Revision as of 22:09, 16 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 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)

Now you must dial a whole 10 digits. NIST WWV:(303)499-7111, NIST WWVH:(808)335-4363, US Naval Observatory:(202)762-1069 or (202)762-1401. Sperril (talk) 19:43, 13 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)

Sure but given how relatively little the building is worth, you have to consider whether the cost of getting rid of it it is worth it. Also it's unclear to me why you think it needs that level of protection which is going to come at great cost (bearing in mind one of the reasons why Cheyenne Mountain Operations Center is useful is not just because of location but protection offered by those restricting access etc, something which the stock market will have too pay for themselves particularly in such an isolated location and the need to have multiple redundant datalines). I'm not sure whether even the stock market themselves think they need to remain in operation in the event of a catastrophic nuclear war in the US. A decentralised network of computers in well connected locations seems a far better bet something which I suspect is already used. Nil Einne (talk) 14:21, 14 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)

I think you're thinking of 2010 Flash Crash Nil Einne (talk) 14:21, 14 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?

 Answered  courtesy of IP 129.206.196.205 and user Deborahjay. Thanks!

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)

I'm grateful for your assistance, as well, Deborahjay. Most kind; thank you.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:13, 14 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)

The key differences between Hong Kong and Shanghai, to take an example of a financial/business center and a manufacturing/business center, are the rule of law, currency convertibility, capital controls and the free flow of information. Add to that some other factors such as an honest and competent bureaucracy, excellent support for international families (schools, hospitals, language), and other non-financial factors and it is obvious why Hong Kong has hundreds of Mainland companies on its stock market, and Shanghai has none.DOR (HK) (talk) 09:10, 17 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)

What was the name of the place? 2

The answer to the original question was it took place at a venue called Ottawa National Conference Centre and here is the clip: http://archives.cbc.ca/politics/constitution//topics/1092/. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.105.20 (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I think Government Conference Centre is the correct article. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

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 Growing Up bin Laden: Osama's Wife and Son Take Us Inside Their Secret World 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)

Check out the 9/11 Commission Report. Its early chapters are a great description of the origins of al Qaeda, of bin Laden's own means of supporting it, of the actual logistics and planning that went into the attack. It's free, it's informative, it's a pretty good read. It gives a huge amount of logistical detail. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that he wasn't successful. His goal was to ignite a holy war between Muslims and the United States, and thus draw all of the Muslim world into his organization, which would then form a global caliphate. There's no sign of this happening. Indeed, the government which was closest to what bin Laden wanted (the Taliban government of Afghanistan) has fallen as a result of his action. So, his actions seem to have worked counter to his goals. This is the definition of failure. The same is true of his lesser goals, like getting the US to withdraw troops from Saudi Arabia and other Muslim nations. StuRat (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

You sure did beat that straw man, StuRat... the OP wasn't suggesting that he was successful at all of his own stated goals, just that he successfully managed to organize a rather complex set of activities. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

He didn't organize any of that, that was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Bin Laden was more of an idea man. He got so many ideas he can't even fight them off! Adam Bishop (talk) 02:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The OP mentioned strategy. His strategy was to use major attacks on the US (and others) to attain the goals I listed. Those failed. Some of the tactics he employed, on the other hand, such the 9-11 attacks, were successful. StuRat (talk) 08:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

It's always intriguing that those who choose to hate someone else want to totally demonise them, condemning everything about them and everything they have done. That's a foolish position to take. People like bin Laden are ONLY able to do the nasty things they do because they are really good at certain things, like motivating "foot soldiers". To ignore that attribute is to guarantee that it will all happen again. Great leaders aren't necessarily nice people. HiLo48 (talk) 00:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

He had the money, honey. LOTS OF IT!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

You're questions suggest that Bin Laden was a leader who was able to "move" a whole people and rally them behind him (Hitler's or Milosevic's style). However, it should be understood that Osama 's organization is an unorthodox and bizarre organization which follows a flavor of Islam which will seem very alien to the billion mulsims worldwide. Of course that fact that his tiny organization is notable is because of its spectacular actions. Having said that, Bin Laden was no charismatic leader, but he was able to form a very active clique around him, with the help of his fortune and US and Saudi support. How did he convince his people to join him and help him, is similar to how the KKK or gangs recruit: a mix of prejudice, propaganda and social factors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.82.190.163 (talk) 10:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say bin Laden's radical Muslim fundamentalism was all that rare. There are many in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Chechnya, Sudan, and Somalia which agreed with him. Yes, it's a minority of the Muslim world, but even 10% would still be a hundred million. StuRat (talk) 06:57, 17 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)

In the Soviet Union, Judaism was an ethnic group according to the practical criterion that there was a slot on your Soviet ID documents where ethnicity went, and "Jewish" was one of the standard answers that was filled in to that slot, and you could be classified as ethnically Jewish even if you were the most flamingly militant atheist in your personal religious convictions.

Similarly, in the United States of America right now, the majority of American Jews have ancestors that lived in the current-day countries of Germany, Poland, and Ukraine, but very few Jews consider themselves to be German-Americans, Polish-Americans, or Ukrainian-Americans, or would be considered to be such by other German-Americans, Polish-Americans, or Ukrainian-Americans (except for a rather small number of very recent immigrants or particular special cases). In the political and cultural system of the United States, "Jewish-Americans" function like other ethnic-cultural interest groups, such as "Greek-Americans", "Japanese-Americans" etc., and there are many Americans who would never dream of renouncing their Jewish ethnic-cultural heritage, even if their interest or belief in the Jewish religion in itself is tepid or zero... AnonMoos (talk) 14:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Question on the "mother is Jewish" definition... Suppose you have a woman who's father was Jewish, and mother was not. She is raised Jewish. I understand that some would say the woman in question is not Jewish (since her mother is not). But what about her children? (In logic, if she's not considered Jewish her children shouldn't be considered Jewish... but I am fully aware that religious doctrine does not always follow logic). Blueboar (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

According to the traditional definition, Judaism is transmitted only by conversion or by matrilineality. So in your example, Orthodox rabbis such as Jonathan Sacks would not consider the woman to be Jewish, because her mother was not Jewish. And since she is not Jewish, her children wouldn't be either, because they don't have a Jewish mother. In fact, as far as I'm aware, only two Jewish religious organisations in the world – Liberal Judaism in the UK and the Union for Reform Judaism in the States – accept patrilineal descent. There's a very interesting fact-sheet on the topic available here – ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 18:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

So the children and grand children of a female convert are not Jewish... on down through time? Wow, that's strict. Blueboar (talk) 18:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand, Blueboar. Your question was about a woman who was "raised Jewish". Merely to be raised in the tradition would not make her a Jew and it is then true that none of her descendents, unless they converted, would be Jewish. However, if she converted to Judaism, as your preceding comment states, then her offspring and their subsequent descendents would be Jewish. Bielle (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

As a Liberal Jew, I agree that the descent-by-mother criterion is strict, but you've misunderstood what I said. The children of a female convert to Judaism are considered Jewish, assuming that they were below the 'age of chinuch (education)' at the time of conversion, because their mother is Jewish. (The age of chinuch varies between about 5 and 13 according to traditions.) Your scenario above, however, didn't mention conversion, just being raised Jewish, which is a different matter altogether. ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 18:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

TreasuryTag, can you provide any refs for the "age of chinuch" rule? As I understand it, converting to Judaism does not automatically convert one's (earlier born) children. The Talmud even discusses the question of a pregnant woman - does her conversion include her fetus? As to converting children to Judaism, that's a topic in itself. Given that they can't consent, they have the right to renounce their conversion after they reach bar/bat mitzvah. However, they must do so immediately upon reaching bar/bat mitzvah (or when they discover their "childhood conversion" assuming this only happens later). If they fail to do so, they become Jewish permanently and irrevocably. Eliyohub (talk) 10:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The website "Judaism 101" has this to say:

"A Jew is any person whose mother was a Jew or any person who has gone through the formal process of conversion to Judaism."

"It is important to note that being a Jew has nothing to do with what you believe or what you do." Bus stop (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Got it... sorry, I was assuming that being raised Jewish would include the formal conversion process. But, of course, that is not always the case. Blueboar (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

By the way, in traditional legal interpretation Jewish identity descends through the mother, but tribal membership or Cohen status descends through the father....AnonMoos (talk) 19:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Moreover, not all religious Jews trace Jewish identity through the mother: see Karaite Judaism. Nyttend (talk) 03:13, 14 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)

As for your first question, the northernmost inhabited community in the Northwest Territories appears to be Sachs Harbour. Marco polo (talk) 17:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

As for your second question, I, too, cannot find a community website for Grise Fiord. I am guessing that the village is so small that 1) everybody knows everybody, and 2) it is probably easier to knock on your neighbor's door than try to get information about the village from the internet. I doubt that the village has a fast connection. Among the most notable living people from Grise Fiord is apparently Looty Pijamini. Although he lacks a Misplaced Pages article, he gets a number of Google hits (such as this), perhaps enough to warrant an article. Marco polo (talk) 17:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Neptunekh2, as it says above, "Please, post your question on only one section of the reference desk." (I will repeat this warning on the Miscellaneous Desk.) BrainyBabe (talk) 10:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The History of Roses Five and Dime Stores

In researching the history of Roses five and dime stores, I noticed that the company is said to have been "founded in Henderson, NC." However, I've heard from a number of reliable sources that the first store operated by the founder of the Roses chain was in Littleton, NC. That tiny, original Roses store is still standing at 202 E North Main Street in Littleton. The quaint little store has been partially restored, is undergoing further restoration, and is currently a flower shop. If anyone has information regarding the history of the Roses chain or the original Roses store in Littleton, I would love to hear from them.

Thank you.

W. Gid Alston —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.74.227.63 (talk) 14:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Jewish practices

Hello all! What are some everyday practices or behaviors that would imply a given person is Jewish? (besides the dietary things and not working on Shabbos) I'm not looking for anti-semitic stereotypes, but for actual documented practices, preferably those that most people aren't familiar with. This is just out of curiosity and not out of any anti-semitic intent. Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 23:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Nonobservant Jews wouldn't have any "practices" that were specifically Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 23:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Observant males might wear a yarmulkah. Observant woman also wear head coverings, ranging from a kippah to a wig. Bielle (talk) 23:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Note that a Kippah and a Yarmulke are the same thing, just in a different language - Kippah is the Hebrew word for the head covering, Yarmulke is the (more well known) Yiddish word.

This question does depend a lot on the individual Jew - Some are non-practicing, whereas even within different denominations, practices vary widely. For example, whereas the kippah is one of the most well known symbols of a practicing Jew, many members of Reform Judaism don't wear any head coverings. Some more modern accessories like Star of David necklaces and the like could also be a give away.

That said, prayers are one give away - a Jew should recite the Shema Yisrael twice a day, for example. More are listed at List of Jewish prayers and blessings#Everyday prayers and blessings. In addition to a kippah, some more conservative Jews will also wear Tzitzit, and have grown out their sidelocks into Peyos. Should a Jew walk past a Mezuzah, common on the doorpost of many Jews, one should touch it and then kiss the hand afterwards.

Besides the prayers said over food, (since not all Jews say them,) what they chose to eat may also help define them as a Jew that is keeping kosher. Most people know that Jews do not eat pig, but Kashrut laws also prohibit eating shellfish (such as shrimp or lobster) or eating meat and dairy products together, e.x., a cheeseburger is not kosher.

In addition to not working on Shabbos, there are other restrictions. One may not light a fire (or turn on electricity), drive a car, perform a creative work, or walk more than 3000 paces outside the city.

They may also use certain words or phrases that are very common with Jews, though no so much as with other groups, like saying HaShem instead of God, or referring to someone Of blessed memory after they have passed. In lighter conversations, one may use words from their native Hebrew or Yiddish, such as Oy vey or Goyim, or English words like Gentile. If they are writing, you may see them write HaShem instead of God, or perhaps the common G-d, like the template I've used here. They may also date things in the Hebrew Calendar. :)

I'm sure there are other things, but I can't think of any right now. Hopefully that helps. _ennasis @ 03:52, 10 Iyar 5771 / 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Orthodox Jewish women never wear shorts or short skirts, which are regarded as immodest, and many avoid wearing pants (trousers) because of the Torah's ban on wearing the other sex's clothing. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

"preferably those that most people aren't familiar with"... OK. Religious Jews may have labels in their jackets indicating they've been checked for Shaatnez. They will try very hard to avoid being alone with a person of the opposite sex (other than spouses etc). They won't have milk in their cup of tea or coffee for a period of time after eating meat. Are those obscure enough? --Dweller (talk) 13:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, "those that most people aren't familiar with"... ". Jews must not speak, read, write, or even believe Lashon hara, so forget having any Orthodox Jewish gossip rags. Truth is not a defence! Consuming insects is strictly forbidden (even more so than pork), so religious jews generally either scrub vegetables such as lettuce with soap, or inspect each leaf individually against the sun for aphids or the like. The Mishnah Berurah mentions that when dressing, a jew should put on his right shoe first, then his left. He should however tie the left shoe first. Jews also have a Mezuzah on almost every door of their homes (though toilets, laundy rooms and bathrooms are exempt). A male Jew must not wear a four-cornered garment by day unless it has Tzitzit on it. The laws of Niddah mean married jewish couples spend part of every month without even being allowed to touch each other (unless the wife is pregnant, breastfeeding, or menopausal). It's considered a time for them to build their intimacy with each other on a non-physical level. A Kohen must not enter a cemetery or any building with contains a corpse (there are limited exceptions here). On the festival of Sukkot jews hold and wave the Four Species. Hope all this helps! I'm Jewish myself, so I assure you there is no malicious intent here. Eliyohub (talk) 11:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

May 14

Gemstone rings

Do American males wear ring with gemstone studded on it? How common is it in the United States? And how common is it in Europe? --Radical Wikipedian 10 (talk) 02:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

And can anyone please name some famous people (preferably male) who have gemstone rings? Thanks! --Radical Wikipedian 10 (talk) 02:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

If by gemstones you mean stones such as carnelian, onyx and jasper, it's quite common over here in the UK. The practice comes (I believe) from the use of carved gemstones in a signet ring. Before literacy was common, men used to signify assent to things like deeds by affixing their seals to the document: an impression was made in melted sealing wax by a seal (emblem). This seal was carved into a gemstone and put in a ring, so that the seal was available at all times. Signet rings are quite popular today. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

A common enough ring worn by males in the U.S. is the class ring, which many males wear, and which often feature gemstones. --Jayron32 08:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Aside from that, the only person I can think of is Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is sort of American I guess. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Another Judaism question

It seems there are several questions about Judaism recently. I have another: would it be fair to say that from an Orthodox point of view it is sufficient to practice all the precepts of Judaism even if one does not believe in God? I.e. if someone is Jewish, does not believe in God, but acts in all ways as a Jew should, e.g. says the Shema because one should, but not because he believes in it, is this sufficient? --99.113.32.198 (talk) 03:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I assume you are asking whether the Orthodox community would accept a non-believer as a Jew? The question of "Who is a Jew?" is a widely discussed and debated topic among all denominations. From the article:

All Jewish religious movements agree that a person may be a Jew either by birth or through conversion. According to halakha a Jew by birth must be born to a Jewish mother. Halakha states that the mere acceptance of the principles and practices of Judaism does not make a person a Jew. However, those born Jewish do not lose that status because they cease to be observant Jews, even if they adopt the practices of another religion.

So, a person born of a Jewish mother would be considered a Jew by the Orthodox, even if they don't believe. Hope that helps. _ennasis @ 04:33, 10 Iyar 5771 / 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Although this question is not debated in modern times because of modes of societal and educational conformation, etc., the topic was debated heavily many years ago by the likes of Maimonides and others. You can see Menachem Kellner's work "Must a Jew Believe Anything?" for further discussion. DRosenbach 14:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

As far as the Orthodox are concerned, one cannot lose one's Jewish status no matter what. Even if somebody went through a formal Islamic conversion ceremony, say, they might be formally shunned from their Jewish community but would still be considered Jewish and entitled to a Jewish burial. Simple non-belief is obviously way less of a problem than apostasy, and is generally tolerated (in fact, many Orthodox Jews are actually known as 'park round the corner people' based on vaguely concealed non-observance of Jewish law).
Progressive movements such as Liberal Judaism would require apostates to re-convert to Judaism should they wish to return, but is equally tolerant of non-belief. There's a good section on the subject of Jewish atheism in Progressive Judaism in Faith and Practice: A Guide to Reform Judaism Today – ISBN0947884084. ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 14:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

We have an article on Menachem Kellner. Bus stop (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Illiterate Americans

I'm interested in knowing the percentage of Americans that are literate. I've heard before the following about Americans and wondering whether they are true, and if not, how far away they are from being true:

• 50% of Americans think that America is the only country in the world
• 60% of Americans don't know where Canada is
• 60% of Americans are functional illiterates
• 60% of Americans don't know who Barack Obama is

etc.

Also, it would be interesting to know about other such facts about Americans that make them look stupid. For example, what percent of them don't know arithmetic, what percent of them don't know that there is more than one state in America, what percent of them don't know the name of the President etc. Please include as many such facts as you can PROVIDED that they are true.

It seems pretty unbelievable to me that these facts are true (Americans are dumb but not this dumb ...) but I have heard from highly educated people (who wouldn't make jokes about this kind of thing) that these are not far from the truth. (But they don't know the exact numbers.) Moreover, Americans only seem to love guns, burgers, sex and baseball anyway so it's not hard to believe that they would be clueless about IMPORTANT things. But then that's just my opinion :)

I know some intelligent Americans but they are in their substantial minority. (1% say.) I'm not saying all Americans are dumb. All I'm saying is that America as a country is dumb IF these facts are true.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.2.4.186 (talk) 04:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

According to Literacy in the United States, a U.S. Government study issued in 2002 said:

that 21% to 23% of adult Americans were not "able to locate information in text", could not "make low-level inferences using printed materials", and were unable to "integrate easily identifiable pieces of information."

The rest of your numbers are likely equally poorly co-related with reality. Bielle (talk) 05:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

And many, if not most, of those 21 to 23% would likely be the types of people doing jobs (an arborist or a low-level deckhand on a ship) that wouldn't require reading. And just as an aside, since your IP geolocates to Australia; your experience with Americans is probably severely distorted because you've probably met mostly tourists. You have to meet Americans on their own turf; you'll be rather surprised. I can't say I've ever met someone who didn't know who Obama is, and there's no way 60% of Americans don't know where Canada is. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I have met quite a few Americans. But that's besides the point. I also heard that the average vocabulary of an American (other than nouns and propositions) consists of 500 words. Is this true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.2.4.186 (talk) 06:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know of any study of English vocabulary that excludes "nouns and propositions". You might find Vocabulary of interest. Bielle (talk) 06:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Basic English consists of 850 words - however, this is in no way related to Americans specifically. As for the other facts you listed, I would not believe them without a reliable, verifiable source for said statements. "I've heard someone say 75% of Australians don't know who Julia Gillard is, and since someone said it, it must be true," is not a good way to get your facts lined up. furthermore, statements like "Americans only seem to love guns, burgers, sex and baseball anyway" show a severe lack of research into Americans and their concerns. Net Neutrality, Education, Health Care, Terrorism, et cetera are just a few items from a long list of things Americans care about, as evidenced by even a quick glance through some American news sources. Research is your friend, especially before making overly-broad statements. _ennasis @ 06:55, 10 Iyar 5771 / 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Haha. I think you're the one who needs to go back to school. Haven't you heard of verbs and adjectives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.2.4.186 (talk) 06:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Would my response be clearer if I said I don't know of any study of English vocabulary that limits itself to (to use your examples) "verbs and adjectives", and excludes "nouns and propositions"? Bielle (talk) 06:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I suspect the OP is referring to prepositions, but cryptically and intentionally employing the same lack of knowledge about language he/she attributes to Americans. That's the charitable interpretation. But maybe, just maybe, there's another explanation ............................... -- Jack of Oz 06:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

No. I've certainly learnt foreign languages by concentrating only on learning verbs and adjectives after learning nouns and propositions. For example, have you heard of The big red book of Spanish verbs? It's certainly possible to focus only on learning verbs because verbs are by far the most important aspect of a new language. You can make sentences using only verbs (e.g. I am speaking is "hablo" in Spanish, a conjagation of "Hablar" (to speak)) but you cannot make a coherent sentence without nouns. But this is totally irrelevant to the discussion and I advise you to stick to the main point when commenting here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.2.4.186 (talk) 06:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

First "propositions" , and now "conjagations" . What was that you were saying about illiteracy, OP? -- Jack of Oz 07:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I read somewhere once that 75% of Australians misremember statistics, and then create inaccurate and bigotted stereotypes based on those statistics. A further 63% of them then refuse to back down from their preconceived notions when confronted with actual facts. --Jayron32 06:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Good for you. Yeah I agree Australians aren't that intelligent either. BTW, in case it wasn't obvious, I'm not Australian. I only live in Australia but I actually don't care for the country any more than I care for the fly in my living room which is about to be squished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.2.4.186 (talk) 06:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I can't find references to prove my claim, but I think I am on safe ground in stating categorically that the OP's so-called "facts" are falsehoods. I would expect the percentages to be lower even if "America" included "South America". Dbfirs 06:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I quickly looked through the source that the 21-23% figure came from which Bielle quoted above. It doesn't look like the study included retarded adults who would obviously not score well due to their handicaps. So, that figure may be low. Dismas| 07:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Your use of the adjective "retarded" before "adults" is redundant since we're obviously talking about Americans and thus no confusion can arise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.2.4.186 (talk) 07:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you trying to imply all Americans are retarded? Just asking for clarification here, since that's how I'm reading it. Also, I properly indented your reply - no need to thank me. _ennasis @ 07:23, 10 Iyar 5771 / 14 May 2011 (UTC)

That is consistent with the IP's contribution history. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Based on the superior quality of the OP's writing and his undeniable prowess with the English language, I would describe him as the epitome of erudition and literacy, therefore qualifying him to adequately judge American intelligence.As me late granny from Crossmolina, County Mayo would have said: "Jesus wept!!!"--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure of that? I've heard that the average IQ for Americans is 98, whereas for Australians it's 73. It must be true - I read it in a book! _ennasis @ 07:45, 10 Iyar 5771 / 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Judging from the OP's contribution history, it seems like they are very angry over the fact that Americans killed one of the world's most dangerous terrorist. --Reference Desker (talk) 07:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I suspect the OP couldn't care less about either of these subjects but are simply trolling the ref desk. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why this discussion has diverged from its purpose. I simply asked whether or not certain facts I heard about Americans were true. I never claimed them to be true although I did say that I did not think highly about the average intelligence of Americans. However, that had little to do with my actual question. I'd appreciate it if the people here took the time to read the question and understand what it's asking before jumping to conclusions. Also, before you direct insults at me, take the time to remember that you do not know who I am and that I am considered a very knowledgeable person (in mathematics). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.2.4.186 (talk) 07:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

If Americans are all illiterate dumb bunnies how can they be expected to read and sufficiently comprehend your question, IP49? BTW, nobody would dream of disputing your claim to be "a very knowledgeable person".Just where IS Canada?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Of all the "facts" listed, the only one that seems the least but plausible is 60% not knowing where Canada is. Americans do seem to be quite bad at geography, in general. I, for example, never had a single class on it. What I learned I had to learn on my own. I'm curious, have other Americans had classes where they memorized the nations of the world ? StuRat (talk) 08:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I memorized the Canadian territories from West to East by staring at a map behind my incredibly boring economics teacher, does that count? Seriously though, to answer your question, the most geography I ever got was a small map of a particular region (see the top of the Middle East article for example) when our history teachers would teach us about some era or events. It was up to us to figure out where on the planet that particular section of earth was in relation to everything else. Though, in the teacher's defense, there was generally a world map on the wall somewhere.

Getting back to the OP's original question though, I suspect that some of those figures are either taken out of context or not quoted quite right. The first one about America being the only country could have been cut short. "...the only country in the world... where you can get XXXX" Or the 'where Canada is' stat. I can see some questioner showing some kid in Texas a map of North America and asking him things about Canada. To which the kid might reply by pointing out maybe Montreal or Ottawa but not realizing that Canada is actually a lot larger than he thought. At which point the questioner, having only a couple choices on his test sheet to choose from, checks off the "doesn't know" box instead of the "familiar with" box. Dismas| 08:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

This is something I also agree. Wondering how many Americans, even those posting here is this reference desk, are aware of the fact that Funafuti is the capital of Tuvalu? --Reference Desker (talk) 08:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Or that Libreville is the capital of Gabon, or Victoria is the capital of Seychelles? --Reference Desker (talk) 08:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I knew all of those, but I don't provide a useful service for society. The guy who fixes my sink may not, but then again, he knows how to fix my sink. Ditto for the surgeon who fixes my broken hand, or the athletes who provide me with entertainment, or the fireman putting out the fire on my neighbor's house. Given the human mind's limited capacity for knowledge, I would much prefer that people who I live around use their minds for tasks which are relevent to their daily lives. If it's all the same to you, I'd rather my physician has his mind on things other than world capital cities... --Jayron32 09:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Damn, I am using Humour. --Reference Desker (talk) 09:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I studied geography at elementary school. I also owned a globe and good set of encyclopedias. I did not know that Funafuti is the capital of Tuvalu. I'm sure this lack of knowledge on my part does not inhibit me from contributing to the project as I have never edited the article on Tuvalu. It's not really within the sphere of my interest.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I think some of these comments rather miss the point. It's not things like knowing the capital of Tuvalu that matter (sorry, Tuvalu), it's having a rough idea of where different parts of the world are in relation to each other, and their cultural relationships. Like, knowing the differences between Iran and Iraq, or where Afghanistan is in the world, or that Scotland is not part of England. What irritates the rest of the world most about many Americans is that they take, or endorse, decisions affecting other parts of the world without having the first idea about what those places are like, or even where they are, or caring about it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Your last comment, Ghmyrtle hits the nail on the head: "caring about it". Lack of interest or curiosity is not peculiar to Americans, however. Far from it. Where I live (small town in Sicily), most people are not aware, nor do they care, that there IS a world beyond the Strait of Messina. In fact, most people in the village where I live have never read a single book in their lives. Even the most remote places in America aren't that bad--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll offer Mineola on Long Island as a counterexample - the only place in the world where I had to explain American Express traveller's cheques to a native store (boasting a big "American Express traveller's cheques accepted here" sign), and also, when they insisted on seeing my driver's license instead of my passport as an id, that it's written in a funky foreign language and no, it does not have an expiration date. Of course, we were also informed that no, they did not know where the light rail left to Manhattan, since they never went to dangerous foreign countries. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I notice the article on Mineola says that there are relatively few people below the poverty line, so obviously the place's affluence does not encompass basic education. It must be noted that the UD educational system has altered drastically since I attended elementary school in the 1960s. And while my parents were not intellectuals, they were both avid readers and my dad had the benefit of an Irish education in a parrochial school.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's always the often quoted "x% of Americans cannot locate America on a map" or "Americans are geographically illiterate". That said, almost all the Americans I've met haven't been that dumb; many had managed to find their way to another part of the world and some even apologised for the dumbness of their fellow Americans. Perhaps travel really does broaden the mind. Astronaut (talk) 09:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The difference between literacy and functional literacy can be an eye-opener. Widen the question beyond the United States: there was a time when all rich countries boasted a literacy rate of 99% of adults; that was never true, unless you lower the barrier to "able to sign own name". Nonetheless, the level of literacy required to function -- particularly, to find and hold a job -- in 2011 are higher than 1961 or 1911. BrainyBabe (talk) 09:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Sheesh, the original question here was about whether "50% of Americans think that America is the only country in the world", "60% of Americans don't know where Canada is", 60% of Americans are functional illiterates", and "60% of Americans don't know who Barack Obama is", and nicely vague "etc". And "also", "what percent of them don't know arithmetic" and "what percent of them don't know that there is more than one state in America" and "what percent of them don't know the name of the President", and again, "etc." There are lots of so-called "surveys" that claim to measure such things, but they are mostly poorly-defined and badly-measured, so I wouldn't put much weight on even those that claim some kind of "objectivity". The original poster's "I heard from someone that..." criterion is far below that, and barely worth responding to. I know of no rigorous study that measure these things, but it is preposterous that 50% of Americans think America is the only country in the world, and even more preposterous that 60% don't know where Canada is (a particuarly absurd claim), or that 60% don't know who their own president is, and "etc". Even less believable is that any Americans at all think there is only one state in the USA—here we veer strongly into troll territory. As for what percentage don't know the name of the president, didn't you already say you heard it was 60%? As for arithmetic, what does that mean? Being able to add 8 and 6? I try to assume good faith, but this seems like either a troll or someone desperately naive. All that said, I do think geography is woefully lacking in American education. Though I daresay it is woefully lacking in the education of most countries. How many of you can picture in the map of your mind's eye, right now immediately, where Paraguay is? Albania? Syria? The Ganges River? Translyvania? Now tell me, quickly, what nations border each of those nations, what nations are in the Ganges watershed, what nation is Translyvania in, and which does it border? These are all famous geographical places, you should be ashamed to not answer these questions right away, American or not. While you're at it, the president of the USA is world famous, but tell me the PM of Canada, of Australia? Of China and Japan and India? If you don't know without having to look it up you shouldn't be throwing stones. I get really tired of this American bashing. There might be some small reality to it, relative to a few other rich nations, but too often it is blown way out of proportion in sensationalist ways. Pfly (talk) 10:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Spot on. This IP enjoys trolling. But being good at geography wouldn't define a high IQ and agree that the difference in IQ of the richest countries in the world would be so close as to make it difficult to differentiate between them. The most recent controversial attempt (2006) is by Richard Lynn of University of Ulster and Tatu Vanhanen of the University of Tampere in their study IQ and Global Inequality. To cherry-pick just a few of their findings of international IQs--Hong Kong - 107, Japan - 105, Germany - 102, Italy - 102, China - 100, UK - 100, New Zealand - 100, Australia - 99, Spain - 99, United States - 98, France - 98, Canada - 97, Israel - 94, Ireland 93, etc. --Bill Reid | (talk) 10:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I will not hesitate to report you to the moderators if you accuse me falsely of "trolling" (i.e., "This IP enjoys trolling."). You should consider yourself lucky that I will not report you now. However, if you accuse me again I will certainly report you immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.2.4.186 (talk) 01:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, can I pull this thread back here. Regardless of the OP's motivation, these are the sort of made up statistics we get where I am in the UK if you're a satirist doing a bit on America. Of course we don't believe them offhand, but I for one would be interested in the truth. Geography is on the national curriculum here in the UK, for example, and much to my former teacher's dismay will contain more "where places are" stuff in the future (a Tory thing, I think). Now, I know the answers to all the questions Pfly poses, but I do not expect my countrymen to. I wouldn't be surprised if 10% of the British don't know who the Prime Minister is (not holding in such a high esteem as in the US), whilst Obama's popular here, I'd expect maybe 60% to know the President of France (and maybe 10% the PM). Surely there are studies on this? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Hehe, Grandiose, I'd expect fellow ref deskers to be able to answer those questions fairly well. I've seen plenty of studies on this topic, of geographic knowledge/ignorance, but nearly all of them strike me as poorly designed and, in many cases, specifically designed in the way they are worded and so on, to sensationalize ignorance. In fact, I can't think offhand of a well designed, non-biased study of geographic knowledge among Americas--and I'm a geographer! Again, I don't doubt that America rates fairly low on geography education (relative to "developed nations" at least). I wonder, however, when comparing the UK to the US, how much emphasis on geographical education stems from the Brtish Empire, on one hand, and the old American isolationism on the other (despite the fact that American isolationism is a obsolete by at least a century). Put another way, America has a centuries old tradition of self-introspection--which isn't surprising given the size of the country, while the UK has a centuries old tradition of globalism, no? Not to mention the fact that the US is *huge*, and it takes a lot of work just to get a sense of the geographical layout of the US itself. Anyway, there were recently federal elections in Canada, and I daresay at least 10% of Americans could name the Canadian PM and know that he was reelected with a majority government (to the disillusionment of many Americans who look to Canada whenever elections here fall too far too the right, causing more left-leaning Americans to say things like "time to move to Canada!" Apparently that no longer means what it used to).

I am shocked that no one here has linked to the infamous American geography scandal yet. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Now for some facts:

• In a March 2011 Pew poll of 1,525 adults, none said he/she had not heard of Barack Obama. This compares to August 2007, when 13% said that (). In a July 2010 Gallup Poll, 7% said they had not heard of Joe Biden.
• 21% of American adults are "functionally illiterate" ().
• In a 2002 survey of 18- to 24-year-old Americans, 11% were unable to locate the U.S. on a blank world map. () -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

On the talk page, the OP said he will never post again on Misplaced Pages. I left him or her a note there, but it seems there is a history. As for literacy, how many people think that Osama is president of the US? There is at least one. He or she happens to be the OP. Falconus 02:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

This seems pertinent to the thread, though perhaps technically off-topic. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 04:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I notice they left out their own Pacific state of Hawaii and bunch of other Pacific nations, and called Papua New Guinea "Paupa" New Guinea. Otherwise, not bad for supposed ingeographates (I hereby claim this coining unless it already exists). 8 out of 10. -- Jack of Oz 04:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Two jokes about map projections! The xkcd dude is such a geek! In the best way... Pfly (talk) 11:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Over 75% of Trolls on the Ref Desk are willing to make up provocative statistics to launch a soap box thread. But consider, for a moment, what percentage of the people in the US are suffering from senile dementia, are or are otherwise of diminished consciousness; what percentage are pre-schoolers; what percentage are illegal aliens or other non-speakers of English who don't understand a question asked in English. The premise did not say "what percentage of healthy adult US legal residents and citizens think the US is the only country in the world. If the premise is true, I wonder why I have never met any of those disoriented people outside of nursing homes or nurseries. Edison (talk) 18:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Jane Austen by G.F.Maine

Reference : G.F.Maine( Editor)wrote about the famous novel ' Pride and prejudice 'by Jane Austen was born in DECEMBER 19th.1775.

The austens were an old Kentish family......Jane ,their seventh child was......

The book Printed in Great Britain in 1952(edited version)by COLLINS CLEAR-TYPE PRESS.( It is a carefully edited version of the TEXTS 1813 and in 1817 .)

In 1796 she wrote 'First Impressions' which she later developed into 'Pride and Prejudice' ...

.....Your confirmation is solicited ..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pradip.m (talk • contribs) 05:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Our article Jane Austen gives her birth date as December 16, 1775 (not December 19) and, by inference (counting the siblings born prior to that date) confirms she was the 7th child. Pride and Prejudice has more information about its beginnings as "First Impressions". Bielle (talk) 06:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

London Gazette search

Please would somebody tell me when Sir George Gough Arbuthnot was appointed a knight bachelor. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I did find a date for when he was made a knight bachelor - I've added it as a reference to the article. _ennasis @ 12:37, 10 Iyar 5771 / 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Which philosopher or scientist?

I remember reading about a story, I don't know if it is apocyphal, about a philosopher or scientist claiming in the 18th or 19th century, that there would soon be an end to the quest of knowledge, since every unresolved questions would be fulfilled in the near future. Any ideas? Raskolkhan (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The name is lingering in my forehead, but I can't get it out right now. One of the major figures of 19th century physics was told not to go into physics, because all the big problems had been solved and there were only niches to fill. Then Einstein and Bohr and Heisenberg came along... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Lord Kelvin is supposed to have said that "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement," but apparently there is little evidence for him actually having said that. Albert Michelson did say in 1894 that "An eminent physicist has remarked that the future truths of Physical Science are to be looked for in the sixth place of decimals," and other statements saying that they seem to have figured out all of the big things. (Not the same thing about the end of the quest for knowledge, mind you.) But there is much historical work to indicate that if there was a feeling like this, it was fairly limited — the late 19th century was a period of great revolution in physics, even before the revolutions that we call "modern physics" (relativity and quantum). The aether theory that relativity displaced, for example, was itself a very recent "revolution". --Mr.98 (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Max Planck] famously was advised against going into physics by the Munich physics professor Philipp von Jolly, who claimed, "in this field, almost everything is already discovered, and all that remains is to fill a few holes." — Tobias Bergemann (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

A video series like Zimbardo's "Discovering psychology" (1990)

Greetings,

I look for an Educational-for-student's video-series who explains\teaches Psychology both basic and progressive (similar to the way a book would explain it) but rather in an expamplarist way, with visualisations just like a well-done educational documentary series...

that's what Zimbardo's "Discovering Psychology" does, but the copy my university uses is in very bad video&sound-quality and i already watch it some times.

therefore i need somethings extra, i don't mind paying off coruse!, i just need you guys kind recommendations.

Look forward to your recommendations., Best blessings!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.26.79 (talk) 16:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

May 15

Draw France

Hello all. I have a strange desire, to be able to draw France (at least somewhat) accurately and to scale freehand and from memory. How should I go about learning to do so? Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 00:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Trace it may times until you have both a hand and a brain memory of the shape. Bielle (talk) 01:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Remember that France is nicknamed "L'hexagone", so if you want to draw it, start with a hexagon. From there, you just need to memorize the quirks of each of the 6 sides; like the Normandy peninsula, the little "S" curve of the French Riviera, the curve of the Bay of Biscay with the Garonne estuary in the middle ending at Bordeaux, the Notch out of the east side occupied by Switzerland, the odd little bit around Geneva, etc. But start with the Hexagon shape, and just remember the quirks of each of the 6 sides. That's how I taught myself to do it. (I like to sketch maps from memory as well... It's a little nerdy thing I like to do). --Jayron32 01:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Remember to draw the non-European portions of France! Fifelfoo (talk) 02:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Canadian politics

What caused Canada to become so far-right? It used to be more progressive. --75.40.204.106 (talk) 02:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Far right ? How do you figure ? StuRat (talk) 02:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Stephen Harper. --75.40.204.106 (talk) 03:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, the recent Canadian election isn't just a rightwing victory, it also marked consolidation of a progressive space in Canadian politics. The NDP, which has some quite radical MPs, made important strides and established itself as the main opposition party. --Soman (talk) 03:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

"Far-right" is too strong a term, but certainly there has been a significant shift toward the right, and the apparent collapse of the Liberal Party is startling. As for why the Conservatives have won a majority, who can say for sure? Perhaps it has something to do with the dire economic times. Perhaps it has something to do with the NDP's rise at the Liberals expense, a fracturing of the center-left allowing the right to win. I doubt anyone can explain why without doubt. Myself, although I try to follow Canadian politics, usually find it rather too complex to grasp. If nothing else, things have really been shaken up. And, from what I understand, the NDP may be hard-pressed to leverage its new found power as the opposition party. The tiny number of Americans like me who live near Canada and pay attention are interested to see how this all plays out in the future. Pfly (talk) 11:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll have to join in disagreeing that the Conservatives are "far right". The "right" in Canada is not very far to the right, compared to the US; Harper is probably more "liberal" than Obama, for example. But that is part of the problem with Canadian politics, or at least the Canadian electorate. Pfly says it's complex, and it is, and Canadians don't understand it either. Campaigns and elections are conducted as if we're voting for a president in an American-style system. On the other hand, Harper is fairly authoritarian and the core of the party is really the old Reform Party, who were further to the right than the old Progressive Consevatives. He hasn't done much to get rid of Canada's "liberal" or "socialist" systems like health care etc, but he has only ever had minority governments before. Now he has five years to do whatever he wants.

The reason the last minoity government fell was because they were held in contempt of Parliament, yet apparently everyone immediately forgot about that, and now they have all the contempt they want and no one can do anything about it. So why did people forget? I think the biggest reason is that Canada did not suffer anything like the economic meltdown in the US and other parts of the world. Harper and the Conservatives took full credit for that, although it was mostlu just because of the way our banks have worked for decades. Still, it was very schrewd to take credit for that, and he played it up during the election campaign - I'm not sure he had any other campaign points at all, actually.

Maybe one other point - that the Liberal Party leader, Michael Ignatieff, is untrustworthy and possibly "un-Canadian". This is another aspect of the Americanization of Canadian politics, and of the mentality of Canadians in general. Ignatieff is rather cosmopolitan (he's from a family of Russian aristocrats, and spent more time in the US and UK than in Canada), and he's an awkward academic. I'm sure we can agree that American politics is very anti-intellectual, and this is becoming a trend in Canada too. If Ignatieff had won, there would almost certainly be the same kind of "birther" movement in Canada as there is in the US. (And nevermind, of course, that Harper is as much of an intellectual book-writing university-professor egghead as Ignatieff...Ignatieff just never learned to hide it.)

So, that's my take on it. Too much thoughtless Americanization, along with Harper's luck of already being Prime Minister when the rest of the world's economy fell apart. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I would doubt that the flag-waving attacks on Ignatieff are something new to Canadian politics. Blasting one's opponent for not being Canadian enough goes back to John Turner's attacks on the Mulroney government in 1988 or even to Robert Borden's on Wilfrid Laurier's Liberals in 1911. Anyway, it's important to remember that the Conservatives won less than 40% of the popular vote. Every Canadian election since 1993, with the possible exception of 2004, has been decided largely by which side of the political spectrum was most divided. In 1993, 1997 and 2000, the center-right was divided into the Tories and the Reform/Alliance. In the last three elections, a resurgent NDP has split the center-left vote with the Liberals. -- 174.116.177.235 (talk) 00:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Life expectancy in the Soviet Union

Hey, me again :) I read a statistic (not on WP) that said in the post-Stalin Soviet Union the life expectancy was higher than that of the US.. But how do we know they didn't just make that statistic up as a propaganda tool? Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 04:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• The Soviet Union was truthful with its demographic statistics, which has been used by historians and demographers to calculate supposed excess mortality statistics (deaths purported to be caused by human action, specifically the action of the state). There are no reasons to doubt Soviet demographic statistics. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

As for whether that info is believable, I suppose it is possible. The main health problem in the US is the lack of universal medical coverage, which results in many premature deaths among the poor. (In recent times obesity has become a contender for the main health problem, but not back then.) The main health problem in the Soviet Union was alcoholism. So, which was worse ? This probably depends on the exact years you researched. StuRat (talk) 08:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Life expectancy in the USSR was 68.6 in 1958-59, 67.9 20 years later and 69.6 in 1986 (). In the U.S., life expectancy went from 69.9 in 1959-61 to 73.9 in 1979-81 and 75.4 in 1989-91 (). -- Mwalcoff (talk) 09:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

St George statue at the UN Headquarters

I was walking by the UN headquarters today when I noticed a large bronze sculpture at the very northern end of the lot. The gates were closed so I couldn't get a good look, but it was definitely a man on horseback stabbing some kind of monster with a spear that had a cross on the butt. It seems to me that this is probably St George, but the scene and the attendant Christian iconography seems pretty provocative for something on UN grounds. I haven't been able to find anything about this on either the UN headquarters page or the UN art collections page, so I was wondering if anyone knew 1) what the statue is of; 2) what it is called; 3) why it's at the UN. Thanks! 24.215.229.69 (talk) 05:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

"Good Defeats Evil" --JGGardiner (talk) 07:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Note that the artist hails from Georgia, which is thought to be named after St George and has St George's cross as its flag, so I suspect a little bit of influence there. Alansplodge (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

First President

Who was the first person to be president? The earliest I can find so far was John Perrot, but were there any others? 148.197.121.205 (talk) 08:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

First person to be president of what? HiLo48 (talk) 08:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

This states that the term was used for heads of university colleges from the mid-15th century, and Andrew Dokett was President of Queens' College, Cambridge from 1448. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

John Perrot was Lord President of Munster. That article says Humphrey Gilbert may have held the title after Perrot was appointed but before he arrived in Ireland. No specifics though. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The first citation for the OED of "president" as head of a religious house is 1387: Elfworde, bisshop of Londoun and somtyme abbot of Evesham, wolde have bene president at Evesham.; while Elfworde would have been bishop several centuries earlier, the term probably wasn't used them. In more figurative use, there's citations from around the same time - And ther my Lord of Chester, the Presedent of ȝour Nation, hadd his Wordis to hym in swych a wyse (1417). "President" as the senior member of a (general) board or committee takes a century longer to come into play, c. 1490, and it's this sense that became reused for "president" as head-of-state. Shimgray | talk | 10:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Logical positivism

I want to know about logical positivism, but find it difficult to understand the concept. If someone simplify the concept, I will be grateful to them. Please help, thanks! --Ding Dong Kangaroo (talk) 08:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The Verificationism article summarizes the basic principle of Logical Positivism - "A statement or question only has meaning if there is some way to determine if the statement is true, or what the answer to the question is." Vienna Circle#The elimination of metaphysics goes into a bit more detail, but is still quite accessible. Tevildo (talk) 10:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It helps to understand what is meant by Positivism in this context — Positivism is a name for a half-dozen totally unrelated philosophies. In the context used here, it is in reference to the Positivism of Ernst Mach. Mach argued that the only statements about the world that could be considered to be scientific involved those that were just direct sensory observation. So Mach didn't believe in atoms, for example, because there was (in his day) no way to directly observe them. Even though the idea seemed to make a great deal of sense, Mach just wouldn't hear it. Machian positivism is rather extreme, in this sense: it basically says "no theories that can't be directly observed." The goal was getting rid of all manner of useless metaphysics and so forth.

Now the logical positivists said, "that's swell." Let's throw out metaphysics and all of that junk, let's start over making knowledge from scratch, based on direct sensory observation. ("Metaphysics" was a catch-all word for them for all things non-scientific and probably untrue. Into this category they probably would have put things like aether theory, psychoanalysis, and a boat load of political ideologies.) Except, they said, what if we pieced together enough direct sensory observation, and turned that into truths that were higher than the observations alone? You couldn't just do this willy-nilly (or else you'd be getting into metaphysics), but you could, slowly and carefully, using the iron laws of analytical logic (hence the Logical), scaffold these "small" observations into larger inferences. This is the heart of Logical Positivism — it is the positivism of Mach plus the mathematical logic of Russel and Whitehead, meant to be a winning epistemological combination. (Many have since pointed out the ways in which this approach by itself is problematic. Karl Popper is the most famous critic, of the "verificationism doesn't eradicate metaphysics, only falsification" does approach. Thomas Kuhn was another critic, of the "even sensory observation is not without interpretation" school.)

The logical positivists loved to cite Einstein as the example as someone who did what they idealized, in part because he was so successful, in part because Einstein was, in his early years, a Machian. Einstein's 1905 paper on Brownian motion, for example, is an attempt to use Machian principles to prove that atoms exist — you can infer that they exist from direct physical observations. Mach was not convinced — he was not a fan of inference — but the logical positivists loved that kind of thing. Special relativity was (in their minds) a perfect example of this as well: take some basic sensory observations (e.g. the Michelson-Morley experiment), run it through some hard core logic (speed of light seems constant, what are the logical consequences?), and voila, you have the theory of special relativity.

So that's an historical/philosophical background to where they were coming from and what they were arguing against. I find that sort of thing helps me understand what a given group was doing more than a statement of their principles, because by itself, verificationism (or even logical positivism) seems like a "ho hum, so what?" sort of thing. If you put it in context, it's more clear what they're about (and not about). --Mr.98 (talk) 12:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

In the field of linguistics, the influence of Logical Positivism manifested itself as "operationalism" (a form of behaviorism), or the belief that if you can't directly measure something, or give a procedure by which it could be measured, then it either doesn't exist or is completely irrelevant to scientific research. This was the dominant paradigm in the United States in the 1950's, but subsequently is considered to have been an overall somewhat negative influence on the development of linguistics... AnonMoos (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Films filmed all over Europe like Bourne series?

I really like films set all over Europe, like the Bourne series. Are there any other films like that? It doesn't have to be action genre, but I really love the landscapes or filming from all over Europe. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.157.228.177 (talk) 08:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The Day of the Jackal first springs to mind. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

And I guess The Da Vinci Code, and in a similar vein The Ninth Gate. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

National Lampoon's European Vacation is good for a few laughs. --Viennese Waltz 13:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Some of the James Bond films were like that: Goldfinger, for example. -- Jack of Oz 19:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Ronin is an action movie with a deliberately strongly European character, although it's not all over Europe, just in France. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Eurotrip, although that was actually filmed entirely in Prague, apparently. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Also Trafic by Jacques Tati. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

In a different vein, If It's Tuesday, This Must Be Belgium comes to mind. John M Baker (talk) 23:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

5th fleet in Middle East since when?

Hello all.

In the cold war, prior to the formation of the US 5th fleet (based in Bahrain, covers east-of-Suez Middle East), what were the US Navy's troops in this area? I'm interested in knowing if there were ever shows of force in this region, and if so who might have conducted such shows.

Thank you in advance! 80.213.11.105 (talk) 13:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Before 1979-1980, the main flashpoints were along the Mediterranean, so the United States Sixth Fleet would have been most relevant... AnonMoos (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The U.S. 5th Fleet was reformed in 1995, so from Timeline of United States military operations we find a number of operations: Persian Gulf War, handled by 7th fleet; Somalia saw the offshore Navy and Marines under CENTCOM, not the Joint Task Force Somalia which caused some operational issues; Persian Gulf freedom of navigation in 1987-88 and 1989 intervention in the Phillipines were Seventh Fleet. Look like the Persian gulf was generally handled by 7th Fleet. Multinational Force and Observers in Sinai looks like it is Army only. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Scotland Economy and Independence

Is Scotland an economic drain on the UK (as most people seem to think) or a bonus as the Scottish government claims? --CGPGrey (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

For a start, I'd question whether 'most people' think this. I'd also question whether economic theory is able to answer such questions with any degree of confidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me rephrase: "Most (English) people (I've spoken with)". --CGPGrey (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Presumably it depends how you count North Sea oil... AnonMoos (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Most of the oil is off the Scottish coasts, so if they go, they might well take it all with them. We first started exploiting these oil reserves around 1979, so take a look at the British economy of the 1970s for some idea of the situation that might result. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 15:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

If you count the North Sea oil that is geographically Scottish as economically Scottish, then I think Scotland is a net contributor to the Treasury. If you don't, then it's a not. So, if Scotland were to go independent (which is unlikely, given the most recent polls I've seen) what would happen to its economy would depend on how the UK's natural resources were divided up. As far as I know, there haven't been any formal discussions on that topic yet. They would take place after a successful referendum. --Tango (talk) 17:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

With the important caveat that "net contributor to the Treasury" is as of now, and it's relatively marginal (IIRC, on the order of a billion a year). If the dividing line of oil and gas fields changed from current estimates, or - more likely - if the oil price dropped significantly, the balance could shift quite dramatically. Shimgray | talk | 18:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The ammunition for this argument comes from the Barnett formula which is a way of distributing government spending across the Home Nations. It's really complicated (read the linked article) but it produces these figures:

"In actual monetary figures, this would work out as (per person):

England £7,121

Scotland £8,623

Wales £8,139

Northern Ireland £9,385" Alansplodge (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

That's only one half of the equation, though. You need to look at both spending and revenue. The Barnett formula means spending is significantly higher per person in Scotland, but if you divide the enormous oil revenue by the rather small population of Scotland, you get a larger revenue per person as well. --Tango (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes that's true - I said it was a complicated issue. On the subject of oil, there's a rumour that the boundary dividing the Scottish legal jurisdiction from the English, which at present runs due east from the border, in the event of indepenance would have to be re-drawn following the general trend of the border (ie north-eastwards). Apparently this is a protocol of the UN in border disputes. The only reference I can find on the net is here in a comment added to a news article. Not a reliable source - does anyone know? Alansplodge (talk) 21:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

There's a civil-jurisdiction border running due east, and it's likely (though not not certain, of course) that this would be redrawn to a line of equidistance come independence. However, this might not affect the oil figures that are being thrown around.

The official analysis in the Scottish Government Expenditure and Revenue Estimates takes its boundary definitions from this study, which uses the fisheries boundary as an arbitrary line. It looks like, more or less, the fisheries boundary is already fairly close to the line of equidistance - it certainly doesn't follow the due-east course of the civil boundary. As such, formalising that split might not make much difference to the revenue estimates... Shimgray | talk | 00:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the comment you linked to, incidentally, it seems they're working on the assumption that an international boundary would follow the general straight-NE line of the land border. It wouldn't, of course - it has to be an equidistant line, not simply a perpendicular one, and as Scotland bulges out towards the North-East, it's going to force the equidistant line towards the horizontal. Looking at this map, by my reckoning the "due East" line would encompass all the northern fields; the equidistant line finishes about where the Judy gas field (in red) is; while the commentor's suggested due-NE line would finish somewhere around the Mungo/Lomond condensate fields. There's really not much in the gap between the last two - going from a "normal" international boundary to an extremely favourable one for England wouldn't make much difference. Shimgray | talk | 00:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

On the 'sauce for the goose/gander' principle, if Scotland were to secede from the UK, Shetland might decide to secede on its own account, or reunite with Norway - I heard the only-semi-humorous slogan "It's Shetland's oil" a good deal when I was a Scottish resident. This would appreciably alter an independent Scotland's national revenue. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.232 (talk) 07:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Diplomatic missions of Canada

Why Canada does not that much diplomatic missions in the whole world? is it because its land mass is not that big? USA has that much land and that's why they have that much diplomatic missions in the whole world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.106.140 (talk) 15:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The U.S. has about 10 times the population of Canada, nuclear weapons, a UN Security Council seat, and a military presence in many regions of the globe. And for some smaller countries, the same diplomat could be accredited as both ambassador to the U.S. and representative to the United Nations... AnonMoos (talk) 15:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

And just to add, Canada's land mass is second in the world only to Russia. Mingmingla (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos, can you provide an example of a country that uses the same diplomat as ambassador to both the U.S. and the UN? I would have thought this impractical, since the UN meets in New York and ambassadors to the U.S. are stationed in Washington. John M Baker (talk) 23:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not the kind of thing that lends itself to an easy Google search, but I know it was done in the past -- for some smaller countries the expense of full-scale legations in both places would not have been justifiable, and in the 1970s there were hourly DC-NY shuttle flights... AnonMoos (talk) 05:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Flipping through my 2003 Statesman's Yearbook for likely candidates, I saw that Tonga had the same ambassador to both the U.S. and the U.N.; what was more interesting was how many tiny and very poor countries undertook the expense of keeping different diplomats to each. (I suspect that many rulers, governments and ruling parties like to have both of these prestigious and attractive, if costly, posts to dispense as patronage.) Conversely, even countries with big diplomatic establishments, such as the U.S. and U.K., will often accredit the same diplomat to more than one small neighbouring nation in an area like West Africa. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Canada-Bangladesh

How is the relationship between Canada and Bangladesh? good or bad or unnotice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.106.140 (talk) 15:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Well they are both members of the Commonwealth, so they should have a "cordial" relationship I suppose. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

According to Foreign relations of Bangladesh - "Relations between the two countries are positive and there is approximately 24,595 Canadians of Bangladeshi origin living in Canada." See Bangladeshi Canadian. Exxolon (talk) 18:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

...and don't forget about the hordes of Canadians yearning to emigrate to Bangladesh. :-) StuRat (talk) 03:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea about how warm or cool or intense or indifferent the substantial relations between Canada and Bangladesh might be, but as fellow members of the Commonwealth, they exchange High Commissioners (as each does with the UK), rather than Ambassadors. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the OP asked that because none of the Prime Ministers of each nation have ever visited each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.17.44 (talk) 18:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Well Bangladesh hasn't been around as long as Canada has. No doubt they'll get round to it. In the meantime, they'll probably meet at Commonwealth conferences. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

American mail boxes

Watching the start of the video here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqdSX_JmsXE , a woman leaves a house and puts a letter inside the American-style mail-box. Does this mean that the post-person customarily collects mail from them, not just delivering it? Thanks 92.15.25.241 (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Notice that she puts the flag up on the box. That's a signal to the letter carrier that there's outgoing mail in the box. Like many people, I don't have a flag on my box, which is mounted on my house, so I just clip outgoing mail to the outside of the box so the postman doesn't miss it. —Kevin Myers 16:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC) In bad neighborhoods, the flag can be a signal to thieves, and is avoided. —Kevin Myers 17:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

In Canada, it's very common in rural areas. Your mail must be already stamped. Bielle (talk) 17:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

You can't do that in the city, though. (Not in Canada, anyway.) Adam Bishop (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I had assumed that a raised flag was a signal to the resident that there was mail for them in the box. Is the flag not used for that purpose? 92.24.177.93 (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

No. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I've never known of anyone who doesn't get mail every day. It's just assumed that there will be mail in the box every day. The flag is simply to notify the mail carrier that there is outgoing mail. If they don't see the flag, they'll assume there's nothing in the box to go out. So, if the flag isn't up, they may miss the fact that you've put something in the box to go out. Dismas| 23:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I've known lots of people who don't get mail every day, but it's still up to them to check their mailbox. Essentially, the flag is for the convenience of the letter carrier. Of course, if the resident did put mail in the mailbox for pickup, then the lowered flag would signal him or her that the letter carrier has come by. John M Baker (talk) 23:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I live in rural Canada. (I've never seen mailbox with a flag on it in the city where I lived previously for 4 decades.) The letter carriers here drive from mailbox to mailbox. (There are sometimes miles between houses.) If the red flag is up, then they know that there is something in the mailbox -either yesterday's mail or something for them to pick up. If the latter, they take the stamped envelope out. If there is no new mail for the household that day, they put the flag down. If there is new mail (or yesterday's mail is still in the box), they leave it up. If, when they drive up to the mailbox, the flag is down, and they have new mail, they insert the new mail and put the flag up. Mr 98's experience notwithstanding, I have never known it to be otherwise. I have never found mail when the flag was down, or failed to find it when the flag was up. The letter carriers even send around flyers on how the flag is used when you move to a new address. Bielle (talk) 01:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

No, in the U.S., mail carriers do not put flags up. If they did it would just lead to more stolen welfare checks. Rmhermen (talk) 03:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

My mailbox is on the side of my house, and not visible from the street, so there's no flag. This does cause a problem when I try to send mail, yet have no incoming mail. On those days it doesn't go out, and I have to try again the next day. On the plus side, my mail has never been stolen (that I know of). StuRat (talk) 03:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

To state the obvious, why not drop your outging mail in a public mailbox? They're bright red in the UK; I believe the ones in the US are dark blue. Astronaut (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Not everyone lives near one of those. There are fewer collection boxes in the US than there used to be, a decline that predates 9/11, which resulted in many boxes being removed. In my town of 25,000 people, the once ubiquitous collection boxes have all but disappeared from the neighborhoods. I would think that neighborhood collection boxes would be cost effective and convenient for the Post Office, but apparently they think otherwise. —Kevin Myers 19:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Most towns that I can think of only have one of the blue collection boxes and it's at the post office. (there are actually two of them, one for "local" mail and the other for everything else) Dismas| 20:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

My nearest collection box is about a mile away. I suppose I could walk or bike that far, in good weather, but the neighborhood isn't safe, so I'd actually drive. They also only pick up from that box early in the morning, so my mail likely wouldn't go until the next day, anyway. Then the box is on the wrong side of the street, so I need to park my car and dart across the street to get to it. I find a 90% chance of my mail being picked up at my house to be a preferable alternative. In cases where something absolutely has to go out that day, I drive it to the post office, some 5 miles away. StuRat (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

understanding a religious concept

What is the main distinction between orthodox, fundamental and evangelical (in general)? ^/^/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dexter3720 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

When applied to religions, orthodox means accepting and obeying traditional beliefs and practices, fundamental means being or involving basic facts or principles, and evangelical means of or in keeping with the Christian gospel especially as in the first 4 books of the New Testament. See the disambiguations Orthodox, Fundamentalism and the article Evangelism. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I would have said that the term "evangelical" was more about telling others about the Gospels - see the opening line of the WP article. It comes from the Greek " euangelistes" - literally "bringer of good news".. But all these words have lots of baggage in a Christian context. Alansplodge (talk) 22:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Evangelicalism is the article you want for the third term, not Evangelism. Rmhermen (talk) 01:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, (in the United States anyway) the differences between Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christianity are almost as much cultural as theological. Protestant Fundamentalist Christianity is really a subset of Evangelicalism that holds to somewhat more literal theology with a strong focus on more traditional practices and lifestyles. Qrsdogg (talk) 01:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

WB elections

A user had a question about this on the article talk page (which is more suited to the refdesk) so i thught id answer it here in case others have any more questions. the question is based on the current ITN page West Bengal state assembly election, 2011

More for the refdesk but has your question been answered? The key issue being land reform per the page's campaign and background sections (might want to see the latter). the gorkhaland issue wasnt that big (as its only 3 seats per the page results of the GJM)

Further also note the thrashing the comms. got in the last election for the national government. itll be interesting in the next few weeks to note who gets the national Railway Ministry portfolio that the WB CM-Designate currently holds. (a position usually held by ministers from the poorer North Indian states (which in turn has been condemend as an opportunity just to fill jobs in their home states)) The 2008_attacks_on_Uttar_Pradesh_and_Bihar_migrants_in_Maharashtra was against migrants from others states coming to another state (Maharasthra in this recent case) to take railway board examinations.(Lihaas (talk) 21:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)).

Racial segegration

What food terms was used to describe the whites during the racial segegration? I know blacks were chocalates but what about the whites? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 22:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

"Vanilla" is what a quick and obvious Google search on racial segregation chocolates suggested to me in its first result. ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 22:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh ok. I didn't use the correct search term: http://www.google.co.uk/search?btnG=1&pws=0&q=racial+segregation+chocolate and reference desk is faster, I think as I hope there are more history geeks than me. THx anyways. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 22:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

No, you did use the correct search term. That link you just gave me has, as three of its first four hits, the answer to your question visible. The Reference Desk is not supposed to be 'faster' than really basic Google searching. It's not your personal librarian. ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 22:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that Google's personalized search results can be vastly different for the same search - example. I didn't see the word "vanilla" at all in the first page of results for myself. _ennasis @ 13:52, 12 Iyar 5771 / 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Cracker ? StuRat (talk) 01:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

"White bread" isn't strictly racial in meaning, but it's usually applied only to suburban white folk. APL (talk) 03:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

List of ethnic slurs might be of some help to your search. _ennasis @ 13:52, 12 Iyar 5771 / 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Also I didn't know if its correct or not. You guys might know more than me! --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 14:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Did she ever truly rule?

Did Suzanne, Duchess of Bourbon ever truly rule? First her mother was her regent, then it seems her husband was her co-regent, and she died very young. When was she declared of legal majority? How long was her mother her regent? Thank you.--85.226.45.95 (talk) 23:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

She was 29 when she died. The oldest age of majority for France I found mentioned was 25 for women so she had at least four years of rule. Even if her husband was co-regent, she was "truly ruling" as well. Rmhermen (talk) 01:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Did her mother step down as regent when Suzanne married? Neither on French[REDACTED] or here, there are any mention of her making any political act by herself, so perhaps she was merely a ruler de jure and never de facto? First her mother was the regent, then she married and her husband became her co-regent; did she ever really rule in any way but on paper? I get the impression that she was not very independent. --85.226.45.95 (talk) 08:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

May 16

Royalty and "style"

This question may not even be answerable but here goes: Princess' Beatrice and Eugine are very attractive young ladies. Why would they (or any of the Royals for that matter) wear such stupid looking hats (such as at the recent wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton)? I mean, hats should enhance one's beauty not take away from it. I can't understand why they do this. Anyone have any ideas? 99.250.117.26 (talk) 01:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I suspect the answer is that hats are rarely worn to "enhance one's beauty". Instead, they are worn to assert one's status. The higher up the status totem-pole one is, the sillier the headgear one can get away with: AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

For free publicity.
Sleigh (talk) 02:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Reporters suggested it was a way for their mother to get back at her former in laws for not being invited to the wedding. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

With this helmet on, I'm tall enough to go on all the carnival rides. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC) ===>

The British were not to be outdone - see Sir Henry Galway's plumage. -- Jack of Oz 05:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

If you like it you oughta put an eagle on it. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Why not? If a princess can't break out of conformity and try something different, or even just have a laugh by acting a little silly, then who can?

It's not like the hats worn by ladies in the Victorian era were any less ridiculous. 66.31.230.189 (talk) 07:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

99.250.117.26 -- When you get to the "bleeding edge" of fashion, its purpose is not really to make yourself look attractive, but to push the envelope and call attention to your own ultra-trendiness. I would strongly doubt whether many straight males would find that most of what is paraded down haute couture runways enhances the women's attractiveness, since it's ultra-stylized kabuki which has very little to do with what most women wear most of the time. As a royal woman attending formal royal events, Beatrice has little opportunity to be ultra-trendy in most respects, but headgear is one area where flamboyant creativity is somewhat tolerated... AnonMoos (talk) 07:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Anyway, you can buy it here, if you're willing to bid more than $15,000 for it... AnonMoos (talk) 08:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The concensus of opinion in my social circle was that the princesses had inherited their mother's dress sense! --TammyMoet (talk) 12:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It isn't just the Yorkies... you should see some of the hats that show up during Ascot Week (or, for that matter, some of the hats worn to the Kentucky Derby in the US). Such hats are considered high fashion in posh (and wannabe posh) circles. To some extent, the fault lies with the hat designers (who have to come up with something unique for their clients), and to some extent the fault lies with their clients (who can't seem to say 'are you nuts? I'm not going to wear that'). Blueboar (talk) 13:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Lady Gaga wears weird things all the time. In this case it was only a hat. I expect the designer wanted to make a name for themselves. 92.28.245.12 (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Philip Treacy, the designer of the hats, already has a huge name for himself. There was even an episode of Project Runway last season in which the competitors had to design clothing to complement Tracey hats. 216.93.212.245 (talk) 17:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Bomb threats and codewords

The UK news is buzzing today with rumours that an Irish terrorist group is planning to bomb central London, and great credit is being given to the threat because it was delivered using a "known codeword." Assuming that this doesn't just mean Gaelic (!) what exactly are these codewords? Are there any known examples? Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 12:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

When I worked for Eurostar, we had training in how to respond to terrorist threats. We were told not to worry about codewords, as the threat was treated just as seriously whether or not one was given - and that in the experience of the ex-Special Branch officer running the course, the presence or absence of a codeword had little relationship to whether or not there actually was a bomb. DuncanHill (talk) 12:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

If the IRA and the Police had agreed a list of codewords, do you really think they'd be common knowledge? Every Tom, Dick and Eamonn would be calling up saying "I have a bomb and to prove it here's a codeword"! By 'eck, lad, use your head!--TammyMoet (talk) 12:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean, what words are used as codewords? I meant, what is the function they perform, are there any books that cover the subject etc.! ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 12:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It's apparently some pre-established way for the IRA (or whomever) to confirm with those on the other end that they are who they are. Here's an article from 1996 on the subject. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

As stated above, these aren't generally given out, because that would lead to hoaxers using them. However, this book gives an example of a codeword used by the defunct Loyalist Volunteer Force: "covenant". This term holds significance for ulster loyalists, given the Ulster Covenant, and is unusual enough that it would be memorable to who received the call. I suspect that republican codewords are selected on a similar basis. Warofdreams talk 14:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The invisible pink unicorn

Is comparing the possibility of a creative force existing and the presence of an IPU a valid analogy? Can all things that are unprovable, regardless of their plausibility, be compared to something that is an obviously fabricated absurdity? I truly saw a chip monk digging in my vegetable patch last week. No one else saw it, the physical evidence has been repaired, and I have no recording of the incident. It is unprovable and unknowable to anyone but me. Could my insistence that it happened be mocked by someone invoking the IPU? Are all things that are unprovable ridiculous to talk about? Could someone that gives no attributes to a creative force and makes no assumptions about it, but holds the idea that one could exist run the risk of being slammed by the IPU analogy? I guess I am wondering where or if a line is drawn.--67.187.72.116 (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

One field that is relevant to your chipmunk claim is police work and trying to judge the reliability of eyewitnesses. Our articles evidence and evidence (law) are relevant, as are proof (truth) and its sublinks. As for the IPU, the usual saying I'd reach for is that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", a statement popularized by Carl Sagan. I don't find your chipmunk claim to be extraordinary, so your eyewitness testimony is probably enough for me to accept the truth of your claim; but if you were to also claim you saw the IPU in your back yard, I would be less credulous, and would require more evidence. As they say on the user forums these days, "Pics, or it didn't happen." Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

If they say they "saw" the INVISIBLE pink unicorn, then you know it's a lie. :-) StuRat (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

To me, the existence of (any) God is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary proof. StuRat (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The IPU is about falsifiablity — about the idea that there could never be any negative evidence against the existence of a God. This isn't the same situation at all as with your chipmunk: we could certainly consider conditions under which your story was simply impossible. (If you saw a visible pink unicorn in your backyard rooting through your vegetable patch, you'd probably start to doubt your own sanity — at that point, your own evidentiary organs are no longer valid!) Just because we cannot prove it one way or the other in your specific instance does not mean it is an unprovable assertion. This is different from the category of claims that the IPU is meant to represent. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

So my instance is not important. The only thing that has to be shown is that A chip monk could possibly be digging in A vegetable patch?--67.187.72.116 (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on the context. If your only defense from a murder charge is that you were busy chasing said chipmunk around your yard when the murder occurred, then you'd need more proof. The difference is, then you would have reason to lie, but otherwise you don't. Also, if you did just make up the chipmunk story, it really doesn't much matter, in normal circumstances, so demanding proof seems like a waste of time. Incidentally, we sometimes get people on the Ref Desk who demand proof of things as trivial and believable as this, presumably just to waste everyone's time. StuRat (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

chip monk (two words, with an "o")

chipmunk (one word, with a "u")

The first one doesn't even redirect. 138.192.56.24 (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Conditional ordinations and conditional confirmations

Another technical question from one who is not a believer:

We have an article titled conditional baptism. The Council of Trent said dogmatically that the same thing applies to confirmation and to holy orders. Has either of the latter two sacraments ever been done conditionally? I'm fairly sure conditional baptisms have actually happened, but Misplaced Pages's article doesn't say so and cites neither instances nor statistics. Can those be provided in the article. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I would like some book recommendations

1. Can anyone name some famous welsh mystery novels that are not in a series? 2. Can anyone recommended a fantasy book for adults that is not in a series under 300 pages with a simple plot? Just to let you guys know I'm 27 years old. I like any kind of fantasy book as long as it not too wordy or abstract. I don't like Lord of the Rings. Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 22:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages help forums
• Misplaced Pages resources for researchers