour, show what was otherwise in store for the Liberals. The narrow margin by which the Liberals survived is discussed in Iain Dale (ed), Prime Minister Portillo & Other Things That Never Happened. The "Near Extinction" and "Liberal Revival" sections of History of the Liberal Party (UK) are worth a look, and this programme for a conference at the LSE might be of interest. Mark Bonham-Carter's win at the Torrington by-election, 1958 was the first sign of the Liberal revival, which really got underway at the Orpington by-election, 1962. There could very easily have been no British "national" third party and it would have been a brave commentator who'd have predicted the later revival in the early 50s. Plaid and the SNP are clearly very different, there being no "national" party which shares their principle aim, the end of Ukania, which might compete for their activists' support. Given the weak party structures in the United States, I don't think analogies with the UK will be meaningful. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the exceptions noted above, the UK is no-less a two-party system than America is. The United States Senate currently has two members, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut who aren't members of either party. The Liberman case is unique, because he was a long-time Democrat, but he left the party largely because he lost a primary election, and thought he could still contest the seat as an Independent. He did, he won, and for all intents and purposes he still caucuses with the Dems. Sanders is the only true independent in the government. He belonged to the extremely minor Liberty Union Party in the 1970's, and contested a few elections as a member of that party before becoming a true independent. Since his first office, as mayor of Burlington, Vermont through positions as a member of the House of Representatives and the Senate, Sanders has not been a member of any political party. As a leftist and self-described democratic(little d)-socialist, he tends to vote with the Democrats, and gets counted as such for the purposes of committee assignments and such... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

What? The UK is far less of a two party system that the US. There are no 3rd parties in the US that have any significant influence in national politics whereas the Lib Dems hold a significant number of seats in the UK parliament and there is a very real chance they could be kingmaker after the next general election (I haven't looked at the polls, it could be quite a low chance, but there definitely is a chance), and I'm talking about a significant kingmaker not just a single independent that gets to choose who nominally has the majority but has little influence beyond that (US Senate votes often don't follow party lines, so having one more person nominally on your side makes little difference). --Tango (talk) 19:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Canada has plurality voting but has four or five major parties. One of the differences with the US, I think, is the system of primary elections. If you think one of the two main parties is too centrist or too radical, you can run in the primary election. In Canada, you need to have approval from the party brass to run, so if you don't like how things are going, you have to start a new party. Thus while people on the US center left blame Ralph Nader for George Bush's election in 2000, no one in Canada begrudges its Green Party's moral right to run candidates for office. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

One of the big factors is the regional distribution of voters. The Bloc Quebecois is the obvious example in Canada - if its supporters were evenly distributed over the country (an exceptionally unlikely event for obvious reasons) its number of seats would be tiny. The effect works, with slighly less effect, in other places. Urban voters tend to be more left wing than rural, so urban constituencies are contested between the Liberals and NDP (Labour and Liberal in the UK) while rurals between the Liberals and Conservatives. So while each constituency encourages 2-party races, the demographics means that 3 or 4 can survive. The US is unusual because only 2 parties have any traction nationwide - and I suspect that is because the presidential system means that a third party will never get any significant power, even if they can get a senator or congressman elected. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Corridors

When/where is the first confirmed man-made dwelling building to have corridors to connect rooms rather than just rooms which interconnect. At first sight, a corridor is an inefficient waste of space. -- SGBailey (talk) 10:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The article Hall suggests halls (like corridors) and their variations date from the Iron Age – sometimes to separate rooms, or buildings, or as rooms themselves. Inefficiency depends on what you think space is – doesn't seem so inefficient if it prevents a fire in say, the kitchen from spreading to the main dwelling (originally), or as a traffic way for people, to create privacy, circulate warm or cool air, or hatch plots etc. You'll start to think they're damn essential and why did we ever fall for open plan design? (Another type is the "breezeway".) Julia Rossi (talk) 12:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course that sort of hall was a large living space and wasn't an access corridor... -- SGBailey (talk) 22:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Kansas City

Why is Kansas City so-called when more of it is in Missouri? 124.180.143.48 (talk) 11:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

More of "it" isn't in Missouri. It is two separate cities; the larger one is in Missouri. Rmhermen (talk) 15:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, the state of Virginia exists, and yet the city of Virginia City is in Nevada. This sort of thing happens quite a lot... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

As for the specific history of the two Kansas Cities, see History of Kansas City. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

What the article doesn't explicitly mention is when the "Town of Kansas Company" (that's the name that the city's name derives from) was formed, the Kansas Territory (which became the state) did not yet exist. (In fact, the article refers to people traveling into Kansas Territory before it existed. Looks like that bit needs cleaning up.) The obvious explanation would be that the town was named after the nearby Kansas River, and later the territory and state were also named after the river. --Anonymous, 02:58 UTC, November 2, 2008.

Growing up in Kansas City, this was the basis of a joke that implied Kansas City and St. Louis both made a run for the border, but didn't find anything better on the other side. The size of Kansas City, MO is rather large - but it wasn't always that way. It incorporated many of the smaller cities around it until they all became Kansas City. On the Kansas side, the same thing could happen. There has been an insane amount of development around Kansas City, KS. The city may decide it would be nice to annex neighboring towns to get just as fat as its sister. -- kainaw™ 03:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

War profiteers and banking families

Dear Informative Community, I’ve been watching a lot of documentaries throughout the internet which could easily be classified as “conspiracy theory”. Mainly in the domain of Federal income tax, war profiteering and the involvement of banking families such as the Rothschild (see “Zeitgeist, Addendum and America: Freedom to Fascism). Below I have devised a series of questions these “conspiracy documentaries” have brought to my attention and that of the growing number of politically aware internauts. What is the true legality on the Federal income tax in America? Is the Federal income tax really constitutional? Does the money from the income tax come back to “The People” in any sort of way? And if so where? Is there really an elite of bankers in America trying to control and profit from the economy? Such as the Warburgs? (see “Federal Reserve act” and the secret meetings held on “Jekyll Island”). Was Andrew Jackson right about removing any form of central banking? Was Woodrow Wilson wrong in passing the Federal Reserve Act? Was the Glass-Steagall Act a good act to put in place? Is there any sort of link between Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the economic crisis of today? Considering the new freedoms bankers and brokers have had ever since Bill Clinton signed the Act in 1999. Who are the American Bankers who profited from WW2 before America got involved? Are they the same banking families who sit on the board of the Federal Reserve today? Is there truly a conspiring elite or are these documentaries just entangling history for profit? I beg of anyone who could offer answers in part or in totality, because these are serious accusations which I as anyone cannot take lightly. Cordially —Preceding unsigned comment added by Disgracious23 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes there are clear private economic motivations for military actions (see War is a Racket and United Fruit Company) which have nothing in particular to do with alleged centuries-long secret conspiracies. However, if there are any secret conpiracies, I bet that the Bohemian Grove is somehow involved... -- AnonMoos (talk) 17:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

On the constitutionality of the income tax, see Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Pretty explicitly constitutional—the entire reason they added the amendment was to make sure that it was.

As for the money on income tax coming back to "the people" in "any sort of way"—yes. The income tax money finances government projects which are ostensibly done in the name of the people. So at the moment our income taxes in the US are financing our war in Iraq, for example. Oh, that's not what you wanted it to be used for? Then throw out the people who used the money in that way. That's basically how it is supposed to work. Actual results may very.

Are there elite bankers trying to control and profit from the economy? Control, definitely. The US economy is explicitly managed from on high—take a look at the headlines of any respectable paper lately and you'll see that the Federal Reserve Bank is trying its best to manage the economy, in the sense of keeping it from totally collapsing, by all sorts of measures ("bailout" plans, adjusting the interest rate, etc.). And one could argue that it is indeed being managed towards the idea of maximum profit—but not necessarily of those who manage it (I'm sure Alan Greenspan is pretty well off, but it's not like he spent his years manipulating the economy for his own personal benefit). The question of whether it has been managed correctly, or whether it has been managed it a way which benefits the country more than, say, bankers and brokers, is one which is currently being discussed quite openly—it's no conspiracy theory that the economic policies of Reagan and Bush were designed to aid certain sectors of the economy more than others with the goal of a "trickle-down" effect.

As for wrong, right, etc. — these are legitimate historical questions. Lots of policies are seen as better or worse ideas in retrospect. They aren't shady secrets. It's unlikely that most of them were done to purposefully profit a select group or some sort of conspiracy theory. As for the documentaries—most of those sorts of things are very poor history to say the least. If you are interested in economic history, there is a lot of good work out there. In my experience people who are untrained in the methods of history and have specific political agendas to push make for poor historians. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

what is the opposite or rival of the Phoenix?

what is the opposite or rival of the Phoenix? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.101.87 (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Lately the Los Angeles Lakers, Dallas Mavericks, San Antonio Spurs, Sacramento Kings, and Utah Jazz have all been as competitive as Phoenix in the Western Conference, so I suppose any one of them could be considered a rival... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

He said, THE phoenix, so he's obviously not talking about the sports team, he's talking about the mythical creature. ScienceApe (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC).

I know. I was being facetious. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It may help to specify which Phoenix you mean,. The sports team? (And which sports team? - there are about 10 listed on the disambiguation page.) The mythical bird? The character from the Illiad? The city? The NASA lander? Any of the dozen or more military vessels? The Marvel Comic "entity"? Any of the other numerous literary and TV/movie characters named Phoenix? -- 128.104.112.72 (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The Phoenix Clan are the traditional enemies of the Dragon Clan. Algebraist 12:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't think of anything that would be a direct rival, in the sense of an opponent, from any of the myths I'm familiar with; most of the myths deal simply with the phoenix's ability to regenerate itself. An opposite would have to be something that died, but even that isn't completely true since the phoenix dies (bur rises again). I don't think there's a meaningful answer to your question. Matt Deres (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I can think of something that rises (but dies again). But I doubt it's what Friend 96 is after. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• Answering this abstract question seems rather more fun than whatever the boring question was the OP wanted an answer to. Two thoughts of mine are:
  • A basilisk (because a pheonix helps Harry defeat one in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets)
  • A centaur (because Antipholus goes to a courtesan at the Centaur when his wife locks him out of his home at the Phoenix in The Comedy of Errors). AndyJones (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Tocharian Religion pre-Buddhism

Heya. Is there anyway of finding out what the pre-Buddhist beliefs of the Tocharians (as in the now-extinct Indo-European inhabitants of the Tarim Basin) were, or if any details (archaeological or otherwise) exist about it?

144.32.126.12 (talk) 20:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Tricky, without a consensus about who the "Tocharians" were. As I understand it, a bunch of Buddhist writings in an unknown IE language were found, and the name "Tocharian" was given to the language somewhat arbitrarily, without any certainty as to which of the various peoples of that region used the language. —Tamfang (talk) 04:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Given that most of what we have in terms of written texts for the people who wrote in Tocharian is Buddhist religious text, it's difficult to know. My supposition is that they would have followed an offshoot of Indo-European religion before that, but based only on the notion that they are Indo-European. Steewi (talk) 23:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Give me back my tail - hunter tormented by thing in forest

There's a (traumatising) story that I was told when I was young but I can't remember it exactly (only some of the scenes that I envisioned). What happens, more or less, is that a hunter, living alone in a forest, catches a creature and for some reason or other, only makes off with its tail which he eats. For some reason, the hunter is motivated to release his pack of hounds to kill the creature but only half of them come back. The same happens again each night until he has run out of dogs. Finally, the thing is at the bottom of his bed, asking for its tail back and I think it rips open his stomach. Still haunts me to this day... I think it actually might ask for its tail back on earlier occasions, perhaps prompting the repeated release of the dogs... Totally unsuitable for children, IMO... ----Seans Potato Business 22:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I remember this story. It was read to me when I was in the fourth grade, I think. I believe it was in one of the Scary_stories_to_tell_in_the_dark books. 208.1.253.163 (talk) 22:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

A similar campfire scary story has long been told [11] which ends with the entity saying "I want my golden arm... and I'm gonna GET IT!!!!" ending with a shout and grab at the listener. Hilarity and shrieks ensue. Edison (talk) 00:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I have tracked it down: Tailypo. Not a suitable story for children (or anyone, really...) at all. >:( ----Seans Potato Business 01:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The version I was told involved "I want my liver...", some extremely questionable decisions on the part of the protagonist and being leapt on while lying in a quiet room listening to the story. Shrieking indeed. And nightmares. 79.66.37.142 (talk) 02:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds similar to legends about vengeful wolverines. --91.32.105.90 (talk) 11:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The Scary Stories books don't have the exact story (iirc), but had one about a corpse looking for her lost toe. Matt Deres (talk) 14:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

And similar in creepiness and body parts, to Guy de Maupassant's short story, The Hand.

November 2

British Isler

When is the time that a British Isler, either male or female, and either blonde, redhead, brownhead or blackhead will have brown eyes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.129.101 (talk) 01:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

When they're good and ready. If you're not satisfied with that answer, can you rephrase the question? —Tamfang (talk) 02:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

To clarify what Tamfang is saying: Your question makes no sense. If you are not a native English speaker, see if there is a Reference Desk on the Wikipedia in your language, see www.wikipedia.org for a list of languages. --Tango (talk) 02:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

When either or both of his/her parents have brown eyes is one possible answer. It is also possible, as brown eyes are dominant, that only one grandparent need have had brown eyes. I am not a geneticist, so I don't know how far back the brown eyes can be before they stop (if ever they do) appearing in successive generations. See also Eye color and particularly the section on the genetic determination of eye colour. This information is true for all peoples, not just those in the British Isles. ៛ Bielle (talk) 02:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Brown eyes stop appearing when a heterozygote (like my mother) transmits the blue allele. —Tamfang (talk) 04:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

How insulting! Mrs Tamfang, I apologise on your child's behalf. (lol) -- JackofOz (talk) 19:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Eastern European in Toronto

Which neighbourhood or part of Toronto has the most numbers of Eastern European? When I mean Eastern European, I mean Russian, Belarusian, Ukrainian, Polish, Bulgarian, Lithuanian, Latvian, Estonian, Slovakian, Hungarian, Serbian, Albanian, Macedonian, Greek, Montenegro, Bosnian, Croatian, Romanian, Moldavian, Slovenian and Czech. Which high school in Toronto has the most numbers of Eastern European? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.129.101 (talk) 01:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think all of those nationalities live in the same place, but The Danforth is typically the Greek neighbourhood. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Roncesvalles (also known as Rącza Wólka) is the center of Toronto's Polish community. — Kpalion^(talk) 15:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you the same person as the one asking about Eastern European human appearances a few days ago? If so, are you going to recruit models for your porn site in high schools? — Kpalion^(talk) 15:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I dunno about that, but didn't we get a whack of questions here about the ethnic makeup of neighborhoods in Toronto a few months ago? Matt Deres (talk) 19:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC) Ah, here we go: One, Two. Different IP's though. Matt Deres (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Socialism

In the news, a lot of criticism has come up on taxing the rich more, and comparing that to socialism. It seems like the use of the word "socialism" is an attempt at a scare word. Is the usage of this word a vestige from the times of the cold war communist scare? Is taxing the rich more, one of the principles of socialism? ScienceApe (talk) 01:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is used as a scare-word; yes, it was used as a scare-word during the Cold War (and before); yes, progressive taxation is dear to the heart of most socialists (though there probably are exceptions, given that socialism is not a monolith). —Tamfang (talk) 02:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

At its heart, socialism means public ownership of the means of production. Ironically, it's George W. Bush whose administration has embarked on the most socialist experiment in the U.S. federal government since the 30s through partial nationalization of major banks. The welfare state is not inherently socialist, although it is promoted by many "socialist" parties around the world that no longer advocate a real socialist economy. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The Welfare State is inherently socialist, because the money to pay for the poor has to come from somehere. The printing press no use in the long run. This does not imply it is necessarily bad. Some institutionalized change of money from the richer to the poor is necessary and has always existed (charity). But the social-democratic way to lie about their institutionalized state theft mostly of the middle classes is quiet disturbing. In Germany we have erected such a hugh Welfare State, that this "economical" system can now not be paid for even in the very best years. How can anybody think such a system will not crash like Soviet "economics" in the long run? --Radh (talk) 04:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, the welfare state has its origin in the policies of the very anti-socialist Otto von Bismarck, so I don't see how it can be inherently socialist. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on Bismark but after reading the article, it sounds like that was one of several concessions he made to appease the working class and prevent the socialists from gaining power. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 14:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The US can't pay for their economy either, hence the near continous deficits Nil Einne (talk) 08:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Socialism is an amorphous term. The way the anti-Obama people have used it, they just mean "scary." Obama is not advocating socialism any more than the Republicans already are. The United States has been a mixture of free-market capitalism and quasi-socialist programs since the 1930s and most people are pretty happy with that. I don't see McCain advocating getting rid of Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, etc.—all of which are far more "socialist" in both method and intent than the idea of progressive taxation. Americans like their socialism just fine, they just don't like the word. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 04:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You've perhaps overstated the similarities between Democrats and Republicans with regard to socialist policy—there's still a substantial anti-socialist faction within the GOP, though they've lacked a national spokesman for years—but your broad point that Americans embrace socialism but reject the word is right on. The recent financial crisis has apparently fully converted the current GOP leadership to the socialist cause, thanks to the widespread notion that the crisis was created by a lack of government regulation. (Ahem.) We can expect the anti-socialist wing of the GOP to regain some ground in the next decade, but the biggest socialist programs, like Social Security, will never go away, because once people start getting checks from the government, they don't want them to stop. 4.225.39.182 (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Already back in 1906, Werner Sombart wrote a very influential essay on "Why There is no Socialism in the United States", and the Bolshevik take-over in Russia strongly reinforced the view held among many in the U.S. that socialism was a purely alien foreign ideology which had no connection with American values or political institutions (see Palmer Raid). Eugene Debs received 6% of the vote in 1912 but only 3% in 1920, and after his death, non-Communist Socialist movements became rather ineffectual as far as having any broad impact on United States politics... AnonMoos (talk) 07:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I have very little idea what your comments are intended to address, or how they relate in any way to my previous remarks (which they are ostensibly in reply to), but I was just pointing out how the term "socialist" already fell into strong disrepute in mainstream U.S. politics by the 1920's... AnonMoos (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Everybody knows Barack Obama is a godless socialist alien from the planet UberLiberal. Sarah Palin is just not sure if he's Kang or Kodos. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Per the question... Socialism is being properly used by the press as being opposed to capitalism. Of course, socialism and capitalism are not true opposites. The point the press is trying to make is that many of the "tax the rich" plans are intended to use an increase in taxes on the rich to fund social programs, such as public health care, work training, home construction, etc... In other words, money is being funnelled from the rich, to the federal government, and (possibly) to the needy in what some believe is the best interest of society. There is no basis for claiming that the simple use of the word "socialism" is evil or intended to scare people away from an idea. Some people are naturally against socialism. Some people are naturally fans of socialism. It is my opinion that it would be dishonest and manipulative to avoid using the word socialism for programs that are clearly socialist. -- kainaw™ 23:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, in that many Americans consider socialism and communism to be equivalent, and believe that socialism and democracy are incompatible. I think that belief is why the term is effective for scaring people. --Sean 14:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't state that Americans understand socialism. I have no faith in American education to believe that most Americans understand the basic concepts of anything that deals with government. I was stating that, in this sense, the word "socialism" is being used properly. I find it wrong to hunt down a replacement word or phrase that isn't as accurate as socialism just because the American education system isn't working. -- kainaw™ 15:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

But it's not the impartial media that's using the word. It's the conservatives who disagree with Obama's policies that use it as a loaded message. Like, Mwalcoff said, it was Bush who embarked on the greatest socialist policy, but no conservatives have accused him of being a socialist because they are using the word as a scare tactic, as opposed to being factually accurate. 98.221.85.188 (talk) 16:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It's ironic that the Republicans are using "socialism" as a scare term, when Sarah Palin's administration is responsible for distributing the dividend of the Alaska Permanent Fund to all eligible Alaska residents, which seems a pretty Socialist thing to do. -- Arwel Parry _(talk) 20:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's accurate to say Sarah Palin is a socialist simply because her adminstration distributed the dividends from the Alaska Permanent Fund. The Alaska Permanent Fund was established in 1976 and is part of the Alaska constitution. To not distribute it, would be illegal. So just because she followed the law doesn't mean she agrees with the law. Sarah Palin may indeed be a socialist but not for that reason. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It is a blatantly false claim that only the Republicans/Conservatives are using the word "socialism" or "socialist". For example, Democrats were the first to declare we needed "socialized" health care. It was used as a positive, not negative, word. Just because some people are using the word in a negative way and intending it to be used as a scare tactic does not mean that the word itself is always used in a negative way or that Republicans are the only people using it or that it is never used in a positive way. Some people are truly scared of socialism and don't want it. Telling Republicans that they cannot use the word doesn't educate the people. -- kainaw™ 00:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No one said only republicans are using the word socialism or socialist. People have said they are using it as a scare term to deliver a loaded message. There's a profound difference. 98.221.85.188 (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure true absolute socialism would have any taxes at all, since everyone would essentiallly be employed by the state. Gzuckier (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I bet they'd still figure out a way to tax you. :) 216.239.234.196 (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If Obama wanting to have a higher marginal tax rate for the very wealthy makes him a "socialist" then his socialist role model is Republican Teddy Roosevelt, who [12] said in 1910, arguing for progressive income taxes, capital gains taxes and estate taxes: "At many stages in the advance of humanity, this conflict between the men who possess more than they have earned and the men who have earned more than they possess is the central condition of progress. In our day it appears as the struggle of freemen to gain and hold the right of self-government as against the special interests, who twist the methods of free government into machinery for defeating the popular will. At every stage, and under all circumstances, the essence of the struggle is to equalize opportunity, destroy privilege, and give to the life and citizenship of every individual the highest possible value both to himself and to the commonwealth. ... The absence of effective State, and, especially, national, restraint upon unfair money-getting has tended to create a small class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful men, whose chief object is to hold and increase their power. The prime need is to change the conditions which enable these men to accumulate power which is not for the general welfare that they should hold or exercise. ... No man should receive a dollar unless that dollar has been fairly earned. Every dollar received should represent a dollar's worth of service rendered-not gambling in stocks, but service rendered. The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective, a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate...The man who wrongly holds that every human right is secondary to his profit must now give way to the advocate of human welfare, who rightly maintains that every man holds his property subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it. ... No man can be a good citizen unless he has a wage more than sufficient to cover the bare cost of living, and hours of labor short enough so that after his day's work is done he will have time and energy to bear his share in the management of the community, to help in carrying the general load. We keep countless men from being good citizens by the conditions of life with which we surround them. We need comprehensive workmen's compensation acts, both State and national laws to regulate child labor and work for women, and, especially, we need in our common schools not merely education in booklearning, but also practical training for daily life and work. We need to enforce better sanitary conditions for our workers and to extend the use of safety appliances for our workers in industry and commerce, both within and between the States. " Not Karl Marx at all, TV news ladies notwithstanding. Edison (talk) 04:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Psychological Disorder

Is there any videos about Anxiety disorders(Panic disorder, Generalized anxiety disorder, Agoraphobia, Social Anxiety disorder, Obsessive-compulsive disorder, Post-traumatic stress disorder, and Separation anxiety), Somatoform disorder, Dissociative disorder, Schizophrenia, mood disorders, personality disorder, substance-related disorders, disorders usually first diagnosed in infancy, childhood or adolescence, Sleep disorder and eating disorders on youtube.com? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.129.101 (talk) 01:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Youtube has a searchbox. Using it would get you a more complete answer than you'll ever get here. —Tamfang (talk) 02:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Call at lunchtime

I used to live in the Gold Country. While I was in first grade at school, when noontime would roll around, a fire horn would sound off twice. Someone called it the lunch bell. A fire horn never rings. Why would a fire horn be called a lunch bell when it sounded off twice at noontime?72.229.139.171 (talk) 03:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Lunch bells are common in many environments. It isn't the name of the device that rings, it is name of the ring that is heard at lunch time. The same device rings for many other reasons (depending on the environment), such as when to start work and when to quit work. In schools, it often rings 10 minutes before school and is, at that moment, called the 10-minute bell. So, the phrase "lunch bell" is commonplace. Why would anyone rework it to be "lunch horn" just because they don't hear a bell ringing? -- kainaw™ 03:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

In a similar vein, we normally say that a phone is "ringing" when in all modern phones, there isn't a bell. Instead the phone is actually beeping. Dismas|^(talk) 15:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: I've found phones that can't ring. You have tons of ringtones, but none of them ring. Mine is one of those. If I want it to ring, I have to purchase a classic phone ring ringtone from my phone provider. -- kainaw™ 15:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Are mixed race people smarter or not smarter?

Are mixed race people smarter or not smarter than the pure race people? Is there any study about the intelligence of mixed race people? 72.136.111.205 (talk) 03:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Studies of race and intelligence have been performed. There is no reason to assume that studies of mixed-race people and intelligence have not been performed. However, studies of intelligence are heavily debated. Introducing race into the studies creates more debate. So, any answer to your question will be nothing more than what the answerer wants to believe since there is no widely accepted relation between race and intelligence (and no widely accepted measure of intelligence). -- kainaw™ 03:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, as mentioned, there have been studies of all sorts on race and intelligence; however there has never been any reliable study which has shown any connection between race and intelligence. The entire concept is also sketchy, since ideas such as "race" and "intelligence" are purely subjective; you can define your terms in such a way as to "prove" anything you want... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit conflict... so apart from and in addition to all of the above:]

What exactly is the question? If you're trying to make a case that race is genetically related to intelligence, you'd probably want to do quite some readings to bust this racist idea. (...) If you're wondering whether underpriviledge and discrimination are related to intelligence, guess what, yes they are. So the question is if and to which extent mixed race people are more or less underpriviledged and discriminated against than those of any one particular race. And that depends, little surprisingly, on the culture you look at. ... Or what exactly was the question? --Ibn Battuta (talk) 03:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The biggest problem with all "mixed-race" studies is that one has to somewhat arbitrarily define who is "mixed-race" and who is "pure-race". You either end up defining people as all being "mixed-race" or you end up just codifying social perceptions about mixed/purity that have no scientific meaning. Genetically we are all "mixed-race" in the sense that there is no genetically homogenous "pure-race." Genetically there isn't even a definition of "race" that has meaning similar to the social construct—it becomes a foggy designation for probabilistic genetic markers that float about all over the world in most cases. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 04:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I recommend our excellent article on race and intelligence.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Bilinguilism, which often co-occurs with mixed race, can give you an advantage with learning, but that isn't based on racial characteristics. Steewi (talk) 23:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

---

There is such a thing as "hybrid vigor" in general, but I would doubt very much whether there have been any robustly-replicable statistically-significant scientifically-rigorous results in the realm of mixed-race IQ (some would say that the concepts of "IQ" and "race" themselves have never been demonstrated to exist as scientifically-useful entities in any rigorous way...). AnonMoos (talk) 06:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Bierce quote

War is God's way of teaching Americans geography.

All over the internet, this quote is attributed to Ambrose Bierce, but where and when exactly does it come from? Which book, article, speech, ...? Thanks, Ibn Battuta (talk) 03:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Project Guttenburg has a whole bunch of Bierce's work: [13]. You could check there... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I doubt if he said it at all. I can't find any early citations of it on Google Books, and according to Ralph Keyes, in his The Quote Verifier (London: St. Martin's Press, 2006) p. 240, "The comment 'War is God's way of teaching Americans geography,' is continually attributed to Ambrose Bierce. Biographer David E. Schultz, who has nearly all of Bierce's writing entered on his computer, cannot find this acerbic remark within that database." Bierce, like Mark Twain or George Bernard Shaw, is just one of those writers to whom this kind of remark is routinely attributed. --Antiquary (talk) 10:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I have seen several versions of this that attribute it to Ogden Nash, another great wit of the same time period. Many websites that attribute it to Nash use the specific phrasing "Sometimes I think war is God's way of teaching us geography." which seems to me to be a more natural way to make the statement; perhaps it was Nash and not Bierce who said it. Maybe if you did some searches in Nash's works... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid Ogden Nash is another on the "usual suspects" list, and the lack of early citations on Google Books argues against him just as much as against Bierce. On the other hand, turning back to Ralph Keyes again I find that I missed this: "Rodriguez was quoted in the Los Angeles Times as having said at a 1987 Comic Relief event that 'War is God's way of teaching us geography'...Verdict: Credit Paul Rodriguez, tentatively." So it seems you're right in prefering the "teaching us" form. But tentatively is the operative word: in the end it's usually almost impossible to be sure who coined a joke. --Antiquary (talk) 13:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely earlier than 1987. A 1915 editorial in the Chicago Daily Tribune has a similar phrase: "If the European war is teaching Americans geography it is also sprinkling our thought with picturesque dashes of European history and politics." It looks to me like that line is referencing an already-known phrase, but it is ambiguous. Earliest reference I could find, anyway. Yay ProQuest. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Ho! Here's another attribution of a very similar quote. "If, as Disraeli said, war is useful because it teaches us geography, we fear that many people aren't learning their lessons." (1916) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

And even earlier! "If war teaches people geography by compelling them to follow the course of a campaign by a diligent reference to maps, it also lights up with its lurid torch, and makes conspicuous, many beautiful spots on the face of the earth, hitherto but little known to the general traveller." (1870) "War teaches geography." (1877) "To visit them [Exhibitions] is our modern pilgrimage; they force us to make the grand tour, as our little wars teach us geography." (1894) So we're working our way back to some sort of common quote here, or at least a shared understanding... interestingly none of these early quotes have anything about God in them that I can see. None earlier than Bierce's lifetime, so he's still in the running. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The Illustrated London News of February 14, 1885 has "War teaches us geography". Source: Edward Ziter The Orient on the Victorian Stage (Cambridge: CUP, 2003) p. 168. So, yes, it seems the joke was quite common in the late 19th century. The attribution to Disraeli is interesting, but has no solid proof yet. -- Antiquary (talk) 15:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Moonlight

Why do so many humans (myself included) find moonlight romantic? Is it ingrained on the level of instincts, or a cultural construct? - Sikon (talk) 13:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Romance may be the result of not looking at things in the clear light of day (reality). Thus, moonlight (fantasy) lets you see what you are doing without revealing any flaws. IANAP (I am not a poet.) ៛ Bielle (talk) 15:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

More than moonlight, but the essay In Praise of Shadows though philosophical, is quite a romantic approach to softer/indirect lights. Japanese custom includes moon-viewing in Kigo and India customarily too. As Bielle, there's lots going for it... Julia Rossi (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Not directly an answer, but I find it interesting that it's a common theme in Romantic art in addition to being romantic in the romantic-love sense of the word. See, for example, Lord Byron's mention in Canto IV of Childe Harold's Pilgrimage: "Her coliseum stands; the moonbeams shine / As 'twere its natural torches, for divine / Should be the light which streams here to illume / This long-explored but still exhaustless mine / Of contemplation; and the azure gloom / Of an Italian night, where the deep skies assume". --Delirium (talk) 02:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Many people also find firelight and candlelight to be romantic, which have night time and dimness in common with moonlight. --Sean 14:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

invoice

Hi, I am trying to find out about whether a supplier is obliged to issue a vat invoice to a buyer if both are registered for VAT.

I know the buyer is supposed to, but I just cant find any info on whether a buyer would need to expressely request for an invoice or not?

If you could point me in the direction of the relevant law/legal provision that would be most helpful.

many thanks

FG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.254.123 (talk) 15:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

This link would suggest yes (assuming you are in the UK) - [14] - "Whenever you supply goods or services on which VAT is chargeable to another VAT-registered person or business, you must give them a document showing certain information about what you are supplying. This document is called a VAT invoice." - it then goes into detail about what information must be included. I suggest you call the HM Revenue & Customs helpline for a definitive answer. Exxolon (talk) 16:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

1960s Israeli communist newspapers

Was the Red Flag Flying There?: Marxist Politics and the Arab-Israeli Conflict in Egypt and Israel, 1948-1965 (by Joel Beinin, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990. p. 243), it is mentioned that 1961-1963 the Communist Party of Israel had weekly newspapers in Polish, Yiddish, French, Hungarian, Bulgarian and Romanian. What were the names of these newspapers? When were they closed down? Is there any national digital collection of newspapers were one might find collections of these? --Soman (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The Hebrew wikipedia mentions two: [15] "Kol ha-Am" ("Voice of the People", in Hebrew) and [16] in Arabic. The first one is still published by the Communist Party of Israel. MaxVT (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

According to the Polish Wikipedia, the Polish-language weekly was "Walka" (the title means "Struggle"). It was published during the years 1958–1965 and its editor-in-chief was Adolf Berman. — Kpalion^(talk) 20:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I created an article for Walka. By searching "Walka" at JNUL, i came up with an additional result. It seems the Hungarian newspaper was Nepszava. --Soman (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't speak Hungarian, but looking at Google hits for "Népszava", it seems that the word means "People's Voice" and it's apparently a fairly popular title for Hungarian socialist papers. — Kpalion^(talk) 17:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Bollywood

I want to watch some Bollywood films, but don't know where to start. Which films are particularly highly regarded? It'd help, obviously, if they're available on DVD (Region 2) with subtitles in English. 87.114.159.49 (talk) 21:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I assume you will want to start with movies that did well in the U.S. (as well as India). The following are not similar to one another, so it represents a very small variety": Kabhi Khushi Kabhi Gham, Veer-Zaara, and Krrish. -- kainaw™ 21:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, but I'm not in the US (as my reference to Region 2 DVDs might have indicated) and I'm not too fussed about them being crossover hits. I just want to watch some acknowledged classics. 87.114.159.49 (talk) 21:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Then see List of top Bollywood films. -- kainaw™ 23:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

My personal recommendations are Lagaan, Hum Tum, Dil Chahta He, Raja Hindustani and Devdas. Steewi (talk) 23:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Additional: For Indian films that are not really Bollywood films, I recommend Monsoon Wedding, Earth (1942) and Water. Steewi (talk) 23:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You might could start, from a Western viewpoint, with Bride and Prejudice, which is a Bollywood-style film aimed at Western audiences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.245.4.252 (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If you find the conventions of genre not to your taste, I would recommend the work of Satyajit Ray and others auteurs of Parallel Cinema. Astronaut (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

New York Times vs. US

In the 1971 New York Times vs. US Supreme Court Case, what was the main argument the United States used?

-Mario

New York Times Co. v. United States should help. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

November 3

US election

In US elections, people vote for president all the way down to local dog catcher in a single election, plus initiatives and propositions. In Tuesday's election, what's the average number of things a voter have to vote for? F (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I've voted every year for the last 20 years. While I have had elections with a good 30 items on the list, many of the items are not much of a vote because there is only one person running and you have a choice between voting for that person or writing a name in. I assume this heavily depends on the city. Some cities may put a lot of stuff on an election ballot. Others may put very little up for public vote. -- kainaw™ 00:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It depends on the state and locality. Some states lack elected judges and propositions and might not elect state and local officers this year. In Ohio, I'd say you're looking at about 50 things on the ballot ranging from president to local liquor issues. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not quite so bad here in Massachusetts. I expect to vote on maybe 10 officeholders (including the president) and 3 ballot questions. Marco polo (talk) 02:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

My favourite is the county drain commissioner in Michigan. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

For California, 50-100 items on a presidential-year ballot is about average. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I guess that's why they have to use voting machines? F (talk) 05:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know; I've voted absentee (mail) in the last 14 elections. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like I'm on the low end of the scale. I had (from memory) Pres/vPres, Gov, Lt. Gov, Sec of State, State Tresurer, State Rep (Fed), State Rep (State), High Bailiff, Attorney General, Auditor of Accounts, and maybe one more that I can't recall off the top of my head. Although, unlike other Vermont towns, we didn't get to vote on whether to have Bush or Cheney arrested if they come to our town. Besides, that would have been done on town meeting day. Dismas|^(talk) 09:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow. This is stunning. I've voted in more elections than I care to remember, and I've never had to vote for more than four things at the most, and almost always only three. You guys are nuts in America! Belisarius (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's a sample ballot from North Carolina. It has 36 different races on there.--droptone (talk) 12:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

One important thing to remember is that in many states you can vote straight ticket, which means "all Democrat" or "all Republican" and knock out dozens of candidates in one fell swoop. You still have to vote in the non-partisan races like for judgeships and dog catchers, and for some reason in my state (North Carolina) straight-ticket does not cover the presidential election. --Sean 14:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

In North Carolina, this dates to the 1960's, when conservative southern Democrats wished to distance themselves from their national counterparts, which had become quite liberal. This allowed good conservatives to vote for the conservative Republican presidential candidate, while still protecting the local Democratic Party machine, which controlled politics at the local level. This associated press article: [17] explains it quite well. See also the coattail effect as to more on this.. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

In California, the current election has 12 propositions, as well as the Presidential candidates, House of Representatives, State Assembly, State Senate, school boards (in some jurisdictions), judges, junior college districts, water commissioners, and city and county board members. There are no Governor or Senate elections this year. There will be in two years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.245.4.252 (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

From this side of the pond, it seems ludicrous to have so many things on the ballot. I must have voted in half-a-dozen general elections with just a short list of prime ministerial candidates on the ballot paper, and only once have I had a second ballot paper to elect a local councillor. Astronaut (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You weren't paying much attention when voting... you vote for a candidate to be Member of Parliament for your constituency. They will usually come from a particular party and the leader of the party with the most MPs usually becomes Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is not directly elected (even less so than in the US). --Tango (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course Tango is correct... it's been a tough week and it's only got to Tuesday! Astronaut (talk) 16:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

From an American perspective, it may seem quite undemocratic not to be able to vote for things like school-board members, constitutional amendments and tax levies -- let alone members of the upper house of the legislature! -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Not only from the American perspective - well, at least about the constitutional amendments and the upper house, both of which we get a say about here in Australia. In fact, a referendum is the only way our Constitution can be changed. I guess that's the neat thing about not having a universally recognised constitution (UK) - despite its apparent non-existence, the powers that be can still change it. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Religion

I was thinking, is religion, at least today, a concept that stunts our growth intellectually? Before, in the 1500s, it was used to inspire artists. Today, in America people do or don't pick a leader because of their religion. Most of the time being about if they are Christian enough. Also, people's "faith" lets them bend the facts without them knowing it. Like many people (especially in America), either don't believe in evolution or have doubts about it. It makes so much sense and there are few scientific ideas that compete with it, yet people fight to have Creationism taught in public schools. The idea that strong enough faith can make it real (if you really believe in God, it exists) is very counterintuitive to the idea of if something has facts it's real. How can this be conducive to a intelligent culture? I mean to offend no one, I would just like to know people ideas on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.192.105 (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Rather than enter into a debate here on the subject, we can point out some reading that might help you reach your own conclusions. I will start with suggesting Christopher Hitchens's book God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (published in the United Kingdom as God is Not Great: The Case Against Religion) for one view. We have an article on it at God Is Not Great. I am sure there will be many other texts added. ៛ Bielle (talk) 01:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Two brief thoughts: 1. religion did more than inspire artists (it was the chief motivation for most early versions of what we would call "scientists" today, like Newton) and 2. to only understand the role of religion through the eye of whether it conflicts with science is both limiting and limited. Most of religion in people's lives has nothing to do with Creationism, and most religion in the world does not have the issues with science that you get in American politics. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 03:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Whenever I see a person struggling with this sort of issue, I am reminded of what I my grandfather told me when I was 7 and complained that baseball is boring and shouldn't be allowed to waste our time on TV: "No matter what you believe or how strongly you believe it, at least half the world disagrees with you."

So, attempting to start a debate on this topic is out of place on a reference desk and will do nothing more than demonstrate that some people disagree with you and some people agree with you. You should already know that. -- kainaw™ 03:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I would dispute that religion was 'the chief motivation for most early versions of what we would call "scientists" today'. Newton may have been inspired by religion, but he was also nuts! Certainly, most natural philosophers of that era worked independantly or even in opposition to the church. Galileo certainly wasn't all that faithful to his catholisism. Scientists back then did science for the same reason scientists do science now, to find out how stuff works. Belisarius (talk) 12:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

From a scholarly perspective, the sociology of religion traces and studies the (positive, negative, and neutral) effects of religion on society and vice versa, though our article on it isn't very good at the moment. --Delirium (talk) 04:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly dispute your assertion that Americans pick leaders based on religion, if only on the grounds that we haven't done so. Without intending offense to anyone, John Kennedy was elected despite being Catholic; Jimmy Carter lost his reelection despite being a lay precher; Ronald Reagan, George the Sane and Bill Clinton kept their religious beliefs private; Dubious wore his on his sleeve, but didn't practice what he preached. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Many Americans do, however, vote based on a few specific beliefs they associate with religion (abortion being the big one, gay marriage another). But you're right that it's not the only factor, and the issue isn't "who is more religious" at all. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 13:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

While American voters may not really care what religion their president is (although the chance of a Muslim being elected is probably rather slim), I've seen polls which show a very large proportion of voters wouldn't vote for an atheist. --Tango (talk) 14:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

George H.W. Bush famously opined that atheists shouldn't even be conferred citizenship! --Sean 14:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Allegedly. According to the Wikipedia article on atheist rights advocate Robert I. Sherman, who is the one and only source of the quote, "Though [the Bush quote is] alleged to have been made at a press conference, only Sherman claims to have heard it." The alleged Bush quote is all over the Internet, of course, particularly on atheist sites. There's no proof that the quote is genuine, but clearly some atheists have enough faith to believe. 71.72.148.80 (talk) 15:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting; thanks for the fact check! --Sean 14:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I would also dispute that religion stunts thought - whether you agree or disagree with them, you have to admit that Answers In Genesis has some very creative ways to explain the world's existence and everything based on the Bible. I happen to agree with them, otehrs don't. It's something we must take by faith becuase none of us was there. :-)Somebody or his brother (talk) 14:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

A counter arguement that religion has NOT interferred with science (and the reverse) is made in several books by Stephen J. Gould, who argues that religion and science can and should peacefully coexist, and that our lives are fuller when BOTH are part of them... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This topic is almost impossible to answer without getting into the realm of opinion, but as long as this topic hasn't been banned, I'd like to point out that modern science leaves plenty of room for religion. Science to date has been unable to answer questions like what came before the Big Bang, what happens in less than Planck time and what lies beyond the observable universe. Even if science can one day answer such questions, those findings will open up new questions -- science will never be able to explain everything. So there is plenty of room for faith in a rational universe. Incidentally, I heard a recording of the George H.W. Bush quote on the Donahue show years back. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I imagine that religious people aren't very happy being banished to the tiny universe of Planck time. I imagine they dislike that the holes where God fits in are getting smaller and smaller. Belisarius (talk) 01:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

God is in the details. And that which lies beyond the observable universe is not small at all. Or so we might know if we could observe it! -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No one has said that God is confined to those times and places; the quest for understanding God's creation leads to a finer and more accurate understanding of His creation. Science doesn't necessarily disprove God, it only gives us a better, more accurate image of His work... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Meiendorf Castle, near Moscow?

News reports on and off mention a "Meiendorf Castle", near Moscow, that seems to be used primarily for Russia's foreign minister to host visiting foreign dignitaries [18][19]. I can't find any information on the castle apart from such news reports, though (all recent ones). There's a Meiendorf near Hamburg, but that's clearly not the same. Does this castle also go under a different name? --Delirium (talk) 02:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

"Замок Меендорф", also transliterated as Meyendorf, Meendorf, sometimes Maiendorf. But I can't find much on it in English. It was apparently an old castle turned sanatorium in the Soviet period and now redone as a place for official meetings. This is an article on it in German (warning, it tries to print when you open it). --98.217.8.46 (talk) 03:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! The connection with a Baltic German baron explains why a castle near Moscow would have a German-sounding name. With the alternate spellings, I also found a (much briefer) description of it in this article from Der Spiegel. --Delirium (talk) 03:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

German-derived names were also not all that uncommon in Russia; see St. Petersburg and Orenburg for examples of other german-named russian locations... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention Kronstadt and Yekaterinburg. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Charismatic Leaders, Orwellianism, Propaganda, and Groupthink

Hey again! I'm looking for literature (fictional or otherwise) involving the means by which people can be controlled and made to do things that they wouldn't do in ordinary circumstances. For instance, books on the banality of evil (Eichmann in Jerusalem is the classic text, of course), and the ways in which the meanings of words can be changed, and the clever psychological means by which charismatic figures gain control of crowds. Also, the sometimes bizarre justifications and rationalizations they use to achieve their ends, and the rationalizations of the people who decide to follow them. I'm having a hard time believing the Holocaust could have happened, and I'm convinced there are things happening in America which shouldn't be happening (secret prisons in foreign countries, for example; some would say abortion), but the masses have been so effectively subdued with propaganda and political techniques that very few think to question them. I'm familiar with the psychological experiments of Milgram and Zimbardo, and I would love to read more.

Thank you, and blessings :) MelancholyDanish (talk) 04:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)MelancholyDanish

I realise you mean non-fiction and guess you know about George Orwell's 1984, but it sets you thinking. (Oops just re-read your question.) There's also the obliging complicity of people who give up their daily accounts to the Government without seeming to be aware of the implications and anything on the saturation of CCTV in England might be helpful. There's also the problem of internet corporations handing over user's private details like the case of Wang Xiaoning. Hindsight, power and the individual are a blend of some kind. PS have you read much on Zeitgeist? Collective consciousness has some links and there's Emile Durkheim. Julia Rossi (talk) 05:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Durkheim looks quite dark in spots, so I recommend anything by cultural post-structuralist (?) Mark Poster at Amazon, Mark Poster on Marxism with light relief in the way of Mark Twain. Julia Rossi (talk) 06:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

A classic manual in this area is Propaganda by Edward Bernays. Interesting trivia about the author and the book: Bernays was a double nephew of Sigmund Freud (his father was the brother of Freud's wife and his mother was Freud's sister) and the book was a favourite of Joseph Goebbels. The documentary The Century of the Self explains some of Bernays' ideas, it's really good, watch it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 12:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

On the specifics of the Holocaust, you might be interested in Ordinary Men, which is specifically about this question. It's a good, short read as well. It's not about "the masses" so much as understanding how a bunch of "ordinary men" (the Ordnungspolizei) got drafted into doing much of the brutal work of the Holocaust. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

What, no one has mentioned the Milgram experiment or the Stanford prison experiment? —Tamfang (talk) 02:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Already mentioned by the questioner. —Kevin Myers 03:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Fairy Tale Motif

Why is it that there's frequently a mean wife with her kind husband? Does this sort of thing even occur in real life (I can't imagine why anyone would...)? 203.188.92.72 (talk) 14:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Most fairy tales were written during the Middle Ages and a little later, well before modern medicine. this meant that many women died in childbirth. Therefore, it wasn't uncommon for a man to remarry.

As to whether men commonly remarried nice or mean women, it's tough to say. My guess is that they were generally nice but, like the media today exploiting the bad news, the mean ones got the attention because they were more noticeable.

Another thought is that the presence of mean stepmothers spoke to the fears of children, after a mother had died in childbirth, that the new mother wuld be mean. Writers have often tried to write things that spoke to peoples' feelings, after all. It could even be used to reassure a child when a nice woman - but one who they were unfamiliar with - did come into the household. "See, honey, she's not that bad; if she was, she'd be making you clean all the time like Cinderella's stepmother."Somebody or his brother (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course it occurs, why wouldn't it? There are over 6 billion people in the world, there has to be such a couple somewhere, surely? In fairy tales, it's often a mean step-mother. That occurred due to the likelihood of women dying in childbirth, the father would then remarry. It's not surprising that in some cases the new wife would favour her own children over her husband's children from his previous marriage. --Tango (talk) 14:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

On a side note, some fellow students have suggested a pair of music teachers. Come to think of it, this also occurs in the beginning of The Book Thief. The question this brings up is why they got married. 203.188.92.72 (talk) 14:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Why they got married? that's easy. Take a couple in school where you think "what does he/she see in the other person?!" where the couple is going steady. A lot of times, sadly, people marry out of lust when they think it's love and they dont' think about the consequences. While there was no dating back then, that just made it harder for a man and woman to realize one of them was really bad. Especially if it was an arranged marriage, which sometimes happened (though I wouldn't think it would have with the 2nd marriage as much).Somebody or his brother (talk) 14:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

One could also theorize that all the nice women had already married (or died in childbirth as the theme here seems to be) and all that were left were the bitter women. Dismas|^(talk) 14:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Fairy tales are also often based on folk tales and the like, many of which are full of symbolism and hidden meaning (or at least not noticed by all readers). These stories are often tales of morality and ethics, so the role of an evil (usually step) mother is perhaps a statement rather than an attempt at suggesting that the mother is evil. Additionally what 1 person considers to be a mean individual may, to another, be absolutely wonderful and kind. After all we can all be different to different people depending on how much we like/dislike the other person. In short, i'd recommend researching more into the story behind fairy-tales, because they make for interesting theories at times. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 15:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Studies show that men are the victims of domestic abuse just as much as women are, they just don't report it as much. Wrad (talk) 15:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Then how did the studies find out that they were being abused? Dismas|^(talk) 15:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Confidential, private surveys rather than just looking at the police reports. Most of the claims you'll find showing women are more abused are taken directly from police reports. Wrad (talk) 16:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

One such study was conducted by Suzanne Steinmetz and published in Victimology. It found that 12% of women and and 12% men in a sample of over 2000 had experienced abuse at the hands of their spouse. Violence in this study included throwing things, shoving, hitting, or using a knife or gun.

Let me also add that I have seen, personally, both abusive women and abusive men. I know that both exist. To think otherwise is a fairy tale in itself. Wrad (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Another thing, if you read Grimms' Fairy Tales, you'll see several tales about abusive husbands and several about abusive women. There isn't really an imbalance if you read through them all. Wrad (talk) 16:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The deal is, stories about mean fathers don't really resonate with people. Dads aren't supposed to be nurturing, so no one really finds it all that offensive when one isn't. Its not that dad's can't be nurturing, its just that the societal expectation isn't there, so it doesn't bother us as much as it does when a mother (or step mother) is mean. The mean stepmom makes us feel "ooohhh, poor girl... she doesn't have a female in her life to love her". No one really feels the same way about dads. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The Poor Boy in the Grave is about a boy in a Cinderella-like situation. His parents are dead and he is adopted by abusive parents who make him do impossible tasks and beat him when he fails. Most of the abuse discussed in the story centers on the father figure. One notable difference is that there is no saving prince or fairy godmother for this boy. He dies. Males are pretty consistently denied fairy godmother figures in fairy tales. They're on their own. Wrad (talk) 18:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

There are inheritance issues with a stepmother that make her a stock figure of social and economic danger. And there are basic genetic issues (The Selfish Gene) for a stepmother, who has no genetic connection with the heirs and may be expected to offer a candidate representing her own line (palace intrigues of Roman, Byzantine, Chinese and Ottoman empires). When a young male lion takes over the pride, his first act is to kill all the cubs and substitute cubs of his own: wicked stepfather. --Wetman (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

To deviate a bit: why do so many teenagers seem to be involved in romances that never last? (Although I'm a tenager, I consider myself more sensible.) I mean, what's the point of wasting so much time? Vltava 68 (talk contribs) 08:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Because you never know if its "going to last" until you are actually in it. Such predictions are impossible, and not limited to the young. Lots of adults are in many serial romantic relationships before they find a life partner... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

economics

what are the effects of stagflation to an economy? how can a country react to it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.20.249.231 (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a pretty broad topic, and how to react to stagflation is a matter of debate between different schools of economic thought. So I'll just point you to our article on stagflation that covers this in some detail. --Delirium (talk) 18:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

US presidential election poll?

The nationwide total popular vote doesn't decide who becomes president, so why do organizations still do, and the media still report on nationwide polls? F (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Laziness and stupidity, mostly, though it can also serve as propaganda for the candidate in the lead in the popular vote. - Nunh-huh 21:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

However, I've noticed that (at least this year), most of the media are reporting individual statewide polls, rather than nationwide ones. (Maybe they're learning.) — Michael J 23:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

And then there are international polls [20]. ៛ Bielle (talk) 00:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

A lot of the media probably didn't even realize that there was an electoral college until 2000 Wrad (talk) 00:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Unlikely, since "the media" have reported the electoral vote in every U.S. presidential election including the first. Edison (talk) 04:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I've always heard, every election, that there is an evil menace called the electoral college and that it was put in place by (fill in the evil Republican of the year) to undermine the democratic system of the United States. So, I wasn't surprised to hear about it in 2000. -- kainaw™ 00:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It is a lot easier to conduct a national poll than to conduct separate polls in every state and add them all up. Fortunately, the site www.electoral-vote.com takes all of the individual state polls and adds them up to determine who is leading in the electoral vote count. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The nationwide popular vote does give some indication of how the electoral college is likely to go; while it is possible for a president to win the electoral college without winning the absolute most popular votes, such an event has only happened twice (1876 and 2000) and two out of 55 elections is a pretty small number. Both of those elections were so close, and featured contested results, that were ultimately decided by the Supreme Court, so they could have easily gone the other way. The nationwide popular vote is likely to indicate who will win, since if the results are more than about 1-2% different, it seems HIGHLY unlikely that the electoral college would differ from it. Also, the nationwide popular vote can give an indication of how "down-ticket" races (House and Senate elections) are likely to go; if there will be a coattail effect from the winning candidate; or if the candidate can be seen as having a mandate from the electorate. Minority presidents often face more opposition to their policies because they don't have widespread popular support. If McCain or Obama wins the popular election, by a margin of say, 55%-40% it means something distinctly different than if the popular vote went, say, 45%-44%... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

But 2000 was only 2 elections ago, and nobody expected that series of events then either. Given the short time since then, you'd think that people might not have forgotten so quickly that things can sometimes not turn out as expected. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sexsmith

Maybe a silly question but it has bugged me for awhile.

If a goldsmith worked precious stones; a shoesmith made horseshoes; and blacksmith forged iron, what service did a sexsmith provide? Kidding aside and perhaps I should rephrase the question: what is the origin of this surname? --Kvasir (talk) 22:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Seax is an old word for a knife or sword, still used to refer to a scimitar-type sword in the heraldic terminology of blazoning... AnonMoos (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! --Kvasir (talk) 15:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Identifying Reformed theologians

The upper section of http://www.reformationtheology.com/ contains the pictures of 6 Reformed theologians.

From left to right, they are

1. Jonathan Edwards
2. ?
3. Martin Luther
4. ?
5. John Calvin
6. Charles Spurgeon

Please identify the 2nd and 4th. --Psuit (talk) 23:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Number 4 appears to be John Bunyan. Deor (talk) 23:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I shot Monergism Books an email asking them what the theologians on their banner were, since they have almost all of the same people on theirs, except for John Calvin. bibliomaniac15 00:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Number 2 is this picture of John Owen. We don't need no stinkin' e-mail. (And Calvin's there on the Monergism banner; he's just off by himself at the left.) Deor (talk) 00:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses.--Psuit (talk) 00:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

November 4

Fewer Homosexual Blacks

Why are there fewer homosexual black africans than the other homosexual racial groups in the world? I don't hear or see any gay parade in Sub-Sahara Africa and the Carribean islands. 72.136.111.205 (talk) 05:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Be careful when you make these assumptions. There are likely as many black homosexuals as there are of any other large, random, group of people. The critically acclaimed documentary film Paris Is Burning would certainly contradict your initial assumption as false to begin with... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Those aren't African like he's talking about, they live in New York City! Wrad (talk) 05:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

His focus on race, and on the Caribbean, seems to indicate he's not just asking about Africa, but on black people in general. Besides, the basic point that across any large enough population, you are likely to find the same percentages of homosexuals, as any other large population. There may be key differences in how such homosexuality is expressed, for example the concept of a "gay pride parade" may be unheardof in some localities, but that doesn't mean that there are less homosexuals there! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

At the beginning of the AIDS epidemic in the early '80s, Scientific American noted that epidemiologists were confused for many months by the spread of AIDS among Haitian men, who swore that they never had sex with other men. The "down-low' is a specifically African-American expression for such unacknowledged homosexual adventures. The phenomenon in sub-Saharan Africa of "dry sex" is doubtless an unacknowldged result of inured familiarity with boys' thighs. And you mean fewer homosexual black Africans, not less. --Wetman (talk) 06:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

They also seemed confused by their very wrong assumption that AIDS is confined to the homosexual community or can only be acquired through gay sex. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

There is widespread homophobia in the Caribbean[21] and Africa[22], so people from these areas would be unlikely to be open about their sexuality.--Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 12:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

There were no gay pride parades in New York City in the 1950s but there were surely as many homosexuals there then as there were in the 1980s. Think about it. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 13:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

There are many places in Africa, the Middle East and the Caribbean where action against gay people is swift and violent. In some countries it's policy, and people who are out can be beaten or killed. In places like Jamaica it's not so much public policy as it is social practice. Among African Americans, I don't believe the percentage of gays or lesbians is any more or less than in whites, and they develop subcultures unto themselves such as in Harlem and in the documentary Paris is Burning (film). --Moni3 (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The map at the page homosexuality laws of the world shows that African countries almost all have laws against homosexuality. The strong Christian culture in much of sub-Saharan Africa means that there is a strong bias against it, much like in Muslim Africa. The Caribbean is mixed in terms of laws against homosexual practice, but even where it is legal, there is still a cultural bias against it. The down-low phenomenon mentioned above is somewhat of a result of that. If google is anything to go by, there isn't a shortage of African-Americans willing to show of their prowess with other men. Steewi (talk) 23:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

American Revolution a coup?

Is it correct to describe the American Revolution as a coup d'etat? The WP article vaguely calls the Revolution a "political upheaval." The Revolution was Americans overthrowing the incumbnent British Government in the 13 colonies with military force and replacing it with a new government. How is that not a coup? How does a coup differ from a revolution as we know it? Thank you.--Wikiphilia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.78.136.78 (talk) 06:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Only the Americans ever call it a revolution anyway. Everywhere else in the world, it's known as the American War of Independence. Malcolm XIV (talk) 07:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

A successful coup d'etat removes the leader of the country from power. George III was not removed from power over his kingdom, just from the part that didn't care for his leadership. And, yes, it was a revolution. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not a perfectly sharp distinction. One difference is that coups are usually aimed at gaining a leader or group of leaders power, whereas revolutions may have leaders, but are at least officially aimed at accomplishing some more ideological change to how society is organized. Another is that coups usually keep up at least a pretense of retaining the existing form of government but merely changing its leaders, whereas a revolution tends to openly promote its intent to overthrow the previous order and replace it with a new one. Which term is used may also depend on what aspect people look at; the 18 Brumaire fairly openly accomplished a change in the system of government, but is usually called a "coup" due to focusing on the fact that it represents Napoleon's seizure of power. The American Revolution meanwhile, like the French Revolution, is hard to characterize as a coup, being open as they both were about the intent to overthrow the existing form of government. The American case is also more specifically a war of independence, as Malcolm XIV and DOR note. --Delirium (talk) 07:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I like the bit in war of independence "If a new state is successfully established, the conflict is subsequently known as a war of independence". Quite right. If it had been unsuccessful those americans would have just been terrorists. Dmcq (talk) 09:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The line is blurry, but the level of involvement is also a big factor in determining the difference. In a coup d'etat, whether there is a change of government form or not, it general involves a small number of government and/or political officials, and does not represent widespread popular revolt. In a revolution, there is generally some high level of popular involvement, and widespread war. Most revolutions could also be termed "civil wars" (such as the Russian and French) or "wars of independence" (such as the American). Other times, like the Glorious Revolution, it was, despite the name, clearly more of a coup d'etat... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

There are some good answers above; here are a few more comments. One online definition of "coup d'etat" calls it "a sudden overthrow of a government by a usually small group of persons", but the American Revolution was neither "sudden" (there were repeated pleas for reform and reconciliation) nor was it conducted by a "small group" (it was a popular movement). A "coup d'etat" also usually suggests a change of government by military force or the threat of military force, which is again not really applicable to the American Revolution as a whole (the colonists barely had a functioning military at the outset).

By the way, I'm inclined to agree with John Adams in believing that it's not accurate to equate the American Revolution with the American War of Independence. Adams believed that the Revolution was a popular political movement, and the War of Independence was one consequence of this movement. He overstated the point in his usual manner, but many historians in the 20th century came around to Adams's view, more or less, whether they realized it or not. Which is why someone like Gordon S. Wood can write incisive books about the American Revolution and only mention the battles in passing! —Kevin Myers 15:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Approach to writing a biography

Let's say I have a good idea for a new biography of a living person. I am acquainted with the person and can gain access to them and their associates for the purpose of research. The person is notable and there has been no previous biography of them. However, I am a previously unpublished writer. What should be my approach to getting the biography written and published? Should I approach publishers first with a proposal, in the hope that they will express interest and even maybe make me an offer? Or should I just go ahead and start writing the thing, even though I have no guarantee that it will ever be published? It would be a whole lot of work and I'm not sure that I would want to launch into the project without at least some prospect of it being published. Furthermore, it would be very advantageous in speaking to the person and their associates if I could tell them that the project already has the backing of a publisher rather than just being some personal project of mine. On the other hand, I fully accept that publishers are unlikely to take a chance on a previously unpublished writer. So, what is the best approach? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 07:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Gather your resources viz, most of them are with your subject person. Approach this person with your proposal (polish that "pitch"), offer (formally or informally) your cv and praise them shamelessly. Then, since you don't have clout (influence and fame) and they do, they could approach the publisher proposing a timely and vital biography of themselves, nominating you as official biographer. Question why has this notable person escaped being biographed so far? Julia Rossi (talk) 10:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

PS It might help to have an outline or precis in the works so that when they can't imagine how it could be done, you demonstrate by example, and make sure not to hand it over or surrender your entire idea or they'll give it to someone more impressive who will snatch up the baton and cross the finishing line so that with any luck you may be invited to their launch. In other words, protect yourself, Julia Rossi (talk) 10:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama LA Interview

A McCain supporter alleged on the radio that there is in interview with Obama which isn’t being released and never will be. What is this referring to? Kittybrewster ☎ 10:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I read on a message board that it was supposed to including his praising of the PLO or some PLO peson in particular. That, however, can have a number of contexts, as he might not necessarily be approving of terrorism, but simply of their desire for a homeland. Considering that Yasser Arafat had already gone from being a wanted criminal in many eyes to a man brokering peace with Israel, I doubt it would be any huge thing; this seems more the case where, becasue American society is so used to freedom and to knowing *everything* about a person, not knowing things seems odd.Somebody or his brother (talk) 12:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

See Rashid Khalidi. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

US Ambassador postings

I'm looking for a list of when and where US Ambassadors have been posted. Specifically, I'm trying to find out who was the US Ambassador to South Africa in 1990-98 or so. Seems like it should be easy enough to google, but no luck so far. The more general reference list of all Ambassadors to all countries would be a useful reference tool to have stored. Thanks if you can help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.101.134.43 (talk) 10:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Presumably you have seen this page, which (annoyingly) doesn't go back any further than 2001. If you don't find an answer elsewhere, I suggest writing to the embassy using the contact details given on that website. What do you know, United States Ambassador to South Africa. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

And for your second question, try this page. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. You'd think I could have found it. Amazing thing wikipedia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.101.134.43 (talk) 11:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW, lest anyone think you are crazy, I set up a redirect from your former redlink to the main article; it seemed a reasonable search term so I thought this wise... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Voting machines in the USA

An obvious question, perhaps, but I can't seem to find an easy answer. What kind of voting machines are currently in use in the USA? That article says that lever machines were common until the 1990s, and have been succeeded by the DRE voting machine. However, that second article says that only 29% of US voters used these things in 2004. So what is mostly being used today? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 11:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Paper ballots? 194.221.133.226 (talk) 11:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Can't speak for anywhere but my locality, but in Wake County, North Carolina, we use optical scanner ballots; basically its the type where you "fill in the circle" with a black pen next to the candidate (think standardized test) and put it through a machine that scans and counts it. The federal government has no ballot form standard, and leaves it up to individual states. North Carolina further devolves this decision to the Counties, so even in my state, there is wide variation as to the type of ballot and/or voting machine used. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

As stated, it varies from locality to locality. In moving around I've used all manner of machines in the last ten years—ranging from ink-on-paper, to ones where I punched a little pin through, to fully electronic ones. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 12:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That's very interesting. Does the fact that there is a variety of machines in use make electoral fraud more or less likely? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 13:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It must certainly be less likely, because to rig the national election you would have to subvert many different kinds of machines rather than just one (ahem). --Sean 14:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that in a close election subversion of even just one major district could be important (example). You wouldn't need 100% success to be effective—even just a few percentage points can be decisive, especially given the winner-take-all nature of the electoral college (if you edge a close state over the line, then it counts as 100% votes for the winning party, in most states). --140.247.243.242 (talk) 14:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

All different types! Just this morning I used a fill-in-the-circle type that reminded me of high-school. (I live in CT now.) But in the past ( I used to live in MA) I've used connect-the-line type machines where every line of the ballot has the back end of an arrow, a gap, and the point of an arrow, and you indicate your candidate by connecting the line.

It's my understanding that some small towns still use hand-counted ballots where you just make an 'X' in a box. APL (talk) 15:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

When I lived in one city in Massachusetts, it was a connect-the-line, and when I moved to another a mile or two away, it was a fill-in-the-bubble. Totally idiosyncratic. --140.247.240.13 (talk) 17:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You don't even need to move. In the place I'm living now, I've used poke-out-the-chad, fill-in-the-circle, and (today) connect-the-arrow over the last dozen years. Deor (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

who is favored to win the election and by how much?

Who is favored to win the election and by how much?

What is the web site where you can watch this stuff in real time, I think it was just a number, like 304.com or something...?

Finally, I heard there is a kind of "stock market" for tracking things like this, so that we can look at how much money is on obama and mccain to see what the market thinks... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.209.97 (talk) 12:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You mean http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/. They're predicting an Obama win by 155 electoral college votes. There are many online bookies offering odds on the election. Algebraist 13:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

As for the trader, you probably want Intrade, they're the biggest as far as I know. Currently, asking price for Obama is at 93.2; McCain is at 7.3. Paragon¹²³²¹ 20:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

what is the effect of the economy?

what effect, if anything, does the economy have? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.209.97 (talk) 13:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

See economy and let us know if anything doesn't make sense. -- kainaw™ 13:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

If you mean on the election—at the moment it is making things swing away from McCain in particular as the Republicans are more associated with the economic problems at the moment in the polls (wrongly or rightly) and most Americans think that Obama is taking a more proactive approach to it (again, wrongly or rightly). At least that's what I recall the polls as having said. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on your magic power to know precisely which economy the questioner was asking about. I read it as a very general question, not relating to any one country or any particular current event. But you may be right. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Same questioner just asked about the US election in the question above so it seemed likely it would be related. Especially since the US election is going on as we speak and people have been talking about the relation of the state of the US economy to the US election for weeks on end. Given the US-centric aspects oft his board I wouldn't be surprised if we get quite a few election questions today—it's a big day for us, the culmination of what feels like two years of campaigning! --140.247.243.242 (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

american election

when will results be out and where can i get results live? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.10 (talk) 13:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Results will start being announced as soon as the polls start to close (early evening US time, I don't remember exactly), any American news channel will have live coverage. The BBC is doing a live text coverage on their website (it's probably linked to from news.bbc.co.uk ).--Tango (talk) 14:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

They won't call the final election until after the polls in the Westernmost states have closed. So don't expect a final verdict until late evening EST. As for where you can get the results live, any decent news site will do. BBC, CNN, etc. If you're really in the mood for as much raw statistical info as possible try http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/. --140.247.243.242 (talk) 14:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Polls close in most districts at 7 pm EST. Local results and eastern states will be released on television as soon as polls close and throughout the night, updating by the hour as they close in other time zones. Unless, of course, the hanging chad debacle occurs again. --Moni3 (talk) 14:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The election is usually called before the polls close in Hawaii - which is a tad west of most states. The television stations normally call a winner as soon as they feel they can. Sometimes this is very quick (Reagan's re-election was called long before polls closed on the west coast). -- kainaw™ 14:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Not anymore though...the 2000 debacle forced the networks to agree to not declare a winner until the Western states have voted. —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 15:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I expect that most networks will start celebrating declare a winner much earlier than in the last two presidential elections. 71.72.148.80 (talk) 15:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

They won't "declare" a winner. They'll just announce that one candidate has clinched enough electoral votes to win even though the polls in the west haven't closed. -- kainaw™ 16:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Announcing that one cadidate has "clinched enough electoral votes to win" is exactly what is meant when we say a network "declares" a winner. Perhaps you were being ironic and I missed the joke? 71.72.148.80 (talk) 16:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the comment above that they agreed to not declare a winner. So, they won't use the word "declare". -- kainaw™ 22:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Bengali script

Why Bengali language is the only one not to use the Roman script when it comes to the title of the films of Bangladesh and West Bengal, like Bollywood films? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.74.179 (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The Bollywood store near me has all the Tamil films in Tamil script - when I was looking for Kandukondain Kandukondain, they couldn't help me because they couldn't read the Tamil covers. One reason for this is possibly a sense of linguistic self-determination - they want to show that they have their own script and that is isn't subject to being washed out by the more popular roman script. That is, however, original research. Steewi (talk) 23:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

term in office

I know that George Bush was elected two times for President. I notice that he gets to be elected for the second and last time. So, what about the Prime Minister? How many times does he get to be elected to a 4-year office? What about the Premiers of Canadian provinces? What about Indian Prime Minister and its state counterparts(meaning chief Minister)? What about Bangladeshi Prime Minister? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.74.179 (talk) 15:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

See Term limit and List of political term limits. Many countries use the title Prime minister and many countries don't have a fixed interval between elections but only a highest allowed interval. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not clear from the original question, but I want to point out to the original poster that the United States does not have a Prime Minister. --Zerozal (talk) 16:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess he/she's referring to other countries. I don't see any Prime Ministers in that list that have a limit on the number of terms they can serve, and I've never heard of one. -- JackofOz (talk) 16:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

See Benazir Bhutto#Possible deal with the Musharraf Government about Pakistan. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, in countries that have presidents and prime ministers, it is the president (head of state) whose term is limited to a specified number of years (usually between 4 and 7) and the number of terms is also limited (usually to two terms at most). The prime minister (head of government), on the other hand, is not elected, but appointed by the head of state and then approved by the parliament (see: motion of confidence) and his/her term is limited by the parliament's term (and the lenght of the parliamentary term may differ from country to country). If the parliament dissolves before the end of its term, the prime minister loses his/her job. However, if the same party wins again in a new parliamentary election, the same person may become prime minister again and there's no limit on the number of years or terms a prime minister can serve. Margaret Thatcher, for instance, was appointed British prime minister three times and she served a total of 11 years in that office.

See also Premier (Canada), Prime Minister of India and Prime Minister of Bangladesh for more information about the particular offices. — Kpalion^(talk) 18:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It is worth noting that not all Prime Ministers are "appointed by the head of state and then approved by the parliament". Some are appointed or selected by parliament, with the head of state having no part in the process. See e.g. Prime minister and Prime minister of Sweden./Coffeeshivers (talk) 21:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

William Lyon Mackenzie King was Prime Minister of Canada for 21 years, off and on. There is no limit here. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Learning about other cultures

<moved to language desk here:[23] where linguists hang out Julia Rossi (talk) 22:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)>

betting site for elections?

can someone point out a site that is a "market" for real-world events, and includes the current presidential elections? ('futures'). I am interested in the actual, current, going prices for the two candidates! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.209.97 (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there are plenty of sites offering current odds. Paddy Power's bookies here in Ireland (usable worldwide) have a website:[24]. You can get odds for the battleground states, state with the smallest margin and when McCain will concede. Out of luck on outright betting though. They payed out on Obama three weeks ago. Fribbler (talk) 19:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

U.S 2008

In how many hours we will know who won the elections? I live in Israel, and it's 22:15 PM at the moment... Gridge (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC).

Anywhere from 9-10 EST (early morning for you) till...next month. No one knows. Paragon¹²³²¹ 20:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Media outlets don't start making projections for any individual states until AFTER that state's polls close, for fear of influencing the outcome in those states. They won't even start talking about exit interviews or general polling outside of the precincts until then, so I would expect that this one will not likely be called until 9-10 PM EST at the earliest... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. Gridge (talk) 23:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC).

Religious Pluralism.

what are the pastoral recomendations towards people who are biased towards Hinduism as a religion? ( four tildes) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.201.151.5 (talk) 21:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

"Biased towards Hinduism as a religion"? Does this mean a positive bias, in that they are followers of Hinduism, or a negative bias in that they are opposed to Hinduism? ៛ Bielle (talk) 21:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The word "pastoral" is associated with christian faiths - good shepherds & all that - and so I have a feeling the OP might be asking what to do when one of your flock wants to join another outfit. But I could be yards out. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

And if you are correct about the Christian aspect, I suspect that, whatever the rest of the question may mean, the answer will depend upon the OP's specific brand of Christianity. Some are much more tolerant of "pluralism" than others. ៛ Bielle (talk) 22:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Pliny quotes on the Netherlands

I'm compiling a list of Pliny 'elder or younger' quotes regarding the Netherlands, google search turns up way to many different things, any suggestions? Usjx06203 (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Wikiquote may help? Booglamay (talk) - 23:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Search the text, such as at Gutenberg's The Letters of Pliny the Younger, or the various works at the Internet Archive? --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Statute of limitations in Hawaii

Hello Everyone,

Might anyone here know how long it takes for the statute of limitations to come into place in Hawaii? I have sought legal advice but there is no free legal advice in Hawaii.

Cordially--Disgracious23 (talk) 23:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This would be legal information, not legal advice. However, statutes of limitation vary considerably depending upon the crime. What is the crime about which you would like such information? ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

3rd degree Assault and possibly theft 3rd —Preceding unsigned comment added by Disgracious23 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Health problems and elections

I heard that some people are having insomnia and various health problems in the US due to the election. I also heard the same for the recent Taiwan election. I haven't heard similar situation in New Zealand despite an election this weekend. What's the situation for elections in around the world? F (talk) 23:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Stress can cause all kinds of health problems. Is the New Zealand election less stressful than others? (Already clear who will win, perhaps? The candidates are so alike that no-one cares? etc.) I really don't see the point of getting stressed over an election - you're going to end up with a politician in charge whatever happens... --Tango (talk) 23:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Roe v. Wade Question

I read through our article and am still confused on a particular point. If the supreme court ruled that "most laws against abortion in the United States violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment" then does that mean that abortion then became legal in all 50 states?

I thought that if the constitution doesn't specifically allow (or forbid) something, then it's up to the states to decide---can someone clear this up for me?

Basically--when are states allowed to make their own laws?24.147.171.20 (talk) 00:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, the states do have their own laws. As a matter of fact, the legality of abortions are up for a vote in North Dakota (I think that's what the news said this morning) today as part of the rest of the general election. Dismas|^(talk) 01:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The Court basically said that there was a Constitutional right to privacy, and thus the Constitution did specifically forbid specific types of laws (in this case, against abortion). That's the entire point of invoking the Constitution. If they said, "the Constitution doesn't go one way or another" then it would be a totally state-by-state thing. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 01:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Shiny question

Why are some men (well, at least me, for example) so obsessed with women wearing shiny clothes? At least I can't resist looking at a woman of around my age wearing a shiny swimsuit, or a shiny dress. The shinier, the better. I know what I like, I just can't explain why I like it. And are there women who like men wearing something shiny? JIP | Talk 00:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know but my eye is also drawn to shiny things that aren't wrapped around women. I'm rather visual and tactile oriented. If something has a interesting texture to it, I have much the same interest in it that I would if it were shiny. I just want to touch it. Dismas|^(talk) 01:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no excuse for personal taste. Why do I look at a hedgehog and think it is a cute and cuddly little animal and others look at it and see nothing but dangerous spikes? I seriously doubt there is any reference that could be provided other than one that shows different people prefer different things. -- kainaw™ 02:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)