Revision as of 14:09, 13 May 2011

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

• WP:RD/H

Main page: Help searching Misplaced Pages

How can I get my question answered?

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

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Misplaced Pages: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.

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

May 8

Richardis of Schwerin-Wittenburg or Richardis of Schwerin or Richardis of Lauenburg

Why is Valdemar III of Denmark's wife given three different names? I understand the first two since it just drop the second place name and leave the first. But the second one makes no sense. Was Lauenburg part of the county of Schwerin-Wittenburg or something? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 02:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

One possible lead: Both Wittenburg and Lauenburg were, at the time, under the control of the House of Ascania, so perhaps her descent from that family led to the multiple names? --Jayron32 02:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Her descent from the House of Ascania is extremely remote. Her great-great grandfather was Albert I, Duke of Saxony.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I was just pointing out that Wittenburg and Lauenburg have a strong historical connection; indeed the division of the Duchy of Saxony only happened a few decades before the time period in question, which could have lead to the multiple names. --Jayron32 04:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Wait I think you are confused. Wittenburg is not the same as Wittenberg. There was never a Saxe-Wittenburg.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, how silly of me. I naturally assumed it was the Wittenberg that was once split from Saxony at the same time Lauenberg was, not Wittenburg. What a shame, given the similarity of the names. Sorry! --Jayron32 05:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, it appears that Wittenburg (the "u" one, and the one in question) is quite close, geographically, to Lauenberg. --Jayron32 05:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah but they were still rule by two different families. Wittenburg was ruled by the Counts of Schwerin.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 07:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Counts of Schwerin

Another question does anybody know why the son of Günzelin VI, Count of Schwerin-Wittenburg, Otto I, Count of Schwerin dropped the Wittenburg in his title. Did the two line reunited?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 07:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

According to de:Grafschaft Schwerin it looks to me like he ceded the title of Count of Wittenburg to his (presumably younger) brother Nikolaus II.--Zoppp (talk) 12:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Bentley ad - truth or hoax?

I haven't seen anyone respond to the talkpage: Talk:Bentley#Controversial_ad_-_cannot_find_confirmation_of_it_being_truth_or_hoax.

Many blogs talk about it like it's real, but Snopes doesn't have an article over it.

Would someone please answer the question in the talkpage? Thanks. --70.179.169.115 (talk) 05:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Presidential Cocaine Use At The White House

It is well known that the 18th President Ulysses S. Grant was a user of cocaine. Did he while in office? And is there any documentation of his using in The White House? Cheers, --i am the kwisatz haderach (talk) 08:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It's possible, but to say someone from that era was a "user" of cocaine kind of paints things the wrong way. Cocaine was often prescribed by doctors for pain relief and such, before they realized how addictive it could be and outlawed it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Hell, you could even label anyone who drank a glass of coca-cola prior to 1904 as a "user". Blueboar (talk) 12:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

When Grant was dying of throat cancer in 1884, cocaine had just come into use by doctors to relieve pain. Grant was given the drug during the last year of his life, years after his time in the White House. See Cocaine: from medical marvel to modern menace in the United States, 1884-1920, by Joseph F. Spillane. —Kevin Myers 12:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

And just to add: Grant was in office from 1869-1877. Cocaine didn't get used medically until the 1880s. Its popularization in general was not until the 1880s. So it seems rather implausible that he would have used it in office. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It was used during the American Revolution, given to soldiers prior to amputations. Or so a surgeon re-anactor told me. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure that he didn't mean laudanum?? I don't think there was much useful to be given before major surgery, besides brandy or whiskey, until long after the American war of independence... -- AnonMoos (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

He specifically mentioned whiskey and cocaine, and I should have questioned the fact that the latter is a lot more potent than the former, but I didn't ask. The surgery, of course, was done without any anesthetic, and while the gory details were objectively interesting, I'll spare you them. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

And what happened to all the users of it, when it became illegal? 212.169.188.209 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC).

Well, history tells us that prohibition doesn't stop the usage of a substance, no matter what it is. HiLo48 (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

That is not true. When Mao instituted prohibition during the Great Leap Forward, drug use in China went from extremely common to nearly eliminated. When alcohol was prohibited in the United States, consumption decreased a bit, but not anything like the reduction in China. It all has to do with enforcement and punishment. If you kill all the users, there won't be many people left to keep using whatever is being prohibited. -- kainaw™ 21:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The "dirty little secret" about Prohibition in America is that it was a lot more successful than conventional wisdom has it, simply because the people in general were inclined to obey the law. But there was sufficient flouting of the law, and an eager willingness of the Mob to fill that vacuum in the market, that ultimately it was a failure. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Was Ibrahim bin Laden one of the bin Ladens flown out of the U.S.?

Ibrahim bin Laden was killed in the May 1 attack. Senator Frank Lautenberg briefly put up a list of the bin Ladens who were allowed out on a flight a few days after the September 11th attacks on a plane frequently used by the Bush administration. But I'm having hell of a time finding the complete manifest, which I know (and the above link says) was released. Was Ibrahim bin Laden on that plane? Wnt (talk) 18:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source for your claim Ibrahim bin Laden was killed in the May 1 attack? (I'm presuming you mean the operation that killed Osama bin Laden which AFAIK primarily happened on May 2 in Pakistan were the attack actually took place.) All that I've read has suggested and this is supported by Death of Osama bin Laden, the only relatives of Osama bin Laden killed were a son either Hamza or Khalid not Ibrahim (there was suggestion a wife was killed, but this appears to be wrong, in any case Osama's wife would not be known as Ibrahim bin Laden for at least 2 reasons). While the names of all of Osama's children may not be known, of those we do know none appear to be called Ibrahim, Bin Laden family#Osama bin Laden children. The only Ibrahim bin Laden appears to be a brother of Osama and I see no evidence he is dead nor that he was in any way in contact or remained associated with Osama. If you don't have a source, please don't claim potentially living people are dead and particularly don't accuse people of being associted with terrorists. Nil Einne (talk) 11:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I deserved that. Every single last fact that has come out about that raid has turned out to be wrong, so when I read that the son was named Ibraham (as mentioned in that article's Talk Archive 2) I should have known it wasn't true. I still wish I could track down that manifest, just in case the names people finally settle on turn out to overlap. Wnt (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Rumors run rampant in the early stages of a high-profile news story, and this one was no exception. And for sure, the White House didn't do a very good job of managing the story. But if you were around in November of 1963, the immediate rumors about the JFK assassination and the various conflicting bits of information made the OBL situation seem low-key. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Why have a president?

Is there any reason why Britain would need a president as well as a prime minister when or if it becomes a republic? In the US they don't have a prime minister as well as a president; would Britain truely need a president when its already got a prime minister? Thanks. 2.97.208.37 (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It would depend on how they define the roles. In the US, there were bright lines drawn (or attempted to be drawn) between what the legislative, executival and judicial branches do. So perhaps Parliament would become more like the US House of Representatives, with the PM being strictly the majority leader or speaker of the house, and not the "president" as he is currently. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Presidents and Prime Ministers are very different things. The PM, for example, can get booted out at essentially any point. The President is insulated for the full four year term unless he commits some kind of crime. This little difference in and of itself changes the kind of political considerations those in the roles must take into account. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

No, Britain would not need to have a President if it became a republic... someone would need to be designated Head of state, but that could be the Prime Minister wearing a second hat. However, most Republics think it wiser to separate the legislative function (and powers) of government from the executive function (and powers). Having a President to head the Executive and a Prime Minister to head the legislature achieves this separation. Blueboar (talk) 13:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

That wisdom would apply equally well to a constitutional monarchy as to a republic. The UK doesn't have a separation of powers now and there would be no greater need for such a separation if we abolished the monarchy. --Tango (talk) 15:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Would the UK ever need an elected leader of a separate executive branch? Not unless drastic changes in the distribution of Parliament's power changed. The United Kingdom may need a "President" role in the sense that Australia requires a governor general, or the UK requires the Queen—a purely nominal role which solely takes advice from the Prime Minister as to extraordinary constitutional functions, and only acts upon that advice. For an example, consider the Republic of Ireland. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The addition of an (elected) President to replace the monarchy is the standard republican model. It's a checks-and-balances thing. Already, the PM here has more power than the heads of government in other countries, in fact, it's often mooted that the PM has more power over the UK than any other "western" head of government, particularly in terms of control of the military and control of the cabinet. Handing the last parts of power to him would make the concept of republicanism seem more extreme (which is generally bad for its acceptance here). Whilst I can't imagine the Queen using all of her powers, dissolving the government and calling elections certainly could happen in times of crisis. (I'm not sure who the military would listen to, but it would certainly help prevent the PM from using it to take dictatorial control.) So the powers she does hold are meaningful. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

if the monarcyh was abolished and a head of state wer e to be ste up its likely that the uk would have something like other commonwealth countries such as india and pakistan (with varying degress of power ut largely ceremonial), or even like that of germnay/france (the latter being much stronger for the prez)Lihaas (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

We wouldn't need the Queen to take unilateral action. Parliament could hold a vote of no confidence. The PM would then we required to resign. If the PM didn't do so, the Queen could step in then to order to enforce the will of parliament. --Tango (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

You mean she goes around number 10 and punches him until he resigns? I know she's famous for her right hook (that's why she's Queen) but she's in her eighties! 92.28.247.80 (talk) 20:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd pay to see that! However, it wouldn't be required - if the Queen says he's no longer PM, then he's no longer PM. There is no need for a resignation. --Tango (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Parliamentary governments generally need someone to exercise reserve powers, notably to decide whether to agree to a prime minister's request for a new election or allow the opposition to try to form a government. Without a president, there would have to be some kind of written constitutional law to govern what would happen in such cases, which would be hard to craft. As far as I know, the only parliamentary democracies without separate heads of state and government are Switzerland, which has a unique system of consensus government, and tiny San Marino. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 19:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• One of the criticisms about Britain's current political structure is that the functions of the Executive Branch are compounded with the Legislative branch; i.e. the people charged with insuring that the laws are followed are also the same people that pass the laws. This criticism has been labeled Elective dictatorship; in that the majority party in the House of Commons essentially has free reign to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, however it wants, with no checks on its power except its own internal politics. The "vote of no confidence" option to put pressure on the executive is negligible, since the Prime Minister is the head of the majority party in Parliament; presumably if he didn't have their confidence he wouldn't have been PM in the first place. --Jayron32 19:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

  Ensuring laws are followed is the job of the judiciary, not the executive (although there isn't complete separation of powers there, either). The "elective dictatorship" issue is a significant one, although it is hardly unique to the UK. The US president has the same level of dictatorial power as long as his party has a majority in Congress and they continue to support him. The fact that he isn't himself a member of Congress makes no difference. They only key difference is the existence of mid-term elections in the US. They allow the electorate to strip the president of a lot of power mid-way through his term in office. In the UK, we have to wait until the next general election. --Tango (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

In the very good short story Five Letters from the Eastern Empire by Alasdair Gray, the narrator eventually finds out that the Emporer is a wooden puppet. There's a lesson there. 92.28.247.80 (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• @Tango: The general way it works in the U.S. is that congress passes laws, the executive enforces them, and the judiciary makes sure they are being enforced. Think of it this way: Congress the legislative) passes a law that says that says that power plants must filter their smoke to remove sulfur oxides. The responsibility to actually check that power plants do this falls onto the Environmental Protection Agency, a branch of the executive branch, and answerable ultimately to the President. When the EPA finds that a company is in violation of the law, they take them to court, a part of the judicial branch. In the U.K., the roles played by the Congress and the EPA both lie with Parliament. In the U.S., these roles are defined constitutionally, and part of the framework of how our government is organized. Federalist No. 51 explains the rationale behind the American system. --Jayron32 20:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

  It occurs to me that the US approach can also tend to reduce the risk or the extent of the "tyranny of the majority" that's the achilles heel of the Parliamentary system. The mid-term elections give Americans the chance to "send a message" when a monolithic government has "gone too far" in the opinion of the electorate. That's what happened this past fall, and it also happened in 2006. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The U.S. and U.K. systems are quite different in that it is almost always much more difficult for a president to get his agenda through the legislature than it is for a British prime minister, even when the president's party has a majority in Congress. This is because there is very little party discipline in the U.S. compared with the U.K. In 2009-10, the Democrats had the White House, the House of Representatives and enough seats in the Senate to defeat a filibuster. Nonetheless, some of the president's priorities, such as restrictions on greenhouse gases and a "public option" for health insurance were not passed, and the rest of Obama's health plan was only passed with some legal bribery aimed at wavering members of the party caucus. Whether this is a good or bad thing depends on your point of view. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Poland has a president and a prime minister. Vespine (talk) 00:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Quite a few countries use the (possibly French-influenced?) dual heads system. Both the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China do as well. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I know it's been already linked to above, but what the OP really needs to read is the article Head of state. It has some issues, but should be good enough to explain the concept. Or if it's too much to read, here's a very crude explanation: the head of state is a ceremonial role, an embodiment of a nation. In some countries (called monarchies) the head of state has a monarchical title (emperor, king, prince, sultan, etc.); in others (called republics) the head of state is called president. In most countries this role is separated from the head of government (called prime miniter, premier, chancellor, etc.) who runs the executive branch of government. In some countries these two roles may be rolled into one; for example, the president of the United States is both the head of state and the head of government. — Kpalion 20:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I would disagree with your assertion, Kpalion. The head of state is NOT always purely ceremonial, some countries have both a president(head of state) and a prime minister(head of government), and they both have important roles within the system, and neither is particularly ceremonial or impotent. I think of France as one example, both the President of France and the Prime Minister of France have clearly defined, but vital, roles in the running of the French Republic. I would not call the role that the French President plays "ceremonial". It does happen in some states (like in the person of the President of Israel) that the Presidency is mostly ceremonial. However, I would not make a statement that any of the three systems (A: powerful President, U.S. style, B: divided executive, French Style, or C: ceremonial Presidency, Israel style) represents anything one might call a "norm". They are merely three different systems and one can find them all at work around the world. --Jayron32 20:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, Jayron, but I did write that mine was a very crude explanation and that more detail (including exceptions and intermediary forms) may be found in the article. — Kpalion 18:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see the role the Queen plays in UK government is simply to sign everything that is put in front of her. A waxworks dummy with a rubber stamp would have much lower running costs. You could employ an actress on the minimum wage to do all the ceremonial stuff. 92.15.20.127 (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Then you, sir or madam, know nothing of the matter. (Not that I'm a monarchist, mind you.) -- Jack of Oz 21:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

A similar system works very well in Disneyland. And can anyone supply a single instance of the Queen refusing to sign anything put in front of her? 92.15.3.59 (talk) 10:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not quite what you're looking for, but the Governor General of Canada (i.e. the Queen's local stand-in) has either refused or placed conditions on signing paperwork. Matt Deres (talk) 10:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Ontario Legislative Assembly seating plan

I notice that the current seating plan is much shorter than the past seating plan from the eighties and ninties. Were there some renovation going on? I mean the number of seats.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.150.27 (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

"Phoenix Four" report (UK)

Does anyone know if the 800-page report about Phoenix Venture Holdings and what they did with Rover cars is available to download anywhere? The report is described here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8250252.stm and elsewhere but I have not been able to find the usuial download page link. THanks 92.28.247.80 (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Is it this? My computer won't let me download it. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Have removed the end space from the URL. 92.29.117.251 (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

That is it - and Tammy's URL has a space (%20) on the end, which is why it's not working. 80.254.147.84 (talk) 19:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that is volume 2, 459 pages. That made it easy for me to find volume 1 here: http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/file52782.pdf 92.29.117.251 (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Why did Soviet ideology reject the steady-state theory and what was their alternative?

Soviet official ideology led to the rejection of the Big Bang cosmology as being a secular version of Creationism. However according to most sources "In fact, official Soviet astronomy rejected categorically both big bang and steady state cosmologies. Both were seen as equally absurd and idealistic." Why did the Soviets reject the steady-state model? And what was the 3rd alternative option, that they proposed as the solution? --Gary123 (talk) 22:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I think they rejected any theory of an expanding universe. I haven't been able to find any particularly good sources, but from a little googling it seems that they preferred Einstein's original formulation of general relativity with a cosmological constant stopping any expansion or contraction. How they squared that with observed red-shift of distant galaxies, I don't know. --Tango (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

"Aging photons" was a theory put forward, it seems - a bit odd, but you can construct something that fits if you try.

Two articles (on JSTOR, unfortunately) - Soviet Cosmology and Communist Ideology, 1955, and Soviet Philosophic-Cosmological Thought, 1958. The required premises seemed to be that a) the universe was infinite; b) the universe was eternal (would exist forever, had always existed); c) all matter and energy is infinite and inexhaustible, and has existed forever; d) the universe cannot mechanically "run down"; e) we cannot extrapolate physical laws from local research to the universe as a whole. Shimgray | talk | 23:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Point (e) is due to dialectical materialism, the Marxist-Leninist philosophy of science. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Ideology in the Soviet Union, while highly synchronised, was never homogenous or unitary. Some major theoretical approaches to the Soviet Union emphasise the necessity of synchronising ruling class ideology within the Soviet Union. The papers cited by Shimgray come amid a particularly heightened moment of ideological conflict within the Soviet ruling class. Largely this period saw remains of high Stalinism, combined with a heavy and light industry line debate within the Soviet Union. During the middle of this period both the "heavy" line experiment in Poland and the "light" line experiment in Hungary failed, leaving to civil unrest and revolution in both countries. Subsequently, the anti-party group in the Soviet Union (heavy line Stalinists) were publicly discredited. Given the importance of maintaining a high level of agreement amongst the ruling class about ideology, some areas of academic research were fundamentally compromised by the need for the ruling class for an internally consistent ideology. Ask the Leningrad avant garde literary circles in the late 40s about whether knowledge or political-economic interests of the ruling class came first? Fifelfoo (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

In any case, from what I remember reading, most areas of mathematics and physics got off with relatively light ideological supervision (especially after Stalin launched his crash atom-bomb effort). Mathematicians and physicists sometimes had to pay lip service to certain abstract dialectic principles, or issue general blanket condemnations of certain Western schools of thought that the Soviet government disapproved of, but this usually didn't significantly detract from their ability to present their research. I guess that grand cosmology might have been an exception because it had far more implications for philosophy and views of man's place in the universe than it did for useful weapons research... AnonMoos (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that Mathematics was fortunately abstruse enough to avoid too much Party scrutiny; and as you note, physicists got the bomb connection, which helped in some ways (while imposing new difficulties in others). Astronomy appears to have been hit particularly hard by the purges, though I don't know enough about that to know if that is just bad luck or because of some sort of good reason. In the abstract, I would expect them to have problems: 1. their work has very little obvious application here on Earth for the most part, 2. it easily touches on matters of grand philosophy or religion, 3. much of the information is popularizable enough that a Party philosopher hack would be able to take aim at it (unlike, say, pure mathematics). These sorts of things were hallmarks for trouble during the Stalin period. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The book Terror and Progress USSR: Some Sources of Change and Stability in the Soviet Dictatorship by Barrington Moore, Jr. contains an interesting account of Soviet control over the sciences until about 1953 (the book was published in 1954). The main areas of physics and mathematics under attack were Linus Pauling's resonance theory in physical chemistry (not pure physics), and certain aspects of statistical mathematics (by the enemies of Vasily Sergeevich Nemchinov). Any kind of fundamentally indeterministic or Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics was strongly antithetical to the Soviet philosophy of science, but working scientists in the Soviet Union ca. 1950 made frequent use of the equations of quantum mechanics without suffering any reprisals.

It seems that both areas with philosophical implications (e.g. cosmology) and also areas with high-stakes practical implications (e.g. agricultural science) could attract ideological interventions... AnonMoos (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

May 9

Why is Pres. Obama so disliked?

I'll admit that I don't pay attention to politics in America as much as I should, but why do people dislike Pres. Obama? I saw a professional looking drawing with Obama's picture and the words "WORST. PRESIDENT. EVER." printed underneath of it the other day. I also heard on the news how his approval rating has been dropping before the Osama thing. I remember his campaign promise was "change," and from what I have noticed, he has tried to change things like the economy via stimulus packages and health care. The way he went about this may not agree with everyone, but at least he has tried. Are people mad at him because he didn't instantly clear up problems that took years to accumulate like they had hoped? Then there is the whole birth certificate thing. It really seems like people are going out of their way to try and discredit him. I know some of the animosity has to be coming from his race, but not all of it. Can someone please explain the whole deal? Thank you. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

There's several sources of the problem. The first is the bubbling undercurrent of racism, which in America is far worse than anyone admits. That certainly doesn't account for all of the dislike, but it accounts for more dislike than most people are comfortable in admitting. The entire "birther" bullshit is essentially racist at its core: He's different than "us", so he must be illegitimate. The second issue is that there is a concerted effort by the conservative press in America to discredit him. It isn't necessarily based on his policies; the conservative press starts with the premise that he is wrong, and then secondly finds something for him to be wrong about. The third issue is that many people who voted for him feel that he's betrayed them. Many of the people who voted for him were first-time voters, who were previously disillusioned by the political process and saw Obama as a vibrant leader who would fight the establishment with the same vigor that the establishment seemed to want to fuck the populace. What they got was a milquetoast leader who caves at every sign of opposition. The people who are Obama's political opponents don't pull any punches, when they want something, the go and do it, public opinion be damned. That Obama doesn't act the same way is perhaps part of the problem, he's too willing to compromise with an opposition who itself has stated that they will never compromise. That's a recipe for disaster. --Jayron32 00:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 14:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

There are a lot of things at issue here, but I find it useful to distinguish between the die-hard anti-Obama people (the Tea Partiers, the Birthers, etc.), who would probably not like the guy even if he happened to be Jesus Christ himself (for a variety of reasons related to class, race, and education), and the average, middle of the road Americans. (Tea Partier and Birthers are a small percentage of overall Americans, even if they are a sizeable percentage of the Republican Party — and only 20% or so Americans self-identify as Republicans.) The huge majority of opinion on Obama is tied to perceptions on the economy. The economy isn't doing well. Even when the numbers say it is improving (in some sectors), the average experience has not greatly improved. If the economy swings around, Obama will find himself a very popular President (except amongst those who are going to hate him no matter what). If it doesn't, he's going to have a harder time. This is the case with basically all Presidents in modern times. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Many presidents considered to be excellent leaders have been reviled by their opponents. Lincoln and FDR come to mind immediately. And you're right, a president's popularity is driven by how the voters feel about the general situation, particularly their own situation. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I am at the moment (and have been) an Obama supporter, though not a die-hard Obama supporter. I think that the frustrations I have observed with him (other than what seems to be a huge portion of the local population who hate him on principle) are that he doesn't seem to be able to get anything done. Granted, he has done a lot, but from the ground here in the US, it seems that his every effort is blocked by congress. To say that his opposition won't compromise is almost an understatement. They are sticking to their guns (literally and figuratively) to an extreme. I think it's fair to say that that's more fact than opinion, as I have heard the GOP say many times that they will not compromise. I think that there has been a lot of disillusionment, and a vague sense that the US cannot and will not recover from the current economic crisis, especially with Obama's "spending policies". A lot of opponents wish to reduce the deficit by cutting taxes. Obama wants to reduce the deficit by raising taxes on the wealthier portions of the population (or, at least end tax breaks for them). Even though I don't agree with some of Obama's policies (I will not say which ones), I have never had the sense that he is a malevolent leader. Yet, many people feel that he is willfully attempting to destroy the country, hates America, and, according to some, is the Antichrist. Naturally these people will counter his every move. I personally get a good feeling about his intentions, even though he clearly has made mistakes (name a leader who hasn't...). I regret to say that in my observations, at least half of the US has been ruled by a cold fear for the past ten years (since 9/11), and I think that this overarching fear may be responsible for a lot of the dislike of Obama. Falconus 02:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

By the way, if any people opposed to Obama disagree with something I said, it's fine to say what you think the underlying causes are, but don't expect me to debate you on the Reference Desk. I won't :-). Falconus 02:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Obama is not especially disliked. The remarkable thing about Obama's administration so far is that his approval ratings are still higher than what might be reasonably expected. Gas was about $1.80 per gallon when he took office; now it's $4.00. His party pushed a health care plan through Congress that more people opposed than favored. He ran as essentially a peace candidate, but got the US involved in another war. Unemployment is at about 9%. Government spending and debt is going up up up. He often seems emotionally remote, and is less accessible than previous presidents. All of this could have produced low approval ratings. And yet his approval ratings are not as low as the lowest points reached by most presidents in the last 65 years. If we're coming out of recession, his ratings will probably rise. The death of bin Laden and the winding down of old wars should drive up his ratings even more. It's hard to measure vitriol, but the anti-Obama rhetoric seems to be nowhere as near as strong as during Bush II. The race issue, while a part of the equation, is also hard to measure, and has probably been greatly exaggerated. As one columnist aptly put it: "Barack Obama is at least the third consecutive president to be the subject of paranoid conspiracy theories, and it strikes us as odd that anyone who lived through the Clinton and Bush years would automatically assume it must be because he's black."

So Obama supporters need not fear. He's doing better with the public than might be expected, and has a good chance of regaining ground in the next two years. —Kevin Myers 02:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Internationally, Obama is to the right of much of the international political consensus, leading to ideological opposition to Obama. Right wing international consenses often oppose Obama on religious or nationalist issues (consider pan-Islamic right wing political consenses, or Russian nationalism). Further, internationally, there is a significant generalised anti-Americanism. In most cases this anti-Americanism can be reduced to the role of the US as an international hegemon and great power. In cases of anti-Americanism, this sentiment can attach to Obama as head of state or as an exemplifying example of the American. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see figures on Obama's international approval. Before his election, polls outside the US were in his favour in around a 70:30 ratio, very different from within the USA. Can't see why that would have changed all that much. HiLo48 (talk) 10:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The polls you refer to were two party preferred, not approval ratings. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I guess they were, but there was still a much more pro-Obama "vote" outside the USA than within. Again, I cannot see that such views would have changed all that much, but I would like to see figures. HiLo48 (talk) 10:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I would too; I was trying to explain the reasons people oppose Obama internationally; rather than the prevalence of opposing Obama internationally. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It's funny to see Obama labeled as being "to the right" of anything. He had the most liberal (by American standards) voting record in the Senate during his tenure, or so his opponents always claimed. If the average Europeans are to the left of that, it's no wonder that the dislike of European politicians for American politicians is also vice-versa. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

By international standards, most of the Democratic Party (Obama, Hilary, Biden, Lieberman) is right of center, and most of the Republican Party is far right. There are only a few left-wing Democrats, like Kucinich and Mike Gravel. I have to laugh out loud whenever Teabaggers call Obama a socialist; they clearly either have no idea what his politics are, or what socialism is, or both. I've long wanted to get a bumper sticker printed up with the slogan "AN EAGLE CAN'T FLY WITH TWO RIGHT WINGS" (with an appropriate picture, except I can't draw) to protest the absence of any serious left wing in America. But as you can tell from my userboxes, I think the difference between Obama and his predecessor is only skin-color-deep; otherwise they're two peas in a pod. Pais (talk) 15:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Back in 1968, when comedian Pat Paulsen ran a mock presidential campaign, he was asked whether he was right-wing or left-wing. He remarked that he was "more like middle-of-the-bird; with just a left wing or a right wing, you tend to fly around in circles." Nothing changes. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, when Jim Hightower was asked why he supported Jesse Jackson's for president rather than a more moderate candidate, he said "There's nothing in the middle of the road but yellow lines and dead armadillos." —Angr (talk) 21:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

From this side of the Atlantic it seems that Obama is hated by his Republican opposition with much greater vitriol than Bush was hated by the Democrats. Of course they don't actually say it is because he is black, but instead find other reasons including the frankly ridiculous claims of the birthers. The same could be said of the previous Democrat president when Ken Starr failed to get Clinton removed after the Lewinsky affair, so tried again with the Whitewater scandal. We have a brief article on this "vast right-wing conspiracy" that seems interesting on first read. It does seem to me that the Republicans are much better able to motivate such campaigns than the Democrats are. Astronaut (talk) 15:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, no. Democrats (of which I am one) will strongly argue that we hated George Dubious Bush much more than anyone could possibly hate President Obama. Moreover, we had REASONS. DOR (HK) (talk) 20:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The vitriol expressed against Obama is nothing new in American society. Just look at what was said about both Adams and Jefferson when they were President... much worse than anything said about Obama (or Bush). Jackson was vilified for his stance the Second Bank of the US, Lincoln was vilified during the Civil War. My grand-father refused to even mention the name Roosevelt (he was "that man"... and TR was "that man" to my great-grand-father). Conspiracy theories are not new... Obama has the birthers, Bush had the truthers. About the only President to escape vitriol during his term was Washington (and even he was not completely exempt.) Blueboar (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

If Obama had the magic solution to the problems of US economy, everybody in the US would love him, even the racists. As he does not, he can always settle for the next magic solution: blame someone else for the national problems, specially if it's from foreign countries, and then he will be supported against the "foreign threat". From the weakest banana republic to the most powerful superpower, populations are always ready to buy the story of "everything would be perfect, if X wasn't standing in our way..." Cambalachero (talk) 21:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The original question itself is pretty subjective. To my knowledge, there are no polls that ask, "Do you like President Obama? Why or why not?" I think it would be more beneficial to ask why so many people disagree with his policies. I staunchly disagree with almost all of what he does, but I don't dislike him. I'm sure he's a caring father and a good husband who is doing what he thinks is right for the United States-- I just disagree with what that is. If he were my next-door neighbor, I'm sure we'd get along just fine.

I also disagree with the syllogism that has become fashionable, that since critics of the president are racist, and since I disagree with the president, I must be a racist. There are a thousand minute variations to this fallacy, but Jayron's assertion that "the entire "birther" b***s*** is essentially racist at its core" is a good illustration. Why is it racist to want proof that the president is eligible for his office? It might for some, but to me, it has nothing to do with race. It has simply to do with the Constitution. I think that every candidate should provide his long-form (or equivalent) birth certificate from the get-go.

But as far as a specific answer to the question-- reading a few articles by Victor Davis Hanson or Thomas Sowell would probably be a good start. Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 15:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

While you are perhaps right to say every candidate should provide evidence th::at he/she is eligible for the job, how come this was never an issue until Obama was elected. I don't recall any other president being asked to provide evidence of their eligibility for the job after they were elected. It seems like Obama is the first african-american to be elected president and he is also the first president for whom doubts have been expressed about his eligibility for the job. Astronaut (talk) 06:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You apparently missed (or have forgotten about) the extensive questions raised about McCain's eligibility for the office, which predated (and presumably inspired) the Obama birther controversy. See, for example, "McCain’s Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries About Whether That Rules Him Out", from the New York Times, February 28, 2008. There were fringe legal challenges to McCain's eligibility; had he won the election, there would have presumably been more. (And no one would have cried "racism!") Because the legal definition of a "natural-born citizen" is somewhat hazy, as the Times article makes clear, there were "birther" controversies before Obama. (See Citizenship requirements for President of the United States#Presidential candidates whose eligibility was questioned). Since Obama's father was not a US citizen, his case is at least as problematic as some of those previous controversies. The irrational birther conspiracy theories, and the knee-jerk (and almost equally irrational) accusations of racism, are both red herrings that obscure the offbeat history of presidential citizenship controversies. The earliest president to have a fringe birther charge against him, by the way, is Andrew Jackson. —Kevin Myers 08:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't notice that each of the presidential candidates -- from both parties -- answered the question of whether Sen. McCain was eligible to be president in the affirmative. The same cannot be said about actual 2008, current, or obvious candidates for the 2012 election. And, with the sole exception of diplomats, there isn't really any question of a person born in one of the 50 states (which is where Andy Jackson's issue arose) being eligible for the presidency. The senior Mr Obama's citizenship is an irrelevant distraction. DOR (HK) (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't quite parse your first two sentences, so I'm not sure if you're addressing me or someone else, but I think it's safe to say that all of the citizenship "coverup" theories, from Jackson to Arthur to Obama, have been irrelevant distractions. This is a history of fringe ideas. Perhaps the most recent precedent for the dubious "father not a citizen" angle dates to the election of 1916. Democratic lawyer Breckinridge Long questioned the eligibility of Republican candidate Charles Evans Hughes, arguing that although Hughes was born in the US, his father's British citizenship meant that Hughes had a dual nationality at birth, and therefore didn't fit the definition of a "natural-born citizen". —Kevin Myers 07:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Most marriages

Which man and woman have most marriages (in serial monogamy system)? --HoulGhostjj (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I googled and the first item that came up was a 2009 entry about a women who had been married 23 times and was considering number 24. Among notables, folks like Elizabeth Taylor and Tommy Manville come to mind. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Also Artie Shaw, who can't compete with the above woman though! --TammyMoet (talk) 11:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

So the record holder among women has 23 marriages, who is the record holder among men? --HoulGhostjj (talk) 12:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Have you looked in Google? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

French colonial empire and others

I notice that a lot of Indians went to places that were ruled by the British because they were ruled by the British. So, I am interested in whether Lebanese, Syrians, Cambodians, Vietnamese, and Laotians ever went to places that were ruled by the French because they were ruled by the French like French Africa? Also, how many Indonesians went to Suriname? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.153.5 (talk) 01:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

See Demographics of Suriname for more info. - Bob —Preceding unsigned comment added by RNajdek (talk • contribs) 02:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there were definitely such movements. But no mass migration of Indochinese to West Africa, though. Also, Lebanese immigration to West Africa was not 100% colonial import, the Lebanese also settled in the British colonies as well. --Soman (talk) 02:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the French authorities helped a few of their Hmong allies leave Vietnam (and possibly other parts of their Indochinese Empire) to settle in French Guiana in South America. There is a 2004 BBC article and a 2005 academic paper. BrainyBabe (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Also see Arab diaspora, and, if you have the patience, drill down into "Category:Ethnic groups by country". BrainyBabe (talk) 12:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow, 15% Javanese in Suriname. I didn't know the percentage was that high. 80.123.210.172 (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the OP asked that because Nabih Berri, leader of Amal Movement of Lebanon was born in Africa and Maria Hourani, Bloc Quebecois MP was born in Cote d'Ivoire. That is why he wanted to know that.

Rahner and Man as Transcendant Being

I am trying to find out how exactly Karl Rahner, the German theologian, connects his ideas on man's knowledge of God with man's transcendence. I usually do not read much about Catholic theology, but Rahner interests me. I am working with his Foundations of the Christian Faith. Any ideas/suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RNajdek (talk • contribs) 02:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in Canada

What was the purpose of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's visit to Canada? ] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.153.5 (talk) 02:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The visit occured in 1976. It is mentioned in Pakistan-Canada relations, 1947-1982: a brief survey and http://books.google.com/books?id=5H9CAAAAYAAJ , but I can't access preview of these works at google books. --Soman (talk) 03:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Pierre Trudeau Bangladesh 1971

What did Pierre Trudeau say about the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.153.5 (talk) 03:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

see http://books.google.com/books?id=reImvhYQ200C&pg=PA226 --Soman (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Monarchs of Portugal

Does historian number the Monarchs of Portugal? Not regnal numbers but their positions in the line of monarchs. Do the Portuguese number their monarchs in history like Pedro V is the 31st or 32nd King of Portugal or is it something that a[REDACTED] editor just mention for the fun of it?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 05:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that its a surprising thing to be able to "count forward" from the first King of Portugal. --Jayron32 05:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not surprising but I think this is invented for Misplaced Pages. It's not just the Portuguese, I think this user (if it's the same user) is adding that info to all monarch articles. It's already happened on the Roman/Byzantine emperor articles, where it is far more dubious (along with a number of other dubious things that editor added). Adam Bishop (talk) 06:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Hungarian central office for book revision

I read in doi:10.1017/S0067237800016337 about a Hungarian "central office for book revision", but can't find anything beside this single google book snippet. For how long did such an office publicly exist?Smallman12q (talk) 12:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Seceding from the Union

Have there been any opinion polls conducted in individual states asking Americans if they would be happy for their state to secede from the union. I'm thinking in particular of some of the southern states and whether there remains a strong State self identity where many of them may still feel a stronger affinity with their State, or southern states as a whole, than with their country. Carson101 (talk) 13:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

If I recall, Alaska had/has a political party with that on their agenda and it got more support then most 3rd parties in the US tend to get. Googlemeister (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

There's a Texas Secession Movement, but I don't think many people take it seriously. Pais (talk) 13:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The idea that States can secede from the Union was settled by the Civil War... most people accept this. Yes, there are fringe secession movements from time to time, but they never gain enough support to be taken seriously. Blueboar (talk) 13:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm interested in the Alaskan political party. If the unlikely were to happen and they won what would be the consequences? If I understand you right Blueboar, no matter if a secession party won a state election their aims would be dismissed due to the constitution. Would that be right? Carson101 (talk) 13:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Apparently so; see Texas v. White, a case where the U.S. Supreme Court "held that the Constitution did not permit states to secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were 'absolutely null'." Pais (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You might also want to read Secession in the United States if you haven't yet. Pais (talk) 14:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, in Texas v. White, the court seemed to leave the option of secession by (successful) revolution or by consent of (all) the states open, so maybe if Alaska had a successful War of Independence, or if the other 49 states decided they were glad to see the back of Alaska too, then it could secede. I'm imagining the other states saying, "Don't let the door hit you on the Panhandle on the way out!" Pais (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The Alaskan Independence Party has actually won a gubernatorial election, though their candidate was AIP in name only, and he rejoined the Republican party late in his term. The AIP's central point is that Alaskans were offered a false choice - remain a territory, or become a state. They want a referendum with four options, similar to Puerto Rico's votes: Remain a territory, become a state, become a commonwealth, or become independent. However, right now, I would say any support for any state seceding is well below 5%. (However, depending on when the poll is conducted, up to 20% of Quebecois have stated they would like their province to join the United States, though when offered the chance, only 0.11% voted that way) --Golbez (talk) 14:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Legally speaking, the most a state could do would be to petition the Congress for permission to secede (or otherwise change their status, as Golbez notes). In the unlikely event that Congress granted their request, the citizens might feel good for a day or two, and then a whole host of problems would likely arise for that state - starting with the fact that the citizens who didn't want to secede would probably leave. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The Hawaiian sovereignty movement. -- kainaw™ 14:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Also see the recent secession movement in the Northwest Angle. It is, both population-wise and area-wise, a rather insignificant slice of the U.S., but its efforts at secession, which have been supported by their Congressman, are significant if only as a precedent. Alas, the issue likely will never be resolved since Congress probably has better things to do than to deal with what amounts to the fishing rights of 150-odd people. But its a real example from very recent history, and it bears mentioning. --Jayron32 16:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Not the same issue, but there is a secessionist movement in Southern Arizona to break from Arizona and become a new state (they don't intend to secede from the USA, just from the state of Arizona). Staecker (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Carson, there have indeed been recent public opinion polls on the subject, showing various results. See April 2010 survey (Pew); April 2009 (Texas - Rasmussen); July 2008 (Middlebury Institute/Zogby); April 2009 (Texas - Daily Kos/Research 2000); and 2006 (University of Vermont Center for Rural Studies). Neutrality 03:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Seccession from the Union, isn't possible. The people can leave, but they can't take the land with'em. GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all the replies guys. That's just about answered everything I wanted to know, although I'm not sure about the last reply. People seceding from the union without their land!? Carson101 (talk) 17:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

In case anyone is still paying attention to this question, there is also the Second Vermont Republic and Killington, Vermont secession movement. Dismas| 03:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Does anything matter in the big picture?

A look at the outside of our planet shows how trivial our planet is (and we human beings are), and a look at the galaxy shows how trivial our solar system is. A further look at the universe shows our galaxy itself is so trivial. Earth, along with its living being that includes humans, will be destroyed within 5 billion years. So at last nothing will be left as we see the world today. If destruction and complete annihilation is our ultimate faith, then why do we create concepts such as Good and evil, Truth, Morality etc. Why we define something supposed productive (such as scientists, artists, industrialization, technology) as good and something supposed destructive (environmental degradation, war) as bad if our ultimate fate is destruction? Is not the truth we perceive is different from the truth how things happen in the universe? --Peacolkoldzx (talk) 14:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Ethics and morality may be insignificant to the heat death of the universe in 50 billion years, but highly relevant to the question of how you should interact with your fellow-dwellers on planet earth right now. AnonMoos (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Excellent answer. The eventual possible extinction of the universe is irrelevant. The here and now is what's relevant. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) That is exactly my question. "how you should interact with your fellow-dwellers" - you are suggesting there should be pre-determined way to define this "how". And that pre-determined way is called morality. But if it is pre-determined there is nothing productive in the universe (as well as nothing destructive), what is the purpose for creating that pre-determined way? --Peacolkoldzx (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Answering your question is the primary purpose of religion, giving people a sense of purpose so that they behave in ways that aren't harmful to themselves or others. Your particular sense of tension (if there is no religion, and we're all going to die anyways, and the entire universe isn't going to exist at some specific time in the future, so why bother with anything) is the core of the philosophy known as Nihilism. You may find such readings interesting. --Jayron32 15:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Religion, good/evil, morality, etc... are concepts formed long before humans had any good conceptual model of the universe. So, it is rather silly to assume that our current models of the universe could somehow shove backwards a few thousand years and change all of studies in humanities. -- kainaw™ 14:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: I have renamed this question "Does anything matter in the big picture?" since the instructions say not to call your question "Question". If anyone objects that the title doesn't correspond to the actual question, blame me, not the OP! Pais (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

And I have added an "anchor" statement so as not to break links. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Pondering concepts like ethics and morality may help humanity reach a state of cooperation that will allow our species to survive the inevitable destruction of the earth. Blueboar (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It is the job of all intelligence to escape the cycle. The sun, absent manipulation, will be dead in 5 billion years, the Earth with it, had we not towed it to a safe distance millennia earlier, or managed the sun to extend its life even further. The universe will die, one way or another, within 15 billion years, but that is of no concern to an intelligence that had escaped its shackles billions of years earlier. So do not concern you with some far-off future; it is far different than anything you can imagine. --Golbez (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

And, of course, for those who believe in a life after death (be it in a heaven/hell form or through reincarnation), questions of ethics and morality are often seen as being determinants in what will happen to you in that afterlife. Blueboar (talk) 15:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The OP's questions about something being "predetermined" perhaps unwittingly suggests "intelligent design" on some level. Considering that written human history is maybe 5 thousand years old, which seems like a very long time, there's no point worrying about something that might happen after a million more of those 5 thousand year spans. Nature is not inherently "predetermined". It evolves to whatever it happens to evolve too... and generally lives for the here and now. The exception is humankind. I think it was Stephen Jay Gould who said, "Man is the only animal that worries about the future; so we invented God, to take care of the future for us." And since we can think about things beyond where the next meal is coming from, nothing need be "predetermined"... we can believe that there is a benevolent being of some kind watching over us... and we can also affect the course of our species to an extent that other animals cannot. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

As vast as the universe is, human beings cannot imagine life going on when they no longer exist. Each individual is, as far as their mind can fathom, the centre of the universe until his or her eventual demise. When we look at the moon and stars we really think they are shining for us, and the sun is up there to give us warmth.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

That's the blessing/curse of having a big brain. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Speak for yourself. --Golbez (talk) 16:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. We are egocentric. Can you honestly picture your everyday world without it being viewed from your own eyes?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Outer Space, has always been & always shall be, as it's a vast nothingness. The human experience is random, life has no meaning. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Pass me that bottle of Jack Daniels. I feel the need to get verrrry drunk--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Life has whatever meaning you decide to make of it. That's "free will", don'cha know. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Science asks "how?" ... Religion asks "why?". Different questions result in different answers. No incongruity.

This dialogue may address some of the questions raised here. This is from Play It Again, Sam. Allan (Woody Allen) is observing a painting along with a cute but unsmiling woman:

Allan: That's quite a lovely Jackson Pollock, isn't it?

Woman: Yes, it is.

Allan: What does it say to you?

Woman: It restates the negativeness of the universe. The hideous lonely emptiness of existence. Nothingness. The predicament of man forced to live in a barren, godless eternity like a tiny flame flickering in an immense void with nothing but waste, horror, and degradation, forming a useless, bleak straitjacket in a black, absurd cosmos.

Allan: What are you doing Saturday night?

Woman: Committing suicide.

Allan: What about Friday night?
←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Those Who Know About These Things always say it's not about the destination, but about the journey. So temporarily put aside the heat death of the universe in 50 billion years time, and just enjoy the ride and admire the passing scenery and have interesting experiences with random strangers you encounter along the way. If you're focussing on those things, they matter. -- Jack of Oz 21:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

As a colleague of mine used to say, "The purpose of life is to live." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

There's something to that — the past aeon of evolution has made sure that suicide isn't selected for in the gene pool, so, indeed, at some level, most living things have to live as a central motive. Anyway, yes, the nihilism article will be of interest to the original poster, as will the fact that the eventual heat death of the universe isn't proven. It would be sort of sad to live out the next eighty years in a nihilistic funk over this, only to read on the front page of the newspaper, "Heat Death of the Universe Disproven!" (For most people throughout history, plain old death has been enough to be the motive for an existential funk.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Prank calls in Germany

Since one - and only one - Hitler is listed at telefonbuch.de (German phone guide), I imagine that every German teenager would have already called him and said: "hey, Hitler." How can he put up with that? Quest09 (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the Nazi salute is illegal in Germany, so no, not many will do that. 80.58.205.34 (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The Nazi salute is Heil Hitler, not "Hey, Hitler", and while it's illegal to use in most contexts, I don't think a prank caller would be concerned with a question of legality (and most probably no public prosecutor would go after individual prank callers, anyways). So this is not a good explanation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe Quest09 would care to explain (a) why s/he thinks that "every German teenager would have already called him" and (b) how anybody here could possibly know how the people at that phone number can put up with that. And please do not call them and ask them. --Wrongfilter (talk) 17:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It's possible Hitler is not even the person's real name and he/she just put it there for a joke or to seek attention via prank calls.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The point is that many non-Germans traveling to Germany think that it's funny to do the Nazi salute (see here: . But, Germans would try to avoid anything that could be associated with the Nazi regime. So, it would be more probable that some British teenager called this Hitler. Wikiweek (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if they call him and ask, "Ist deine refrigerator running?" ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Would that pun work in German? Googlemeister (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure it works in English. DuncanHill (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

"Is your refrigerator running?" "Yes." "Well, you'd better go catch it!" ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh god... DuncanHill (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

If it ran all the way to Holland, would it be a Fridge Too Far? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I was hoping maybe a German-speaker might pop up here. I should take this to the language desk. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The user Angr says a good translation would be, "Läuft Ihr Kühlschrank gerade?" ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Is it just me or does anyone else feel that the OP has quite possibly set up an innocent person in Germany for potential harassment by this rhetorical question? What's more, it's a question that cannot be answered. I think an administrator should close this as soon as possible.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Spirituality for non-religious people

Can you have spirituality if you are atheist/agnostic/materialist or something in this direction? Quest09 (talk) 16:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

See Spirituality: Secular spirituality denotes various attempts to recognize aspects of life and human experience which are not captured by a purely materialist or mechanistic view of the world, but without accepting belief in the supernatural. Bielle (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

There's even a church that welcomes such people: Unitarian Universalism.--TammyMoet (talk) 17:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You often hear people say "I'm spiritual, but not religious". Our article on Justin Timberlake says he's said that of himself. Personally, I often feel like reversing that and saying, "I'm religious, but not spiritual". —Angr (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Comedian Daniel Tosh has an interesting take on this... He says something to the effect "When a girl says to me "I'm not religious, but I'm spiritual", I reply "I'm not honest, but you're interesting". --Jayron32 20:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Seek Author, title(s) english children's book(s) circa 1940's

Books were about the adventures of a group of english children usually during vacations sometimes involving small boats by an author other than arthur ransomeFrankpasadena (talk) 18:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Minnow on the Say by Philippa Pearce.BrainyBabe (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Many by Enid Blyton, but try Five on a Treasure Island (1942). Ericoides (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for response.

Phillippa pearce did not exist until 1955 Enid blyton in my memory wrote for the six to ten year old children and younger Readers of Biggles and possibly just william might recollect the authur/books i am seeking (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

So six- to ten-year-old children aren't children? Perhaps if you were a bit more precise we might be able to help you. As the question stands, Blyton fits the bill perfectly. Ericoides (talk) 13:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Inauguration of presidents

We would say the "wedding of Charles, Prince of Wales, to Lady Diana Spencer" rather than "the wedding of Charles, Prince of Wales, to Diana, Princess of Wales", on the principle that he wasn't marrying a princess. So is it correct to say, eg, the "inauguration of Barack Obama" or the "inauguration of President Barack Obama" for the swearing-in ceremony? Ericoides (talk) 19:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd go with the former, but not strongly enough to create an edit war over it. --Jayron32 19:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

"Inauguration of President-elect Obama" comes to mind also. However, the word "inauguration" means "installation". He doesn't need to be installed as President-elect, because he already is President-elect. He also doesn't need to be installed as Barack Obama, because he already is Barack Obama. He's going to be installed as President. So "inauguration of President Obama" works. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest "the inauguration of Barack Obama as President" is best. Blueboar (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

But he already is President. He becomes President at precisely noon, because the Constitution says so. The inauguration ceremony, which takes place a little time after noon, is to allow him to execute the duties of President. If in some bizarre scenario he refused to attend the swearing-in, he wouldn't be able to do anything in terms of running the country, but he would still be President. -- Jack of Oz 21:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... I am not so sure about that. The Presidency is not like the English Monarchy (where the second Queen Eleizabeth II dies, Prince Charles will instantly become King Charles III). The 20th Amendment says the out going President's term ends at noon... but it does not say that the new President's term starts at noon... Article 2 section 1 can be interpreted as saying that the new President's term starts when he takes the oath. If the President Elect refuses or is unable to be sworn in, but the Vice President Elect is sworn in... it could be argued that the (now sworn) Vice President should act as President (pending his taking the Presidential Oath... at which point he becomes President). Blueboar (talk) 22:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

If I may interject a question at this point - did that situation obtain this time round? Inauguration of Barack Obama doesn't cover it, but was Biden actually (or, at least, de jure) President between 12 noon on the 20th and Obama taking the oath properly on the 21st? 80.254.147.84 (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a picky point: Charles will indeed become King at that point, but can choose what name he wants to take. I doubt somehow that he will take the regnal name "Charles", because neither of his predecessors by that name covered themselves in glory exactly - my money's on George VII. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Is he required to use one of his given names as his regnal name? Does he have to be King Charles or King Philip or King Arthur or King George? Or could he take some other name if he wants, such as King Victor in honor of his illustrious ancestress? Pais (talk) 09:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I've had a look back at each monarch from Henry VIII and can't find one that hasn't taken one of their given names, which doesn't answer the question but tends to suggest he has to take one of his given names. I'm off to work shortly so maybe someone else can have a look at this. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

See Regnal name#United Kingdom for more information. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Which says the same thing: everyone has taken one of their baptismal names, but no indication of whether they're required to. Perhaps they're bound by tradition rather than law. Sort of like the Pope, only in reverse: there was no law preventing him from being Pope Joseph or Pope Aloisius, it's just traditional for the Pope to take a regnal name that's different from his baptismal name. Pais (talk) 12:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It sort of says so. Our article Oath of office of the President of the United States touches on the uncertainties, which cannot be resolved definitively because the problem has never come up, and so no ruling has ever been made by a federal judge. I'd add that the problem will never come up in the future, either, so the uncertainties are unlikely to ever be resolved definitively unless the 20th Amendment is superseded by a new amendment. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

In theory, the President-elect could take the oath the day after the election. It just wouldn't take effect until Jan 20. That's essentially what they do with the VP, as he takes the oath prior to noon, so that the presidency is covered just in case the new president croaks after the clock strikes noon. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

See Steve Baker's first post at Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 January 22#That Bungled Presidential Oath. -- Jack of Oz 20:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to give some context to the question, it relates to a DYK hook I wrote (... that Jacqueline Kennedy wore her pink Chanel suit (pictured) at the inauguration of President Lyndon B. Johnson despite it being stained with her husband's blood?) that is now in the DYK queue. I looked at it yesterday and worried that it was incorrect and was worth trying to get amended by an admin. My sense from the discussion here is that it might well be, but that it is not embarrassingly wrong... Ericoides (talk) 06:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be "despite its being stained"? Pais (talk) 08:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes it should, and that is how I wrote it but someone changed it. I'll try and get it changed back to its. Ericoides (talk)

Again... My suggestion would be: "... at the inauguration of Lyndon B. Johnson as President ..." But I don't think it is really important enough to make an issue of it. Blueboar (talk) 15:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

"The inauguration of Barack Obama" is best. President is a title, not a name. GoodDay (talk) 23:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Police procedure

Please note: this is not a question about television shows in themselves, but uses them as a reference point for asking a question about the real world, which is, I feel, appropriate to this desk.

I've always noticed on tv cop shows, especially City Homicide, detectives will question a suspect and try to imply guilt as quickly as possible. Is it anything like this in real life? Do detectives make conclusions based on circumstantial evidence and just state to the accused what they believe they have done, as if it were established, hoping for a quick confession? If not, do they have other ways of implying guilt more subtly and seeking a confession? It's been emotional (talk) 19:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure what they are supposed to do, but the North Carolina SBI got into a heap of trouble because they tried a little too hard to prove guilt, using procedures that were known to be flawed (something to do with comparing bullet to the barrel of the gun to try to match them). Their handbook reportedly covered submitting stuff to aid the prosecution, but did not mention the defense. One of the worst things they did was allow a man with an IQ of 50 to be charged with murder when the confession he "dictated" involved things that he was not capable of, based on his intelligence, according to personal and clinical notes of people who knew/worked with him. The sentences were too advanced for him, and he made a reference to stealing a $20 bill, when normally he would not be able to differentiate between one denomination and another. I think with our SBI, they had the mindset that they were supposed to prove guilt, and they somehow failed if they didn't. Nice fair legal system for you. Falconus 20:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't exactly answer your question. But it's closely related and an interested read. : The Straight Dope : What Can the Police Lie About While Conducting an Interrogation?

Hope this helps. APL (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Just an observation: in the UK, the we-know-this-guy-did-it method is something I associate with the 1970s/early 80s policing, as in The Sweeney and Ashes to Ashes (TV series). Basically anything was OK so long as you got the right man. From all accounts, the sort of wholesale fabrication of evidence, completely unfair lineups, etc. are in the past. Proper procedure is the name of the game. Of course, that doesn't prevent the sort of thing you're talking about, but it is certainly indicative of a change in mentality. Not sure on the specifics here, though. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Small, so as not to drag off-topic. This is what made me so cross with the American remake of Life on Mars (TV series) that I stopped watching after the first episode (spoilers). In the British version, Sam is absolutely convinced that Colin Raimes did it, but that he is shackled by following proper procedure which prevents him from just getting the guy his gut is telling him did it. If only he didn't have to include a lawyer and social worker in the interview, who stopped him browbeating the vulnerable (and creepy) suspect into confessing. But, by the end of the first episode, we find that Colin Raimes is innocent. Completely and utterly innocent: he didn't do it. Sam had the wrong guy, and proper procedure prevented a miscarriage of justice. This is important, because Gene's version of policing can look appealing without that sort of reality check. In the American remake, turns out Colin Raimes did it. Yeah, identical twin brother or whatever. I am not interested in a show with Gene Hunt where Colin Raimes was guilty. 86.166.40.199 (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The most interesting bit of data I've seen on police procedure is the "reality" show The First 48. It's on Netflix, if you have it. The few episodes I saw really made me feel that I was seeing things the way the cops did, and saw how they went about trying to figure out what happened, the blind alleys they went down, the eventual successes, etc. I'm sure the genre itself imposes a lot of bias on it, but it seems far more plausible than anything else I've seen, certainly anything explicitly fictional. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

From watching film of real US police interviews, it seems to me that they generally follow this method:

1) Start off very softly, not even calling them a suspect. They may ask the person in just for some "routine information". At this point they are trying to get info without having the suspect clam up and ask for a lawyer. One common form seems to be to ask "if somebody had killed her, where do you think he might have disposed of the body ?". The suspect thinks they will be given credit for helping if they "guess correctly", while, in reality, they are revealing info only the murderer would know. The cops might also get permission from the suspect to do warrantless searches, if the suspect thinks they have cleaned up the murder scene thoroughly.

2) The police do eventually perform an arrest and hence name them as a suspect. At this point they start revealing evidence against the suspect. Still they try to soft-sell it, by saying things like "maybe you didn't mean to kill her, you just pushed her and she hit her head ?" (even though the forensics tell them the victim was beaten repeatedly with a baseball bat). The object here is to get a partial confession, which they will later parley into a full confession.

3) Then it's time to play hardball. They call the suspect a liar, threaten the maximum, maybe the death penalty, and thus get them to agree to a plea bargain. Showing gruesome pics of the murder victim is also sometimes used here. StuRat (talk) 10:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

...which is, of course, why you should always ask for a lawyer as soon you are being questioned, especially if you are innocent. 86.166.40.199 (talk) 12:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Top quality answer, folks - glad I asked. Stu - that's really interesting - how did you get access to that kind of info? Too much late night cable? Or some devious means like having a friend on the inside? I'm curious because if I can get access to this myself I would like to check it out. Thanks It's been emotional (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

There's a documentary TV show I like to watch called Cold Case Files (not to be confused with the fictional TV show Cold Case) which does an excellent job of giving you inside info on how police solved particular cases, including recorded interrogations.

Something else I should mention is that interrogations are often customized based on the psychological analysis of the suspect. Are they feeling guilty ? Then make them relive it with gruesome pics and repeating the details of the murder over and over until they confess. Are they proud they committed the murder ? Then get them to brag about it, often in a way that they can claim they aren't, like "whoever did do the murder, was probably smart enough to use gloves and dispose of them in the sewer". If the suspect is easily intimidated, then do that. If not, maybe pretend to be the suspect's best friend ("I really want to help you out here, but you need to give me something I can use to help you".). And, overall, just keeping the suspect talking is important, as they are sure to eventually reveal info only the murderer would know or else contradict earlier versions of their story.

One thing that worries me, though, is that some of these techniques are so effective they might get an innocent person to confess. The level of deception the police use is also shocking at times. StuRat (talk) 22:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The Confessions (PBS video): Eight men charged. Five confessions. But only one DNA match. Why would four innocent men confess to a brutal crime they didn't commit? ... high-pressure police interrogation techniques -- the threat of the death penalty, sleep deprivation, intimidation -- that led each of the men to confess, despite the lack of any evidence linking them to the crime. Royor (talk) 06:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

An excess of apostles

According to General authority, the term of members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles is "Typically life; may be removed from Quorum to join First Presidency; on rare occasions may be removed from the Quorum due to an excess of Apostles". How would an excess of apostles occur? The article on the Quorum doesn't explain. Nyttend (talk) 21:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Chronology of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (LDS Church) lists some instances when there was an excess of apostles. For example, Orson Pratt was excommunicated, then later made nice with the Church and was re-admitted, and then there was an excess of apostles, so some other poor guy got kicked out. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm LDS. Comet Tuttle has it about right. It's important, when considering the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles to understand that there's a difference between being ordained as an apostle and being a member of that quorum. While all members of the quorum are apostles, (most, but) not all apostles are members of the quorum. (The last apostle that was not a member of the quorum was Alvin R. Dyer.) Additionally, as you already seem to understand, there are almost never exactly twelve living LDS apostles, as members of the First Presidency are also ordained apostles. However, in spite of early turbulence and elasticity in the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, the succession process has remained pretty consistent in past decades. Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 14:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm God. Making wise quacks is what I do. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

May 10

Michelin guides in English

Is the 2011 Michelin guide for France available in English? I've been looking all over and I've only found French language versions (although the introduction is in English). I did find one from 2009 available, but nothing for 2010 or 2011. Does anyone know how their publication schedule works? Shadowjams (talk) 02:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Try typing "michelin guide for france in english" into google (the first hit I got was to the 2011 version at Amazon.UK). woops... that was the french language version. Never mind. Blueboar (talk) 03:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I looked for it on Charing Cross Road recently and couldn't find them in any of the bookshops I went to. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Can't find anything from later than 2009 either, although there is a guide for the "main cities of Europe" for 2011, including Paris, Lyon, Strasbourg, and Toulouse. Lesgles (talk) 19:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Daniel Ortega

Where can I find an unbiased account of Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega? The accounts in your web-site hold little truth about his tactics and the way he treats his people. Now I understand why some teachers I know will not let their students reference your site for their assignments. Lead with honesty, not the white-washed, rose colored glasses version of events, or is your web-site for entertainment purposes only? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.146.150 (talk) 03:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

So what you are looking for is an article about him which only conforms to your existing opinion of him, and does not challenge you intellectually in any way, but instead only serves to confirm what you already believe to be true? --Jayron32 05:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Here. --Golbez (talk) 05:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The article appears to be well-referenced. If you have reliably sourced information which differs from what is in the article, you are welcome to add it (though given how controversial it is likely to be, it would be best to discuss it on the talk page first). But if you add unsourced information, it is likely to be removed very quickly. --ColinFine (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Help with identifying an artist

Can anyone help in identifying this painting's artist and name? It might be a stupid guess, but is it Picasso?

All the best —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.79.41 (talk) 09:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Not a stupid guess at all, you're quite right. It's his version of Manet's Déjeuner sur l'herbe, see here for example. --Viennese Waltz 09:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, not so stupid because it certainly has a Picasso feel about it and Tineye attributes it to Picasso with the name "Dejeuner sur l'Herbe" but with further searching this title seems to belong to at least two other Picasso paintings neither one of which is the one you post. 09:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Picasso painted a varying series of Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe d'après Manet from 1960 - 1961. This particular one is dated July 12, 1961. Four of them (I don't know whether this is the entire series), can be viewed at the Musée Picasso's website, starting here. I cannot link you to the more specific page directly. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Aha, in fact it's a "cycle of 27 paintings, 140 drawings, 3 linogravures and cardboard marquettes for sculpture carried out between 1949 and 1962", according to our article on Le déjeuner sur l'herbe. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Pepper spray and the Chemical Weapons Convention

Can someone explain the logic of the Chemical Weapons Convention's ban on the use of nonlethal riot control agents in warfare? Why can police resort to pepper spray on a daily basis, whilst its' use in warfare is strictly banned? This sounds horribly counterintuitive. "You can shoot, but you can't use capsicum spray". Am I missing something? 124.179.224.106 (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know that your example is correct. But, if so, it's likely the result of an overly broad ban on "chemical weapons" that doesn't allow for a distinction between lethal chemicals, those that cause permanent injury, and those which only cause temporary irritation. Even in police use, though, pepper spray can be abused. It's good as an alternative to shooting someone, but some cops feel they can spray anyone who isn't being quite as cooperative as they would like. This is straying into using it for torture.StuRat (talk) 21:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)]

Article I, clause 5. Each State Party undertakes not to use riot control agents as a method of warfare. I have no idea what that's meant to mean, except that Article II defines riot control agents as "Any chemical not listed in a Schedule, which can produce rapidly in humans sensory irritation or disabling physical effects which disappear within a short time following termination of exposure."Maybe to outlaw bombing the entire city with tear gas? 128.232.241.211 (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Arms control bans are in general very silly if you look at it from the perspective of "well, you can still kill them other ways." To quote James B. Conant (an important chemist, President of Harvard, atomic administrator, and in charge of a good portion of the US World War I chemical warfare development):

I did not see in 1917, and do not see in 1968, why tearing a man’s guts our by a high-explosive shell is to be preferred to maiming him by attacking his lungs or skin. All war is immoral. Logically, the 100 percent pasifist has the only impregnable position. Once that is abandoned, as it is when a nation becomes a belligerent, one can talk sensible only in terms of the violation of agreements about the way war is conducted, or the consequences of a certain tactic or weapon.

However in practice these kinds of treaties have been meant to make war to some degree predictable, and to avoid, as much as possible, affecting nearby populations. One of the reasons you don't use chemical or biological weapons is because they have a tendency to go where the weather does, affecting civilians. (Which is yet another "law of war" violated innumerable times...) The idea of "laws of war" is itself a little oxymoronic, though done with good intentions, to be sure. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

All sides in the European theatre in WW2 decided not to use poison gas as a weapon of war, so in that context the Geneva Protocol was not "silly"... AnonMoos (talk) 10:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

They did so not because of fears of violating the Geneva Protocol, but because of fear of reprisals from the enemy. It was a pure deterrence situation, as has been documented many times. You may recall that both sides willfully violated international law quite a number of times over during that war. -Mr.98 (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Laws of War are in many ways meant to stop the escalation of horror in wars between states as a result of reciprocal reprisal. The treatment of Soviet POWs by Germany produced the situation within the Soviet State that allowed that state apparatus to justify to itself its subsequent post war treatment of German POWs. In the case of riot agents, the reprisal which was feared was the widespread use of chemical nerve agents. In addition, in most instances, another concrete limit supporting the law of war is the lack of military utility of prohibited behaviours—producing a chemical battlefield slows advances, and restricts a defensive army's capacity to retake lost territory in a subsequent advance. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

War vs Criminal Justice and nonstate actors

Is the right to declare war purely the right of a nation state? For example if the Symbionese Liberation Army declares war on the U.S., is their declaration legally invalid?

Obviously, if such a declaration is valid, it would free the U.S. government of the constraints of civillian law enforcement in fighting the group. In war, you can kill your enemy, whereas in law enforcement you can't set out to kill. But it would also render the group's members into "combatants" rather than "criminals" (as long as they obey the Laws of war).

Likewise, what would stop Aafia Siddiqui from claiming that her alleged actions in shooting at a soldier were lawful in the context of a war, and thus not subject to civillian law?

Is the Holsworthy Barracks terror plot really a "terror plot" given that the intended target was military, not civillian? Does this fit the Definition of terrorism under Australian law and international treaties?

(Please do not infer any sympathy for Islamic radicalism from these questions). 124.179.224.106 (talk) 20:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I think your definitions are out dated. Nations seem to have no problem defining who are "enemy combatants" and who are "criminals" (some are both), even though there are no formal declarations of war. Blueboar (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

No, a non-state can't declare war legally under international law, and I don't think there's much possibility of such groups following the laws of war, either. StuRat (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

(Devil's Advocate Alert) So, what happens if a non-state does in fact declare war? Is the CEO/leader prosecuted for making an illegal declaration of war? -- Jack of Oz 23:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

They get plunked onto a terrorist watch list or two, I imagine. StuRat (talk) 06:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The declaration of war is not effective, as if they have made no such declaration. If they were to follow such declarations of war with action, then other aspects of international and national criminal laws that apply to individuals will apply. For example, if a person who is not recognised as a state "declares war" and then starts "military" action against the members of a state, then he may well be committing murder under the domestic criminal law.

Whether they get listed as terrorists or not depend on the methods they employ in such action. Legitimate alternative governments or rebel forces are not necessarily terrorists, and they may indeed very quickly win recognition as and become legitimate governments. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• There are extensions to the Laws of War covering wars within states. These are not widely honoured, and I am unaware of wars within states where such conventions have been honoured. Generally wars within states comprise a pre-existing state, and another body which claims to be a state. As such, the SLA declaring war on the US is legally valid, if the SLA is capable of enforcing its will upon the US. The enforcement of will, or negotiation in the face of potential enforcement of will, is one of the basic approaches to international relations. For an example of an organisation which successfully imposed its will, consider the Yugoslavian socialist partisans. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Vaguely relevant to the concepts at issue was Special Category Status, which some convicted criminals in Northern Ireland gained at various times, reflecting their viewpoint that they were, de facto, prisoners of war rather than criminals. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

May 11

Carlsberg Special Brew

Does anyone else find that after drinking 4 cans of this stuff, the next day their teeth feels awful and sticky? That's what I experience.--X sprainpraxisL (talk) 00:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Xerostomia or "cotton mouth" is a common symptom of hangover in general, not necessarily specific to one brand of beer. We cannot, however, diagnose the specifics of YOUR hangover, as that may represent a type of medical advice. --Jayron32 01:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

babies and Christian baptism

Is there a name (and perhaps a[REDACTED] article) for the doctrine taught by some Christians that unbaptized children who die go to hell?--24.188.235.80 (talk) 00:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure that any mainline denomination, even those that practice Infant baptism, believe that directly. The article on infant baptism discusses a variety of beliefs and practices regarding it, but does not mention anything about an unbaptised infant going to hell for not being baptised. --Jayron32 01:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I think St Augustine taught this. Also, I believe that Calvin or one of his American followers taught that hell is paved with the skulls of unbaptized infants. I just wanted to see if this belief had a name.--24.188.235.80 (talk) 05:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

There's a discussion that some believe that infants have the Original Sin and therefore baptism is a prerequisite for salvation. What happens to those that aren't saved? APL (talk) 01:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

One answer that has been proposed is Limbo, which according to Dante is technically part of Hell, but is not a place of punishment. IIRC, the Catholic Church does not officially take Limbo to be a doctrine, but considers it at least a possibility. I don't think non-Catholic churches really talk about Limbo by name, though some may have similar concepts. --Trovatore (talk) 02:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a bit of Christianity that never made much sense to me. There are people in the world who have never even heard of the Christian god. My Sunday School teachers never could explain why they should go to hell. HiLo48 (talk) 02:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

This bit is solved in Catholicism by virtue of having a concept of invincible Ignorance --129.206.197.125 (talk) 08:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

HiLo48 -- see Virtuous pagan... AnonMoos (talk) 09:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a nice approach. I guess my Sunday School teachers hadn't heard about this. HiLo48 (talk) 11:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

In the Latter-day Saint (Mormon) perspective, all children who die before reaching accountability (traditionally 8 years old) go directly to Heaven (see D&C 137:10). Those that never had the chance to hear and accept Jesus Christ's gospel will get that chance in the hereafter (see D&C 137:7). This is what LDS Temples are for-- we provide ordinances (such as baptism) vicariously to these souls in the hope that they accept them. Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 14:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

That's easy! Because they share Adam and/or Eve's original sin. Apparently stealing from the tree of knowledge is hereditary, and Christian or not, they descend from Adam&Eve. The idea that it's necessarily unfair for a person to be punished for the sins of their ancestors is a relatively new idea. APL (talk) 04:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

If the primary problem dealt with by Christianity is problem of consciousness's self-transcendence; then, the issue of original sin is the emergence of human consciousness. In this interpretive tradition, Christ's grace and the capacity for transcendence is provided by a hermeneutic leap into the arms of God—faith. The transcendent state, the beatific vision, is not available to those incapable of making a leap of faith. Making a leap of faith is impossible for the preconscious. If you associate consciousness with having language, then no, children without language cannot be saved. This is a problem because they grow into us, and resemble us, and makes us feel bad because we include children without language and some of us include fertilised matter that could become such a child under the idea of the sanctity of human life. I haven't read enough theology on this matter to provide illustrations of conclusions reached by theologians of Christianity—this is because it isn't my religious background. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The answer is a slam dunk. Matthew 19:14 Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Which is a bit of a stretch given the contents of other texts in the Bible regarding the kingdom of heaven. Sitz im leben and intertextuality mean that claiming biblical inerrancy on this point from a single verse is a bit of an eisegetical reading. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Quite a clear statement and an important verse, though. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Didn't Johnathan Edwards consign unbaptized infants to hell, in the 1740's, and justify it as fair and reasonable on the grounds that it Adam had not sinned, there would be no original sin, and they would have enjoyed automatic entrance into heaven? I could not find this argument in Sinners in the hands of an angry God but I associate it with him. Edison (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Non-Misplaced Pages sources attribute the doctrine of "Infant Damnation" to John Calvin, agreeing with Augustine. The Presbyterian Church in the US has denied that Calvin ever said or thought that . This whitewash has veen disputed: . Has John Calvin's article been "polished" a bit? If Infant damnation is not adequately covered in some other article, it should have an article, as an important issue in the history of Christian theology, however embarrassing it might be to today's Christians. It appears to have been mainstream Christian doctrine from Augustine through the early Reformation. Edison (talk) 16:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

muslim sex in india

hi i want to know about muslim sex in india. i nwant know what are all the way of sex —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skhader.rocky (talk • contribs) 07:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

See the articles The Perfumed Garden, Islamic sexual jurisprudence, and History of sex in India. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.11 (talk) 07:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Since independence in 1947 the Muslim-majority areas of India were partitioned to form a separate state of Pakistan. Hinduism, the largest religion in India, accounts for 80% of the population; Islam, the second largest religion, accounts for only 13% of the population. The local sexual mores are more characteristically "muslim" among the 173 million muslims of Pakistan (97% pop.) and even more in Indonesia (86%). Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Pipless US

If the US and other countries do not have the equivalent of Greenwich Time Signals broadcast, then how do people set their clocks and watches accurately? 92.28.241.148 (talk) 09:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

In Canada there is the National Research Council Time Signal, but only once per day. Anyway, I suppose this can be done more easily and more accurately online these days. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

According to the Network Time Protocol, the internet time is only accurate to 1 or 2 seconds (and less in my experience). This must be difficult for marine chronometers etc. 92.28.246.1 (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

In the U.S., standard time signals have been continuously broadcast by WWV (radio station) since 1957. --Thomprod (talk) 12:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The US Naval observatory started broadcasting the first standard time signals on stationNAA in 1920. WWV started transmitting standard time signals from the Naval Observatory in 1945. Long before radio, standard time signals were transmitted over telegraph lines in the US, also from the Naval Observatory, starting with more local time signals and expanding rapidly nationwide. in 1865. Telegraphy was used in the UK starting in 1852 to send out standard time signals from the Greenwich Observatory, where chronometers were standardized to the passage of certain "clock stars" over the Greenwich meridian. Paper charts were used to compare when the observer pressed a button showing that a star passed the crosshair in the telescope, to when the chronometer said it should have, and the chronometer was adjusted, since the star was correct by definition. People all over the US and Europe had more accurate time signals in the late 19th century than are available by the internet today. No one really needed it but the railroads, but folks liked to set their pocket watch by the dropping of the time ball on some large downtown building at noon. Many businesses had clocks which were electrically set by such time signals. Edison (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

As Edison said, it was mainly the railroads in the US that needed an accurate time, since one could travel across many cities/timezones in one train ride.

The notion of using the telegraph to tell time began in 1877, when Western Union first received time signals via telegraph wire from the U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington, DC that would cause a giant ball atop the Western Union building at 195 Broadway in New York City to drop down a large pole. Similar to the time ball at the Royal Observatory at Greenwich, England, mariners on ships in the harbor used the time ball to set their chronometers for navigation at sea. Passersby in the street would look up at the signal to set their watches.

Western Union hired a clockmaker to transmit U.W. Naval Observatory time on the hour over the company’s network. A system sent signals over the telegraph lines several minutes before each hour of the day, followed by a pause and finally a last “click” directly on the hour. Every hour, on the hour, minute hands on clocks across the nation would snap to “12”, ensuring accurate, standardized time everywhere. - Jerry Horowitz: Western Union Time Service, also another article.

Interestingly, we don't yet have an article on Western Union Time Service, and the Western Union article mentions it only in a single sentence, despite it being something that was used by thousands of businesses, schools, and government offices all across the US for many years. _ennasis @ 17:22, 7 Iyar 5771 / 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Practically, you read it off your cellphone. (What's a wa-atch?) 75.41.110.200 (talk) 13:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Back in the day you'd just pick up your landline and dial a three-digit number, but not anymore. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 14:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The best way now is GPS, which according to the article is accurate to about 14 nanoseconds. anonymous6494 15:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I live in the US, and for the last decade or so, I have done it by visiting time.gov. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

When democracy failed

I need to give a debate about why democracy is not the best form of government. I've done everything but some sites keep saying 'True democracy has never succeeded and history proves this.' I tried search for this, though I can't seem to find it. Can you please give me few examples in history when democratic form of government failed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freakquency97 (talk • contribs) 10:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I doubt democracies never work, but many democracies result in coalition governments which sometimes don't work that well - current examples might be the problems approving the 2011 US federal budget and the apparent divisions in the UK's Conservative-LibDem coalition that have become more evident since the AV referendum. Another approach maybe to take a look at the articles on enlightened absolutism and benevolent dictatorship which may give you some reasonable counter-examples from which you can start, or maybe you could state "democracy is not the best form of government" and go on to say why an alternative might work better. It is also worth noting that many dictatorial leaders use the rule of three to present their points in an effective manner - perhaps you could use a similar technique in your debate. Astronaut (talk) 10:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Democracy allows 51% of the voters to do whatever they like, no matter what the rest of the population thinks. HiLo48 (talk) 11:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Erm, that's clearly not true, especially since you've just seen the link to coalition government... ╟─TreasuryTag►Regional Counting Officer─╢ 11:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The fact that you are asking for a few examples in which democracy failed suggests that the claim in the quote is false. Historically, we see dictatorships, kingdoms, and oligarchies being replaced by democracies. Rarely do you see the reverse. That's not to say that democracy is the best form of government (in fact, there in economics there is a mathematical proof that there is no form of government that will achieve the best outcome all the time). Wikiant (talk) 11:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

As Winston Churchill put it: "Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You could always go back to the original, Ancient Greek version of democracy - only a few males could vote - and argue why that was no good. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Winston. And the best democracies have processes built in to limit their potential excesses. HiLo48 (talk) 11:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I would disagree with defining ancient Greek democracy as "only a few males could vote". Indeed, the system disenfranchised women and slaves, but there was not even a property qualification for voting - so a farmhand or a near-destitute city-dweller could vote, if they were a citizen. That's a much wider franchise than, for example, the United Kingdom had until as late as 1918. I would agree it's a good place to look for examples of "true democracy" not being very successful, though - most of the Greek writers of the time, and the immediately following centuries, went into some detail about its failings. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The quote about democracy is in reference to "true" democracies — and indeed, I have never seen any of these on a national scale (they have been tried only at city-wide, and maybe regional scales, to my knowledge). What I have seen are representative democracies, which add an additional layer of insulation between "the people" and "the policy," and I have also seen constitutional democracies, which add a huge layer of insulation between "the people" and "the policy". These latter innovations are all about avoiding mob rule or rule by the ignorant. This is what is meant by saying "true democracy has never succeeded" — you don't actually want "the people" to decide all of "the policy". If I were in this debate, this is the tack I would take. You don't have to argue in favor of absolutism or in favor of dictatorships or whatever. Just emphasize that even the "great democracies of the world" put in ample checks and balances to avoid the voice of the people being absolute.

For a more substantive argument, democracies are generally inefficient, and often have a very hard time making long-term decisions. (It's very hard to tax today for something in the far future.) They are always threatened by demagoguery, and the ability of "the people" to make rational political decisions is highly contingent on national attitudes, education levels, and prejudices. Even worse, many democracies are really just "so-called democracies." In India, for example, the level of political corruption is so high than considering it actually being governed by "the people" is quite a stretch. The consequences of this are many, but one if them is that the illusion of being under a democracy, when one is really not, arguably keeps people from demanding more effective change (the illusion of the vote is a "safety valve"). Anyway, all of these are rather common criticisms. The trick of a real debate is not to get into trying to justify absolutism, because that also has rather obvious problems. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

There are many cases, not all in the developing world, of democracies being overthrown and replaced by dictatorships or slowly turning into dictatorships: Zimbabwe under Mugabe (a gradual decline of human rights, with rigged elections, etc); Serbia under Milosevic (similar); Chile under General Pinochet (the Chilean military overthrew the democratic government of Allende); Iran's shaky post-WWII republic crumbled and was overthrown in a coup; many former-soviet republics like Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, and Georgia have moved from democracy in the early 1990s to authoritarianism; and many African countries exist like Liberia in a mix of coups interspersed with elections.

In Europe in the 1920s and 1930s Italy, Germany, and Lithuania moved from democracy into dictatorship without external influence. In general you could say the 1930s saw a failure of democracy to contain a tendency for political extremism, with both communism and fascism prominent: Spain saw a civil war for similar reasons. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the most famous and one of the most-studied instance was the failure of the Roman Republic and its transformation into the Roman Empire. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your response everyone. Helps me a lot! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freakquency97 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Per-capita millionaires

If America is wealthier than the UK, then why does the UK have more per-capita millionaire households in 2011 according to this http://www.businessinsider.com/facts-about-millionaires-2010-5#the-us-will-still-have-the-most-millionaires-in-2020-3 ? Thanks 92.28.246.1 (talk) 11:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You have to define what "America is wealthier" means. It could mean many many many different things:

• The United States government has more money in reserves.
• The United States government has a smaller deficit.
• The total monetary holdings of all the states is more.
• The value of the land and resources in the United States is more.
• The entire sum of all monetary holdings of every person in the Unites States is more.
• The entire income of all people in the United States is more.
• The mean average income of all the people in the United States is more.
• The median average income of all people in the United States is more.
• The richest guy in the United states is richer.

...just to name a few possibilities. So, unless you can nail down what it is you want to discuss, there is very little point in discussing anything as it will certainly be off topic. -- kainaw™ 12:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The income inequality is far more skewed in the US than the UK. (A nice graph of this.) This means that American wealth is held in far fewer hands. This would definitely affect the per capita statistics. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Wealth and income are not the same thing. Wikiant (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

There were lots of billionaire in Zimbabwe, at least until the ZimDollar was scrapped. --Soman (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Your per capita data point is a measure of what percentage of the households are millionaires, not a measure of the total number or a measure of how much money each household has. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe that's why I wrote "per capita". 92.28.246.1 (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

So you've go more chance of being a millionaire in Britain than you have in the US. Another table I saw a while ago indicated that Britain had the highest wages in Europe. Two surprises. 92.28.240.189 (talk) 12:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I would not be surprised if the UK had more people above one million, but had fewer over 10 or 100 or a billion. one thing that skews the US values is that we have some rather extreme wealth concentration going on. I'd almost expect that it ends up that the UK has more millionaires but the US has richer millionaires. HominidMachinae (talk) 19:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I think people would prefer the first option. 92.15.31.51 (talk) 11:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Number of policepersons in the UK

Are there any statistics, or even a graph, of the number of policepersons per-capita over the years for the UK?

I'm wondering if there were more or less policepersons currently in proprtion to the population than in decades or even centuries in the past. Thanks 92.28.246.1 (talk) 11:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The number of officers is in Regional Trends, online at www.statistics.gov.uk. So is the population, so you can work it out over past years, and get a breakdown by region, too. You won't be able to make a valid comparison over centuries, though. Things were different before they had panda cars, traffic lights.... Itsmejudith (talk) 12:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

..and the word "policepersons". Ericoides (talk) 18:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Do people actually say that in real life? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard it said. In the UK they either say "the police" (or the fuzz, cops, old Bill, strong arm of the law, rozzers, filth etc.) or "policemen and women". Ericoides (talk) 05:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Police officers also works, at least in the States. I don't think it matters whether they're "officers" as a matter of rank (not sure how ranks work in the police force anyway). --Trovatore (talk) 06:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. We'd say that in the UK too. We use the term "rank and file police officers" for those who aren't officers, but, like you, I'm not sure of the ranking procedure... Ericoides (talk) 06:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no officer/enlisted distinction in the British police - everyone is an officer (even police community support officers). There can be the appearance of such a distinction (as the enlisted Army rank of Sergeant has been used as a police rank, and as some ranks use insignia similar to Army insignia), but legally there is no dividing line (and, indeed, although the ranks are set down by law (the Police Regulations 2003), the insignia is not, and a force could decide to use any insignia it wanted if it didn't like the existing system). Proteus (Talk) 12:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Does the Queen ever make a decision or refuse to sign?

I understand that the UK Queen has to sign legislation before it becomes law.

1) Has she ever refused to sign anything? 2) Has she ever made a decision (rather than being told what to do or say) about governing the country? Thanks 92.28.246.1 (talk) 11:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It has been argued that the Queen instructed her Governor General in Australia regarding the Whitlam supply crisis in Australia. People who follow this argument believe this to have been an abhorrent act by the Queen. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Did she? or is that just something made up? Anyway, no she cannot refuse to give the royal assent. DuncanHill (talk) 12:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked into it, so I'm not going to make a comment as to the theory's veracity. As far as the people I've heard advocating this aren't conspiracy theorists, and nor have they advocated it as a conspiracy theory, and they're journalists and other information professionals acting in their professional capacity. I suppose that it is a matter of waiting for the 50 year rule, or Liz's archives to become public. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure they are not conspiracy theorists? According to the published recollections of those who would know such things, the Queen specifically refused to intervene although she was actively "watching the situation". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Right on. This "theory" has no basis whatsoever. From 1975 Australian constitutional crisis:

• On 12 November, Scholes wrote to the Queen, asking her to restore Whitlam as Prime Minister. The reply from the Queen's Private Secretary, Sir Martin Charteris, dated 17 November 1975, stated:

• As we understand the situation here, the Australian Constitution firmly places the prerogative powers of the Crown in the hands of the Governor-General as the representative of the Queen of Australia. The only person competent to commission an Australian Prime Minister is the Governor-General, and The Queen has no part in the decisions which the Governor-General must take in accordance with the Constitution. Her Majesty, as Queen of Australia, is watching events in Canberra with close interest and attention, but it would not be proper for her to intervene in person in matters which are so clearly placed within the jurisdiction of the Governor-General by the Constitution Act. -- Jack of Oz 12:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

As regards your first question, our article on royal assent says: "In 1999, Queen Elizabeth II, acting on the advice of the government, refused to signify her consent to hearing of the Military Action Against Iraq (Parliamentary Approval) Bill, which sought to transfer from the monarch to Parliament the power to authorize military strikes against Iraq". For your second question, the United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy in which the monarch acts on the advice of his/her ministers; this is generally considered to be a good thing. It would be very worrying if any single person could take impotant decisions about governing the country without needing to take advice and without any form of oversight. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Elizabeth II doesn't make unilateral decisions, nor does she veto legislation - even though she could on both counts. If she were to do so? the British Parliament would quickly remove such reserve powers & make her a complete figurehead, just like the Swedish monarchy (where the King doesn't even open the Storting). GoodDay (talk) 12:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

(I think you have the Scandinavian countries confused. The Parliament of Norway is called Storting and the Parliament of Sweden is called Riksdag. They are both opened by each monarch of those countries respectively. The Parliament of Denmark, however, is called Folketing, and is opened by the prime minister with the Queen merely attending as a guest.)P. S. Burton (talk) 21:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Does the Queen ever exercise a sort of pocket veto (temporarily refusing to sign a piece of legislation in order to delay implementation). I could see this being a good thing if one party were trying to "force through" a controversial act before an election took place that could result in a change of Government. Blueboar (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

See Royal Prerogative in the United Kingdom: "The monarch can force the dissolution of Parliament through a refusal of royal assent; this inevitably leads to a government resigning. By convention, the monarch always assents to bills; the last time the royal assent was not given was in 1704 during the reign of Queen Anne. This does not mean that the right to refuse has died; George V believed he could veto the Third Irish Home Rule Bill; Jennings writes that "it was assumed by the King throughout that he had not only the legal power but the constitutional right to refuse assent". This has been discussed here many times before - does anyone ever use the "Search archives" box at the top of the page? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The power of refusing assent is still retained by the Governors-General outside the UK. In New Zealand in 1944, Cyril Newall refused to sign orders-in-council on a point of principle to do with the abolition of corporal punishment; there was a brief constitutional crisis, and he more-or-less got his way. Shimgray | talk | 19:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

So the answers are 1) No (except once when the government told her not to). 2) No. 92.28.246.1 (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

As regards #2, there's at least one caveat - it seems to be broadly agreed that if the governing party no longer commands a majority in the Commons and wishes to call an election after being defeated on a vote, the monarch is not required to grant it - see, for example, p.20 here. Shimgray | talk | 20:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

So no offence, but she's really just a puppet of the government, and when or if the UK becomes a republic can be simply replaced by a rubber stamp. 92.28.240.189 (talk) 11:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Nothing save our rubber stamp; don't let it rot in damp; nothing save our stamp. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

No, she could not be replaced by a rubber stamp. Rubber stamps cannot warn; they cannot advise; they cannot be consulted. These are all constitutional rights held by the monarch; they cannot be held by an inanimate object. And at the end of the day, some human being must physically take the stamp in their hot little hand and apply it to the document in question. That person is then assuming the power of the monarch, the power to approve a law. Who gave this person such power? Where did it come from? -- Jack of Oz 12:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The government who tell her what to do. I had the same role when I was a clerk in the Civil Service, but didnt get paid as much. 92.28.240.189 (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Surely there were (at least theoretical) circumstances where you had the right and/or responsibility NOT to stamp the document. Otherwise, all such documents would be automatically approved, and there'd be no need to stamp ANY of them. -- Jack of Oz 12:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I should have got paid more than the Queen, as my job was more skilled. 92.28.240.189 (talk) 12:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The Irish government did exactly that in 1936; the Constitution (Amendment No. 27) Act 1936 was basically a search-and-replace on the constitution to exchange various local bodies for the King/Governor-General. It wasn't entirely flawless (the Executive Powers (Consequential Provisions) Act 1937 had to retroactively fix various things in order to make the Supreme Court fully legal again) but it more or less worked. Shimgray | talk | 19:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Wales Split from the Kingdom of England?

When did Wales re-emerge as a political entity after being absorbed by the Kingdom of England? --CGPGrey (talk) 15:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

National Assembly for Wales has some useful history. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The Assembly was created in 1999. Was there no Wales as a separate, official entity before then? --CGPGrey (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

As does Welsh nationalism. --Jayron32 15:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, there has always been a recognisable Wales. The Black Prince was the first Prince of Wales, so there had to be somewhere for him to be prince of. The Welsh Office was set up in 1964. Some editors may remember how Wales was regarded before then. There were Welsh miners, male voice choirs, the Welsh language. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by a "separate, official entity". One summary explanation is at Politics of Wales#The emergence of a Welsh polity. Wales was always to some extent differentiated from England in legal terms - see Court of Great Sessions in Wales. Arising from the growth of Welsh national sentiment and political pressure, in the nineteenth century (and specifically legislation like the Sunday Closing (Wales) Act 1881), Wales became recognised as an area in which separate legal provision should be made for some matters. The Church in Wales was (unlike the Church of England) disestablished in 1920, a culturally significant marker. The advisory Council for Wales and Monmouthshire was set up in 1949 and a Minister of Welsh Affairs in 1951, followed by the appointment of a Secretary of State for Wales and the Welsh Office in 1964. So, it was a gradual process. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542 is also useful here. Wales had distinct counties even if it was politically unified with England. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

There's also the ambiguity of Monmouthshire, whether it was part of England or Wales. Wales must have been a separate entity from England in order for the status of Monmouthshire to be an issue. Pais (talk) 11:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Well now, that's a long story. More at Monmouthshire (historic)#Ambiguity over Welsh status. Monmouthshire was always Welsh in ecclesiastical terms (which used to be more important that it is now) and culturally, in that over large parts of Monmouthshire many people spoke the Welsh language - more in the 19th century than later - and of course it was west of the Wye which was the boundary of England in Saxon times. But, post-1542, in terms of the judges' circuits, and representation in Parliament, it fell within England, and many maps and encyclopedias showed the county as being in England. From the 19th century onwards there was legislation covering "Wales and Monmouthshire", which showed both that it was not seen by UK legislators as being within Wales (otherwise the legislation would simply have referred to "Wales"), but also that it was to be treated as part of Wales. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Tangent time: An interesting parallel to Monmouthshire at England's other land border is Berwick-upon-Tweed. --Jayron32 12:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Rosh Hashanah in Israel

I was planning on viriting Israel (Jerusalem and Tel Aviv) for 5 days during the week, 25th - 30th September (trying to avoid the Shabbat). I've just looked at my calendar and it is Rosh Hashanah on the 30th. So I was wondering what it would be like in Jerusalem/Tel Aviv during this time, would businesses be closed and rail/taxi services disrupted (like the Shabbat)? My return flight leaves early in the morning on the 30th at 4am, would it also be difficult to get to Ben Gurion airport during Rosh Hashanah? Thanks, 86.148.165.21 (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Someone more familiar might be able to respond in better detail, but here's what I've gleaned form my search. Rosh Hashanah is actually two days, this year from sunset on Sept. 28 to sunset on Sept. 30. Businesses will be closed, though not in Arab areas like East Jerusalem. Public transportation may be a problem, but you can always get a taxi. Sounds like an interesting time to visit a synagogue, though! Lesgles (talk) 03:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm very surprised to find that Ben Gurion International Airport will be open on Rosh Hashanah. I recommend double-check with your airline - or with Ben Gurion themselves (). Cities with smaller and less vociferous populations of religious Jews (Tel Aviv, Haifa, etc] will be less affected by the day than, say Jerusalem or Safed. However, I'd recommend a visit to the Western Wall earlyish in the morning, to see the prayers. Dress reasonably smart if you want to fit in on a festival - and it'd be sensitive for any women in the party to dress modestly. This site has some useful tips. --Dweller (talk) 13:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I checked for you, and unless they've changed things since 2009, it looks like the airport will be open. Public transport will be affected. I suggest you find/book a taxi several days in advance, as the numbers available will be greatly reduced. --Dweller (talk) 13:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of stock exchanges

I must begin with saying that macro economics is a completely blank spot in my education and understanding ;)

What is the purpose of stock exchanges in todays society - why are not all buyers/sellers using some much cheaper way to communicate trading among themselves? What does a company like NASDAQ and NYSE actually do? Act as a hub for sellers and buyers of stock? Why do they have value in themselves? It seems that you can sell and buy the stock exchange itself, what is the purpose of this? An electronic system like NASDAQ could be much cheaper if it was just a room of computers and a couple of IT maintenance guys in some hollowed out protected cave in the middle of nowhere, why isn't this the case? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.142.75 (talk) 19:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Quick answer: Stock exchange provide a safe, fast, efficient, economical and reliable place to trade extremely large, or small, amounts of money / script. They provide regulatory oversight through rules and investigations into breaches. Because they receive fees for every stock that is listed (and, in some places, for other transactions), they may be considered a business. Their income flow gives them an easily identified market value, and some even list their own shares on their own markets. DOR (HK) (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I think 83 is asking why a stock exchange needs an actual trading floor anymore rather then doing everything over computer since 99% of trades are done on computer now anyways. Googlemeister (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think eliminating the trading floor is going to safe much cost. Also a bunch of computers in the middle of nowhere sounds like a bad idea, how are they going to connect to the internet or other networks? Nil Einne (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess the building/location of the NYSE is quite valuable, and whoever owns it could make a fortune by selling it. Of course I don't mean that the computers would lack a connection to the internet, but putting in it a desolate place to protect it from attack (like NORAD commando or something) would be quite good, since it keeps infrastructure that is quite important for society. Even better would be a decentralized trading system that exist like a VPN network withing the internet itself. If I had a company I would not like to pay these fees: "they receive fees for every stock that is listed (and, in some places, for other transactions)", since a transaction in a totally computerized trading system would cost as much as to send a common email which is next to nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.142.75 (talk) 21:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I doubt the building is worth even 5% of the value of the stock exchange. Also I think you're missing the point. I didn't mean to imply you want to put it in a desolate place so they wouldn't have an internet connection. I was saying most desolate places don't have internet connections. Also while there may be some advantages to putting the building in a desolate place, putting it there to avoid NORAD commandos seems an inherently bad idea. Attacking something located in a populated place generally raises far more difficulties then attacking something in an unpopulated place so I'm sure NORAD commandos would be quite happy if you put your building somewhere they don't have to worry much about collateral damage even if they just carpet bomb it. In a similar vein while being located in a desolate place may reduce the risk your building will become collateral damage, it also generally makes it harder for NORAD commandos and others to protect you. Nil Einne (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Hehe oops I guess my wording was a bit unprecise, of course I don't mean that NORAD command soldiers would attack the NYSE, I meant that the housing of the computers that run the stock market should be protected like the NORAD command (center) is, see Cheyenne_Mountain_Operations_Center. Even if the building is worth just a small fraction of the stock market itself - it would still make quite a lot of money since it's located in the lower Manhattan. And the purpose of capitalism is to gain as much money as possible, isn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.142.75 (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The London stock exchange has been computerised for many years. There is no trading floor, and I don't think the traders are even in the same building. 92.28.240.189 (talk) 12:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any sources to back this up- nor do I have any idea where the actual servers for the NYSE are located- but I have a cousin who once worked in the NY financial district. He claims that, these days, the trading floor is less about buying/selling stock, and more about networking and "brushing elbows" with reps of the prominent companies that have traditionally kept a physical presence on the floor, despite the overwhelming majority of transactions occurring elsewhere and online. Like a status thing. Quinn 17:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

So it has transformed into a social club more or less? Ah, human vanity... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.142.75 (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

while the days of people rushing out to the floor holding handfulls of physical trade orders are long gone, I wouldn't count the importance of the trading floor out yet. Some people have suggested they de-computerize at least some of the actual trading and put it back on the floor, as a defense against computer errors crashing markets (not as rare as you might think given the dire consequences, a mistaken key entry has taken down more than one company) and also as a defense against rapidly moving markets moving faster than the ability of human oversight to review. HominidMachinae (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep. just over a year ago now there was a particularly large and unusual "sell" of stock that triggered millions of automated transaction (basically where you set your computer to automatically buy and/or sell based on the happenings in the market) and caused a brief collapse of the market. It recovered rapidly (later that same day, if I recall), but not without some substantial collateral damage (i.e.- a lot of stocks got purchased way under value during the snafu, and vice versa). Not exactly an answer to the OP's question but it is a good example of the potential problems with a 100% on-line stock exchange. I'm sure we have an article mentioning this event somewhere. Quinn 00:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Pakistan and Afghanistan, ISI

A quick follow-up question to what is asked above... (edit: BELOW)

I did not find a thorough article about it here on Misplaced Pages, but am I safe in making the following assertion?

In short, Pakistan fears India, therefore it is currently involved in Afghanistan. If Afghanistan during the Cold War had been a safe haven for the Soviets, (China-leaning) Pakistan could have faced a semi-aligned India on the other flank, and effectively been surrounded. Whoever rules Afghanistan should be dependent on Pakistan - puppets if you will - so that India may not use Afghanistan against Pakistan -- a more real concern during Soviet occupation, now more related to keeping influence. Consequently, the Pakistani security bureaucracy - notably ISI and parts of the Army - are deeply involved in Afghanistan: So long as they provide safe havens and some funding, power groups like the Taliban will be dependent on them. I theorise the ISI and related groups may have become something of a state within a state - they see themselves to understand more clearly the perils of Pakistan than does the democratic opposition. Tangentially related, the many terrorist attacks against Indian cities in the recent years are from Pakistani state/ISI-sponsored groups.

One of the issues with this claim after 1989 is that Afghans and Pakistanis, supposedly sharing ancestry, religion and history, could be split apart by India. An amusing find suggests that may be a possibility. There is also Iran to factor in, which backed the Northern Alliance. Therefore Pakistani involvement in Afghanistan may also be focused on keeping someone else from gaining more influence.

I am not asking for a discussion, but if anyone were to know of any considerations I've blatantly ignored, I should treasure feedback on the subject. Thank you again. 80.213.11.105 (talk) 23:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh deary me, I have edited out my first question. I shall post the first question below, instead of reverting to the older edit. 80.213.11.105 (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

History: Pakistan West/Sino alignment and Nixon

Hello

I was wondering about a historical question regarding power politics, and was hoping someone here could help shed some light on it.

As I understand it, Nixon advanced on China through Pakistan in order to open America's political options towards the USSR and China alike - leverage to linkage. However, Pakistan was a member of SEATO long before Nixon's detente. How could presidents from Eisenhower to Johnson include Pakistan in the SEATO and CENTO while close ties to China developed? In addition to an answer to that question, here are some of my assertions (which I'd be keen to have scrutinised):

1) Pakistan at the time of Nixon's detente (ca '72) was a beneficiary of Chinese aid.

2) Pakistan was supported by China in order to counter the non-aligned (but Soviet-leaning) India.

3) Pakistani membership in SEATO and CENTO survived coups and civil wars unhurt.

I see problems related to this because of the somewhat intrusive, moralistic policies that Nixon's predecessors often pursued. Did they assess that Pakistan was more mouldable than India, more easily made an ally to counter a potentially hostile India? Basically, I understand how Nixon saw Pakistan's worth as a client/ally - but I don't understand the motivation of earlier administrations, often described as having less understanding of Asian culture and schisms in communism.

If you could help me, I would be terribly glad. Thank you in advance.

80.213.11.105 (talk) 23:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The American alliance with Pakistan was part of an effort to contain Communism through fostering relations with countries on the front line, such as Turkey, Iran and Pakistan, which was barely 10 miles from the USSR. I don't think the U.S. went into it consciously favoring Pakistan over India. The U.S. would have signed up India too, but India declined to take part in a U.S. military alliance because of its nonalignment policy. When Pakistan and India went to war in 1965, the U.S. put an arms embargo on both sides. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually they did go into it favoring Pakistan over India, because India "leaned Soviet" (a nice Cold War term for "fiercely preserved its independence and played both sides off each other for its maximum benefit"). There's a nice little article about this in this week's New Yorker. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that's an extreme oversimplification. Here is Ashley Tellis, a former State Department official, on U.S.-Indian relations:

The post-Independence Indian leadership led by Jawaharlal Nehru was eager to reciprocate American overtures of friendship and, despite their formal invocation of nonalignment in the face of the emerging Cold War, sought to develop a close strategic relationship with the United States that would provide India with arms, economic assistance, and diplomatic support. Although this effort was only partly successful, in some measure because the United States still deferred to Great Britain on issues relating to security in the Indian subcontinent and more significantly because the emerging U.S. vision of containment left little room for informal allies like India, U.S.-Indian relations nonetheless remained very cordial from 1947-62. The United States during this period soon became the largest aid donor to India, and Washington viewed India as an important theater in the struggle against global communism despite New Delhi’s reluctance to become formally allied with Washington in its anti-communist crusade. ()

I think the U.S. would have been happy had India decided to become a military ally, but Nehru decided to keep his distance. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly an oversimplification, but the point is the same: the US became extremely tied to Pakistan during the Cold War because they were willing to formally align themselves militarily with the US. India was not, and did flirt with Soviet assistance at many junctions. The US often overcompensated in other respects with India in attempting to keep them from becoming reliant on Russia instead. It was a clever game that Nehru played, to be sure. The point is: Pakistan didn't play the game. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Recommended reading: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/16/110516fa_fact_wright P. S. Burton (talk) 12:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

May 12

Where I am From analysis

Is there any website where I can look at what the poet says about her poem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.150.2 (talk) 01:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems the poem "Where I'm From" is written by George Ella Lyon. So far I haven't found the analysis you are looking for. Bus stop (talk) 01:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Hansard and superinjunctions

Yes, another superinjunctions question. Stories like this make me wonder: can Hansard publish debates from the House of Commons without fear of getting in trouble for violating superinjunctions? And if so, why can't newspapers simply say "We're reporting the latest news from Hansard" and avoid trouble thereby? Nyttend (talk) 01:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This from the very next day answers your question in part. Hansard is covered by Parliamentary privilege so yes, it can publish what is said in the House, and newspapers may also report the proceedings of Parliament under qualified privilege. Note that my linked Guardian article names Trafigura (that article says little about the affair) only one day after the paper complained, in the item you linked, that it was barred from doing so. Sussexonian (talk) 07:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

People's Republic of China Language Census

India conducted a language census despite its huge population. See India's language census

Did the People's Republic of China government conduct a language census for the different chinese dialects and minority languages? Can you provide me with a web link? 174.114.236.41 (talk) 03:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting an error message when trying to access that website. You can find information on numbers of speakers of the various languages and language families spoken in China from Languages of China.

I assume you are asking for statistics from a national census on languages (rather than a specific census on languages only). Full statistics from the 6th national census conducted in 2010 have not yet been published, but a scan through the published statistics of the 5th national census conducted in 2000 does not show a table of language statistics. Looking at the census form for the 5th national census shows that there were no questions (as far as I can see) about languages. There are, however, statistics about ethnicities, which may be of interest to you. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be the policy of the Chinese government to phase out the use of other chinese dialects/languages than Mandarin (Compare France!). (For instance, when I was in Canton a couple of years ago, I saw signs telling people to speak Mandarin rather than Cantonese) so I guess they are not interested in highlighting the use of other dialects/languages in the census. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.142.75 (talk) 08:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Promoting Mandarin is an active and official policy of the government. Whereas in ethnic minority areas there is at least official support (of varying degrees) for the preservation of the minority language (as in Tibetan, Mongolian etc), in ethnic Han-Chinese populations the official policy has almost no interest in preserving the local variety of (Han-)Chinese language. Cantonese has probably the strongest vibrancy because of the existence of large, functional primarily Cantonese communities like Hong Kong, but for other dialects the situation is quite dire. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

What's the best online stock-trading application?

There are plenty to choose from. Do they have Misplaced Pages articles? Which ones are better than the others, and how? (Sorry, but Google might list all stock-trading applications, but not rank the best from the worst and mediocre.) --70.179.169.115 (talk) 07:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I have moved this question to the Computing Desk. Please post all further responses there. Falconus 16:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Lithium company stocks

I know that LEXG most likely isn't the only one. Where is a most up-to-date list of all lithium stocks, and of that list, which ones would you recommend the most and why? (The lists might not be able to list best to worst either, so that's why I ask.

This is why I ought to jump on soon.

--70.179.169.115 (talk) 07:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

"This featured company sponsored advertising issue of Stock Market Authority (SMA) does not purport to provide an analysis of any company's financial position, operations or prospects and this is not to be construed as a recommendation by SMA or an offer or solicitation to buy or sell any security. Lithium Exploration Group, (LEXG), the company featured in this issue, appears as paid advertising, paid by Gekko Industries to provide public awareness for LEXG." Nil Einne (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Overcrowded refugee ship in WWII - the "Navamar"

An elderly relative of mine, a Holocaust survivor, escaped from Europe on a ship called the "Navamar", which departed from Spain and arrived in New York, in the early 1940's. He says that 1200 refugees were crowded into this ship, which was originally a freighter with a crew of twelve. He also says that this voyage was the subject of a book.

So far I have not been able to find any mention of this ship except for on this page: Survivor of the Holocaust - Escaped in ship called the "NAVAMAR". Any ideas about where I could find more information? (It it possible that I misspelled the name of the ship.)

Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 09:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to add - it was nicknamed the "Nevermore".

Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 09:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You're right, there's remarkably little trace of it on the web. You might try a search at this site for more details. Dates and a departure point might help narrow the search criterea. Alansplodge (talk) 10:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Eureka! ' SS Navemar - The Spanish freighter, equipped to carry 28 passengers, crammed 1,000 people into its cargo holds. The conditions were so horrible when it arrived in Cuba in 1941 that Manuel Siegel of the Joint Relief Committee in Havana wrote to the JDC that "everyone seemed to be fighting everyone else for the privilege of living. The relationships seemed more animalistic than human."' (A slight spelling mistake was throwing me off the scent). Alansplodge (talk) 10:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Some documentation here. Alansplodge (talk) 10:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Now that I have the correct spelling (Navemar), much more shows up. The description matches perfectly. Typhoid plagues, Nazi spies... Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 11:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Can I suggest that you ask your relative to make a record of his experiences? Perhaps a taped interview if he's not up to writing it down. In a few years, there won't be anyone left to ask. Alansplodge (talk) 11:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

<-Yad Vashem do an excellent, sensitive service of working with Holocaust survivors to record their memories. --Dweller (talk) 13:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I've created a stub article at SS Navemar - please feel free to expand or correct it. Alansplodge (talk) 18:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Forensic Investigation:

What is the purpose and objectives of a forensic investigation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenny Prinsloo (talk • contribs) 09:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You might have to be more specific - 'forensic investigation' could have any number of meanings depending on the context. We have an article on Forensic science, if that is any help. 130.88.134.226 (talk) 10:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like an essay question. WP:RD will not do your homework. But you want to start with something along the lines of: Usage of relevant scientific analysis and fields to gather evidence in criminal proceedings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.117.185 (talk) 10:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Since 1659 (according to the OED) "forensic" has meant "legal". Since 1963, it has also been used to refer to a forensic science department or laboratory. I think (but the OED does not confirm) that it is popularly used to mean "scientific in a police context". Thus depending on who said it and when "forensic investigation" might mean legal or scientific. --ColinFine (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Sprechen Sie Deutsch... or Hebrew?

Hi, all! I'm hoping to find a German-speaking and/or Hebrew-speaking Sherlock Holmes here. I'm afraid I've forgotten most of the schoolboy German I once knew, and I don't read Hebrew at all, so I'd like to ask your help, please.

There's an article at AfD that I'm especially interested in because I researched its plausibility a month or two ago, and it seemed to come up wanting. The article is Abraham Reuel, which is actually kind of funny because if the subject ever existed, his name would have been Reuel Abraham. The article's creator was just careless in that respect.

Or that would have been his adopted name, actually, as opposed to his given one, which is reported to have been Karl Heinz Schneider. When the article first came to my attention the only remotely legitimate source for the story that was listed in the article was a cutesy little book called A Treasury of Jewish Anecdotes. That's probably not a reliable source for the purpose, I think, but once it got to AfD someone then found ... well, I'll let you look at the AfD for yourself.

The reason I'm asking you all for help is that I came up blank when I searched German language sources to try to determine whether this guy ever actually existed, let alone whether he's one of the world's most famous converts to Judaism, as our article currently maintains based on a single in-passing sentence in another source. There was nothing I could find in the proprietary databases I have access to, either.

I was wondering whether any of you who can speak German or Hebrew like a grown-up you would be able to spare a few minutes to see whether you can find anything in either of those languages about "Reuel Abraham" or "Karl Heinz Schneider" to confirm this story or disprove it as a hoax? It's certainly an interesting opportunity to put one's deerstalker on, however the AfD turns out. Many thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Just as a FYI: Schneider (lit. "Tailor") is one of the most common Surnames in German. Just as Karl Heinz is one of the old fashioned, but more prominent first name combinations making a German internet search of the topic a dolorous task. Both suggest, in their ubiquity, a hoax article. From my scant knowledge of the Aera I would find it quite implausible for a HJ-Member to organize a Battalion of men, even in the Volkssturm they were controlled by more reliable men. The HJ actually did not have battalions. This is at the least incorrect terminology and suggests a certain carelessness. The Karl Heinz Schneider the German Misplaced Pages finds relevant is actually an SPD politician. A oogle search indicated nothing beyond a few notes that are n the article, without proper scourcing and, incidentally, without the bit about organizing Battalions. I did not find reputable sourcing for the proposed turns of events as depicted in the article, but alas I am only an IP. I cannot help but make the comment that I find your AfD debates to be very much unlike those of the German Misplaced Pages and quite unsavory of something which proposes to be an Encyclopedia. --129.206.196.205 (talk) 12:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

That AfD is a fairly mild one, but en:wikipedia does allow far too much mean-spirited communication. It's embarrassing and undignified. Thank you; Anyone else?  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Using Google to search in Hebrew, neither name order {"רעואל אברהם", "אברהם רעואל"} yields any hits. As this topic seems rather esoteric for the fund of knowledge available to us WP editors patrolling the Reference Desks at present, I suggest you may have achieve better results by contacting a Jewish university library or academic department period archive in this field to help you with your investigations. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

REDACTED after reading the AfD -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Stanley Spencer balloonist and parachutist

 Answered

At my talk page an editor has asked me for more details about the background and history of the aeronaut Stanley Spencer, see questions a) to e). I started the stub from the links he provided and did some googling but I could not find much more than what is already in the stub and in the links. For German readers there is the larger article w:de:Stanley Spencer (Ballonfahrer). Can anyone find more details on this Spencer family? -84user (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Is this or this any good? Alansplodge (talk) 11:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, excellent sources, I have now added them as inline cite and external link. I used this direct gutenberg link because the scribd link would not allow me to download the text without logging into a facebook account, something against the spirit of the gutenberg license in my opinion. -84user (talk) 19:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that could be why I couldn't download it either. I thought my rather elderly computer just needed another shovel-full of coal ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 21:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

How could their be a divorce?

How was it possible for William IX, Duke of Aquitaine to divorce his first spouse Ermengarde in 1093? Divorce was not allowed, was it? They both remarried, and after their second spouse died, Ermengarde tried to be recognized as his wife again, but her request was not granted. But, was'nt she in fact still his wife? Thank you.--Aciram (talk) 14:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Annulments were the usual substitute for divorce in that era, and in fact was what happened to the Duchess Ermengarde. Googlemeister (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I see. On what grounds was it annuled? If that was indeed the case, the article should perhaps use the word annullement instead of divorce to avoid musinderstandings. --Aciram (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I only see the word divorced used for his father William VIII, and the statement about consanginuity makes me think that too was an annulment, since consanginuity was the main grounds (or rather instrument) for an annulment amongst the nobility of Catholic Europe since the qualifications were so broad. Of course as the final decision was in the hands of the Ecclisiastical courts, really any reason would do if you were powerful and on good terms with the Church. Googlemeister (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Competitive advantage for becoming a financial center

Our article on the Four Asian Tigers says:

All four Asian Tigers have a highly educated and skilled workforce and have specialized in areas where they had a competitive advantage. For example, Hong Kong and Singapore became world leading international financial centres, while South Korea and Taiwan became world leaders in information technology

I understand that, for example, South Korea and Taiwan could have become world leaders in electronics and information technology in general due to cheap but skilled labor, but what characteristics are needed for a country to have a "competitive advantage" as an international financial center? --Belchman (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Both Singapore and HK had good ties with the UK, which would have been useful. Googlemeister (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Some opinions regarding Singapore are presented in this article ("Going swimmingly", The Economist, 20 April 2011). Gabbe (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Both Hong Kong and Singapore are tiny. This is a disadvantage in many businesses, where farms, factories, or large numbers of employees all require lots of space. However, money doesn't take up much room, so financial centers might be a good alternative. StuRat (talk) 07:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Cheap skilled (white collar) labour. Hong Kong and Singapore both have Universities producing skilled labour with English language at a high grade. They have historically been highly concentrated trade and entrepot centres. As noted they are part of the Anglosphere. The links between trade, skilled white collar labour and English language make them perfectly placed to be financial centres. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

To all certified public accountants and/or auditors out there, i've got a question for you.

kindly elaborate ur answers and pls. answer these 2 questions clearly. 1. what is the auditor's contribution to good governance? 2.what's the biggest problem or headaches encountered by auditors?

Kindly elaborate on whether this is a homework question, and please answer clearly. Looie496 (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd think dealing with intentional deception (sometimes legal) would be among the biggest headaches. StuRat (talk) 21:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

What was the name of the place?

What was the name of the place where the constitutional act 1982 took place between Pierre Trudeau and ten provincial premiers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.149.128 (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "place", but our article is at Constitution Act, 1982 and you might find what you're looking for there. If you can provide more detail, we might be better able to help. Matt Deres (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

If you mean the Kitchen Accord in 1981, it was in the kitchen of the Chateau Laurier, although Rene Levesque didn't sign it. The subsequent Canada Act in 1982 was signed only by the Queen, presumably. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the OP means the place that had the u-shape table the politicians (Pierre Trudeau and ten provincial premiers were discussing the constitution on). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.33.234 (talk) 03:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, like in this picture? Seems like no one noted the exact place, other than "Ottawa". I suppose it was also in the Chateau Laurier? (Presumably they wouldn't have gone to the Chateau's kitchen for the Kitchen Accord if they weren't already there? But I have no idea.) Adam Bishop (talk)

1980 referendum

I remember one of the members of Parti Quebecois called the ladies who sided with Pierre Trudeau yvettes. Were they called Yvettes because of Pierre Trudeau's other name happens to be "Yves" as in "Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.149.128 (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

According to Quebec referendum, 1980, Yvette was "the name of a docile young girl in an old school manual". Adam Bishop (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I would think they would call people who vote "yes" that, as in Yes, Yes, Yvette (no article ?). The "no" voters, then, would have to be Nanettes. StuRat (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

According to an essay by a young Quebecois student of politics:

The Yvette was a elemantary book, where Yvette was a gently girl who help her mother in the house and who learned to little girl to stay at home and prepared meal, wash cloth…… And the Wife of the Quebec Liberal Party chief, named Yvette…. The problem was that Lise Payette, a Lévesques’s minister compare both Yvettes.

In other words, Lise Payette, a Parti Quebecois minister under Rene Levesque, claimed that Claude Ryan, the leader of the party opposing the independence campaign, wanted a Quebec of "Yvettes", invoking the submissive girl in primary school readers and drawing on the coincidence that it happened to be the name of Ryan's wife. There's a better-written article of unclear provenance here and brief CBC archives here (written and audio), both in English. BrainyBabe (talk) 23:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Heh, that's a strange translation, or I guess written by a French-speaker with not so great knowlede of English. Ryan's wife was actually named Madeleine. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

May 13

Secrets to Osama Bin Laden's success

Osama Bin Laden was an excellent leader of men and an extremely gifted strategist. This is evident because he virtually single handedly led a group of men to plan and execute an attack on one of the most important buildings in a major city in one of the most powerful nations in the world killing thousands.

What are the secrets to Bin Laden's success? He died recently of course but I'm interested in what the experts say. For example, you could give your opinions and also direct me to experts discussing Bin Laden's tactics and secrets to his success and his ability to lead men. More specifically, my question is:

1. How did Bin Laden form the organization Al-Qaeda and how did he become their leader?

2. How did he manage to convince so many people to become terrorists and to engage in suicide bombing? (He must obviously have convinced them of the religion.)

3. How did he manage to communicate with people to plan attacks?

4. Most intriguing is how he managed to execute the attack on the world trade center etc. What strategy did he employ and how exactly did the strategy manage to make an attack on the most powerful nation?

5. How did he manage to convince people to hide him for so long?

Let's make it clear. I don't support Osama Bin Laden, terrorism, killing etc. In fact, I'm against it completely. But we nonetheless cannot deny that Bin Laden was an outstanding leader of men and an outstanding strategist and this is what my question asks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.2.4.186 (talk) 09:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with you in your claim that he was "an outstanding leader of men" and "an outstanding strategist", but he did have some merit in both fields. Have you tried the extensive literature on the subject? A search on "Osama bin Laden" reveals a lot of relevant hits. Without having read any of them Holy War Inc by Peter Bergen and perhaps by bin Ladens wife and one of his sons seems to possibly contain some of the information you are looking for. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

But of course you could start out by reading our articles on Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, which are highly informative in their own right. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

One of his "secrets" was access to plenty of money... AnonMoos (talk) 09:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Question of jews and Judaism

Is every Jews descended from the Israelites? If not, then how can Jews be an ethnic when it's just a religion? Saying someone is of Jewish descent is like someone I'm of Christian because my mother is Christian. Neptunekh2 (talk) 13:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a complicated subject, but for starters, there is Conversion_to_Judaism, which does not have any lineage / ethnic requirements. So presumably there are Jewish people who are not directly descended from Israelites. SemanticMantis (talk) 13:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

You can also get a feel for the controversy and history of the topic at who_is_a_jew. SemanticMantis (talk) 13:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Judaism is quite unlike Christianity, in the way in which you are Jewish either if you are born Jewish, or if you convert. Hence it is both an ethnicity and a religion. But here's where it gets quirky and controversial: there's no such thing, from a traditional Jewish religious perspective, as "being of Jewish descent". Either your mother is Jewish, or she isn't. If she is, you are. If she isn't, you aren't. On the other hand, your father could be Muslim, Christian, Bahai, Hindu or indeed all (or none) of them and you're still Jewish if your mother is. Most other ethnicities just don't work like that. And you're Jewish even if you know nothing, keep nothing and don't want to be Jewish. Most other religions just don't work like that, either. --Dweller (talk) 13:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• This whole question rather depends on whether you are referring to the Jewish race (which, by definition, is descended from the Israelites, although issues such as conversion, intermarriage and the ten lost tribes complicate this) or the Jewish religion, which, as others have explained, is defined differently by, say, Orthodox Judaism, Reform Judaism and Liberal Judaism, and is a much trickier issue. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 13:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

2 questions about Northern Canada

1. What is the most northern community in the North-West_Territories Canada? 2. I was looking for a website for Grise_Fiord Nunavut but I couldn't find one. Also can anyone name any notable people from ? Like as in Politician or something? Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 14:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages help forums
• Misplaced Pages resources for researchers