Revision as of 13:00, 20 July 2012

• 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

July 15

Cohesiveness of the Roman Catholic Church's stance on the absolute omnipotence of God

There is this thing called the omnipotence paradox. It asks whether an all-powerful being do something that contradicts its own omnipotence. The article on the omnipotence paradox uses the terms "absolutely omnipotent" and "essentially omnipotent". The article states that the Christian God is essentially omnipotent, but it does not say if this is an official position of the Roman Catholic Church. That statement could've been intended to say that essential omnipotence is the official position of the Church. The introduction of theologians offering their own views tells me that the Church doesn't have an official position. How strong is a consensus among both all Christians and the higher ups of the Roman Catholic Church (archbishops, cardinals, the Pope, Vatican scholars) on the absolute omnipotence of God, sweeping the question of the omnipotence paradox under the rug for this question? --Melab±1 ☎ 01:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't listen to[REDACTED] if you want Catholic doctrine, it's written by people who believe in the priesthood of all men. Instead search out an authoritative text, such as the Catholic Encyclopedia, which says, "Omnipotence is the power of God to effect whatever is not intrinsically impossible." μηδείς (talk) 03:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Are there any major or well known departures from this other than René Descartes? --Melab±1 ☎ 11:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Now are that I know what I think the official stance is, how about the views of Christians in general? --Melab±1 ☎ 20:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Alcohol and Christianity

There's an awful lot of references in the Bible to the drinking of wine, usually in positive terms. Jesus is reputed to have turned water into wine. The last supper reads like a boozy party. Altar wine (WITH alcohol) is a fundamental part of worship for many.

So how did Christianity end up with a significant number of its branches absolutely opposed to the consumption of alcohol? How do such groupings reconcile that position with the Biblical enthusiasm for wine? HiLo48 (talk) 01:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Wine back then may have had a lower alcohol content, and water was often contaminated, so drinking wine was a bit of a necessity. It's only the distillation processes which later came around to provide high alcohol content (like in vodka, whiskey, and fortified beer) that really made alcohol into the killer it is. Also, back then people didn't often live long enough to get cirrhosis of the liver (alleged 900 year lifespans notwithstanding). StuRat (talk) 01:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I can understand that. What I don't get is the absolute opposition from some quarters. HiLo48 (talk) 01:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I suppose the idea is that Jesus and pals wouldn't have drank wine, either, had they had safe drinking water. So it's like "what would Jesus had done, if he had the choice" ? StuRat (talk) 02:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Huh? According to the Bible, he turned water into wine, he walked on water, he made blind people see and lame people walk, he fed 5,000 with a few loaves and fishes, he raised people from the dead, and he rose from the dead himself. Turning wine back into drinking water should have been a snap. Arguing that he did something because he had no choice but we shouldn't, holds no water, theologically speaking. These religions surely have a more solid basis for their positions than that. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 02:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The attitude would have been "water is dangerous, so you don't want to drink that". As such, turning that dangerous stuff into something safe would be seen as a distinct improvement. I suppose they could have boiled water back then to make it safe, but may not have know that this made it safe, as prior to the microscope there was no way to tell the microbes were dead, and they didn't even know what microbes were. They probably did notice that people who drank water all the time often got sick, though. StuRat (talk) 02:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

With the greatest respect to my fellow ref desk regular, this really sounds like you're piling supposition upon supposition and guess upon guess. We need to see an actual reference to an actual site that tells us what these religions say about why they have no truck with alcohol. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 04:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, then, stop complaining about my answers and add your own, with all the references you want. StuRat (talk) 05:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Jack on this. My second question was "How do such groupings reconcile that position (absolute opposition to alcohol) with the Biblical enthusiasm for wine?" Speculation about how it began doesn't really answer that question. HiLo48 (talk) 05:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

We actually know (from women's good books) that from early medieval times plain water was known to be dangerous to drink and to bathe in. (They didn't avoid bathing because they were too stupid to know better - they knew that getting water in your mouth was a Bad Thing.) It's not a stretch that people in ancient times would have known the same thing. As an aside, you can't actually get grape juice to not ferment unless you have refrigeration or sanitizing chemicals - grapes are coated with yeast, and grape juice will begin to ferment within minutes of it being pressed from fresh grapes. --NellieBly (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

They drank spring water and well water. Problems of well pollution only really appear with urbanization. People in the Middle East didn't avoid bathing. They may not have had non-alcoholic grape juice, but would they have grown grapes anyway if they weren't intending to make wine? Itsmejudith (talk) 18:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

See Christian views on alcohol.—Wavelength (talk) 02:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Protestants are hardly a significant number of branches of Christianity. They are, rather, a subbranch of western, Roman Christianity, with the deepest branches of Christianity being Roman Catholicism and the eastern Orthodox churches, which are not opposed to alcohol. Some of the Protestant churches oppose alcohol for non-theological reasons, given that they believe in the priesthood of all men, and hence, the right to make it up as they go along. Puritanism is a very tempting heresy, and attracts some sects more than does drink. See the writings of G. K. Chesterton. μηδείς (talk) 02:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I guess I should look more globally. I'm Australian, with a Presbyterian background. Historically, the "big" groups here were the Anglicans, Catholics, Methodists and Presbyterians. Those latter two weren't keen on alcohol. The Adventists and the Salvation Army are also local groups in the opposition camp. For a country where alcohol is such a big part of the culture, it seems significant. HiLo48 (talk) 02:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Not significant ? Protestantism says "There are about 800 million Protestants worldwide, among approximately 2.1 billion Christians". That's rather significant. And, being the majority religion in many powerful nations, like the US, it's influence far outweighs the demographics alone. StuRat (talk) 02:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Please pay attention to the actual meaning of words. No one commented on the number of adherents, but on branches. I am quite unaware of any branches of protestantism that came off of, say, Nestorian, or Coptic orthodoxy. μηδείς (talk) 03:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Well then, "Protestants are hardly a significant number of branches of Christianity" seems to be an utterly meaningless sentence. Are you counting the number of Protestant sects divided by the total number of sects of Christianity ? If so, why ? StuRat (talk) 05:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

There were a number of Catholic temperance societies too: Rmhermen (talk) 02:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Even the Roman Catholic rite itself doesn't allow congregants to partake of the liquid species. But abstinence is not a theological position of the church. μηδείς (talk) 03:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

@StuRat: according to the article Catholicism in the United States, Protestants are not the dominant group in the US:

With more than 68.5 million registered members, it (Catholicism) is the largest single religious denomination in the United States, comprising about 22 percent of the population.

Bielle

Catholicism is larger than any single Protestant denomination, in the US, but that's quite irrelevant. It's nowhere near the total percentage of Protestants, which stands at around 51%: . StuRat (talk) 05:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

But being Protestant isn't very relevant on its own here. Some Protestant groups such as Anglicans in my country or the Church of England (not sure of their name in the US) have no formal objection to alcohol in moderation and, obviously, in worship. It's some (NOT all) Protestants, and the Salvos, and the Seventh Day Adventists, etc, that I'm puzzled by. HiLo48 (talk) 05:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The Anglican church in the US is the Episcopal Church (United States); however some Anglicans don't regard themselves as Protestants at all. We don't have agreed opinions on anything much I'm afraid - a curse and a blessing. Alansplodge (talk) 17:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The OP is advised to read about Prohibition, which was intended to cure an epidemic social illness (drunkenness) that tended to ruin families. It turned out not to be the answer, but it was an answer. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Of the two original questions, I don't precisely know the answer to either but can supply some pointers. Methodism is the denomination most closely associated with the temperance movement. It spread as a mass movement, especially among poorer people, at the same time as the Industrial revolution in Britain. At that time workers were paid in pubs, and had often spent their week's wages by the end of the evening of pay day. The gin craze and resulting moral panic had shifted middle class opinion away from hard drink. Coffee and tea were becoming more widely available as alternative beverages. A very interesting account of this period is given by Dorothy George in her classic London Life in the Eighteenth Century (1925). She is sympathetic to the temperance account, so the anti-temperance views need to be sought elsewhere. She identifies temperance as part of a new philanthropy, alongside the beginnings of the police force, prisons, workhouses, etc. Michel Foucault saw this movement as "the great incarceration" if you want a negative view. George cites Francis Place 's diary, when he describes giving up his "old muddling breakfast" of meat and beer, in favour of a breakfast of coffee and bread. Remember that John Wesley instructed followers to "recollect" every half hour of the day - that is difficult enough anyway and impossible if you have been drinking. Of course people who preferred to carry on with their old ways weren't slow to recall the Biblical references to wine. They stayed with Anglicanism, and the two camps talked across each other. George Eliot captures all the nuances of the religious divides of 19th century England - in Felix Holt the Radical you will find funny descriptions of the drinking cultures of both rich and poor. Sorry this only goes a tiny way to addressing your questions; it needs to be supplemented with accounts of religious, social and economic developments in the USA and Australia, as well as how the Quakers fitted in, and the earlier attitudes to drink in the English revolution of the 1640s. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• I wonder how much the "wine" differed from ours. Certainly if you read Dioscorides' Materia Medica you'll see that "wine" was a very broad term at the time. Also wine or "vinegar" (don't know if that's the same as ours) was sometimes taken diluted with water. I doubt they were falling down drunk; I doubt they were completely unaffected either. Certainly Jesus is not described as a lifelong ascetic - he didn't miraculously make the food at the table tasteless so that people wouldn't be tempted to the sin of gluttony. Christianity is presented less as abstention from small things as the willingness to do very difficult and demanding things. Wnt (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The alcohol content would have been roughly comparable but more variable. Rosé is the original wine. It was frequently mixed with water. One part wine to two water will have a significant sterilising effect (check on the science desk, and use sterilising tablets since they are available these days). Vinegar was made from wine by fermentation with a culture called mother of vinegar. That's something you can do at home. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

So are we saying that this is another case where the words of the Bible don't mean what they seem to mean on first reading? No wonder we have so many different interpretations. HiLo48 (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

That's not really what I'm saying. I'm interested in the Dioscorides, but from my reading on the history of wine, the 1st century Mediterranean would have plenty of wine, mostly rose, perhaps some white, probably drunk new,if kept perhaps tasting of resin like Greek retsina, alcohol content 8 to 14 per cent. Quite likely they drank like the Italians do now, with wine and water at the table at every meal. But perhaps it was only the middle and upper classes who could afford to do that. The Christians in Britain drank phenomenal quantities of beer until the 1750s when they switched to sweetened tea. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

@StuRat above, if you are talking about the diversity of belief in Christianity, focusing on Protestantism, which is a recent, if now diverse development out of and reaction against Roman Catholicism, is like limiting yourself to a discussion of passerines (perching birds) when discussing bird diversity or to the Bantu language family when discussing African languages. Those are large, recent, successful families, but there is much more diversity among the other branches of the Niger-Congo language family than just Bantu or among all the other bird orders such as the ratites, penguins, flamingoes, humming birds, and birds of prey than just the song birds. I am pointing out that historical depth is a useful perspective. μηδείς (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

One tack to understand this is perhaps to look to Christian Scriptures for an answer. While different denominations may arrive at different conclusions from the same scriptural basis, the scriptures themselves should at least be considered to understand how a particular demonination or another may actually get to their own conclusions about the propriety of the use of alcohol. That is, while all denominations don't agree on the use of alcohol, they all seem to feel that their position is based on the scriptures, so the scriptures should make a good starting point. For me, at least, as but one Christian, I find that 1 Corinthians contains lots of good insight as to the Christian position on many matters such as this. Significantly, Paul's position in that letter is that there isn't one answer for all people and all situations. In 1 Corinthians, as elsewhere in the Bible, the answer is not as simple as "it is always right" or "it is always wrong", but that one must understand the context and likely effects of one's actions before deciding their rightness or wrongness. 1 Corinthians raises that point with many issues, not just consumtion of alcohol, but the relevent general principle, stated several times and in several places, is like what is written at Corinthians+8&version=NIV 1 Corinthians 8:9 "Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak." Such a thing mirrors something Jesus himself said at Matthew 15:11 " What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them." That is, whether one consumes alcohol or does not is not the issue unto itself, it is the effect of one's actions on those who are not morally strong. Some people may see no problem with moderate alcohol consumption, while others may see it as a stumbling block; that is as a bad sign for others. So, if a Christian, or an entire denomination of Christians, chooses not to drink at all, it may be because they see alcohol as a likely stumbling block for others. That is, whether I as an individual can safely consume alcohol in good conscience is not the issue, it is whether or not by doing so, I may encourage another to do something which is harmful for them, for example I may encourage an alcoholic to overindulge because I (someone who may only have one drink and be fine) drink in front of them. Some Christians have come to the conclusion that it is better to not drink at all than to run that risk. I am not personally one who believes in total abstention from alcohol, but I also understand and respect the position of those who do. --Jayron32 19:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Paul's position that there isn't one answer for all people and all situations is an example of moral relativism. I believe the overall message of the Bible is quite the opposite, that moral absolutism results from God telling us exactly what to do, with the rules the same for all. However, considering that the Bible seems to support things like slavery and genocide, it really is impossible to read it without applying moral relativism, since we obviously don't believe in such things today. Applying moral relativism to alcohol, we can say "even though 'wine' didn't appear to cause problems in Biblical days, it does cause problems today, so should be avoided". StuRat (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

It isn't an example of moral reltavism, it is an example of moral absolutism. It isn't that there doesn't exist a right or wrong thing to do in all situations, its that there isn't necessarily a way to determine what the right or wrong thing to do from a list of rules. Paul is asking people to base their understanding of how to behave not on what a list of rules says, but by what a person knows to be right or wrong based on the teachings and life of Christ. The theme of 1 Corinthians is (and I'm paraphrasing a bit, but Paul says something like this over and over) is that "I am absolutely free to do anything, but I don't choose what to do by what I am allowed to do, but rather by what is good for me to do, insofar as my mission is to bring people to Christ." Or to quote the letter itself "“I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but not everything is constructive. No one should seek their own good, but the good of others." Corinthians+10&version=NIV 1 Corinthians 10:23-24. This is moral absolutism. There is always one right thing to do. The standard, however, is not a list of rules "You should never eat this" or "You should only drink that" or whatever. The moral absolute is clear and unambiguous in Paul: the mission of the Christian is to bring people to Christ, and how one should behave is determined by what will work in that situation. Elsewhere in 1 Corinthians, Paul deals with such "moral" issues of his day (and some of all days), with such issues as circumcision, (i.e. whether a person should be circumcised or not) and Paul's advice is it doesn't matter because being circumcised or not doesn't change how one spreads the word of Christ. Paul's attitude towards drinking alcohol is thus "If drinking interfers with your ability to follow the mission you have as a Christian, don't do it." That is, it isn't whether drinking alcohol should be banned or not: The Christian doesn't live his or her life by a list of prescriptions or proscriptions: the consider all actions against the absolute standard of Christ. That is, the Christian shouldn't think in terms of what is "allowed" or "forbidden", but rather what is "beneficial" or what is "harmful". These are absolute standards. They are different standards that those of the Old Testament. But that they are different is important: it isn't that Christ removed standards, he changed the standards. --Jayron32 03:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. If each person is free to decide what is "beneficial" and what is "harmful", then each person will decide differently, and this is moral relativism. StuRat (talk) 03:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

A person is not free to decide that. A person looks to the teachings of Christ to decide that. Christ set the standards. We, as Christians, follow those standards absolutely. You misunderstand Paul's use of the concept of freedom here. Paul isn't saying "I don't drink alcohol because I am banned from drinking alcohol". He says "I am free to drink alcohol, but I choose not to because it harms my message". Life is full of an infinite number of possible actions. When you get out of bed, do you put the right foot on the ground first or the left? How do you decide which to put down first? Are you a moral relativist because you say it doesn't matter? --Jayron32 04:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

In your example, Paul has decided that drinking hurts his message. Someone else may disagree. Others may say it even helps. Now you have 3 different groups each going their own way. You may eventually get an ascetic sect which feels that absolutely doing anything other than contemplating the mind of God will distract them from their message, while others go about drinking and perhaps using drugs to better understand the mind of God, so they can then communicate this to others. So, what the ascetics abhor, the latter group wholeheartedly endorses. That's moral relativism. StuRat (talk) 09:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not particularly intrested in convincing you one way or the other on this matter Stu. Misplaced Pages isn't the place for that, nor do I think it would be a productive matter in any end. I believe you are being deliberately obtuse, and even if you aren't I don't have the energy any longer to dispossess you of your misconceptions. I'm perfectly happy to let you contiunue to be wrong. If you care to know my opinion on the potential of the rest of this debate, read Matthew 13:1-23. --Jayron32 18:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't insult you, so why do you insult me, and violate WP:CIVIL ? StuRat (talk) 19:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not insulting you. I'm allowing you the dignity of a difference of opinion on the matter. You aren't here to be proselytized to, you aren't here for a religious lecture, and you aren't here to be convinced of anything. I've laid out my position on the issue, you've laid out yours, and neither of us are going to convince anyone to change that position. It would be insulting to your dignity to continue the debate. It would be best to just walk away from it and leave it, rather than to continue the silly "no it isn't -- yes it is" thing we're falling into. --Jayron32 03:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with all that, but find "you are being deliberately obtuse" to be both an insult and a violation of Misplaced Pages's civility policy. StuRat (talk) 03:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for stating that then. You are quite right; I shouldn't make statements about your state of mind in carrying on your position in the discussion, and I was quite wrong in doing so. You are right to be insulted, and I unequivocally apologize for that. I clearly disagree with the veracity of your position, but I hope that isn't the source of contention here. We don't agree as to who is right or wrong, and we're not going to resolve that. I'm OK with not agreeing if you are. However, it is clear that I questioned your earnestness in your position, and that is insulting, I had no right to question your earnestness, and that was particularly nasty. Again, I am sorry for that, and apologize for having said it. --Jayron32 04:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Apology accepted, and I'm glad I resisted the urge to insult you back. StuRat (talk) 10:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I hate inserting responses mid-answer, and I don't know how to indent once the responses have cycled through and back again, so: StuRat, thanks for the clarification on total Protestants versus total Roman Catholics in the U.S. I am thinking that the statement in the article I quoted, while technically true, is misleading and should be adjusted. Bielle (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. StuRat (talk) 20:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• Warner, J. "Temperance, Alcohol, And The American Evangelical: A Reassessment." Addiction 104.7 (2009): 1075-1084. CINAHL with Full Text. Web. 16 July 2012.
• Sharma, M. "Book Review. Alcohol And Christianity." Journal Of Alcohol & Drug Education 51.2 (2007): 74-75. CINAHL with Full Text. Web. 16 July 2012.
• Humphreys, Keith. "Review Of 'Alcohol, Addiction And Christian Ethics'." Addiction 102.12 (2007): 1989-1990. PsycINFO. Web. 16 July 2012.
• Ford, Julie, and Charles Kadushin. "Between Sacral Belief And Moral Community: A Multidimensional Approach To The Relationship Between Religion And Alcohol Among Whites And Blacks." Sociological Forum 17.2 (2002): 255-279. Academic Search Premier. Web. 16 July 2012.

--some jerk on the Internet (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Pan-Austronesianism?

Hi. There are many Pan-Dravidian, Pan-African, and Pan-Iranian movements active today. Are there any historical or present day Austronesian equivalents? Thanks. Van Gulik (talk) 03:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that would mean... Some kind of greater Indonesian empire? AnonMoos (talk) 04:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing some sort of unity between Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, the Philippines, Madagascar, and all of the Pacific Islands (and maybe even Taiwan, as the ancestral homeland). 109.97.146.146 (talk) 07:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm ethnically Austronesian and as far as I know, nope. There are organizations like ASEAN, but they are geo-political rather than ethnic. The geographical distances (especially extensive given the sailing traditions of Austronesians) and the cultural differences from external contact may already be too large for any real unified "movement", particularly when it comes to religion. The largest number of Austronesians are in the Sundaland archipelago (greater Indonesia and Malaysia) and they are Muslims with strong South Asian cultural influences. The Malagasy remain the largest practitioners of the traditional animism of ancestral Austronesians, while the Austronesians in the Philippines, Micronesia (including Guam and Palau), and Polynesia (including Hawaii and New Zealand) are predominantly Christian with remnants of animism. And the few remaining Austronesians in Taiwan have mostly been assimilated into the Chinese populations in terms of language, culture, and religion.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 07:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Ironically, judging by some websites there seems to be a Pan-Oceanian movement gaining ground, where people from e.g. Tonga or Fiji (speakers of Austronesian languages) argue that Indonesians (also Austronesian) should get out of West Papua (mostly non-Austronesian), because it "belongs" to Oceania. 109.97.146.146 (talk) 07:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, pan-xenophobic movements seem widespread at least. :P -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 08:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I think your right in your assertion that the Austronesian countries are many and far apart, and that this makes it difficult to create some sort of pan-Austronesian movement. Furthermore, I would also say that in addition to different cultures (religion being one factor: Islam, Christianity, Animism), the differences in geography (Cambodia is a mainland country, Madagascar is a single, large island, Malaysia (simplified) consists of two parts - West-Malaysia (peninsular Malaysia) and East-Malaysia (Borneo), as compared to Micronesia and Polynesia which both are archipelagos consisting of relatively small islands) and economic development means that it would be more difficult for these countries and peoples to unite in a significant way.

Malaysia is ranked as having a 'high' HDI (no. 61 in the world), Indonesia and Cambodia are 'middle' (no.s 124 and 139, respectively), Madagascar is ranked as 'low' (no. 151). While this certainly doesn't prevent these countries from cooperating with each other, it does mean that the problems facing each country, will be very different. In Africa, the problems of economic development are more similar, as many countries are LDCs, and as such, it's probably easier for these countries to cooperate on these issues.

Geography will also create different problems for these different states. Africa is a massive continent, yet it is limited to a single continent, where many issues seem to shared across borders. The Austronesians are likely to have different issues due to their geography: Pacific atolls might sink in the ocean or have limited sweet water supplies, in addition to very limited natural resources and land available for agriculture, while those aren't necessarily the biggest concerns for larger countries such as Malaysia, Indonesia and Cambodia.

Lastly, it seems that Austronesians live in countries that have rather mixed populations, where the Austronesians sometimes are the majority and sometimes the minority, which means that fostering a national identity rather than an ethnic identity is something that is emphasised. In New Zealand the Austronesians are a minority in what is, essentially, a 'Western country'. Similarly, Hawaii and French Polynesia are parts of the USA and France, respectively. Malaysia has an Austronesian majority, but with significant non-Austronesian population, making social cohesion between the three ethnic groups something that the government focuses more on than distant ethnic links to people leading very different lives, far away. (I would also add that the Malaysian definition of 'Malay' isn't ethnic, it's religious: Malays are 'Moslem', so an ethnic Chinese person could become 'Malay' by swapping religion.) Austronesians in NZ might see loyalty to NZ being more beneficial to them, as it gives access to health care, education and jobs in a developed economy. Something that loyalty to small islands far out in the Pacific might not. Similarly, French Polynesia benefits from a transfer of money from metropolitan France (€1.5 billion in 2010, according to French Misplaced Pages), meaning that severing that link could send the archipelago into poverty. 'Being French' might actually pay better and provide more jobs, than 'being Austronesian'. I.e. for some Austronesians, fostering a national, rather than pan-national ethnic identity, might seem more logical. V85 (talk) 18:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The definition of Malay is actually more cultural then purely religious based. While it's true to be Malay in Malaysia you need to be Muslim (so anyone who somehow converts is no longer Malay, although the conversion is generally not recognised and the apostate may be sent for 'reeducation' or even caned), being Muslim doesn't automatically make you Malay. You need to be 'a Malaysian citizen born to a Malaysian citizen who professes to be a Muslim, habitually speaks the Malay language, adheres to Malay customs, and is domiciled in Malaysia or Singapore', see Article 160 of the Constitution of Malaysia. While it's true the other requirements tend to be ignored for those who are Malay by descent (i.e. even if you never speak Malay and don't follow Malay customs you'll still normally be consider Malay), a Chinese convert can't usually become Malay simply by converting (or for that matter there are a small number of Chinese Muslims where one or more generational lines have been Muslim).

In any case, despite the technical ability, AFAIK it's actually fairly rare for Chinese Malaysians to become Malay. I've occasionally heard of it for Indian Malaysians and somewhat controversially Indonesians or others who 'look' Malay (even possibly first generation citizens) and perhaps even more controversially other Bumiputra who aren't normally considered Malay (although I think technically it doesn't even apply to those who were born or who's parents were born in Sabah and Sarawak, see the later ref). But in general, I think the reality is the constitutional requirements often tends to be ignored and even though you may fulfill the constitutional requirements, you may have problems if you don't 'look Malay', see for example no matter what certain politicans may say . (Of course not surprisingly not everyone wants to become Malay even if they may technically qualify.)

One exception, if you are of mixed descent even though 'race' generally follows the father in Malaysia I believe it's normal to be considered Malay if one of your parents is Malay (ditto for them, so even if they're are only part Malay descent they may be considered Malay). Theoretically religion doesn't become an issue here since Malaysia still requires non Muslims of either sex to convert if they wish to marry a Muslim and the children are expected to be raised as Muslim. Again, I think the custom and language thing is largely ignored.

BTW, in terms of the Indian Muslims vs Chinese Muslims in Malaysia one of the reasons for the difference is probably that although Indians are a smaller percentage of the Malaysian population, the number of them who are Muslim is I believe higher, those called the controversial term 'mamak', suggests 57k for Chinese Muslims and Tamil Muslim suggests 500k for Indian Muslims. Of course with some becoming Malay, that doesn't help the numbers but anyway... Another factor may be the greater population and on average better position in society means there tends to be strong and more successful efforts to preserve Chinese culture including language.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Why Didn't Israel Capture/Conquer the Gaza Strip in the 1948-1949 Arab-Israeli War?

Israel captured/conquered half of the proposed Palestinian Arab state during that war, but not the Gaza Strip. Futurist110 (talk) 07:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

One consideration may have been that they needed a place to leave the Palestinians, outside of the state of Israel, so they couldn't vote. Otherwise, Israel would cease to be a Jewish state. StuRat (talk) 09:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Looking at our Gaza Strip article, it seems that the Strip was in the hands of the Egyptian Army when the cease fire came into effect. So the answer would be - "because they lacked the military strength". However, perhaps someone better acquainted with this issue could comment. Alansplodge (talk) 11:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Like other notable Israeli military operations in 1948-1949, Operation Horev was outlined according to Liddell Hart's principle of indirect approach. Yigal Allon and Yitzhak Rabin, who greatly appreciated Liddell Hart's concepts, suggested invading Sinai in order to trap the majority of the Egyptian army and force the Egyptian leadership to enter negotiations for an armistice. A direct effort against the Gaza Strip would have probably resulted in a much greater number of casualties to all sides, as in the battles of Latrun. At best, it would have liberated only a single kibbutz - Kfar Darom - and bring the frontier further away from Yad Mordechai. Incidently, Yad Mordechai junction came under heavy machine gun fire from the Gaza Strip merely six days ago (). ליאור • Lior (talk) 12:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

As I (may or may not) understand, the Gaza Strip has a long history, dating back to disputes among Alexander's generals (Ptolemy I Soter) about the precise location of the land they'd drawn by lots. See the map in that article. Battle of Gaza (312 BC) could use expansion. I would suppose (don't know) if this long historical precedent made the boundary seem more natural to residents in 1948 than it looks to us on a map. Wnt (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all, had Israel captured Gaza, most of the Palestinians there would have very likely fled (or been expelled), and thus the worry about having to add a large Arab population to Israel if Gaza was conquered would have been a moot point. I know that there weren't that many Jews in Gaza in 1948-1949, but Gaza could have had important economic and strategic value to Israel by being a good place to build a lot of beach and vacation resorts in the future and by weakening the strategic position of the Egyptians in a future war. Aren't heavy casualties in order to achieve an important military and/or strategic objective during a war often tolerated? I mean, it's not like Israel's army was extremely desperate in 1949. Also, from my (limited) knowledge of this war, I was under the impression that the Jordanian Army/Arab Legion was the only Arab army that was a match for Israel in 1948-1949. Futurist110 (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think all the Palestinians would have fled. After all, Israel subsequently gained control over the Gaza Strip, and they didn't all flee then. Also, back in 1948-49, Israel wasn't that strong, and you should compare their strength not with just one opposing force, but the sum of all actual and potential forces, as attacking Gaza might have brought in more combatants against them. StuRat (talk) 23:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

1948-1949 and 1967 were very different cases. In 1948, most of the Arabs in territory that Israel captured either fled or were expelled. I don't see why the Gaza Strip would have been a different case, considering that the Arabs there could have fled (or been forced to flee) to Egypt, Jordan, or some other Arab country just like a lot of their Arab companions in other parts of Palestine. Also, I'm pretty sure that every Arab country who wanted to wage a war against Israel already declared war on Israel by the time that the 1948-9 Arab-Israel War was coming to a close. Israel already attacked and conquered a lot of Arab lands, and that didn't bring in more Arab countries to join the fight against Israel. Thus, considering that Gaza held no significant value to the Arabs, I seriously doubt that attacking Gaza would have brought in more Arab countries to fight against Israel. Finally, the strength of each individual country and army does matter, since although the Arab countries cooperated with each other against Israel, each of the armies primarily fought Israel in the territories that were the closest to its borders. Lebanon and Syria fought Israel in the North, Jordan fought Israel in Jerusalem and the West Bank, and Egypt fought Israel in Gaza and on the Mediterranean coast. Also, considering that Israel had the Egyptian Army in Gaza surrounded at the end of the war, it would have been almost impossible for another Arab country or army to send a lot of help or aid to the Egyptians, thus allowing Israel to conquer the Gaza Strip without too much difficulty if it so desired. Futurist110 (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Even if your enemies each stick to their own front, you still must divide your armies to fight each of them, as Hitler found out in WW2. (If he only had to fight his strongest enemy, Stalin, he might have won.) StuRat (talk) 01:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

True, but the section of the Israeli army fighting the Egyptians was doing pretty well when the war was nearing its end. I haven't heard of that section of the Israeli army being so desperate that they would be unable to sustain a few casualties to capture Gaza. Also, sustaining additional casualties might not have been necessary since Israel already had the Egyptian army surrounded in Gaza and could thus push (perhaps successfully) for Egypt to withdraw from Gaza in the post-war armistice/peace treaty. Futurist110 (talk) 02:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Keep in mind we're talking about a newly formed country that was just attacked by over 6 powerful and large countries with many more troops. Also remember this army is relatively new, consists of militias that were put together quickly, and doesn't have such advacned weaponry as it does today. Whatever you get, you're happy about it. As Israeli leader and first prime minister chaim weizmann said, "We'd accept a state the size of a napkin." All they wanted was a country, Gaza or no Gaza. Even East Jerusalem, which had the Old City, wasn't captured. If the war went on, it's possible these places would've been captured, and others would've been lost. But when the ceasefire was declared, it just happened that Egypt had Gaza, and Jordan had Judea and Samaria, which they renamed its thousand year olds name as the West Bank. That's how it was. Gaza isn't that big a deal, I mean you can see that the government unilaterally gave it up in the hopes of peace in 2005, and there was no way of knowing in 1948 that Hamas would rise to power in Gaza either. Jerusalem is a bigger issue, and from 1948-1967, Jordan did not allow Jews to enter the city (and restricted the movement of Christians) and destroyed many Jewish sites, which was why the reunification in 1967 was very emotional for them.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "Palestinian Arab state" in your first sentence. Are you referring to the UN Partition Plan, or to the present day? If it's the first one, then please note that Arabs living there weren't referred to as Palestinians, as Jews living there were also Palestinians. Arab Palestinians or Arabs is a better term. The Partition Plan was accepted by Israel but rejected by the Arabs living there, so it had no legal justification or bearance on anything in the future, so it's moot. If you're referring to a Palestinian state today, then realize such a state hopes to encompass Gaza and the West Bank, which is exactly what Israel did not capture.

Hope this helps. --Activism1234 05:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

By proposed Palestinian Arab state, I meant the state that the U.N. gave to the Palestinian Arabs in the 1947 Palestine Partition Plan. Initially the Arabs were given about 42% of Palestine, but later only 22% of Palestine was left under Arab (Egyptian and Jordanian) control. In regards to East Jerusalem and the West Bank, as I previously stated, to my knowledge the Jordanian military/Arab Legion was much stronger than the Egyptian military. Thus, any further attempt to capture East Jerusalem and the West Bank would have likely failed and could have possibly diverted Israeli resources from other fronts, thus causing Israel to lose control of the Negev and maybe some other areas in exchange for gaining nothing. Gaza, on the other hand, was a much easier target for Israel to capture if it so desired. I'm sure that the Israelis/Jews would have been happy had the Arabs accepted the 1947 U.N. Partition Plan, but once the Arabs went to war against Israel, one would think that Israel would try capturing all the territory that it can in order to have more defensible borders and to allow more Jewish population expansion within its borders. The Israeli govt. gave up Gaza in 2005 because it had 1.5 million Arabs living there, which was way too large of a number for Israel to try assimilating. In contrast, in 1948 had Israel captured Gaza most of the Arabs there would have either fled or been expelled, so there would not have been a large demographic problem for Israel in capturing Gaza in 1948. Also, in regards to the ceasefire, I think that Israel could have either captured Gaza before the ceasefire or delayed the ceasefire by a week, two weeks, or month if it felt like it really needed to.

As a side question, what do you think will happen to Jerusalem in an Israel-Palestinian peace treaty? Futurist110 (talk) 06:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It would be split between them, since neither side would be willing to give it up completely and an open city can't exist with the level of hostility those two sides have. StuRat (talk) 08:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't one argue that the Palestinians (or at least Mahmoud Abbas) gave up their claim to Jerusalem with the Beilin-Abu Mazen agreement? Futurist110 (talk) 19:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, I saw a poll last year which stated that more Arabs in East Jerusalem want to stay under Israeli rule than those that wanted to end up under Palestinian rule.

Here it is:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4064783,00.html

If this poll is reliable and accurate, then this will further strengthen Israel's position in peace negotiations that it should keep all of East Jerusalem in a final peace treaty. It's disappointing how many Israelis and Israeli politicians are willing to divide Jerusalem when Yitzhak Rabin himself said that diving Jerusalem in order to establish peace is not a price worth paying for peace. Futurist110 (talk) 07:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it already divided ? StuRat (talk) 08:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not. Jerusalem used to be split between 1948-1967. In that time, West Jerusalem was under Israeli control. East Jerusalem was under Jordanian occupation (it was annexed, but not recognized by the world, which is why many people say it's disputed now, since Israel won it from an occupying country). East Jerusalem had all the religious sites, and during this time, Jews were not allowed to enter the city, and Chrisitans were severely restricted. Many Jewish tombs and synagogues were destroyed. In 1967, Israel won back East Jerusalem and reunified the city, which was heartbreaking.

It's true that Yitzchak Rabin said they can't give up Jerusalem, and he was the one who started the whole Oslo movement. But then you have people like Ehud Olmert, who used to be in Likud (and then switched to Kadima, but Kadima still isn't a left-wing movement) and yet offered in 2008 to give up certain parts of East Jeruaslem (about 3/4) to the Palestinians AND give them control over the Temple Mount (Judaism's holiest site).

If Abbas accepted this (which he didn't), I don't know how Israel would've reacted. The Israeli public would have been infuriated if Jerusalem was given up again. To many people, Zionism=Jerusalem. See this short video that says that as well.

As for the Palestinians, Jerusalem is the 3rd holiest site in the Arab world, while it's the #1 holiest site in the Jewish world. Still, the Palestinians want it as their capital - whether it's because they don't want a holy site going under another religion's control or because they feel it's duly their land. The latter part is disputed by many people, since Arabs under the Ottoman Empire and Jordaniain occupation didn't care too much for the Temple Mount and didn't really take good care of it, until after Israel won it back.

Let me know if you have any questions. --Activism1234 19:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Rabin started the Oslo peace process, but supporting peace does not automatically equal to supporting re-dividing Jerusalem. Whether or not Rabin would have supported the redivision of Jerusalem in the future had he survived his assassination attempt is an open question, though. As for Olmert, after Barak offered to re-divide Jerusalem in 2000, talk about dividing Jerusalem became less taboo in Israel, which is why Olmert was willing to redivide the city (along with Olmert's desire to save his legacy after his failure in Lebanon in 2006 and his corruption allegations). Also--I just want to clarify--Olmert offered the Palestinians 31% of East Jerusalem, not 75% as you claim. Also, Olmert wanted to put the Temple Mount under international sovereignty, not sole Palestinian sovereignty. I think I've seen some polls that state that about 40-50% of Israelis would be willing to support dividing Jerusalem in a final peace treaty, yet about 40-60% would not, and those Israelis would definitely be very angry and upset if Jerusalem is ever redivided. To be honest, I think a good compromise would be to keep the status quo in Jerusalem and the Temple Mount (Israeli sovereignty, Palestinian administration of the Temple Mount and freedom of worship) and in return give the Palestinians sovereignty in Jewish holy places in Hebron and elsewhere in the West Bank in exchange for allowing Jewish freedom of worship there. Futurist110 (talk) 08:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Napoleon's sexual orientation

Major General Dr. Frank Richardson has published a book titled Napoleon, Bisexual Emperor, which deals with Napoleon's sexual orientation. Our Misplaced Pages article on Louis Bonaparte claims that Louis' "'poor mental condition' may have been periods of depression caused by trying to hide his homosexuality or bisexuality", citing p.7 of James McMillan's book as our source. What is the current scholarly opinion about Napoleon's sexual orientation? How was bisexuality perceived in 19th Century France? Thanks, ליאור • Lior (talk) 08:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

PMID 1757726 indicates that Napoleon rescinded criminal laws against homosexuality in 1810. It would not have been unusual for a person in Napolean's position to have experimented with sexuality. 71.212.249.178 (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Philip Dwyer, an Australian historian, deals with Napeoleon Boneparte's psychohistory; he won a gong for it, so I'd suggest Dwyer, P. 2007, Napoleon, 1769-1799: The Path to Power, London; Bloomsbury. The modern construction of "homosexuality" didn't exist in the late 18th century by the way. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Locating sunk Ships

Hi, I note that someone has added {{coord missing}} to some articles on vessels sunk in various naval engagements. Does anyone know if the sinking position for vessels is officially recorded? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• Well, there isn't exactly a unified global registry of such things. However, naval vessels usually keep a record of what happened in engagements, which should allow the position of a sinking to be recorded, subject to the inaccuracies of the fog of war and of premodern navigation; and sometimes we can get modern secondary sources (divers, photographers, &c) which also pinpoint the location. So, for many but not all sunken vessels it's possible to get coordinates. Many will be regarded as war graves.
• Sometimes the location itself can be controversial (cf ) and we should bear that in mind - there may be more than one claimed location.
• Nowadays we have gadgets like AIS - very soon after the Costa Concordia running aground, you could get an accurate GPS track of its final hours - but military vessels don't necessarily broadcast detailed AIS information in the middle of a warzone. bobrayner (talk) 16:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

WRECK Site - the world's largest online wreck database is a very useful tool. I haven't found any gaps yet. It only lists known wreck sites however. Alansplodge (talk) 16:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Useful - but it's subscription only for the actual Lat/Long data :( Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The items are specfically Royal Navy (ie HMS) vessels, this means that the CWGC may hold information as well. Thanks Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

For ships that are sunk in shallow waters near shipping lanes, there are precise locations recorded so that ships travelling nearby can avoid crashing into them. I'm not sure where those records are, though - probably wherever ones gets shipping charts from. --Tango (talk) 02:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Fictional name for medieval kingdom of France ? Suggestions ?

Anyone have a good fictional name for a kingdom very similar to France set in a fictional medieval world ?

They will speak French, and culture and so on will be very similar to that of real world France.

The name doesn't necessarily need to sound very similar to "France" but it does need to sound good when spoken both in French and English.

It's the last kingdom of many I need to make. Making up a name have proven quite a challenge for me, and I'm kinda stuck... so maybe there's a few helpful people out there with very creative minds ?

I'll be grateful for any suggestions :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.247.62.59 (talk) 17:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe a play on early names of the real-world area or its inhabitants? France was known as Gallia to the Romans for example (French: Gaule), with most of present day France being the Roman province of Gallia Lugdunensis (French: Gaule Lyonnaise), previously Gallia Celtica. Gallicizing some Names of the Celts might also help.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Funny you should suggest Gaul/Gallia. Thing is, even fictional worlds have a history and I have been playing around with that name when creating my own version of Gauls. So i cant be using that name.. thanks anyway :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.247.62.59 (talk) 18:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Some version of Carolia or Charelle or the like which can be Karling in German. See Carolingian dynasty. μηδείς (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Modern France is called "the hexagon" due to its shape, so you could play on that, maybe call it 'Hectagonia' (or 'l'Hectagonie' in French). If I were writing the book, I'd probably take that one too far and have all sorts of references to the number 6: the King would have six advisors, the army would be divided into 6 regiments, the citizenry would be split into six classes (off the top of my head: peasant, artisan, merchant, (feudal) lord, priest and bureaucrat ), there would be six religious sects, etc. V85 (talk) 18:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

None of the modern corners of the Hexagon – Alsace (with Lorraine, Bar and Franche-Comté), Boulogne, Bretagne, Navarre, Rousillon, Nice – were firmly annexed to France until after the medieval period. —Tamfang (talk) 04:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

However, it seems to me that the author is creating a medival France, based on today's France, rather than merely recreating one of the historical duchies or kingdoms which today are part of France. It's a fictional world, not a fictional story set in the real world. V85 (talk) 11:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

You might also try (le) Royaume, literally, The Realm, or the variant Reyaume. μηδείς (talk) 18:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

One thing to consider is to choose some of the early Frankish subkingdoms. During the early-middle-ages, the lands of the Franks were divided into three or so subkingdoms, being Neustria, Aquitania, and Austrasia. These three kingdoms, along with the Burgundian Kingdom of Arles roughly correspond to modern France. The nice thing about using a name like Neustria or Austrasia is that it is an historically accurate name for France, which very few casual readers would actually recognize. I would go with Neustria, as that kingdom contained the seeds of the later Kingdom of France; Paris was located there, as was the Ile de France, which was the nucleus around which the French State would eventually develop. It was from the land of Ile de France, and the ruler's title as Duke of France that the name of France directly comes from; since Ile de France was part of Neustria it would make a nice historical analogue. --Jayron32 18:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Both Neustria and L'Ile (pronounced "Leel") occurred to me, but I am not sure the former sounds very good. There is also La Marche Mark (territory). μηδείς (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean using Gaul/Gallia verbatim. Just elements of it. :P The one alternate-reality French culture I can think of, for example, uses it - the EVE Online faction Gallente.

And speaking of alternate history, what are the names of your fictional founders then? Whatever you call them can be the basis of the "contemporary-day name". e.g. if you named their "ancestors" the Redowend, then you can name the country as Révanne (endonym), Rivanny (exonym), Rivannian (demonym) or something similar.

Another way to get place-names is to look at the map of France (down to the village names, Google is good for that). Find interesting place-names, then mix-and-match (careful not to come up with hilarious actual French words of course). e.g. I thought of Tavent, Taventine, Taventish from Tavant; Couronne, Corony, Coronian from Grand-Couronne; Farennia, Farennese, Farennian from Varennes, etc.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 19:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you pull Redowend from the air, or what? —Tamfang (talk) 04:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

More or less, LOL. It's an imagined "ancient demonym" from redo- and -wend. In my world being derived from PIE *reudh- ("red "), though it could be from anything with a similar consonant cluster really, and the ethnonym Wends (probably "clan" or somesuch). Then I applied possible linguistic evolution over the years that would be similar to what modern French went through to get there - dropping the d, the original /w/ becoming /v/, and the -nd cluster becoming -nne (cf. Veneti to Vannes), etc. Hence Révanne.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 04:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Cecoubre/Secoubre. Futurist110 (talk) 03:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Sacrebleu ? lol Vespine (talk) 04:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Ligérie or Liérie, Rodanie or Rodaine, from the ancient forms of Loire and Rhône. Or suppose the Burgundians dominated rather than the Franks: then perhaps Bornie (by analogy with Bornholm from Burgundarholm). —Tamfang (talk) 04:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Funny, the Loire and the Rhone are two other sources I thought of. But I gave up Rodaine as to close to Rodan. μηδείς (talk) 04:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Would this site help? ````

How about Moreliane? You just want it to be any random name that sounds cool in French and English, right? Futurist110 (talk) 05:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I suggest Malum Odorem. Sounds cool, and it's descriptive of the people. :-) StuRat (talk) 05:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks all :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.247.62.59 (talk) 14:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Cartoon character wanting an apology

Who was the cartoon character whose comic schtick was to go around saying "I think someone owes me an apology?" Edison (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Is this what made you think of the question? Only links I have found are to Boondocks and Doonesbury--But these are demands the writers apologize to their readers. μηδείς (talk) 23:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Cole Oyl, Olive Oyl's father, repeatedly demands "You owe me an apology" in Robert Altman's film version Popeye, but I don't know whether this was also the case in the original cartoons. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Edison (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Cultural appropriation

When, if ever, is it okay to incorporate aspects of foreign cultures? The articles I've read about cultural appropriation either ignore this question entirely or seem to say that using foreign influences is always wrong. --108.225.117.142 (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Saying it's always wrong seems a bit harsh. Hopefully we take the good parts from each other's cultures and not the bad. For example, it's good we took Arabic numerals from Arab culture, but I certainly hope we don't incorporate their attitudes towards women, and start stoning women suspected of having sex outside of marriage. StuRat (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

You are aware, as the article indicates, those numbers are of Indian origin and associated with the Brahmi abugida used to write early Buddhist texts? μηδείς (talk) 03:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Well then, it's also good that the Arabs took the digits from India. —Tamfang (talk) 04:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Not also that Buddhists don't stone adulteresses? μηδείς (talk) 04:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I was referring more to the use of foreign influences in media, fashion, etc. That's what I've seen people get the most upset about. --108.225.117.142 (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean the people in the culture from which it was borrowed are mad, or the people into whose culture it was copied ? In the latter case, a bit of cultural borrowing might be fine, but too much makes it look like you are being colonized (a Paris full of McDonalds', for example). StuRat (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Paris is already quite saturated with McDonald's. But they serve beer, so it's OK. V85 (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

This question is borderline opinion asking. Can you be more specific about what kinds of cultural appropriation you're talking about? If you're talking about raiding countries historic artifacts through colonialism or war, well there's a debate about that, and efforts to repatriate some historic artifacts. So that might be one debate.

But if you're talking about taking cultural ideas, like food, music, art, or even more broadly, scientific and cultural values, most wouldn't find that offensive. I'm sure you can find some extremist positions about how that's awful, but you can find all kinds of wacky ideas like that these days and somebody who's written a book on it.

So maybe it would be good if you could be more specific in your question. We certainly don't need some opinion debate... there are plenty of those on this board already. Shadowjams (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Cultures do whatever they do in relation to borrowing or stealing aspects of other cultures. This is what's known as human nature, and it's usually considered a compliment or a mark of respect to the source culture. Who can say this is ever "wrong" or even in any sense "not okay"? Besides, just exactly what is anyone going to do about it? Who can say that the English we speak today is "wrong" just because Shakespeare might not recognise much of it? Who can say that an election result is "wrong" just because some individual is disaffected (assuming the voters voted freely and the results were not manipulated)? Any place or person that says that "using foreign influences is always wrong" is really not worth paying any attention to at all. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 23:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

To answer the OP's question, it's OK if it's useful to the culture that's incorporating it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the OP is refering to situations where a people adopt a cultural "thing" (whatever that is) from a foreign culture and replace something from their culture with it. Thus, the replaced culture gets slowly eroded and forgotten while the hegemonic culture slowly takes over. That is, people stop eating their local cuisine and start eating pizza and hamburgers; people stop speaking their local language and take up a global langauge (English, Spanish, etc.); people stop making their historical music and start listening to foreign pop acts, or local musicians that mimic foreign pop acts. In general, this is seen as a loss of the local culture. Insofar as people value their own culture, they often see the loss of that culture as something to be disappointed by or upset with. When one belongs to the culture which is being borrowed from, one often doesn't realize it is even happening, or that the issue is even a problem. --Jayron32 05:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, when tourists go abroad, looking for native culture, and instead find natives playing golf and eating fast food, it's quite a disappointment. StuRat (talk) 08:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Unless they go to the USA, in which case it's ... par for the course. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

If they went to the US hoping to see authentic Native American culture, and instead encounter Mercedes-driving "Indians" running casinos, that might be a disappointment, yes. StuRat (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why they'd be disappointed, Stu. Most more-developed nations spend significant amounts of their time and money trying to influence less-developed nations to be more like them. They used to call it sending out missionaries to convert the heathens. Nothing's really changed except we now call it foreign aid. So, having gone to that effort, wouldn't they be more likely to be disappointed if the less-developed nations resisted these influences, rather than adopting them? You can't set up MacDonalds restaurants in Vubuzu or Kwang-Xin and then complain about the degradation of the local culture. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 12:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Those who want to profit by exporting businesses to other nations and those who want to visit and view their authentic cultures are not the same people. StuRat (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

They are, or may as well be, as far as the natives are concerned. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 22:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

But not as far as they are concerned, which is relevant to how disappointed they are. StuRat (talk) 23:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Isn't cultural appropriation normally used in a negative sense from the point of view of the people whose culture is being appropriated? (i.e. rather than purists of the absorbing culture). E.g. Elvis was criticised for appropriating Black musical culture to make money, somewhat unfairly. I once read a discussion on an anti-racist blog which worried in a slightly hand-wringing liberal stereotypy way because not liking Black culture was racist and liking Black culture was appropriation - also racist! 90.214.166.145 (talk) 13:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

That is also how I've heard it used, and this aspect is covered in Cultural appropriation. Generally, the more sacred the symbol appropriated, or the more core to cultural identity it is, the more inappropriate appropriation is. As you seek opinions, it's best to give most weight to those of the people whose customs are being appropriated, since they are the ones who are potentially disempowered/insulted. First world privilege and White privilege also often apply.174.88.8.241 (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Cause of misconception of Christianity in Europe

What are the causes of misconception about Christianity in Europe like there is a misconception that Roman Catholics of Europe are usually French, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish because their languages are considered Roman-based languages and Roman Catholic means that the denomination was founded by Romans; all Protestants are usually Germanic people (English, Scottish, Swedes, Danes, Norwegians, Germans, Dutch and Icelandic) because the denomination was founded by a Germanic man (Martin Luther) and Calvinism was founded by a Dutch and Lutheran is commonly practised in Germany, Sweden, Iceland, Norway, and Denmark and Orthodox are all Slavs (Russians, Ukrainians, Belorussians, Macedonians, Serbians, Bulgarians)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.153.151 (talk) 22:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Haven't you all but answered your own question? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 22:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe Germans are more Protestant than Roman Catholic. If I remember correctly both are about 30% of the population. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the German-speaking Austrians would be surprised to find out that they are supposed to be Lutherans, given that 74% of the population of Austria professes to be Roman Catholic, see Religion in Austria. Likewise, the Irish don't speak a Romance language in any shape or form, a people famously proud of their Roman Catholic heritage. Neither do the predominantly Catholic countries of Poland and Lithuania speak any Latinate language, rather those are Slavic and Baltic languages respectively. Also, the Orthodox Greeks would be quite shocked that they are considered "Slavs". Estonia's biggest Christian denomination is Lutheranism, and they speak a Finno-Urgic language. --Jayron32 03:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The OP is already aware there are misconceptions. He isn't asking us to correct them, he wants to know how they arose. I suggested the reasons he gave in his question are on the money. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 03:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Western European people who study history, languages, culture, literature, art history, etc, tend to focus on the history of the main nations/empires of western Europe (France, Britain, Italy, Germany, Spain, and Hapsburg Austria) and western European languages and culture (especially Italian, English, French, Spanish, German). (Various historians e.g. Norman Davies have lamented this focus.) This means they draw lessons based on the areas they study, rather than thinking about Poland or the other "strange" nations in the east. If you only think about 4 or 5 nations, you're going to start making generalisations. Germany (and to a lesser extent Britain) is/are conventionally viewed as very different to France/Spain/Italy, and religion is often considered a possible reason: see Weber's Protestant work ethic for a classic example. (And Hapsburg Austria had strong links to Spain and other Catholic kingdoms, so maybe it's honorarily Spanish?) --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it has to do with immigration patterns. The OP is apparently in Canada, and Catholic immigration here was for the most part from the Romance countries (and the Philippines, but that's more recent), while Orthodox immigration (at least to the West) was overwhelmingly from Ukraine and Protestant immigration was from Great Britain and northwestern Europe.--NellieBly (talk) 14:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Could the OP provide any examples of this misconception? I haven't encountered it before. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it just stems from a general tendency to split Europe (mentally) into three - north, south and east, which I imagine predated the Reformation. It is after all a generally valid way of looking at Europe. At any event, the idea is strong enough that where the linguistic, ethnic or religious boundaries dont coincide we tend to dismiss those cases as just anomalies (eg, German Catholic areas (in fact almost half the country), Romanians not speaking a Slavonic language, etc, etc) rather than ditching the convenient "Three Europes" mindset. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.85.213 (talk) 00:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Low Jewish Emigration From Hungary From 1945 to the Present Day

http://www.ushmm.org/cd/holocaust/maps/images/eur77870bg.gif

In this link it says that the Jewish population in Hungary was about 155,000 in 1950. However, if you look at the Aliyah Misplaced Pages page and look at the aliyah (Jewish immigration to Israel) figures for Hungary, it says that only about 20,000 or so Jews immigrated from Hungary to Israel since 1950. This means that the overwhelming majority of Jews who lived in Hungary in 1950 and their descendants chose to stay there and in many cases, to assimilate. This is in contrast to the very large Jewish immigration as a percentage of the total Jewish population that Israel experienced from other Eastern European countries such as Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and the U.S.S.R. (especially after 1989). My question is why did most Hungarian Jews and their descendants stay in Hungary rather than move to Israel like most Jews in other Eastern European countries did after 1945-1950? Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 23:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

It could have been that the economy of Hungary was better. From our article: "As a result of the relatively high standard of living, a more liberalised economy, a less oppressed press, and less restricted travel rights than elsewhere in the Eastern Bloc, Hungary was generally considered one of the more liberal countries in which to live in Eastern Europe during the Cold War". So, the Jews in Hungary were less hungry. :-) StuRat (talk) 00:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, the economy of all of Eastern Europe was pretty bad right after WWII and during the Cold War, considering all the wartime damage and the Communist economic systems that these countries had for several decades. You could say that there was still a large Jewish community in Hungary after the Holocaust, but this was true of Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, and the U.S.S.R. as well and most of the Jews these chose to emigrate to Israel after WWII. Also, the new Hungarian Communist leadership was pretty intolerant of Jewish religious practices, and a lot of Hungarian Jews still lost or had their property destroyed during WWII or right afterwards (due to Communist govt. confiscation). Hungary might have sucked a little less than some of the other Eastern European Communist countries, but its standard of living would have probably still been lower than that of Israel, Western Europe, and the United States. Futurist110 (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Your logic is flawed: 155.000 Hungarian Jews, 20.000 emigrate to Israel. That doesn't make 135.000 who stayed in Hungary. Jewish people emigrated to many other places. OsmanRF34 (talk) 01:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that the number who emigrated to the West was that large, considering that some Western countries like the U.S. still had tight immigration restrictions back in the 1950s. If you have data on Hungarian Jewish migration to other countries, please let me know and see it. However, it's still an interesting phenomenon that only a small % of Hungary's 1950 Jewish population immigrated to Israel in contrast with other Eastern European countries. Futurist110 (talk) 01:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, my point about Hungary retaining a greater percentage of its 1950 Jewish population still stays intact, even if some Hungarian Jews immigrated to countries other than Israel.

Here are the percentages of the core Jewish population by country in 2010 vs. 1950 (in thousands):

Hungary: 49/155 = 31%
(Former) Soviet Union: 330/2000 = 17%
Poland: 3/45 = 7%
Romania: 10/280 = 3%

As evidenced, Hungary has kept a much greater % of its Jewish population in 2010 relative to 1950 versus the other Eastern European countries with large Jewish populations in 1950.

Sources: http://www.ushmm.org/lcmedia/map/lc/image/eur77870.gif http://www.jewishdatabank.org/Reports/World_Jewish_Population_2010.pdf Futurist110 (talk) 03:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It would be unhelpful to assume that Jewishness is a strictly conserved and accurately measurable quantity, with every thousand declared "jews" passing on that status to a thousand descendants in the next generation. The proportion of people reporting as Jewish will vary depending on exactly how the data is collected and why; censuses are generally more reliable than some other methods, but censuses in eastern Europe have often tended to nudge people into some slightly unrealistic categories in the past. And, of course, some people gain or lose their religion over the course of their lives. bobrayner (talk) 08:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The same is the case in the US: you get pressed into one category or the other. Ochson (talk) 13:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Your data might be wrong. See in History of the Jews in Hungary:

"Most estimates about the number of Jews in Hungary range from 50,000 to 150,000; intermarriage rates are around 60%. (On the other hand, only 12,871 people declared Jewish religion in the census of 2001). " Ochson (talk) 13:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't know anything about Hungary, but in Poland the combination of the Kielce pogrom, the Slánský trial (which had Eastern-Europe-wide effects, though not explained very well in the article), local aftereffects of the mideast 6-day war of 1967, etc., led to the vast majority of Polish Jews deciding that things would be better elsewhere, until in the 1970s the Communist Polish government became somewhat notoriously known for "antisemitism without Jews"... AnonMoos (talk) 21:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Sergio DellaPergola (my source for Jewish population by country in 2010) is an extremely respected and reliable demographer. He is considered to be one of the best in his field when it comes to Jewish demography. AnosMoos, what about Romania and the massive emigration of its Jews after 1950? Futurist110 (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

This is very interesting, especially when you factor in that Hungary never really expereinced a downfall in anti-Semitism after the Holocaust as did many European countries, and anti-Semitism in Hungary - and in the government - has increased dramatically over the years, and will only increase in the future. Some people might even compare it to Norway. Anti-Semitic (and neo-Nazi as well against immigrants and Muslims) attacks in Hungary have been increasing and are getting worse. It is possible many Hungarian Jews moved to other countries, like America, or were assimilated, or just didn't have the means to make aliyah. It's further possible that the community was just very deep-rooted and didn't want to abandon these roots, and most preferred to stay behind where they had a long culture and deep roots and take care of their communities. But in light of the recent waves, it is rather shocking. --Activism1234 05:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it were mainly the Western European countries that experienced a large downfall in anti-Semitism after World War II. I don't think that the Hungarian govt. right now is anti-Semitic (though I could be wrong on this--feel free to correct me). You're right that political anti-Semitism there is stronger than in many other European countries, considering how well the anti-Semitic Jobbik party does in Hungarian elections, even among young people. In regards to Norway, are you talking about the Brevik shootings in the summer of last year? Those shooting were an outlier perpetrated by a lone nutjob. Or are you talking about something else in Norway? Some Hungarian Jews did move to other countries besides Israel, but I'm not sure if their number was that large and I'm not sure if there are any statistics available to check this. A lot of Hungarian Jews probably were assimilated at least to some degree, and in regards to aliyah I know that many dirt-poor Jews (such as from the former U.S.S.R.) made aliyah, so making aliyah wasn't really a problem. Also, the Communists in Hungary probably confiscated all (or most) private property, so it's not like Hungarian Jews had too much to lose by making aliyah. Futurist110 (talk) 05:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

As a Norwegian, I was a little surprised to see Norway being linked to extreme anti-Semitism. However, I don't think that what he's referring to are the shootings. From what I have read about Breivik's ideas (I haven't actually read his 'book', but there's been plenty of citations from it and other things he's stated elsewhere) he doesn't seem to be anti-Semitic, since, as many right-wingers, he supports Israel. (This could be turned around, by stating that supporting self-determination is just another form of racism - one country for each group of people, so that they don't interract.)

I think that what Activism is referring to is a switch in policy by many political parties, especially on the left, from supporting Israel when it was a new state, (It was a democracy, and a social-democratic welfare state at that) to being more pro-Palestinian (opposed to occupation) more recently. I.e. Israel gets a lot of bad press, perhaps more than what other countries, such as the Moroccan occupation of West-Sahara is getting. Apparently, there has been an increase in expressed anti-Jewish sentiment among certain elements of the population, but this is (presented as being) due to increased Moslem immigration, and Moslem contempt for the Jews. (One example I remember from a newspaper was a Moslem student standing up during a history class and demanding that the teacher stop talking about the holocaust. Another being that Jewish children are more prone to being bullied, and the word 'Jew' being a frequent pejorative.) However, from the media, I have the impression that the situation is less bad in Norway compared to Sweden. I recall a story of a Jewish family from Malmö that decided to do aliyah, becuase they found the situation in Sweden to have become unbearable. V85 (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. In regards to what I've heard about Brevik, he wasn't an all-out anti-Semite, but there were some Jews that he disliked. However, he saw Muslims as a much greater threat to Norwegian/Western culture than Jews, and was thus willing to work with the Jews and with Israel in order to fight Muslims and Muslim influence.

There's a huge difference between being a critic of Israel and being an anti-Semite, especially when it comes to liberals (the two categories often interlap for conservative Muslims). Many liberals in the West have no problem with Jews themselves. They just strongly dislike Israel's policies (often without understanding all of the details of the Arab-Israeli conflict). In regards to Muslims, Muslims are only 2-3% of the Norwegian population, so there's really not that many of them in comparison to other groups (Norwegians, etc.). I would think that Norway (and Sweden) would try making a very strong effort against anti-Semitism, especially considering that they're very liberal (tolerant) and educated, and considering that the Holocaust also occurred in Norway and still remains a strong memory for many older Norwegians. Also, my dad has a Jewish acquitance at work that lived in Norway before for several years. She said that she didn't fit in there very well (due to the fact that she's Jewish and most people in Norway are Norwegian/Swedish/Danish). However, I don't think that she ever said anything about being harassed by anyone in Norway due to her being Jewish. That said, since you live in Norway, you probably know more about the anti-Semitism there than I do. Futurist110 (talk) 23:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know anything about how Jews in Norway feel, but many Israelis clearly remember that almost as soon as the new "Intifada" started in 2000, many in the Norwegian political classes seemed to come out with disproportionately vehement and virulent condemnations of all things Israeli, there was talk of placing yellow stickers on Israeli items in Norwegian supermarkets so that people would know to boycott them, former Nazi nurse Hanna Kvanmo started flapping her gums in a manner which offended millions of people (and caused many to wonder why ex-Nazi nurses are appointed to the Nobel Peace Prize committe in the first place), etc. AnonMoos (talk) 03:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm strongly aware that liberal Europeans are strongly (and often disproportionally) critical of Israel. However, again being critical of Israel does not automatically equal being anti-Semitic. As for ex-Nazis and neo-Nazis, I was under the impression that when they do something bad against Jews (not Israel), then the Norwegian govt. is quick to respond. Am I wrong?

Also, I found some sources for Hungarian Jewish emigration:

http://www.yivoencyclopedia.org/article.aspx/Hungary/Hungary_since_1945 http://www.yivoencyclopedia.org/article.aspx/Population_and_Migration/Population_since_World_War_I

Based on these sources, even in the high emigration scenario, 75,000 Jews left Hungary in total after World War II. This means that 90,000 of the 165,000 Jews (55%) that were present in Hungary in 1945 permanently stayed there. In no other Eastern European country with a large Jewish population in 1945 did a majority of Jews refrain from emigrating. Thus my point about Hungary being unique in this regard still stands. Futurist110 (talk) 04:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed that there was a discussion concerning what I said about anti-Semitism in Norway. This Misplaced Pages article is useful for more information. The person who commented that he was a Norwegian listed many true things about anti-Semitism in Norway. Part of the debate over anti-Semitism in Norway is what is considered legitimate criticism of Israel as compared to criticism that should be reserved for its inhabitants to make in the political process as compared to anti-Semitism. Certainly, publishing in a media outlet conspiracy theories that Israelis routinely engage in human trafficking in organs can be seen as anti-Semitism, and a revival of old conspiracies such as blood libels. As one recent point, in June 2011, a survey by the Oslo Municipality found that 33 per cent of Jewish students in Oslo are physically threatened or abused by other high school teens at least two to three times a month (compared to 10% for Buddhists and 5.3% of Muslims) The survey also found that 51% of high school students consider “Jew” a negative expression and 60% had heard other students use the term. Then there's also the mayor of the city of Malmo who is not fond of Jews, and has even given up on attempting to persaude them to vote for him, as his policies have resulted in Jews fleeing the city. --Activism1234 04:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

July 16

Hindu sects by ethnic groups of South Asia

Which ethnic group/s practice shaktism? Which ethnic group/s practice Shavism? Which ethnic group/s practice Smartism? Which ethnic group/s practice Vaishnavism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.43.102 (talk) 02:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Have you had a look at our articles: Shaktism, Shaivism, Smartism and Vaishnavism? Vespine (talk) 04:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Basilica of San Isidoro

In the Spanish wiki, it talks about an excavation of the Pantheon of the Kings in the Basilica of San Isidoro in 1997 in which the bodies of Ferdinand, the son of Ferdinand II of León, and Sancha Raimúndez were found to incorrupted. Was there any photographs from the excavation?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 03:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

A google image search for "cuerpo Ferdinand II León Sancha Raimúndez" suggests not. μηδείς (talk) 04:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Why does it seem like the Spanish excavate more of their royal tombs than other parts of Europe? It seems nearly all the Kings and Queens of Castile and Leon and their children were exhumed at one point and studied in modern times. The Spanish wiki seems to devote a lot of space to describing their burials unlike most articles on the English wiki.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 03:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Republic vs Democracy

One occasionally hears someone bewail a metamorphosis of These United States from a REPUBLIC (good!) to, or at least toward, a DEMOCRACY (bad!). But I don't think I've ever heard it set forth what features define this transition. To me, the defining difference is direct participation by the populace; but there's no prospect of referenda on the Federal level.

Is it the extension of the franchise?

Or perhaps they're a bit confused, and think a republic follows Republican Party policies while a democracy follows Democratic Party policies?

Perhaps this has been done to death, but I can't think of a good keyword to search for it. —Tamfang (talk) 04:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Or you might just read republic and democracy. μηδείς (talk) 04:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I withhold my honest response to that suggestion. —Tamfang (talk) 06:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Every time this question gets asked, someone drags out a chart like this. It is actually quite informative:

	Democratic	Not Democratic
Republic	United States	North Korea
Monarchy	United Kingdom	Saudi Arabia

The thing to remember is that a Democracy is a state where the general population has meets a minimum stanard of personal freedoms and access to political power. This has little to do with the form of government that a country has; rather it has to do with who has access to the machinery of state, and how much that machinery of state interferes in the day-to-day lives of the people. A republic is any state which is not a monarchy, a monarchy being a state ruled by a member of a hereditary ruling class. Thus, a republic just means that executive power resides with persons who don't owe their position to an accident of birth. It has nothing to do with how legitimate or illigitimate, how benvolent or oppressive, how open or restrictive a government is. Republic just means "not ruled by a monarch". Thus, there are places which are both democractic and monarchical (the UK or Sweden, for example) where there exists a monarch, but where all people have access to the machinery of the state (anyone could win a meaningful election) and where the state does not restrict individual freedoms unduly. There are also very non-democractic republics, states ruled by brutal dictators who allow power only for themselves and their cronies, and where the people have little to no personal freedoms. The labels for the U.S. political parties are brand names. They have zero ideological basis. That is, the Democratic party doesn't believe in "democracy" while the Republican party doesn't support "republicanism". They are simply convienient, and completely arbitrary, labels for the two main political groups. They haven't even had any historically consistant political positions which have lasted more than a few decades. If you want to know more about the party system in American politics, start with First Party System and work forwards. When you get to the bit where the two main parties become "Republican" and "Democratic" (basically the Third Party System to today) and try to track any continuity about the party politics between eras. You won't find much. On a "European" scale (left/center left/center/center right/right) the two U.S. parties are basically both center-right parties who differ by issue on whether they are "center" or "right", but otherwise are pretty much both center-right parties. And they've pretty much always been this way. American politics isn't based on big ideologies. It is based on taking small issues and blowing them up into huge topics where one can highlight one's difference from one's eletoral opponent, ignoring the fact that on most ideological matters, no one has any real desire to change anything. --Jayron32 05:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that North Korea really is a monarchy, as they've now passed the hereditary leadership on to the third male heir in the line of descent. They may claim to be a republic, but then, they also claim to be democratic. StuRat (talk) 08:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

For what it might be worth in this discussion, first,

Republic and Democracy may be more direct links to these two terms.

Second, assuming the OP is from the United States and the question is posed in this context, the Madisonian usage Republic#United States may be more helpful.

For instance, I was taught in the 4th grade that "republic" denoted representative or indirect democracy, whereby the people elect persons to represent them and their interests in their government, as opposed to direct or so-called "town-hall" democracy. Under this definition the United States is both a republic and a democracy. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Direct democracy only works in small communities (the magic number is about 150, a number noted Malcolm Gladwell, though he was neither the only nor the first, as the largest size of a functional community where everyone can participate fully in the community). For any group larger than this, there will arise too many issues for every person to remain informed enough to make an educated decision one way or the other. The minutiae of running a fully functioning political unit, be it a city, province, or nation are far too complex for every person to devote themselves to. How any person do anything else, like hold down a steady job, if they have to research, ponder over, deliberate, and vote on every issue facing the country. It becomes patently rediculous to consider running a large nation via so-called "direct democracy" where literally every decision affecting the nation must be voted on by the general population. It is so complex that even the people we elect need to themselves appoint a second group of people, which specialized knowledge, to handle various issues. The same people who are experts in food safety may not know diddlysquat about road engineering standards, and neither person knows how much electric utilities should charge their customers. So the people you elect must themselves find and appoint people who do know about this stuff so they can make those decisions, and implement them. The U.S. is a republic because the executive power isn't restricted to a hereditary noble class, and it is a democracy because people have the freedoms necessary to take part in political life. Voting does not make one a democracy, nor does lacking a monarch. --Jayron32 06:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course you are correct about the impossibility of running any government larger than that of a very small town by direct democracy. For many Americans, the basic confusion arises from the use of the term "republic" to specifically mean "representative democracy". In fact I had been taught, incorrectly, that "republic" meant not "public matter" (res publica), but rather "from the people" (re publica). Milkunderwood (talk) 06:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Every moderately educated person ought to know most of the above already, but I suppose we had to get it out of the way, so thanks for that. Maybe tomorrow someone will touch on my actual question, which was not so much "please compare and contrast the consensus definitions of republic and democracy" as "If someone of the opinion mentioned is reading this, can you please explain what you mean by that?". —Tamfang (talk) 06:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Reading your response here, and then returning to read your original post again, in full, I have to say that I don't understand your question. Milkunderwood (talk) 07:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Or, let me ask: Who is you? Was the OP posted in the hope that someone might jump up and say, Here! Me! I think a REPUBLIC is good! And a DEMOCRACY is bad! And I'm here to tell you why! -- That's the best interpretation I can come up with, I'm afraid. Milkunderwood (talk) 07:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

At least once a year I find myself asking, "How could anyone have misunderstood me?" And I try to stop worrying over whether I'm obscure or – er – some other explanation fits the data better.

There are (I claim) people who make a certain assertion, whose meaning clearly contradicts what I think I know, if the words are used as I customarily understand them.

Now, plenty of people say, with no sign of insincerity, things that seem clearly false; but in most cases either they are lonely in their belief or they have some well-known set of different premises (e.g. God exists and has certain firm opinions, and affirmation of the consequent is not a fallacy) from which their assertions follow by a recognizable chain of inference. Here we have a strange statement — "the USA started as a Republic but has become / is becoming / is at grave risk of becoming a Democracy" — made by a large number of people whose premises I cannot guess. So I ask, see? I don't really expect one of Those People (whoever They are) to answer, but I hope it's not unreasonable to think that someone here may have been lucky enough to hear such a person spouting off long enough to explain what they mean by it.

The question I'm raising here is not "Why do some people think a Republic is better than a Democracy?". That's boring and old. My question, again, is: What makes some Americans consider the entity represented by the Stars and Stripes to be now, or in transition toward, or at risk of becoming, a democracy rather than a republic? Insofar as those words mean different things, rather than different aspects of what can be the same thing, what makes it more one than the other? What changes, real or imaginary, constitute the alleged transition? Does the assertion embody an atypical sense of the word republic and/or the word democracy? Is the assertion based on some belief, contrary to mine, about the history and structure of the Potomac regime? In short, whaaaat? Is my language hard to follow? —Tamfang (talk) 08:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. This really does clarify the question (for me). I guess I must hang out with the wrong crowd, because I've never encountered this attitude/ belief/ misapprehension/ paranoia/ whatever, even third- or fourth-hand. Sorry to not be more helpful; but at least I do understand now what you're looking for. I don't suppose Michael Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things might help. Or possibly Thomas Frank's What's the Matter With Kansas? Or as Frank McCourt's teacher tells him, "There's great ignorance in the world." Milkunderwood (talk) 09:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC) See if attending a Tea Party rally might turn up something useful.

I suspect that such books would merely mock the "yahoos" rather than try to understand them. —Tamfang (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

My guess would be that any person making such a statement uses very specific definitions of republic and/or democracy. These definitions might not be 'wrong', when you read the rationale for them, but they might be very, very different from how most other people interpret these words. As an example, most political science books I have read use 'democracy' as a shorthand for 'representative democracy' as this is what the word is often used to mean, since most 'democracies' have some sort of representational government, rather than direct democracy, whereas people here in this thread state that they were taught that's the definition of a 'republic'. To me, saying something like the US is transitioning from a republic to a democracy sounds like conspiracy jargon (i.e. 'republic' and 'democracy' have very specific meanings). I think if you really want to know, the next time somebody says such a thing, just ask them 'What's so bad about a democracy? I like being able to vote for the president and the people who write the laws!' And, since conspiracy peddlers enjoy talking about their conspiracies, they'll give you all the details you need, so as to dispel any misunderstandings you might have about the current regime! V85 (talk) 11:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I was intrigued by this question so I googled the phrase "US no longer a republic becoming a democracy", and that gave me an explanation (I think) of what could be meant by such an assertion. No surprise, the hits the search garnered were pages with grand and patriotic titles such as 'Heritage Foundation', and 'This Nation', and some obvious right-wing hits such as 'Red State'. The basic idea promulgated by the pages I visited is that the US was founded as a Republic (or a Constitutional Republic), the goal of which was not to ensure democracy, but the maximum amount of freedom, for all.

The definition of a Republic used is the same as mentioned above: representative democracy. People elect their representatives who decide what the laws are going to be. So far so good, however, there are certain properties that are attached to the idea of a republic: One such idea is that those who are elected are noble people who will uphold the Constitution at all costs (and if they don't, the president and the supreme court will act as a check on them). A second idea is that the US is set up to guarantee freedom and liberty, i.e. the least number of restrictions on people, and, of course, property rights ('property' here also means 'income', so that the higher the income tax is, the bigger the infringement on your property). So, in the republic, the noble law-makers do all they can to uphold the principles of the Constitution, and the legislative process is characterised by being slow, thorough and principled, so as to ensure that all laws are in accordance with the Constitution, and assures the maximum amount of freedom for the individual citizen.

Democracy, on the other hand, is defined as direct democracy, or as these websites term it - mob rule or mobocracy. This happens when the legislative process no longer is in the hands of the noble, educated class of legislators, but in the hands of the general public, leading to the tyranny of the majority to the detriment of all others. Here, the legislative process is no longer protracted or principled, but whimsical and spur of the moment. Since people do not think of what is good for the country, but only what is good for themselves. Typically, what the (non-productive) majority wants are handouts from the government, to the detriment of the nation's economical production, as handouts to those with less money will require that those with more money pay higher taxes. Democracy, therefore, can promote a high degree of freedom for the 51%, but could greatly reduce the freedom of the 49% who are forced to pay for the freedom of the majority. And similarly, you just need 51% of the legislators in the state assemblies of 38 states to ratify a Constitutional amendment to the detriment of all others. And, in this line of thinking, this mechanism direct democracy is what led to the decline and eventual collapse of Ancient Greece and Rome.

What I have not been able to find is exactly how the US has changed from a Republic to a Democracy. The obvious way is that various pieces of legislation are now put to a vote through mechanisms such as ballot initiatives (i.e. the people, rather than legislators, vote on which pieces of legislation should become law). However, this way of thinking also seems to have an element of contempt for certain classes of people, leading me to believe that they might also want a restricted, rather than universal, franchise. Obviously, you don't need a ballot initiative to increase the top tax rates, all you need is the majority voting for pro-taxation candidates.

At this point, most of these websites go on to discuss how the Constitution never mentions the word democracy, but in Article IV, Section 4 states "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government". Read: The US was meant to be a Republic, not a Democracy. This is then followed by various quotes by the founding fathers on how horrible majority rule is, the most prolific of which is one by Benjamin Franklin, who, when asked what type of government the Constitution had created, replied "A Republic, if you can keep it." And Madison chimes in, stating that "Representation sometimes necessary as a defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions". (This quote section often also includes various quotes by the founding fathers on how important God's word is when ruling a state - i.e. the US is a Christian nation.)

However, none of this addresses the role of money in politics, and how corporate campaign contributions would affect the whims of the populace. But, given the type of people who support this concept of 'republic, not democracy' and their aversion to taxation, that isn't very surprising. V85 (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I was taught in grade school (or at least "learned" somehow at that time) that a republic is a state with an elected representative government. This was in the SF Bay Area in the 90s. I've heard the sentiment you describe and I think this essay sums up what it means. I found the essay by searching for united states "becoming a democracy", which also turned up a Youtube video by the John Birch Society. The video description pretty clearly confuses the types of government with the party names. I didn't watch the video, but I suspect it agrees with the first essay. -- BenRG (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

That's just silly. Any person with a modicum of historical understanding doesn't believe that the names of the political parties in the U.S. have anything to do with any political ideology (as already noted by many outside of Misplaced Pages, and by me above, the two U.S. parties have fundementally the same ideology on a grand scale, and differ mostly on political minutiae, minor issues that allow them to make their differences seem bigger). During the early 20th century for example, the Republican Party was the progressive party, which fought for social justice and against business interests in favor of labor (i.e. Theodore Roosevelt and his trust-busting policies), while the Democratic Party was the party of, among other things, white southern segregationists (the Solid South). Fast forward 100 years, and the party politics has been put into a blender. Both parties essentially represent business interests, there is absolutely zero political support for labor in the country. Labor, which had in the 1940s shifted to the Democratic Party, was abandoned by both parties in the 1980s, and U.S. politics left the economic sphere entirely. Since the mid-20th century, the U.S. party politics revolves solely around social issues, and neither offers a distinctly different economic or political ideology. Neither has any plan to change a single iota of the U.S. political or economic system, so neither represents a different political ideology. The names don't mean anything. Its also why I kinda like the whole "red-blue" metaphor: the colors are arbitrary, just like the party names. --Jayron32 17:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Exactly . Here in Spain the Republicans are left-wing. So, more than one Spaniard find it amusing when some American confuses the Republican with the Fascists. 18:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.148.233.179 (talk)

• To tack on to some of the above comments: America's Constitution: A Biography by Akhil Reed Amar shows how the Founding Fathers of the United States used the terms Republic and Democracy interchangeably. The book then goes on to explain how the Constitution helped or hindered the march towards a more democratic society. I highly recommend it for anyone interested in the political science, even non-Americans.--M@rēino 21:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Very good answer, V85. There are right-wing elitists in all countries who fear that democracy threatens their position. But in the US context, no, it isnt coincidence that the words they are playing with, seeking to redefine subtlely, just happen to be similar to the names of the two political parties. - one of which they like, the other they dont. We are in an election year after all and any marginal linguistic confusion they can create in the minds of the casual reader which might help the Republicans (Republic = something to do with the Founding fathers) and damage the Democrats (Democracy = something to do with mob rule) is entirely intentional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.85.213 (talk) 01:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Aliyah Data By Country 1882-1918 and 1919-1948

As evidenced on the Aliyah page, I managed to find some data for the U.S. and certain European countries during this time period, but is there a place/source where I can find aliyah data for every or most countries during these two time periods? Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 04:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

According to the chart in the statistics section, in 2010, 254 people migrated from Israel to Israel. --Dweller (talk) 15:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Um, no. 254 Israeli-born people moved to some other country sometime before 2010 and then moved back to Israel in 2010. Also, what you wrote has nothing to do with my question. Futurist110 (talk) 23:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

While it wasn't an answer, it was entirely to do with your question. If they moved to another country, surely they migrated back from it, rather than from Israel? If they hadn't migrated in the first place, they couldn't have migrated back. --Dweller (talk) 09:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

This link lists the main countries' statistics. If you have a specific country in mind, you can list it here and I'll try to find the statistics. --Activism1234 05:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like: -Iraq -Poland -Romania -Morocco -Tunisia -Algeria -The United States (alone, without Canada)

If you're able to find any of these, then that would be great. However, I think that you misunderstood my original question--I asked for aliyah statistics for various countries (not continents) before 1948, not since 1948. http://www.yivoencyclopedia.org/article.aspx/Population_and_Migration/Migration_since_World_War_I --I want data for various countries similar to Table 3 in this link, though it would be nice to have exact data rather than rounded-off estimates. Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 08:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Goldman Sachs Economic Paper No. 93

Does anyone know where I can find a free copy of it online? Unlike some other Goldman Sachs economic papers, I cannot find this one online. Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 04:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Try WP:RX. 71.212.249.178 (talk) 07:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The full citation is:

Texeira, Carlos, and Rumi Masih, 2003, "South Africa Growth and Unemployment: A Ten-Year Outlook," Goldman Sachs, Global Economics Paper No. 93, May 13 Smallman12q (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 01:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Sara Lawrence / Sarah Lawrence

Hi--

Looking for the college, and not knowing the exact spelling of the first name, I type sara lawrence into the searchbox, and am provided with the following three suggestions, only, in this sequence:

• Sara Lawrence-Lightfoot
• Sara Lawrence
• Sara lawrence

I know I'm not looking for "Lightfoot", so I try the second suggestion, which turns out to be an article on a pregnant Miss World beauty contest winner, and the article has no hatnote - it leaves me at a dead end.

The third suggestion, spelled with the lowercase "L", does indeed take me to Sarah Lawrence College, which article does have a disambiguation hatnote.

I have no idea what sort of hatnote would be most appropriate for the pregnant Miss World, but I feel sure the vast majority of readers misspelling the name as "Sara" are looking for the college. My own inclination would be that despite the difference in spelling, a search entry for either spelling should preferentially point to the college, with the hatnote there including a pointer to Sara without the "h". Besides not knowing how best to phrase a note to help readers find their wanted page, I've never written a hatnote, and do not know the procedure. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Like this. 71.212.249.178 (talk) 07:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree. I believe you should go with the closest spelling match. Hence I've redirected Sara lawrence to Sara Lawrence and added a hatnote to Sarah Lawrence (disambiguation). Clarityfiend (talk) 07:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both; I'm good with either solution (and am glad I didn't try sticking my own foot into it). Milkunderwood (talk) 07:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I've also added Sara Lawrence College. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, that's even better - thanks very much. Milkunderwood (talk) 10:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Incestuous marriage in European royalty

Why did the trend of forbidding incestuous marriages in the Church during the early Middle Ages stopped? The Catholic Church seemed to uphold consanguinity for the longest time during the early days of the Church; Henry I of France had to look all the way to Russia to find a royal bride that he wasn't related to. But by the end of the Middle Ages, marriages between cousins were allowed and seemed to be encouraged in the royal families of Europe. Especially Spain and Portugal, who were Catholic nations; shouldn't they out of all the nations of Europe uphold church laws. I know there were dispensation processes but did they actually ask for the Pope's permission for nearly every marriages between cousins and uncles/aunts and nieces/nephews.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 05:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

"Until 1917 the Roman Catholic Church required dispensation for unions between couples related as first, second, or third cousins (equivalent to a coefficient of inbreeding, F ≥ 0.0039), with a wide range of reasons accepted as grounds for consanguinity dispensation, e.g., the small size of the local population, advanced bridal age, or lack of dowry (13). As a result of misunderstanding after the switch from the Roman to the Germanic system for calculating degrees of consanguinity, during the late 11th to the early 13th centuries the requirement for dispensation expanded to include fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-cousin marriages (F ≥ 0.00006), a level of regulation that rapidly proved impractical at local level (10). Because Luther had attacked the dispensation requirements for consanguineous unions as representing the rules of the church rather than of divine intention, and as a revenue-raising device (10), after the Reformation the Protestant denominations largely accepted the Levitical marriage proscriptions with no restriction on first-cousin unions." citing (10): Goody, J. (1985) The Development of the Family and Marriage in Europe (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, UK), pp 48–60, pp 134–146. 71.212.249.178 (talk) 07:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't explain the situation in Catholic areas of control or the nuisance it must have been if every marriage within the Royal Houses of Portugal, Spain, Austria, France, Bavaria, the Italian states, and all other Catholic nations had to receive permission from the Pope to marry since all royals were interrelated by the close of the Middle Age, if not first-cousins, then second or third. The strongest occurance of inbreeding was in Catholic Spain where first-cousins inbred for generations and uncles married nieces.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 07:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Politics, sooner or later, trumps such considerations as canonical correctness, so if it hadn't happened in the late Middle Ages dynastic survival and dynastic ambition would have made the barrier against propinquity unsustainable soon thereafter. Nor did it matter which nation's dynasty was involved: in the Middle Ages all European dynasties were Roman Catholic. The ban on consanguinity wasn't made for royalty, and they eventually concluded that it wasn't in their best interest to be bound by it. Probably the reason it began to be broken so often in the late Middle Ages was because the vast number of independent lords were beginning to be conquered and annexed by the great dynasties (Habsburg, Valois, Plantagenet, Hohenzollern, Welf, Wettin, Savoy, Oldenburg, Nassau, etc. leaving fewer families of high enough status for a ruling family to inter-marry with appropriately. Dynasties inter-married either to: 1. end hostilities and preserve peace (by arms or trade, e.g. Napoleon I and Marie Louise of Austria; or the marriage that resolved the Schleswig-Holstein Question by wedding Denmark's heiress, Louise of Hesse to Prince Christian of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg; or the 1913 marriage of Viktoria Luise of Prussia to Ernst August of Hanover, Duke of Cumberland who thereby became reigning Duke of Brunswick); 2. to secure allies in order to wage war or to defend against war (Mary, Queen of Scots and Francis, Dauphin of France vs. England's Tudor queen.); 3. to join together territories by marrying an heiress of one territory to the ruler or heir of another (Eleanor of Aquitaine to Henry II of England; or, to unite Spain, Isabella I, Queen of Castile to Ferdinand II, King of Aragon; or Mary, Duchess of Burgundy to Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor), 4. to keep a territory (or claim) in the family by marrying its main heiress to a male belonging to a cadet branch of the dynasty (e.g., Mary, Queen of Scots, secondly, to Lord Darnley; in the Affair of the Spanish Marriages, Isabella II de Borbón y Borbón, Queen of Spain and child of an uncle/niece marriage is finally compelled to wed her effeminately gay cousin Infante don Francisco de Asís de Borbón y Borbón; or Maria I of Portugal married her uncle, Infante dom Pedro of Braganza; or, as recently as 2009, when divorcee Princess Anna Bagration-Gruzinsky undertook very public nuptials with Prince David Bagration-Mukhrani, which it is hoped will eventually unite and strengthen monarchists of Georgia in support of restoration of their son, Prince Giorgi Bagration, purportedly born 2011 (no photo of mother or baby has been seen since the birth's announcement almost a year ago), who is now the heir-eventual of the two feuding branches of the House of Bagrationi. Given the high mortality of children until the modern era, marriage to a princess brought a good chance that a son-in-law would inherit a crown or fortune by the death of his wife's brothers (Austria's marital policy for generations consisted of this ploy, which succeeded in retaining for them the crown of the Holy Roman Empire until 1806, and was known as Bella gerant alii). Nonetheless, yes, intra-marrying dynasties almost always sought Papal dispensation for marriages to their relatives -- because failure to do so voided the marriage, disinheriting any children and undermining the point of the alliance, which was to aggrandize the dynasty's power by kinship instead of conquest. Such dispensations came to be readily granted unless the betrothed couple were siblings or ancestor/descendant -- marriages likely to arouse public disgust because they breached the prevalent (though not universal) worldwide taboo against marriages between people raised together in a home (e.g. John V, Count of Armagnac's "marriage" to his sister Isabelle, for which the Pope refused -- and the Count then forged -- a dispensation). Marriages beyond those boundaries probably didn't evoke widespread disapproval (given low populations and limited transportation -- cousin marriage must have been, if not common, commonly desired). FactStraight (talk) 09:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Nicely written, you do get your facts straight. Thanks.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 10:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

If I may add to that, in the Middle Ages consanguinity was not so much an impediment to marriage (among royals/nobles) as it was an excuse to annul the marriage if things didn't work out. Didn't produce an heir? Oh well, they were related within the prohibited degrees anyway. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Not just an excuse, but probably often presciently biologically accurate, given that malformations due to inbreeding disproportionately affect zygotes just like any other genetic malformations. 71.212.249.178 (talk) 19:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Not really. As our article on cousin marriage says, a baby born of two random individuals has a 3% chance of a significant birth defect; a baby born of two people who are first cousins has a 5% chance, the same as a baby born to a 40-year-old woman. More distant relations (second and third cousins, who are also within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity) have only a very slightly elevated chance. Repeated close marriage (such as what went on with the Spanish and Austrian Habsburgs) greatly increases the odds of problems. --Carnildo (talk) 02:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

What is the title of the book by George Markstein

(Hello learned ones !) which inspired the Yves Boisset's 1982 french film Espion, lève-toi ? Thanks beforehand for your answer . T.y. Arapaima (talk) 09:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082342/, but this doesn't really answer your specific question. Have you tried researching Markstein en francaise? Or might either http://www.amazon.com/George-Markstein/e/B001HPWTYW/ or http://www.bookfinder.com/search/?author=george+markstein&title=&lang=en&isbn=&submit=Search&new_used=*&destination=us&currency=USD&mode=basic&st=sr&ac=qr be of any help? Milkunderwood (talk) 10:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello Milku, there is no article "en français" on Markstein in WP fr (but you give me the idea to write it)...From the links you were kind to handle me, I gather that the book might be "Chance awakening" (1979) : there is in the film an ominous character named Chance (Michel Piccoli) who rouses up the somewhat rutted down french secret agent (Lino Ventura). Anybody who has read "Chance awakening" can confirm ? Thanks a lot. Arapaima (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

George Markstein did write a book called Espion, lève-toi, ISBN 2070487377. There's no guarantee the film and book have anything more in common. Zoonoses (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm just getting fresh info. from our Ref. Desk (in french : "L'Oracle") : "Espion, lève-toi" is the translation in french of "Chance awakening" , , it has been issued by Gallimard in the famous "Série Noire" (cf http://fr.wikipedia.org/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Oracle/semaine_29_2012#Quel_est_le_livre_de_George_Markstein_qui_a_inspir.C3.A9_le_film_Espion.2C_l.C3.A8ve-toi_.3F

) Thanks to all , t.y. Arapaima (talk) 07:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Defending social differences

What philosopher (or other similar thinkers) defended social differences? Who claimed that they were just or necessary? Ochson (talk) 13:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Jesus. John 12:8. Inevitable rather than just or necessary. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Linking to John 12:8. OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe not even inevitable, just that it will not happen in the future (worldwide socialism hasn't happened, even though it's not impossible for it to have done so (most revolutions were squashed c. 1920), so far He's right. Do enough all-time (c.30AD - 2012 so far) human being arguments for social differences even justify it with John 12:8 to be self-fulfilling prophesy? If so then He'd sort of be "making it happen". (or maybe He meant that there will be always be poor in the area they would've given the charity to (had they had the money instead of the jar), still I don't think that area has ever not had poor) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Please define what you mean by social differences. μηδείς (talk) 16:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

That's hardly difficult to understand. OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It's quite easy to read into, but perhaps the OP is not interested in the fact that Orthodox Jews will not drink wine poured by goyim. Some clarification would be helpful. μηδείς (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly what I had in mind: the fact that Orthodox Jews will not drink wine poured by goyim. I hope anyone got my meaning, and didn't start thinking about money and privileges. Ochson (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it could mean different things. One would be economic differences, i.e. some are rich, some are poor. A different definition could be something akin to feudalism, i.e. people have very limited, if not no, social mobility, and have different roles, duties and responsabilities, depending on the status of their parents. Yet another way of phrasing it could be the feminist concept of patriarchy, that due to their gender, men benefit from society, while women are oppressed and excluded from participating in the work force or public life. V85 (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Ayn Rand? or any liberal and individualist ideology will draw the conclusion that social differences are a given.OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Is this a homework question? Looie496 (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It might be useful to start by distinguishing social differences and social inequalities. Multiculturalism celebrates differences, and most mainstream currents at least pay lip service to diversity. Social inequality was defended by conservatives of many kinds, less so now than in the past. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Social differences are social inequalities. How you call each depends on your perspective. 79.148.233.179 (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd say some amount of economic inequality is inevitable, as long as people are free to make any economic decisions on their own. However, the degree of economic inequality can be controlled by the government, via progressive taxes and benefits for the poor (free education, housing, food, clothing, medical care, job training, job placement, income supports, etc.). So, you can have a society where the richest have 10X the incomes of the poorest, or one where they have a billion times as much. StuRat (talk) 19:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Think that John Rawls would give rise to more thoughtful discussion than Ayn Rand... AnonMoos (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

And you would be wrong in that supposition--except that the OP still hasn't defined "social differences" as economic inequality. Perhaps we should be talking about the Mos and Por phratries of the Khanty people. μηδείς (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to discuss that. Perhaps I'm just a phraty cat. :-) StuRat (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The fact that Orthodox Jews will not drink wine poured by goyim is what I think about, when I think about social differences. Obviously, the Mos and Por phratries of the Khanty people are also an interesting sub-topic. Let's not get to far away from the topic discussing about economical differences or GINI coefficient for example. (This comment was made by the sockpuppet Ochson μηδείς (talk) 03:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC))

Mitt Romney's former employee at Bain Capital, Edward Conrad, thinks inequality is great. However the peer reviewed secondary literature continues to prevail in opposition, because, well, see Chart 4 here. 71.212.249.178 (talk) 05:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

That's so boringly biased you make me yawn. Conrad defends economic liberty, which may lead to differences in net worth, and the New York Times, known for its leftist bias, publishes a hit piece by a journalism major who calls this support for inequality. Yawwwwwn. Oh, wait, this thread was started by a sock puppet. Nevermind. μηδείς (talk) 06:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Conrad has made several on the record statements in favor of income inequality. I don't think the article is biased; or if it is, not in the way you suggest. And to paraphrase Wilde. the value of a question has nothing whatsoever to do with the person asking it. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 06:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Philosophers justifying slavery e.g. Aristotle. Edmund Burke believed hierarchic social divisions were natural and should be respected as such; Thomas Carlyle supported enlightened dictatorship in the German model; Friedrich Nietzsche and Plato opposed democracy; Alexis de Tocqueville was a conservative who believed France had the right to oppress its colonies. A lot of philosophers have held beliefs opposed to female equality. David Hume believed blacks were innately inferior to whites. Etc. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Ethnic groups of South Asia buddhism

Which ethnic groups of South Asia besides Bengalis have people who practice Buddhism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.41.47 (talk) 13:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

All have some people who practice Buddhism, unless, I suppose you count groups defined by belonging to another religion, such as Parsis, Jains or Sikhs. Sri Lankans are the most obvious group to mention. There is a lot more information in our article Buddhism. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Buddhism is a universal religion, not an ethnic religion (despite the claims of some Hindus) so ethnicity is irrelevant.--Shantavira| 16:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

What Hindu claims that Shantavira? OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Apparently "70% of Sri Lankans are Theravada Buddhists" and "Sri Lanka has the longest continuous history of Buddhism of any Buddhist nation". According to Buddhism in South Asia; "The only two majority-Buddhist nations in South Asia are Sri Lanka and Bhutan. Buddhists are also found in Nepal, India (especially in Ladakh and Sikkim) and Bangladesh in small minorities." Alansplodge (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

ALL. You can find Buddhists everywhere. 79.148.233.179 (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

174.89.41.47 -- I'm not sure I really understand your question, because a number of other ethnic groups (Sinhalese, Burmese, Tibetans, Thais, etc.) have much higher rates of adherence to Buddhism than Bengalis do. AnonMoos (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, you see my question meant the ethnic groups of India, the major ones like if there are Buddhists who are Assamese, Marathis, Telugus, Kannadigas and Malayalams or Oriyas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.230.113 (talk) 02:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Army list / POW look-ups

Who was Private P G Arbuthnot Seaforth Highlanders POW no 16859 at Thorn Podgorz camp, Poland - Stalag XX-A, soldier no 2818895. Also Gunner R Arbuthnot Royal Artillery POW at Luckenwalde, Bavaria, Germany - Stalag III A, soldier no 1487870? Kittybrewster ☎ 15:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

What kind of answer do you want to "Who was he" ? —Tamfang (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Christian name(s). Birth date? Parents' names. Place of origin? Anything extra. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Seaforth Highlanders has UK and Canadian units. I think they both have websites that you could try emailing?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Where did "learn their language, marry their women" originally come from?

I only know it from the Simpsons or the Cleveland Show or Family Guy, it seems like it should be from a book or movie or something. It was something nonsensical like "we can't beat the spiders so we will learn their language, learn their ways, marry their women and become them." Maybe it was American settlers or Ancient Romans saying this originally. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

File:X-Dominion for India.png

It seems Canada shipped 150 of these locos to India. It was some kind of funding plan that I can't find in any articles. It wasn't the Marshall plan I am sure.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's an article describing Canada's wartime Mutual Aid Plan, albeit from an Australian rather than an Indian perspective. Deor (talk) 23:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I wonder if it is worthy of an article or section in Canada's war history. I may try my government websites for more info. It seems it was a Canadian act only so it may have been unimportant in the en:wp battles for article inclusion. I found the image at the LAC and it got me curiuos is all.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Found a link: http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/mutual-aid Probably only worth a section somewhere. I will start it as an article and let the AfD decide where to stuff it?--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems there were two funds. Billion Dollar Gift and Mutual Aid. Article started, now to see if it survives.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Ultra-orthodox Jews in Israel and serving in the army

Shouldn't they be eager to serve? It's clear that they are surrounded by Arabs who do not have a high opinion of them, to say the least, and they could not survive without the army. Ochson (talk) 21:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but in the IDF they would be obligated to uphold the orders of their superiors, which might include things they oppose, like removing Jewish settles from Palestinian land. StuRat (talk) 21:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

StuRat -- only a relatively small minority (those aligned with Neturei Karta or similarly-thinking) are pro-Palestinian in any meaningful sense. That isn't why most of them object to serving in the Israeli Army... AnonMoos (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

StuRat didn't say they are pro-Palestinian, they say they are against removing Jews from Palestinia. Ochson (talk) 21:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

"Palestinia" is not a word, and I think that the majority of them don't really care too much (there's a quasi-"left" fringe of Neturei Qarta and similar, and a quasi-"right" fringe of militant orthodox settlers and settler advocates, and a broad middle, many of whom don't care too much about political issues other than enforced Sabbath observance and making sure Yeshivas receive a suitable subsidy from the government)... AnonMoos (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The Latin-based languages generally call the region "Palestina". It is French, and hence English, in which it's called "Palestine". Why they would be "Palestinians" instead of "Palestinans", I don't know. But it could be worse. If the etymology is correct, that word comes from "(land of) Philistines". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Oops -- You're correct that I originally misunderstood StuRat's remark. Sorry for that... AnonMoos (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

But, wasn't there any less radical solution than not serving at all? They could perform non-combat functions, or stationed at units not responsible for doing things they oppose. And I suppose there are also rabbis in the IDF, would even this job be too much? Ochson (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Ochson -- they really are not pacifists as such. Rather, they think that the life's work of Jewish males should ideally be to study the Talmud full-time. A few are actively hostile to Zionism (see "Neturei Qarta" above), while a much greater number are indifferent and apathetic to it, and many of their leaders fear that mixing with "secular" Israelis in the army might diminish their faith... AnonMoos (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, they are not pacifists, but they should know that they wouldn't survive without some sort of organized military force. So, why isn't then an ultra orthodox militia? Just imagine that all Jewish males behaved like them, who would defend Israel? Ochson (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Ultra-orthodox Israelis and Religious Zionism, while intersecting, are not equivalent categories and some ultraorthdox are strongly opposed to the the Israel's political ethos and its secularism, notably the Satmar community and the fringe Neturei Karta movement. It is therefore not accurate to assume that the ultraorthodox, a diverse body, are necessarily in support of the settler movement.

My understanding is that the Haredim's objections are:

• Political - a few do not support the Zionist movement and its bodies
• Religious - some do support the IDF but prioritise Torah study and a religious lifestyle, and fear assimilation within a secular military.
• Social - Some Haredim distrust mainstream government and their policies which they perceive as uninterested in their socio-economic welfare. Ankh.Morpork 21:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Can I remind everyone that this isn't a forum for debating what ultra-orthodox Jews 'should or 'shouldn't' do. We have articles on Judaism, and on the Israeli Defense Forces, as well as on Torato Omanuto, which specifically relates to conscription in relation to Haredi Judaism. There should be enough information there for Ochson to find the answers requested. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok Andy, good links that solve my question. Ochson (talk) 22:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I have also read something recently (I can't recall where) which said ultra-orthodox Jews also justified their Torah study as being as important to the fate of Israel as actually serving in the army. So they don't necessarily see not serving as not standing up for Israel — if you really believe that religious activity will have secular-world results, then it can be one and the same. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

This is an interesting article on this topic. Ankh.Morpork 23:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

A lot of people offered great explanations here, so I'll just give a quick summary of the main reasons. It's not because they don't want to remove Jewish settlers, as someone said above - there are people like that who do serve in the IDF. It's mainly due to religious reasons - not that they believe it's against Judaism to serve in the IDF, but rather because they'd prefer to spend their time studying their religion (think of monks in a monastery) than serve the country that provides welfare for their families. You can see how this makes so many Israelis angry. And to be clear, we're talking about ultra-Orthodox people here - not religious Jews necessarily, for example modern Orthodox Jews do serve. A small, tiny minority of ultra-Orthodox do take a position against Zionism (again, while receiving the welfare!), but this doesn't represent the 98% of other ultra-Orthodox Jews. There have been programs to help integrate these Jews into the army, such as serving in the army for 2 years instead of 4 and being allowed to study Judaism for half the day... But it hasn't provided a good solution for all, since the majority don't serve in the IDF, and in a country of about 6 million, you want to get everyone you can to defend your country (and 20% of the population are Arabs, which many Israelis also insist should serve or perform some type of national service, but you can imagine this is more complex to tackle). The Tal Law was a law created about a decade ago that exempted most of the ultra-Orthodox from service, thinking that this would make them happy and satisfy their needs etc, but it's not good anymore, and the Israeli government is focused on changing it, although all the committees recently formed have resulted in verbal fights and breakups... So we'll see what happens. --Activism1234 05:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

USSR, a Republic?

Going by what a "republic" really means ("A state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives"), was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics actually considered a republic? I've tried looking it up but there wasn't really a straight answer. Thanks. 64.229.5.242 (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

In theory. Being a single-party state as well as the total control by Lenin and later Stalin made it a totalitarian and authoritarian government in practice.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 23:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

That isn't 'in practice' - that is 'in your opinion'. In any case, 'what a "republic" really means' is likewise opinion rather than anything else - so there isn't an answer to the question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, except that there are answers to this, produced by the humanities and social sciences, and they mostly start by critiquing the OP's assumptions. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

True - though the answers given tend to be of the 'opinion' variety. Personally, I see much to be for anthropologist Alfred Radcliffe-Brown's description of the State as being "a fiction of the philosophers" - what actually exists is instead a complex web of relationships of 'power' and 'legitimacy'. The snag is that if you start looking at things that way, you soon find that abstractions like 'the people' and 'authoritarian' tend to become less useful. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

So Lenin and Stalin being totalitarian dictators and contolling virtually every aspect of the government is just "opinion"? A president you did not choose and can not depose is not an elected representative. The OP is not asking if your definition of republic is the same as his, but if the Soviet Union really gave power to the masses through elected representatives. For which the answer is obviously no. Now for what republic really means, there's a thread of that above.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes actually, go read some of the bloody history. Sheila Fitzpatrick might be a good start on the complexity of "actually existing socialism." Lenin lost votes in the Party. Stalin relied on a massive basis of support (and "tail-ended" the nomenklatura). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, what? Which one? Was it the part where Lenin disbanded the Russian Constituent Assembly after the Bolsheviks didn't get the majority of the votes, claiming that the parliament can not represent the workers? Was it the part where not contented with a one-party system, Lenin also banned factions within the party? Was it the fact that candidates for elections were assigned by the state, not running on their own free will? The Cheka? As for Stalin, "massive basis of support" and "tail-ending the Nomenklatura", how? By eliminating opposition in an even bloodier fashion with the NKVD including assassinating Kirov and Trotsky? Stalin virtually ran the Nomenklatura even when Lenin was alive, how could he "tail-end" it?-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 04:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Simple question. How did Lenin or Stalin carry out such actions? What mechanism did they have which allowed them to do this? Where did their power come from? Simply asserting that they had the power to do this or that is no explanation of anything. It doesn't even tell us what 'power' is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Guns? Murder? That's really simple. μηδείς (talk) 04:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Nope. How does Stalin get hold of the guns? How does he get away with murder? Anyone could call themselves an authoritarian dictator, anywhere. What did he have to make it work, if it didn't involve some form of support from others? And would he have remained an 'authoritarian dictator' without such support? You have given us a simple answer - so simple that it doesn't even begin to actually answer the question. Try harder... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

LOL. The State is fiction and we're not supposed to be able to tell one from another, nor even attempt to, because it's too complex. Sure. This is kinda like someone asking a question on why most nurses wear white uniforms, and you shurgging it off with high-brow justifications that white is actually composed of the entire spectrum of colors and thus nurses technically wear blue too! How illuminating.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 06:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you look at any modern account of the specialists campaign (which is why I suggested Fitzpatrick), and the beginnings of the agricultural campaign. "Intentionalism" is a broadly rejected causative theory. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a pretty broad usage of the term "republic". Obviously, the general public in the USSR had no say in what the government decided to do. But basically anything that isn't a monarchy seems to get labeled a "republic". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Is that really what "republic" "really means"? The Wiktionary definition (wikt:republic) gives that definition, but it also gives the definition of it simply being the opposite of a monarchy. I think that second definition is the more commonly used, and English is defined by usage. --Tango (talk) 23:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

According to the Soviet political theory, the leadership was elected, or at the very least endorsed, by the people. There were elections in the Soviet Union throughout the period of CPSU rule; it's just that it was only in the final years that the elections had more than one candidate standing in them. The question about the Soviet Union possibly raises the question of whether South Africa from 1961 to 1994 was properly called a Republic, since only a minority section of the people elected representatives. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

And of course, given that for much of its history, the United States also excluded a significant section of its population from participation in the democratic process (on dubious 'racial' grounds), one could likewise argue that it wasn't 'a republic' by the OP's definition. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, "the people" that I mention in the definition means those who are able to vote (from what I learned in a civics class, anyway), considering, of course, that not everyone had the right to vote. So technically, countries that didn't allow everyone to vote could still be considered a republic, since "the people" (who can vote) vote for their leader. 64.229.5.242 (talk) 01:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention dubious sexist grounds... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The representatives were chosen by those who were allowed to vote, and those who were allowed to vote usually had a choice of two or more. In the USSR or any number of other places you'd care to name, there was only one name on the ballot. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Tango. Certainly for anyone who lives in a monarchy, republic simply means a country with a president not a monarch. The old debating society standby of "Should Britain/Australia/Sweden become a republic?" just means should we get rid of the monarchy - only. Its not a debate about the merits of the other features of the US, French, Soviet or Guatemalan system or if we should copy any other part of their arrangements.

So from that perspective, yes, when they got rid of the Tsar (well, killed him), USSR for Republic was the logical name for the new state. Russia was no longer like Britain; it was now like America and France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.85.213 (talk) 01:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The Tsar was overthrown by Kerensky and the liberals in the February Revolution. The Bolsheviks murdered the Tsar and his family, but did not overthrow him, and established the USSR only after a long and bloody civil war. μηδείς (talk) 01:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Something can be a republic without being a good republic. Nazi Germany was a republic until they passed the authorizing act or whatever they called it making the fuehrer's will supreme. The Soviet union had the form of a republic. The only difficulty with calling the Soviet Union a republic is that the Bolshevik's never had the consent of the people, so I would argue it was not a republic because of that fact. μηδείς (talk) 01:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggest you read Simon Pirani on the urban working classes' rather explicit consent, in their revolutionary organs (the workplace soviets) to the Bolshevik NEP line. "Consent" is a slippery business in politics, but up until 1941 there was significant workplace control for ordinary Soviet urban and industrial workers. Rural workers, of course, got it hard. At least in terms of urban workers, the most common constructions of legitimacy existing amongst revolutionaries who accept that "workers democracy" is central, this was "legitimate" (and "fucking stupid"). Attempting to construct the appropriate consent as "the people" when the Left-SRs, urban anarchists, Bolsheviks, and miscellaneous pro-Soviet forces generally agreed with converting Soviet order 1 into direct seizure of power is unusual. For one, the Soviets seized power, and had always constructed their legitimacy in terms of "representing" or "mobilising" actual workers. (Never mind that being composed of an delegated by and of workers is the long standing construction of workers' democracy itself)... Fifelfoo (talk) 01:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Links might be helpful, not that I, personally, am interested in reading communist apologetics; it's kind of hard to take seriously claims that urban workers supported the revolution when those who didn't were shot. μηδείς (talk) 02:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I've rabbitted on about the importance of Pirani's findings quite often. His website contains both freely available political works, and more restricted academic works, on the topic. His dataset were primarily Bolshevik party reports from Moscow in the period towards the end of war communism and before the full NEP became implemented (though there is little reason to believe that Moscow is unrepresentative, given that the Moscow workplace soviets were more Left-SR , and Internationalist Menshevik, as well as some serious factory anarchist than other sites). Pirani reconstructs the workings of Moscow workplace soviets, and their relationship to the Bolshevik Party controlled geographic soviets. I mean sure, any anarcho-communist worth their salt can point immediately to the Tabov, Kronstadt and Mahknovishchina persecutions—but few people are willing to note the complicity of the Soviet working class itself in the destruction of its own political power. Pirani is valuable for this, and valuable for the "softness" of his conclusions, the chief of which is that urban workers tolerated the deal where they lost power but got consumer goods. It is certainly a worthier thesis than simplistic accounts, and Pirani has the local workplace soviet demands lists to demonstrate his thesis. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely - on the other definition, "Republic is the opposite of dictatorship", (which, as I implied, is a definition never used in Britain, or even known about), the USSR didn't qualify. So British politicians would complain about the D in GDR but never the R in USSR. 77.101.85.213 (talk) 01:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

If you are responding to me (use @medeis or indent to indicate that) you have missed my point. I do not deny that a republic can become a dictatorship, I gave an example. What I deny is that a government which never had the consent of the people can call itself a res publica: "public thing". μηδείς (talk) 02:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

@ 77.101, if the name's the focus, the USSR never claimed in its name that it was a republic. It claimed to be a union of republics. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 02:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Very good point; when I hear "Republic of ____", I think of a unitary state, while the USSR was officially a federation. Nyttend (talk) 03:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Except India is called 'Republic of ....' but is a federation according to any common definition. In fact Federation#Long form titles shows 'Republic of' is the most commonly used term although not a majority. Note also 'X Republic of' (where X is zero to two words) seems to be a majority, particularly if you exclude those that aren't republics although some of these imply they are federations from the names. Nil Einne (talk) 17:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Can't a country be both a federation and a republic? If the Australian republic referendum, 1999 had succeeded, we would have become both. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 22:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

This is all a question of definitions, and how the word 'republic' is defined, and terms like 'republic' and 'democracy' are sometimes used interchangeably. The definition in the OP is the same as that conventionally used for representative democracy, not necessarily republic. The article Republic states very early on that 'In modern times, a common simplified definition of a republic is a government where the head of state is not a monarch'. If we use the OP's definition of republic, then even constitutional monarchies, such as the UK, would, in fact, be considered republics. If we use the definition that 'republic' is a form of government which is not a monarchy, i.e. where the head of state is not hereditary, the USSR is a republic.

However, if we accept the OP's definition of 'republic', the question is how the USSR measures up to the notion of 'A state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives'. (Once the word 'supreme' is added, there seems to be something more Soviet-y about the sentence.) The Soviet Union did have a democratic Constitution, with universal suffrage and direct election of all government bodies. The Soviet Constitutions provided the Soviet citizens with many freedoms and is very democratic on the surface, granting many freedoms and rights to the citizens and the right of the Soviet republics to secede. Going by its Constitution, the USSR would also seem to be a 'republic' according to the definition that a 'republic' is a 'representative democracy'.

However, there's always the pesky issue of theory vs. practice. While the Constitution did guarantee universal suffrage, there doesn't seem to be much point to it, when the same Constitution declared the Communist party to be the vanguard party, and all other parties subsequently are banned. However, the existence of parties aren't necessary to have a representative democracy, so long as the electorate are allowed to choose from a number of non-affiliated candidates ('independents'), but, if there is only one candidate, this doesn't seem very democratic, as one doesn't have much of a choice.

So, the question is, what is a republic? If a republic is simply not a monarchy, the USSR was a republic (but then we have the question of how to interpret the People's Democratic Republic of Korea: is it actaully a monarchy, although it claims to be a republic?) If, we define a republic as a representative democracy, as per the OP, the question is how democratic or how representative does your representative democracy have to be, to be a 'republic' (as per the OP)? Is it enough to have universal suffrage? The USSR did. Is it enough to have direct popular elections of government bodies? The USSR did. Is it enough to have regular elections? The USSR did. However, the clincher, to me, whenn it comes to being a representative democracy is the amount of choice the electorate has come election time. If there is only one candidate in each constituency in each election, that doesn't really count as a representative democracy.

Personally, I'd say the USSR was a republic (in that it wasn't a monarchy), but it wasn't a representative democracy. If your definition of a republic is representative democracy, then yes, the USSR wasn't a republic. V85 (talk) 06:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

If DR Congo and North Korea can be called republics, and democratic ones at that, then the USSR can too. @Fifelfoo, what about Rosa Luxemburg criticizing Lenin for not actually giving power to the masses? I don't know how it is in Australia, but in Europe Marxists tend to distance themselves from "actually exisiting socialism", not condone some of its more dubious actions. 109.97.179.148 (talk) 08:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a question of defining the labels, and of being able to see past what an organisation or country calls itself when describing it. If we define a republic as a representative democracy, the interpretation would be that those countries call themselves something they are not. If we define a republic as ≠ monarchy, then we could accept that they are republics, but probably not democratic. In a similar way as you could start a political party and call it the Xenophobic nationalist fascist party but argue for increased immigration to your country and multiculturalism. V85 (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Both attitudes are fairly substitutionalist, both Rosa's and Vladimirs. In Rosa's case: you can't be given what must be taken. This would verge off into a critique of montagnard bourgeois politics (for which I suggest Peter Weiss' Marat/Sade, including the film). Regarding politics on the ground, much like in Germany, in the Russian empire many workers formed work place councils during the late teens. Unlike in Germany, the state (here primarily Bolshevik controlled geographic councils, not generally populated with workers) was reliant upon the apparent support of workplace councils. Like in Germany, the state eventually crushed the workplace councils' power, but not all at once. Lenin could never "give" such power over, either personally due to his substitutionalism, nor practically because it has to be taken. The state lead the workers councils' by the nose in Russia in 1917-1921. (Contrast to Hungary in 1956.) Fifelfoo (talk) 08:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

July 17

City of London, Aldermen and the Lord Chancellor

On the website for the City of London government it has this paragraph explaning how Aldermen must be approved by the Lord Chancellor:

All Aldermen are a Justice of the Peace (JP). If not already a JP when an aldermanic post is available for election, candidates have 20 days to register their interest as a candidate. If they do so, a further period of 100 days is undertaken whereby the Lord Chancellor vets whether the candidate is suitable to become a JP and, as a result, stand in the forthcoming election.

However, there is no other explanation on the site of who the Lord Chancellor of the City of London is. Does it mean that the Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom must approve the potential aldermen for the City of London? --CGPGrey (talk) 00:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. 77.101.85.213 (talk) 01:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, our article on the Lord Mayor of London suggests that he's also the Lord Chancellor of the city, stating that he's Lord Chancellor of the City University and suggesting that Lord Chancellor of the City is the same office as Mayor. It would be very unusual for a national official to have veto power over the seating of local officials. 71.212.249.178 (talk) 02:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, the article says that the Lord Mayor is Chancellor (education) of the university, a ceremonial position, and I can see no mention of a position of lord chancellor of the City. And "very unusual" is what the City of London constitution is all about. Sussexonian (talk) 06:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

According to this job advert for an alderman, the appointment seems to be made by approval of 'the Lord Chancellors Advisory Committee on London'. This would appear to be the same format as is used in appointing magistrates; see Magistrates of England and Wales#Local advisory committees - Cucumber Mike (talk) 06:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The article the OP wants is Lord Chancellor.

The OP was unsure if the reference to the "Lord Chancellor" was a reference to an officer of the City - it is not, it is a reference to the officer of state.

The first anon reply got it right.

The second anon reply confused the Lord Chancellor with Chancellor (education), and then somehow equated the Chancellor of the City University London with the "Lord Chancellor of the City of London".

To the second anon's query of "very unusual" - it is not at all. The "veto" comes not from a direct provision, but because Aldermen are required to be JPs and the Lord Chancellor happens to have the power to appoint JPs. A large company might require its managers to have university degrees, that does not mean universities have a veto over appointments to the management of that company.--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, but in what sense are you using the word "veto"? 75.166.200.250 (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

An informal sense, as in by refusing a person's application to be a JP the Lord Chancellor could, in effect, thereby exclude that person from being an Alderman. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Atamu Tekena

There are two busts on Easter Islands of Atamu Tekena and Policarpo Toro, shown here. My questions are when and by whom were they made by. And I know who Atamu Tekena, but who is Policarpo Toro?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Does our Policarpo Toro article say ? StuRat (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Forgot the second question. How about when and by whom were they made?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Anybody?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Moroccan Wall

After reading Moroccan Wall, I'm quite confused: why was it built? A not-exactly-massive earthen wall in the middle of a desert should be rather easy to get over, and the presence of massive minefields (which themselves should be a very good separation barrier, the only purpose for the wall mentioned in the article) would seem to me to make it absurdly difficult to get to the wall in the first place. Does Morocco think that the Polisario have tanks or other equipment that can get through mines but can't get over walls and ditches? Because the Reference Desk is not a forum or place for disputes, please be careful in your responses. I'm only trying to understand the Moroccan government's opinions and don't want a discussion of why they're right, wrong, or both; the only issues of right and wrong I'd be interested in hearing about is whether Morocco thinks that the wall is doing what it was designed to do. Nyttend (talk) 03:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It may be more of a line in the sand than a fortification, meant to decide when to investigate nomadic caravans: when they cross it. 71.212.249.178 (talk) 03:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It does reasonably well in its intended purpose -- to mark an unpoliced zone from a policed zone, and make it somewhat difficult (but by no means impossible) to cross between the two. This function is rather different from Operation Desert Storm sand berms, though there may be a physical resemblance... AnonMoos (talk) 04:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

And it would protect their soldiers from attack, since their position can't be known behind the wall, so they can't be accurately targeted with small arms fire (which the berm may block anyway) or artillery. Blocking the enemy's line-of-sight is fairly important in war. (Presumably they have viewing ports in the wall so they can observe enemy movements.) StuRat (talk) 04:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

After reading the article, I think 71.212 and AnonMoos are closer to the function, given what the wall is. It isn't a defensive structure so much as a border marking. It isn't a masonry structure with "viewing ports" so much as it is a long pile of sand (it is even called a "berm" repeatedly in the article), with regular observation posts (little fortified garrisons) and occasional actual "walls", presumably where they would be useful. But mostly, its just a big pile of sand (and the ditch from where said pile was dug), and as such seems to signify a defacto border between the areas that Morrocco has direct control, and those that it concedes that it does not (though it claims sovereignty over the whole area. The wall doesn't even appear to be a static structure, as it seems to have been moved frequently as the Morroccan authorities have established control over more and more territory. --Jayron32 05:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I would also point out the OP mentioned 'mines'. Anti-personnel landmine usage tends to be controversial and putting them on some arbitary border (which isn't even the border you claim as your territorial border) when that border is unmarked and the area frequented by nomads likely even more so. So if they did mine any part of it (I can't be bothered checking and the OP's statement isn't clear), they'd still need some sort of border marking. Nil Einne (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Well as is turns out I did read the article and it confirms it's mined, in fact supposedly the longest continous minefields in the world. And unsurprisingly, the article attests the wall is controversial. In other words, the wall seems hardly surprising even ignoring the other advantages, it may be controversial but surely much less controversial then some random unmarked minefield. Even from a military standpoint, actually giving people an idea of where they're not supposed to go generally works better with such things then letting them find out for themselves the hard way. (Not to mention it tends to be beneficial to your own side too, particularly if you may have to clear the minefield in the future which evidentally was done in the past as they expanded the area covered by the wall since people can screw up and maps can get lost or read wrong.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Why Didn't Israel Complain More About Pakistan Building Nukes in the 1980s?

I mean, I know that Pakistan has never fought a war with Israel, but it still does not recognize Israel's existence even today. Israel panicked a lot when Iraq, Iran, Libya, and Syria were building nukes, but when Pakistan was building them Israel just stayed quiet. Futurist110 (talk) 07:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Didn't Pakistan manage to keep it secret ? StuRat (talk) 07:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Pakistan was not being governed by a fundamentalist Islamist theocracy when they developed nuclear weapons, so that's probably a large difference between the two cases. Also, if I remember correctly, Pakistan's nukes weren't common knowledge until the early 1990s. I could be wrong about that. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 07:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes and No. They didn't tell anyone that they were building nukes, but Western intelligence agencies suspected Pakistan of building nukes for at least several years before it actually got them. This was (and with Iran, still is) the same situation as it was with Iraq (pre-1991), Iran, and Libya. Pakistan probably got nukes in 1987, but if you do a Google News Archive search you'd find some articles on Pakistan building nukes that were written in the 1970s and early 1980s. Futurist110 (talk) 07:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, while Iran is governed by Muslim fundies, Iraq, Syria, and Libya were not, and Israel still panicked a lot about their nuclear programs.

Also:

http://www.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,904099-2,00.html http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,920461,00.html http://www.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,957761,00.html Futurist110 (talk) 07:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Pakistan is more concerned with India and China (and their nuclear programs) than with Israel. The others were (either explicitly, or were perceived as) a more direct threat to Israel. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

To OP. Israel did fought a war with pakistan. For why Israel did not complain Pak getting nukes is because there is a theory that US itself helped Pakistan in developing its nukes when they both were part of Central Treaty Organization.--nids(♂) 08:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

To say thought Israel "fought a war with pakistan " is a massive exaggeration. There were a few Pakistani pilots attached to the Egyptian Air Force, but that's about it. Direct hostilities between those two countries have never taken place. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 09:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure that Israel did complain to the U.S. a little bit behind the scenes; however, Israel has to prioritize its efforts to the things which are most directly threatening to Israel, and where Israel has a chance of making an impact. Pakistan is located outside of the direct middle-east arena. Also, during most of the 1980s, the U.S. and Pakistan were strongly aligned, and A.Q. Khan's activities were not fully known... AnonMoos (talk) 10:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Pakistan and Israel are very far apart. Pakistan and WMD#Delivery systems states that Pakistan has ballistic missiles with a range of 2500 km, with a source update this month, so the range might have been shorter in the 1970s and 80s. So, the threat from Egypt, Syria or Iran would've been far more immediate. Also, as AnonMoos says: since both were allies of the US, it's possible that the Americans held them both in the ear and told them to play nice, even if they didn't really want to. V85 (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Just on the "did they know" issue: it was pretty well known that Pakistan had, as one US official put it, a "big problem with nukes". The US looked the other way, because they needed Pakistani support for their covert role in the Soviet-Afghan War, but it was pretty common knowledge. It was widely discussed in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, for example, and the Pakistanis did very obvious and weird things like try to get John Aristotle Phillips to sell them his home-made bomb design. They were widely considered to be a de-facto nuclear state by the late 1980s.

Anyway, as for Israel, I suspect that they were just not as worried about Pakistan. It's far away, and it's obvious that it's nukes were meant to counterbalance India, not Israel. Israel–Pakistan relations are complicated but not necessarily directly antagonistic. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses. For the record, though, Iran's nuclear program before 2003 was primarily meant to counterbalance Iraq, not Israel, and vice-versa for Iraq's nuclear program (before 1991). However, Israel still complained a lot about the Iraqi and Iranian nuclear programs in the 1980s, 1990s, and early 2000s, and even implemented the Osirak raid against Iraq in 1981. Futurist110 (talk) 18:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing--the fact that Pakistan did not recognize Israel even by now shows that it has at least some antagonism towards Israel. Of course, you're right that Pakistan worries much more about India than about Israel, considering India's proximity to it. Futurist110 (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It is one thing to have private antagonisms, it is another to have public. I suspect the government of Pakistan does not have deep antagonisms with Israel, though its leaders would be foolish not to join in the anti-Israeli chorus for populist reasons. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure that plenty of Pakistani leaders (including the long-standing unreconstructed Taliban supporters and al-Qaeda sympathizers in the ISI) have some feelings of personal antagonism towards Israel, but when they make concrete decisions, they're generally much more pre-occupied with local matters. Pakistan already has plenty of issues and problems on its plate without seeking out long-distance quarrels with Israel... AnonMoos (talk) 04:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Many people have listed explanations above, including what type of government it was, secrecy, etc... The threat of an Iranian nuke is obviously much greater than far-away Pakistan, which would have a tougher time of firing it at Israel and is much more involved in its own foreign policy affairs with India. Still, you are right to think that it should make Israeli officials nervous - and in fact, it does today. For example, see this news item in 2004 about the foreign minister (currently the vice president) worrying about Pakistan's nukes falling into the wrong hands while in India (this fear is also shared by much of the international community). I have heard rumors that Israel did in fact plan for a raid on Pakistan's nuclear facilities, much like the 1981 raid on Osirak in Iraq, but it was either thwarted or India feared retaliation from Pakistan and didn't sign off on it. I don't believe it too much, and don't recommend you should either, as I'm not familiar with the sources and seems like fantasy. I personally don't believe they had the necessary capability to fly that far in the 1980's and attack Pakistani nuclear reactors - their 1981 raid on Osirak required creative thinking and they cut it down to the last minute in regards to fuel. But who knows, maybe they sounded alarms in the international community? It's tough to say. But make no doubt about it, the Israeli government is full aware of the threat and probably monitors it - but right now, the Iranian threat is much more important, and it's unlikely Israel would ever get invovled in Pakistan to begin with. Plus the Pakistanis are too embroiled in their own affairs with India to be concerned with attacking another country far away. Hope this helps! --Activism1234 05:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, you may want to ask why Israel didn't worry about Iran building nukes when their program first started, which was decades ago? It may surprise you, but Israel and Iran actually had very good ties with each other before the 1979 Islamic Revolution - and hopefully they'll be restored one day. --Activism1234 05:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

When the Iranian Shah had a nuclear program, I'm not sure if it was a purely peaceful program or if it had elements of nuclear weapons development. However, even if the Shah tried building nuclear weapons, he didn't get very far. Also, Iran under the Shah recognized Israel's existence, unlike Pakistan. And yes, I fully agree with you that I hope that Israeli-Iran ties will eventually be restored to their former good status. Futurist110 (talk) 05:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

European cities undamaged in World War II

In those parts of Europe where fighting took place in World War II, what were the largest cities to escape all structural damage by bombing or artillery? A list categorized by country would be very much appreciated. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Paris might be one of them. It might have had some damage, though, but nothing major, like, say Warsaw. Futurist110 (talk) 07:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

You're going to need to explain "parts". Does that mean nations ? I believe many British cities were out of range of German bombers. StuRat (talk) 07:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the only British cities that didn't experience heavy bombing were Inverness in Scotland and St Davids in Wales. Both are rather small, Inverness had only 59,000 inhabitants in 1940 and St Davids has about 1,800 even today (it boasts a post office, a grocer's shop and an enormous church). Belfast and Glasgow got quite a pounding - see Clydebank Blitz and Belfast Blitz, although they fared a lot better than German cities later on. A number of provincial British cities were targeted only because of their architectural heritage in the Baedeker Blitz of 1942. Alansplodge (talk)

No, I don't mean nations. I mean areas which were actually attacked or invaded with resistance. I mean to exclude cities out of bombing range, and also those in distant parts of countries which were surrendered en masse merely because fighting hundreds of kilometres away caused the whole country to capitulate. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Cities that were quickly occupied by the Germans, say Amsterdam and then which weren't really in the way of the Allied invasion, were more or less undamaged structurally.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

In terms of "percentage of buildings damaged", of major cities Copenhagen and Oslo probably got off lightest - Norway and Denmark surrendered before the Germans reached the respective capitals, weren't bombed by the allies, and remained in Nazi hands until the surrender so weren't damaged in the allied offensive. (As StuRat says, plenty of major cities in the Allied nations were totally untouched as they were out of bomber range.) Of the major Axis cities themselves, Vienna got off lightest - it was out of bomber range for much of the war, saw no ground combat, and had very little strategic significance. Mogism (talk) 09:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

At least Copenhagen saw some Allied bombing during Operation Carthage, but of course you are correct that relatively speaking that is but a drop in the ocean compared to cities that suffered from deliberate bombing campaigns. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Vienna? No ground combat? Don't think so. St Stephen's certainly lost much of its roof... -- Vmenkov (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• The Open city article has a few more examples, although many open cities only opened after they had already been battered by air forces or artillery. --M@rēino 22:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Which Countries with Nuclear Weapons Programs Came the Closest to Building Nukes Without Actually Building Them?

I think Argentina, Libya, Iraq (in 1991), and Iran (as of July 2012) are some of the correct answers to this question. Futurist110 (talk) 07:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

South Korea apparently had a program at one time. See South Korean nuclear research programs. Given the nukes on their border, I couldn't blame them if they started it back up again. StuRat (talk) 08:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The concept your looking for is called Nuclear latency, i.e. having the capability to produce nuclear weapons, but without having done so. Given that "we" know how to make a nuclear weapon, I suppose making a nuclear weapon isn't so much anymore about researching and finding out how to do it, but having the know how and technology to simply make it. I recall that when I was in the 8th or 9th grade, one of our school textbooks said that Norway had the capability to make a nuclear weapon, if need be, but hadn't done so yet. And we all felt very patriotic after reading that.

There are other countries as well that have the know-how to build nuclear bombs, but haven't done so for political reasons (pacifist attitudes, adherence to the NPT etc.), and these countries might not have had nuclear weapons programmes, they might simply have some nuclear physicists employed at some of their universities. A map of nuclear proliferation is available from the PBS website: Yellow countries are "abstaining countries", i.e. they are industrialised countries and therefore (assumed to be) capable of producing a nuclear weapon, but haven't done so.

As for specifically which countries have had nuclear weapons programmes, you could have a look at this map. Basically: red countries have nukes, the rest don't. However, when I look at the different country profiles, it is difficult to ascertain anything about whether they've actually had programmes (or if it was just something that was discussed but never implemented), and it doesn't say anything about how advanced they were.

• The profile page for Norway states that 'The Norwegian Defense Research Establishment considered' starting a weapons programme, but that 'there is little indication that Norway actually pursued' one.
• Spain and Argentina are listed as 'No Evidence of a Nuclear Weapons Program', but they are still coloured as 'Programs that ended after 1970'.
• 'Sweden had a nuclear weapons program which essentially ended by the time it signed the NPT.' How close were they to making a bomb? Absolutely no information about that...

The BBC has a similar overview, but again doesn't present much information on how much progress was made, for those countries that had programmes in the past, but don't anymore. (The exception is South Africa that did manage to build them.) V85 (talk) 09:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The South African nukes never achieved "deployable weapons" status. The six "warheads" they had were not ready for installation in bomb casings by the time the programme was stopped. Roger (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Could that be the answer to the OP then? South Africa got the closest, i.e. they had warheads, but they couldn't be deployed. V85 (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

One other thing needed to build a nuclear weapon is access to the raw materials, or perhaps a breeder reactor where they can be created from other elements. StuRat (talk) 09:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Taiwan's program would have likely succeeded without US intervention — they had a research reactor, uranium, and were developing hot cells (reprocessing). Basically anyone who gets reactor and hot cell technology can make a nuke if they want to, and nobody gets in the way. South Korea's program was very advanced as well. Sweden also got quite far, as I understand it, ditto Yugoslavia. When trying to assess success, look primarily towards fissile material production. The rest is pretty straightforward. Do they have a reactor and reprocessing? That's pretty close. Enriching uranium in quantity is a lot harder than that, though there have been states in the late 20th century who managed to do that "on the cheap" as well. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Burma.
Sleigh (talk) 23:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

What's your source for Burma? Also, not all "nuclear latent" states had nuclear programs in the first place (or not when they were "nuclear latent"). Futurist110 (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Myanmar lacks a big enough reactor, lacks reprocessing, and lacks enrichment technology. That puts it far behind many of the others listed. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Focussing too strictly on technical artefacts may be missing the point. You need more than just pieces of uranium to get a useable nuclear weapon. You also need funding, a fairly broad industrial base, governance that helps the project more than hindering it, a practical delivery method, and so on. Many inputs could be imported, depending on how well a country gets on with potential suppliers. If a country like Australia / Japan / Canada changed policy and decided to develop nuclear weapons, they could do it fairly swiftly: They have plenty of cash; competent government & military; lots of clever graduates in a flexible labour market (and the same goes for businesses); and easy access to foreign suppliers of anything which can't be made at home. On the other hand, for a badly-run pariah country like Burma (or, until recently, Libya), they may well have started a nuclear weapons project but they'll never finish it as long as they're starved of resources. North Korea took far longer to develop a usable nuclear weapon than the USA did, even though much of the latter's basic research was already readily available to the former. Nuclear sharing allowed several countries to have nuclear weapons without actually building them domestically. bobrayner (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

In regards to nuclear sharing, those nukes might be stationed in specific countries, but they are still the property of the country that built them. As for South Africa, they still built six nukes, even if they didn't have a proper delivery system for them yet, so technically speaking they were still a nuclear-weapons state. Also, I was under the impression that Libya was actually pretty close to building nukes when it gave up its nuclear program in 2003. Am I wrong? Futurist110 (talk) 04:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Is earlier episodes of The Flintstones in public domin?

Is erlier episodes of The Flintstones in public domin?--王小朋友 (talk) 11:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

No, though the precise date at which they would enter (if ever) varies depending on exactly how the work is classified. For example, if considered as work for hire and without other mitigating factors, episodes would begin entering the public domain in 2055. — Lomn 13:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

My theory is that the OP is asking because the early, pre-1964 episodes would have had to have had their copyrights actively renewed to still be in copyright. But it's very hard to research renewals with much assurance — you usually hire a lawyer for this sort of thing unless it is very obvious. I don't know how serialized television show episodes are handled, for example, or whether the fact that sound recordings are handled differently matters. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Google Books may have the list. Does it mean that it is renewed? --王小朋友 (talk) 14:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Cartoons fall under US Trademark law, which means that they do not enter the public domain as long as they remain an active trademark. The earliest case I can think of that recognizes this is Fisher v. Star 231 NY 414 (1921). Gx872op (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

That's not strictly true -- the Fleischer Superman cartoons are widely recognized as being in the public domain now... AnonMoos (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I don't think that's right at all. Trademark and copyright law are quite different in any case. The Superman cartoons are a good example of this — the character of Superman is still covered by trademark law, but that doesn't mean copyright law still extends over the original cartoons. It just changes what you can do with them. The issue of trademarks and copyrights when applied to cartoons is complicated, as this legal paper discusses. Again, I wouldn't try to make sense of this sort of thing without consulting an actual lawyer. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Several Bugs Bunny cartoons are widely considered to be in the public domain, even though the character isn't, because nobody renewed copyright on them. Lots of companies have used non-renewed cartoons such as Falling Hare in VHS and DVD releases, apparently without royalty, so it would seem that their copyright lawyers have judged it safe to consider them PD. Nyttend (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Spoon bending

Why do paranormal artists (?) strongly prefer to bend spoons, instead of forks, for example. Ochson (talk) 12:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

No sharp points. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Because a spoon is spoon bent out of shape, while a fork takes a forking long time. --Viennese Waltz 13:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Total guess: because you can apply pressure to a broader area in a spoon. If the mark sees your flesh bulging out around the tines of a fork, he might start to get curious about why the chi does that to it. ;) Wnt (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

But the way Uri Geller did it was by gently rubbing the handle of the spoon near the top. A fork would not have been any different. --Viennese Waltz 13:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

No, the visible part of Geller's performance was to rub the handle gently. Many writers have argued that this was not "the way Uri Geller did it" (see references in the article). --ColinFine (talk) 15:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I know that but I wasn't going to put "the way Uri Geller seemed to do it" because that would have been boring. --Viennese Waltz 16:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I concur it's probably because there are no sharp points. This makes you less prone to injury when carrying them on your person before, following, and between performances. Spoons are also probably more visible and recognizable at a distance than forks or knives, which is important for stage and street performances. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Forks are indeed used, it's just that spoons were the more famous of the original act. Google will actually auto-complete "Uri Geller fork bending" for you. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

...in the ancient days when sorcerous men first began to exert their divers eldritch powers upon the vast repertoire of cutlery, they were yet unable to conquer the glorious utensil that is... the spork! Then they looked at their spoons and said, eh, hell with it - this works fine, dunnit? ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 20:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

"French" Algeria colonised by non-French

Our article on the History of Algeria states that:

The borders of modern Algeria were created by the French, whose colonization began in 1830....French colonists (many of whom were not in fact of French origin but Italian, Maltese, and Spanish)...

Really? Why? How? More specifically, why did the French authorities go to the trouble and expense of setting up colonies which served neither as treasure troves to pillage (cf British India and Belgian Congo) nor as an escape valve for their excess population (cf much of the rest of the British Empire)? Who were these "Italian, Maltese, and Spanish" colonists - displaced peasants, or unemployed townspeople, or ethnic/linguistic minorities (e.g. Basques), or religious refugees? Why did they want to leave their homelands, and why did France want to accept them? What happened to them? Was the immigration largely of young men, who married local women and blended in after a generation or two? Or did they send home for brides and remain resolutely Italian, Maltese, and Spanish? Or did they use Algeria as a springboard to another country (as Russian Jews did/do with Israel, and Chinese did with Hong Kong)? How long did this immigration go on for? For the first few decades from 1830, Italy had not yet resolved itself as a country. BrainyBabe (talk) 14:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

"Many" colonies accepted Europeans from other countries than the motherland, but I suspect that they might have had a preference for the people of their own natinality. At the beginning of the 20th century, a Norwegian lawyer, Vilhelm Aubert, was a judge in Belgian Congo. He wrote several articles about his stay there, that were published as a book shortly after his death: Breve fra Kongo (letters from Congo). In that book, he recommended that all Norwegian graduates to move to Congo, where there were many job openings. Ironically, a century after his death, the tables had turned: in the city where he worked as a judge, judging Congolese, two Norwegians were now put in front of a Congolese judge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by V85 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

France invaded Algeria because the ailing Bourbon Restoration wanted a military victory to shore up support, and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire made North Africa easy pickings; they also wanted to prevent a post-Ottoman failed state becoming a haven for piracy within a short distance of France. The actual pretext was a ludicrous incident in which the Dey hit the French Consul with a fly-whisk during an argument about unpaid debts owed by France to Algeria. After the conquest colonists from Christian countries were invited in to provide the nucleus for a post-Turkish society, and in the hope that Algeria could be established as a cotton plantation to end reliance on unreliable US imports.

As an aside, you might want to pick a better example - I doubt there's ever been any colonial possession in recorded history that's been run less as "a treasure trove to pillage" than British India. Apart from looting during battle, Britain never took anything directly from India (all taxes raised in India were spent in India). The profit/exploitation element came from Britain's use of India as a pool of cheap labour (particularly of cheap soldiers), and of tariff barriers that crippled Indian industry and forced India to buy only British/Empire made goods (and thus give the factories of Britain, Australia and Canada a guaranteed market). 188.28.249.88 (talk) 15:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting fact. I know little about this area and era, but searching a bit I found this, where among other things it is claimed that "The drain of wealth from Bengal began in 1757 when the Company's servants began to carry home immense fortunes extorted from Indian rulers, zamindars, merchants and the common people. They sent home nearly £6 million between 1758 and 1765", "Thus, through 'Investments, Bengal's revenue was sent to England. For example, from 1765 to 1770, the Company sent out nearly £4 million worth of goods or about 33 per cent of the net revenue of Bengal. By the end of the eighteenth century, the drain constituted nearly 9 per cent of India national income" and "The actual drain was even more, as large part salaries and other incomes of English officials and the trading fortunes of English merchants also found their way into England" and "Thus, for example, Lord Ellen borough, Chairman of the Select Committee of the House of Lords, and later Governor-General of India, admitted in 1840 that India was "required to transmit annually to this country (Britain), without any return except in the small value of military stores, a sum amounting to between two and three million sterling" etc etc. Of course this is completely unsourced, and probably biased and completely wrong, but out of interest I would like to hear if you know of any scholarly sources that states that India had been an expense or a general humanitarian effort for Great Britain since the colonisation gained ground in the mid 18th century. If your claim is true then the effort done by the British to keep that colony through all those centuries for purely humanistic reasons in a time of European colonisation and imperialism, and all that with no gain at all, seems well ... almost beyond belief. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

My suspicion (and it is only a suspicion) from my recent studies of this era is that the British government made little to no money out of India directly - but that the East India Company made a fortune. The sources you cite seem to refer entirely to the period of the EIC's dominance, and mainly to the activities of the Company itself. I presume the British government made some money out of the EIC in taxes, but this is a period where the EIC had three whole armies in India and Britain only one. What the situation was like after the Mutiny, I couldn't say. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I see. However it just seems the British government outsourced its colonialism, and that it must still have gotten a lot of the pillage made by the EIC of the treasure trove, if only indirectly through the success of the EIC, and more than just in the form of cheap labour and a secure market. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

See article Pied-Noir... AnonMoos (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

However, I can't find in that article any rationale as to using Spanish people rather than French people to populate the colony. My guess would be that any 'white' person who came to the colony would be seen as being more loyal to the French state than resisting locals. Also, even if the colony was inhabited entirely by non-French, any goal of gaining revenue from the colony could still be attained by having non-French people working there: A Spanish person running a business would generate an income that the French administration could tax, just as much as if it were run by a Frenchman. V85 (talk) 17:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• One other thing to consider is that the relationship between a people and a state was not as well correlated in the past as today. That is, the borders of a state change all the time, but the culture of the people living in an area does not change so rapidly. People of the dominant culture (i.e. of the culture of the state) are, rightly or wrongly, share a mutual trust with the state. People of a foreign culture do not. What do you do with a bunch of ferners you don't want around anymore? Ship them off to a colony, that's what! Just taking one example: The city of Nice had been a city of Italian culture until it was annexed by France in 1860. The people there didn't stop drinking Chianti and start sipping Bordeaux the next day. What do you do with a bunch of Italians who don't want to be French? Send them off to Algeria? Problem solved! The exact same thing happened with all colonial powers, who used the colonies as a place, among other things, to remove people who would be a thorn in their side. That's how the Scots-Irish arrived in America, as another example. --Jayron32 18:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Before or after, they drank neither Chianti nor Bordeaux. They had, and have, their own good wines. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Obviously. It was meant to be illustrative of typical "French" and "Italian" wines, as this was a discussion over how Italians would come to be subject to the French state, not a discussion about Niçoise viticulture. The point was to illustrate that the citizens of Nice didn't stop being Italian in culture the day that the French State annexed the city, and to state it in an interesting and entertaining way, not to be scrupulously correct in terms of the local varieties of wine. --Jayron32 22:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Didn't mean to nitpick but to endorse the more nuanced view you presented. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

About the Spanish immigration in Algeria, see the French WP. It relates the immigration from the Minorca Island. It also evokes immigration from Majorca, Valencia and Alicante. (Unfortunatly, this page lacks references). If you can read French, this document (from page 5 to page 18) is well-documented — AldoSyrt (talk) 07:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

If you can read French, here is a book about Italian immigration in Tunisia and Algeria. — AldoSyrt (talk) 11:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that the OP may be misinterpreting the passage, and the Spanish, Italians, Maltese, etc weren't refugees from those nations staying in France, but people who went directly from their homes in Spain, Italy, or Malta, to North Africa of their own volition (just as e.g. many Germans went to Australia when it was a British colony). This page talks about Spanish migration to North Africa, mainly workers from Galicia, Asturias, and the Canary Islands.

As for why they went, someone already mentioned combatting piracy, but more generally having control over the Mediterranean would be useful, for controlling sea-borne trade, troop movements, fisheries, etc. And related to that was the desire to stop the French/British/Italians getting it. There was also a growing interest in petroleum in the late 19th C, which may have played a part. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Following AldoSyrt's link, I've read a bit on the French Misplaced Pages about populating the Algerian colony. One statement that they cite seems to indicate that the main idea was simply to move more people there, regardless of who they were, although there was a preference for skilled people, and, apparently, Germans were to be desired, due to their work ethic. Although there apparently was tension between the French and other Europeans (and the Jews), the main fault line was between the indigenous Moslems and the Europeans. The White Europeans don't seem to have 'blended in' with the indigineous population as the OP suggests, but rather that they were integrated into the French population (from which one would assume that they brought their own wives along, rather than finding Algerian wives). In 1889, Europeans whose ancestors had lived in Algeria for two generations were granted French citizenship. This introduction of jus soli meant that the 'non-French' European population diminished, as they were counted as French.

It seems the only people who were 'refugees' were the people who moved to Algeria after Germany annexed Alsace and Lorraine, but I assume they were French to begin with, so they don't really qualify. My guess would be that the reason the Spanish, Maltese and Italian populations were large, was that they came from countries close to Algeria (and there were also Italian and Spanish colonies next door in North-Africa). So long as the French wanted foreign/European labour, if they didn't have good prospects back home, why shouldn't they go? V85 (talk) 20:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

OP here. Thanks all for your responses, especially the French ones with references. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Who generally gets the most credit for starting skyscraper booms in many cities today, especially in American cities?

Is it a city government that wants to change the skyline of their city more responsible than the big businesses and corporations from other cities that want to move in and make business or is it the big businesses and corporations from other cities that want to move into the said city that are more responsible for starting skyscraper booms than the city government? I live in Tampa, a city that doesn’t have a lot of skyscrapers. Who would call the shots first in both starting a big skyscraper boom in my city and where the skyscrapers would be build? Willminator (talk) 20:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Obviously there's a lot of interaction, there, but the person putting up the money — largely the developers — are going to be the ones trying to call the shots. A city can certainly block sky scrapers but I think it's a rare case where a city can convince someone to put one up where they don't think it will lead to a big payout (lots of renters, high resale value), assuming the city government itself is not going to be a tenant. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Local government can do things to increase the likely payout, though. That could be direct action with tax breaks and subsidies, or it could be less direct like improving transport infrastructure. --Tango (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

True, that. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Skysrcapers are built due to an expectation of return on investment, depending on expected sale and rental value. The World Trade Center was famously built by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey rather than private investors, and long stood largely empty, reaching 90% occupancy only in 1998. μηδείς (talk) 21:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

μηδείς's comment is not very informative. Expectation of ROI is a variable of many projects.

The real explanation: skyscrapers are usually situated in city centers where the price of land is high. Constructing a skyscraper becomes justified if the price of land is so high that it makes economic sense to build upwards as to minimize the cost of the land per the total floor area of a building. Thus the construction of skyscrapers is dictated by economics and results in skyscrapers in a certain part of a large city unless a building code restricts the height of buildings. Skyscrapers are rarely seen in small cities and they are characteristic of large cities, because of the critical importance of high land prices for the construction of skyscrapers. Usually only office, commercial and hotel users can afford the rents in the city center and thus most tenants of skyscrapers are of these classes. Some skyscrapers have been built in areas where the bedrock is near surface, because this makes constructing the foundation cheaper, for example this is the case in Midtown Manhattan and Lower Manhattan, in New York City, United States, but not in-between these two parts of the city. 88.9.110.244 (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Not only is the IP's answer rude, it's wrongheaded. Expected ROI in rent and sale income is by far the most important factor. Real estate is usually valuable (not "expensive") because of the rents or sale price people will pay to use it. Its merely being expensive (shore property) or close to bedrock (the Poconos) hardly makes it suitable for the construction of skyscrapers. The WTC project was an exception because it was a prestige project backed by a government entity able to use eminent domain and not subject to market constraints. In general construction booms are typical of the last stage of a real estate bubble. See United States housing bubble. μηδείς (talk) 01:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any rudeness in the IP's comment. On the top of that, I also believe that he's right. He's clearly given a reason as to why NY, Chicago and similar cities have lots of skyscrapers, but not Tampa. μηδείς is also missing completely the point when he brings the real estate bubble into the equation, which obviously was a boom of both skyscrapers and other smaller buildings. Ochson (talk) 01:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

What the IP said is true regarding the relative locations of skyscrapers in NYC, but it has nothing to do with the question asked--the impetus behind building skyscrapers in general--which is either the expected profit of private investors (including miscalculations during bubbles, see Burj Khalifa) or the non-market decisions of quasi-governmental entities. If the IP's answer is literally true, that high land prices get skyscrapers built, not expectations of profit, the OP should encourage the city he lives in to put a huge tax on land (they can use it to import bedrock) and watch the skyscrapers spring up overnight. μηδείς (talk) 02:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• It should be noted that, through zoning and other means, a municipal government can have a big impact on the skyline of a city. Several major world cities have city centers devoid of actual skyscrapers, for various reasons. Paris's skyscrapers are concentrated at La Défense, a district locted some distance from and isolated from the historic center of Paris; it is basically on the ourskirts of the city. I have heard this is because of the unsuitability of the ground under Paris proper for supporting massive structures (supposedly the catacombs make it unstable, but I don't know how much truth there is to that story). Washington, D.C. also has no skyscrapers in its corporate limits; there are strict building codes which define both the height and setbacks for all buildings, to assure that no building is higher than the dome atop the Capitol. As a result, D.C. business district is actually in Arlington County, Virginia, where places like Rosslyn and Crystal City and other neighborhoods do have high concentrations of skyscrapers. And, occasionally you do get random skyscrapers in the middle of nowhere. I used to drive past Oakbrook Terrace Tower in DuPage County, Illinois daily. It was a bit of an oddity, located probably a 15-20 minute drive from any similarly sized buildings in Chicago. It's something a bit weird to see a random skyscraper sitting in the midst of a suburban village. --Jayron32 03:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

A few people here said that skyscraper booms generally happen in big cities, but what about Miami, another city from my home state of Florida? With a population less than 400,000 and with the size being about 40 quare miles, it is a medium size size city, not that much bigger than Tampa and much, much smaller than New York City and Chicago. Yet, it now has one of the biggest skylines in the Western Hemisphere and the 3rd biggest skyline in the U.S. As recent as 10 years ago, Miami's skyline was average for its size. So, who gets the most credit in beginning Miami's skycraper's boom? Is Miami a unique case? Willminator (talk) 03:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Miami proper may have only 400,000 people, but its metropolitan area is somewhere around 5.5 million. It's not a small city by any means. --Xuxl (talk) 10:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. What gets defined as a "city" or "city proper" or "metropolitan area" varies so greatly from place to place it is hard to make definitive comparisons, especially with comparing "city proper" (i.e. places that get to elect the mayor and city council, for example) from one place to another. In New England, for example, the basic local government unit is the New England town, a concept unique to the area, and that has effected things like city size in terms of area and population. Boston, for example, has managed to annex some of the towns around it, but it is still very small compared to other cities of its caliber. New York City, by comparison, annexed the shit out of everything around it. Dozens of smaller villages and towns were absorbed into it as it grew, meaning that you can travel a long way within New York. If I drove from, say, the Bronx southeast to Coney Island, that's a distance of 20 miles, and I'd have never left New York proper. If I drove the same distance from Charlestown southeast through Boston, I'd end up along the border between Cohasset and Scituate, and have passed through the towns of Braintree, Quincy, Weymouth, and Hingham, each a distinct municipality. Miami is organized similarly to Boston: It has a small urban core which is Miami proper, but has dozens of other cities, towns, and unincorporated places that make the metro area much larger. In Florida, Jacksonville is much larger in area and population, officially, than Miami. However, that's only when comparing the city proper; Jacksonville is organized more like New York City, having itself annexed essentially all of Duval County. If you took the footprint of Jacksonville Proper and superimposed it over the Miami metro area, you'd have a LOT more people in Miami. The difference is an accident of political Geography; culturally and economically Miami is a much more "major" city than Jacksonville. --Jayron32 14:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I immediately thought of tourism (although the reasons given previously probably are more important): While the metropolitan area is large (5.5 M), there is also a large "transient population". According to Miami#Economy, >38 million people visit Miami every year, and they need to stay somewhere too. (And obviously, they can't all live in beach-front single-resident bungalows.) If we assume each tourist stays in Miami for a week, the calculator (38 M/52 weeks) tells me that Miami has an additional 730,000 inhabitants. Of course, these tourists don't come nicely spaced out, but there are sure to be a peak and an off-peak season, so you'd need rooms to accomodate them all, and high-rises, or sky-scrapers are a space-efficient way of doing that. Especially when tourists often all want to be in the same place. V85 (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Other than the cadre of architects who all got in on the fad, reinforced concrete had the most to do with making it easy. Please see Skyscraper#History. suggests that Frederick Ransome and Henry Louis Le Chatelier might deserve enabler credits, with the usual cast of thousands approaching their contributions, as in any substantive industrial society change. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 03:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

So just to make sure I understand the answer, big businesses and corporations, private developers, etc. in general are usually the ones who are more responsible and credited in starting a skyscraper boom in some city with few skyscrapers than the city government itself, right?

But could a city government be considered to be the ones who are the most responsible when they themselves try to set apart many acres of land for sale or for lease for urban development in a city's urban center and then try to convince private developers, businesses amd corporations, etc. from other cities in the U.S or even overseas to come down and invest in their city instead? Is this how cities with a surplus of money that either want to or don't care to spend a lot of it, like Dubai, UAE, do it or is that not the way it is in this case? What about public developers (if there's such a thing)? Willminator (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

You asked who should get the credit. Groups of people like governments, architects, financiers, landowners, consumers creating demand, laborers, etc., share the credit in ways that are impossible to apportion quantitatively without very complex models. Generally those models will assign higher scores to earlier actions, so you can often go back to the enabling scientific discoveries for a first approximation, which works in this case because a structure made of Damascus steel would not be anywhere near as strong or durable as the same structure made of reinforced concrete containing standard steel. The advances in concrete which enabled easy construction of 30 story buildings really are due to Ransome and Le Chatelier. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 20:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Governments do have important contributions. They can set up zoning to encourage or discourage skyscraper building. They can set up tax incentives or establish infrastructure improvements to encourage certain types of development. For example, cities with a strong public transportation system encourage high-density development, while places which have a greater dependence on cars and road network tend to encourage sprawl. If you run a city and want to encourage high density development (skyscrapers) you can invest in subways or trains, make downtown parking rare and expensive, establish toll roads and other disincentives to driving, give tax breaks to developers and tenants to encourage skyscraper building, etc. etc. It should be noted also that the local economy has a lot to do with why a skyscraper farm will grow: a city built on heavy industry is much less likely to support such buildings, than one built on a service economy. You can't smelt steel or build a car in a skyscraper, but you can push paper and program computers in one. --Jayron32 21:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Commercial and residential sectors can demand skyscrapers even in an industrial local economy. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 22:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

True, which is why Pittsburgh and Detroit have skyscrapers. But there is more demand for office space in local economies where a higher percentage of the population is employed in jobs that need more office space. Certainly the nature of the local economy has an affect on how many skyscrapers are built in any one place. It isn't a binary condition, "They have a steel mill, so they get no skyscrapers in this city". Instead, it is one of the multitude of factors that determine what a cityscape will look like. I was merely pointing to it as one of those many factors. --Jayron32 04:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

July 18

Chinese musket

An acquaintance of mine is trying to find out if this Chinese musket is authentic. It looks very similar to Ming-period muskets that I've seen. I'm hoping that someone with more expertise can find more information on it. It appears to have the characters 十百八十二香 engraved to it, but I am unsure of the significance. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 00:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Recommend asking a antique Chinese firearms dealer, for example here or here. But don't get your hopes up. In a country proud of inventing gunpowder, these might be more numerous than would support an antique market beyond museums, which probably have their pick of top condition specimens. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 03:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Tepu10.jpg looks similar. If you go to commons you will find it in a 'category' with other musket categories and images. You may find one closer that may have more info. I didn't look at too many of the images.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Ivan VI of Russia's siblings

Are the four surviving siblings of Ivan VI of Russia: Catherine, Elizabeth, Peter, and Alexei considered Grand Dukes and Duchesses of Russia? Please don't cite wikipedia.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Also while they were in imprison, were they raised in the Orthodox or Protestant faith? They were allowed servants and priests. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 01:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Emperor's New Spy, re your original question, I think I've found the source you need to find, and can suggest some people to ask.

• The source is referenced in Russian Misplaced Pages. Великий князь quotes The complete collection of the laws of the Russian Empire, Vol XXIV, 1830, Doc. № 17906; v.6 , St. Petersburg., 1888 for as specifying actual official rules for who gets to be called Grand Duke or Duchess. I can't find this book online in English, but at least it's a title you could take to a library or the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request.
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request is also a good place to ask for help from people who can access newspaper databases – they could look for a contemporary reference.
• Googling Professor Imperial Russia brought up a few experts; you could try emailing them. , , .

(The rule according to Russian Misplaced Pages is "sons, daughters, brothers, sisters and male-line grandchildren of the Emperor". This would mean a yes for them while Ivan was Tsar (as his brothers and sisters) but a no before he was Tsar (only female-line great-grandchildren) and who knows what after he was deposed, which is why an expert might be the way to go.)

Hope these leads help or you get a better answer soon.184.147.119.111 (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's a review of a book called "The Five Empresses" by Evgenii Anisimov, which promises that the book devotes a chapter to the detention of Anna Leopoldovna and her children. That might be the source you are looking for. 184.147.130.16 (talk) 02:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 03:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The Five Empresses is partially available on Google, but I can't see the beginning of that chapter ("The Secret Prisoner and Her Children"). Certainly it confirms that the servants were all Danish, but the parts I can see don't mention the priest. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Does the Franklin Delano Roosevelt biographical article need a civil rights segment in the Presidency section?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

References desks are not pages to discuss weight and reliable source policy.

The current version of the Franklin D. Roosevelt article does not have a civil rights section. I believe one is needed during his Presidency. Civil rights and the New Deal can be discussed, or how President Roosevelt was able to gain the support of African Americans without passing a Civil Rights bill. I believe the subject on the internment of Japanese could be discussed since George H. W. Bush apologized and awarded Internment survivors money. In the current article one would believe that there were no blacks in America nor that lynching was an issue during FDR's lengthy tenure in office. Please feel free to make comments for discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Please feel free to raise this matter at Talk:Franklin D. Roosevelt. I'm sure some people who frequent the Ref Desk would be interested in partaking in such a discussion, but the article's talk page is where it should be held, not here. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 02:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I have already raised the topic of discussion in the talk page. I am looking for a concensus of opinion from multiple editors and I believe that the reference desk is a good place for discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

This may be the place to ask people to come participate in the discussion, but the actual discussion itself should definately take place at the article talk page. Any discussions designed to have a direct impact on article content should ideally occur at the article talk page itself, to keep everything together. --Jayron32 02:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. I think you should follow normal en:wp procedure. That is: edit the article, have it reverted, edit war until all involved are blocked, and then seek consensus after all the blocks expire.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I have already started a discussion on the talk page, as I mentioned before. Seems I am getting the run around at the reference desk without any attempt to get any answers. Hopefully more editors will discuss at the talk page. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for my flippant response. I would just be bold and add it. If it is reverted then follow procedure.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Apology accepted Canoe1967. Thanks. Here is the link to the FDR talk page on Civil Rights: Franklin D. Roosevelt Talk Page Civil Rights Discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

This is not the right place to ask for input. If the talk page is not sufficient, then the next place to go is the most relevant WikiProject. This article belongs to about two dozen WikiProjects; probably the best place to post a request for input is Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject U.S. Presidents. Looie496 (talk) 03:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Or, since that WikiProject is not very active, Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject United States. Looie496 (talk) 03:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Franklin relied on Southern Democrats to vote for him and for Congressmen who would support his programs. Eleanor was, perhaps, more progressive with respect to civil rights. His administration "did what they could" within the political realities of the 1930's and early 1940's, with Hitler's racist genocidal fascism stalking Europe and blatant racism a powerful force in the US, while plutocrats allegedly sought an armed coup in the US. The 1930's and early 1940's were (one wishes) different from modern times. Edison (talk) 03:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Edison, thanks (not) for undermining all the previous editors who said here is not the appropriate place for such a discussion. This question is not seeking some information about the civil rights aspects of FDR's presidency; it's about whether or not the Misplaced Pages article Franklin D. Roosevelt should include material about the civil rights aspects of FDR's presidency. That is a matter that can only be settled by consensus between the participants on the talk page of that article. Not here. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 04:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Confessions to priests and Mandatory Reporting

Here in Australia, like no doubt many other countries, there is a (well-deserved) commotion about sexual abuse by members of the clergy, particularly the catholic church.

A "side question" (IMHO a red herring) has been: Should mandatory reporting obligations extend to what priests hear in the confessional booth?

My questions are:

1. Can anyone point to any cases where a catholic sexual abuse scandal actually involved the confessional booth in any form?

(My understanding is that the overwhelming majority of cases involve the church hierarchy "covering up" for other employees or clergy of the church, not confessing parishioners. I've never heard of the confessional booth coming into play in any of the actual cases which I've read about).

2. Hope this question isn't too speculative: How often, if ever, do priests actually hear confessions of serious criminal activity? (I would think it extremely rare, but I stand to be corrected).

3. Could priests be granted the same leeway as lawyers (regarding what they hear in the confessional booth) without jeopardising the protection of children? 119.225.16.46 (talk) 07:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, in most jurisdictions, even lawyers aren't allowed to cover up an ongoing crime. StuRat (talk) 07:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

True, but they must keep quiet about confessions to past ones. 119.225.16.46 (talk) 07:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

In my understanding, "covering up" means taking some active role in preventing information from coming to light. It doesn't mean just keeping quiet. I am not a lawyer and don't know whether lawyers would be allowed to keep quiet in such a case; I'm just talking about how I use and understand language. --Trovatore (talk) 08:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

For Q.2, how would anyone ever know what they hear, unless it's some beans that have been spilled by a disaffected priest based on his own experiences and what his fellow priests have told him? Even so, that would be only one person's testimony and would not necessarily reflect the generality of what is divulged in confessionals world wide. Also, given that he was sworn to secrecy even from the arms of the law, how could anyone ever trust that what he said was the truth? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 07:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It always amazed me that RC priests in Northern Ireland could hear confessions of sectarian violence and murder and stay silent. I believe that is what kept the Troubles going for all those years. So I'd be interested in information related to this too. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

We have a (probably somewhat misnamed) article on the priest–penitent privilege that, with differences among them, exists in several countries. Australia is not mentioned by name. --Trovatore (talk) 08:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Tammy, are you really saying that you believe that Catholic priests not breaking their oathes to turn in those Catholic contributors to The Troubles who cared enough (and understood what they were doing to be wrong) that they actually Confessed their sins, is "what kept The Troubles going for all these years"? As if only devout Catholics were involved in The Troubles, rather than all sorts of Catholics and Protestants? As if anyone would Confess such crimes to a priest who wouldn't keep their oath? Really now. 86.161.208.94 (talk) 09:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I could never understand why the Pope could not issue an edict which said "if you commit these crimes you're going straight to hell, regardless of any confession/absolution". What priest could absolve someone of killing people in a car bomb? Surely those who held the information of which people had perpetrated those crimes had a moral obligation to turn those people in? Isn't that why people were allowed to remain at large for years, and are still at large today, because the only people who knew who had committed what crime were forbidden to bring them to justice? (I speak here as someone who lost friends in a pub bombing.) And doesn't that also apply to victims of child abuse by priests? --TammyMoet (talk) 11:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's strong doctrinal reasons why no Pope would ever issue an edict exactly as you suggest. Despite Jesus' commission to Peter and the others that they had the power to retain as well as forgive sins, the church has generally maintained the line that anyone can be forgiven and redeemed if they are truly penitent. Confession is one of the main ways in the Roman Catholic church that this grace is imparted sacramentally. However, I have never known why an edict could not go out saying "If anyone confesses to {list of unspeakable crimes}, you must impose as penance the requirement that they give themselves up. If they do not do so, not only should you not grant absolution, you are exempted from the seal of the confessional, and should report the crime to the secular authorities. If, as a priest, you yourself commit or abet any such act, you will be defrocked and barred from holding office. If, as a bishop, you fail to enforce or implement these rules, or conceal, aid, abet, or commit any of these offences, you will additionally be excommunicated." AlexTiefling (talk) 12:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

A priest doesn't have any power to absolve you anyway, if you believe in that sort of thing. He can help you figure out how to ultimately be absolved by God, but confession isn't a magic wand that frees you from whatever crime you committed. Certainly people treat it that way...selling indulgences (which were supposed to absolve you of sin) was one of the causes of the Reformation, for example. But nevertheless that is definitely not how confession is supposed to work. In any case the Catholic and Protestant clergies themselves contributed to the Troubles. No one is shocked that they abuse children, but it's unthinkable that they would support sectarian violence? Adam Bishop (talk) 12:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course. Where I said "grant absolution" I technically meant "pronounce absolution". The priest will generally say "may Almighty God forgive you..." - expressing hope that the penitent is forgiven, rather than guaranteeing it. My point is that if the confessing person was genuinely penitent, they'd seek to make restitution, which should involve giving themselves up. If they refuse to do so, the priest can have no confidence that they have repented, and should not pronounce absolution.

And I think people are still shocked at both abuse and collusion in terrorism; but we're much less surprised by abuse than we used to be, because it's clearly been so widespread.AlexTiefling (talk) 13:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Alex, in addition to prescribing whatever penance might be appropriate, priests have always been under the obligation to influence penitents to submit to the civil authorities for anything they confess they've done that is a breach of the civil law. That applies from minor traffic infringements they got away with, all the way to murder/rape/child abuse. They can't physically apprehend them and take them to the nearest police station because, if for no other reason, that would be breaking the seal of the confessional. But they can go as far as contacting them - very discreetly, obviously - outside the confessional (assuming they know their identity) and discussing the matter, with a view to the penitent giving themselves up. I have to assume that most priests who commit child abuse never confess it to another priest in the confessional, because if they did, the confessor would be obliged to do all in their power to persuade the first priest to surrender themself to the police. And we all know how often that happens. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 13:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

No, Tammy, that isn't why. There has been a deliberate policy of amnesty for both sides, despite the terrible acts carried out by both sides, because the authorities seem to consider that the best way to achieve peace. Again, demolishing a basic Sacrament of the Catholic Church for the sake of this one conflict would only catch those who a) were Catholic b) were sufficiently devout and repentant to have Confessed these crimes as a sin c) had enough actual evidence to convict them. It would increase sectarian tensions (picking on one side), would effectively destroy a Sacrament (the priest isn't even really supposed to think about or particularly remember what was Confessed, as the point is that the priest is a temporary stand in for Christ), would only be possible once, ever, as people would simply stop Confessing crimes (thus removing an opportunity for them to talk about what they did with someone, and be prompted to rectify the situation), and would catch very few of the actual perpetrators. As to why the Pope doesn't declare "do this and you will definitely go to Hell, no matter what": because neither the Pope nor the Church believes they have that power. You're viewing this as if the Pope and the Catholic Church didn't actually believe their own theology. 86.161.208.94 (talk) 12:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

IP, your final two sentences express my point far more effectively than I expressed it myself. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

"if you commit these crimes you're going straight to hell": I see two serious problems here. The first is simple: from a theological point of view, the pope does not determine the creed. The pope cannot simply send people to hell. Also, I think the Catholic Church abolished most of traditional hell with the Second Vatican Council. Secondly, given the degree of indifference shown by god at the execution of Giordano Bruno, or at the 1099 massacre in Jerusalem (with the perpetrators shouting "Deus vult"), or even in Treblinka ("Gott mit uns") or at the ("In God We Trust") My Lai Massacre, I doubt she would suddenly change her mind and state that "Thou Shalt Not Kill" means "Thou Shalt Not Kill" and does not come with the footnote "Unless killing approved by your social, religious or political group, other restriction may apply, patent pending, not valid in the District of Columbia and K-Mart". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion brings up an interesting question. Who, according to the Pope & the Church & their theology, definitely went to Hell? Aside from this fellow. Wonder if he said "Nice place to visit, but wouldn't want to live there" then? Aside from the unnamed plutocrat resident told of here, even our article on another leading candidate says "The damnation of Judas is not a universal conclusion, and some have argued that there is no indication that Judas was condemned with eternal punishment".John Z (talk) 01:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

No one definitely goes to hell, since everyone can be redeemed (perhaps after death). Adam Bishop (talk) 05:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't asking who stayed there, but who (human) ever went there. Definitely Jesus, probably Judas, and definitely the Rich Man (who looks like a quite permanent resident). Who else?John Z (talk) 10:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Q1's parenthetical comment "...the overwhelming majority of cases involve the church hierarchy 'covering up' for other employees or clergy of the church, not confessing parishioners ...". Even priest themselves are required to confess their sins (apparently even the Pope goes to confession), so it may be that the bishop (or another priest) hears about the abuse because the abusing priest tells him in confession. The bishop is then obliged (by the Seal of the Confessional) to keep it secret. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

See my reply to Alex Tiefling above, which is directly relevant to this. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 21:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

@TammyMoet above, absolution and the seal of the confessional are separate issues. Even if the priest withholds absolution, he is still obliged not to reveal anything that has been said to him in confession, the obvious issue being that he can't jeopardize people's trust in him, given that, according to his beliefs, saving immortal souls is more important than sending people to prison, even for murder. Of course the priest can make confession to law authorities a condition of absolution--but that is a separate matter. μηδείς (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

If priests are forced to pass on to police all evidence of possible crimes confessed to them, people will stop telling the priests. HiLo48 (talk) 19:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Medeis, can you give us a cite for "Of course the priest can make confession to law authorities a condition of absolution". I've never heard of conditional absolution. Even the ordinary types of penance handed out ("say 10 Hail Marys and 12 Lord's Prayers") is not a condition of absolution, afaik. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 21:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

See I Confess (film) which discusses the Catholic expectation that a Priest would suffer martyrdom rather than violate the sanctity of the confessional. Yeah, as a Protestant, I expect that a Priest would let the person who confessed frame him for a murder, and say nothing, going to the place of execution with the sure and certain hope of salvation. I also expect that of a protestant clergyman who receives confession as a part of his ministry, in religions where confession is a sacrament. If the person confessing says "I did this horrible thing this morning and I am penitent,etc.," the Priest should not be expected to call the cops, though he should urge the person to go to the police. If he says "And I plan to do it again again tonight," then he is not penitent, and I would not have so great an expectation of silence in the anticipation of harm to someone. If he says he will not do it again, then every morning he marches in and says, well, I did it again, but I am penitent, etc, then I'm not sure. Maybe then the Priest/clergyman can discount the person's claim of being penitent and not accept it as a valid confession. is a thoughtful 1986 article on this problem. Google News says that in Ireland the government claims that protecting children trumps the sanctity of the confessional. I am reminded of a skit on Monty Python or some such wherein someone enters the confessional booth, and shortly thereafter, the Priest leaves his booth, opens the booth of the parishioner, hauls him out, and starts punching him. Edison (talk) 00:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

@JackofOz, First, I don't understand the meaning of your "exactly", above, since HiLo48 is simply repeating more elegantly what I said; the priest must maintain the confidence of his confessants. Second, you seem to be confusing penance with contrition, and or the conditions of absolution. Contrition is the proof that you are sorry for your act, and the priest may require conditions to show the reality of that contrition, such as requiring confession to law authorities of a criminal act. That is separate from penance, which is just plain punishment. I suggest you read the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"Absolution can be given either absolutely or conditionally, i.e., depending on the fulfillment of some condition for its validity. It is also given ad cautelam (for safety's sake) in all rescripts, Bulls, and Apostolic privileges, lest the effects of the concession be impeded by some hidden censure. Lastly, we have absolution ad reincidentiam; this takes effect immediately, but if the penitent, within a certain time, does not do something prescribed, he at once occurs, ipso facto, a censure of the same kind as that from which he had just been absolved."

and especially the article on Absolution, which talk of conditional absolution. μηδείς (talk) 03:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your "suggestion", and for the information. It was "exactly" what I asked for. My earlier "exactly" was to fully support the concise formulation chosen by the previous editor. There was no reflection on any other editors. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 06:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

(EC) The problem is that everything seems to agree making surrender to authorities a condition of absolution simply isn't allowed by current Catholic interpretation. E.g. our own article, Sacrament of Penance (Catholic Church) as well as http://catholicforum.fisheaters. com/index.php?topic=3429341.25 .

One of the sources mention canon law for which 'A confessor is prohibited completely from using knowledge acquired from confession to the detriment of the penitent even when any danger of revelation is excluded' is perhaps revealing. From my reading of the sources, you are mistaken about the conditions imposed being distinct from the confessional seal. Several of the sources noted they seal is regarded as absolute and requiring someone to surrender would effectively be trying to break the seal. (Although one person in this source disagrees.)

Perhaps more importantly, from my reading of the source you linked above (which I came across when researching the answer) as well as , I believe you're also misunderstanding the conditional thing. A priest can't impose a future condition on absolute, that's invalid. Rather conditional absolution is granted when the priest isn't sure the confessor actually fulfills the requirements for absolution so tells the pertinent they are only conditionally absolved. From the last source in particular, I believe the priest may suggest the pertinent should wait until something has happened before they believe they are absolved, not because they are imposing a future condition but because since they may not be absolved, they shouldn't sin further for example by receiving the eucharist when they haven't been absolved for a mortal sin. One tricky thing is some sources including I think http://www.fisheaters .com/unction.html and one of the sources I linked above seem to be confusing indirect absolution and conditional absolution. As I understand it, indirect absolution is when the person doesn't actually confess their sins in the sacrement but the priest says they are absolved if they fulfill the conditions required for absolution, conditional absolution is when the sinner does take part in the sacrement but the priest isn't convinced they fulfill the requirements (dispositions?) for absolution.

The priest can also ask the sinner to perform penance and as noted in some of the earlier sources failing to fulfill these requirements would potentially be a sin in itself but as also noted in those sources, the sinner can ask the priest if they think or find they can't fulfill what was asked from them or even I think based on their own judgement substitute their own penances. For the same reasons as earlier, giving a penance of surrending to the authorities would seem to be not allowed.

The only loophole (as it were) is potentially what's mentioned here , a person generally can't allow an innocent to continue to suffer for their actions. The example given there is if an innocent party has been charged or perhaps even serving. I guess there may be debates as to whether the original sin is absolved (does commiting this new sin related to the old sin mean you're not genuinely contrite?), but the ongoing sin of allowing the party to suffer obviously can't be. This isn't of course a conditional absolution but non-absolution (b in the CE source you linked). (Of course a priest could similarly not grant an absolution if a person hasn't surrendered but my reading is they can't do this for non-continuing sins because it isn't a perceived requirement and it would have the effect of trying to break the seal. One of the sources mentions something new to deal with sexually abusive, but I don't know what it is.)

Potentially you could stretch this to suggest if a victim is suffering because of your actions in not surrending, then you are sinning. It likely gets tricky if you don't know if anyone is suffering, but obviously e.g. if you're a murderer and in the paper the family said just yesterday they're having trouble moving on because they don't know who killed their whoever, this doesn't apply. (Although you probably don't have to surrender straight away, rather going to the family and telling them what you did and offering to surrend if that's what they want would probably be sufficient.) Similarly if there's a court case, even if you don't intend to testify (and therefore have to lie) it would seem problematic that the victim may be thought of as a liar or for that matter has to go thru the trauma of the case. (Or for that matter if there hasn't been a court case, but someone came out and publicly accused you but a decision was made not to prosecute due to insufficient evidence.) Perhaps this was what was applied here (in that the person confessing was perceiving to be disadvanting others via their cheating), or perhaps the priest there just wasn't that familiar with or didn't care about Canon law.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

BTW, the ronconte wordpress source mentions how one of the issues from the CC's POV for submission to civil authorities is the punisment might be out of proportion to the crime. (Where the person there said 'Under the eternal moral law all three fonts of morality must be good for any act to be moral. If submitting will have grave bad consequences that are not outweighed by good consequences, such as harm to a man’s wife and children, and harm to him if civil authorities in the nation are known to give excessive penalities for whatever the crime was, then submitting would not be moral.') While this may just one theologian's opinion, it doesn't exactly seem surprising. In particular, given the CC's views on the death penalty, it seems doubtful to me JackofOz's claim would be true (they are always encouraged to submit to civil authorities) in a country like Malaysia or Singapore with the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking or manufacturing if the person confesses 20 years after the fact when they are now a family main with young children well known in the community for their efforts fighting drugs, charity work, etc. I wonder whether they would even do it in the US for murder if there's a strong risk of the death penalty. (They may encourage other things like making sure any family or whatever.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

occupations per 10000 workers

Assuming a work force of 10,000 individuals in a community: What is the (job title,employment break down) ie.... # of police officers per 10,000 or 1 police officer per (23?) people

      # of doctors per 10,000 or 1 doctor per (600?) people.
      # of store clerks per 10,000 or 1 store clerk per (?) people 
      # of store stockers per 10,000 or 1 stocker per (?) people
    etc. 
total break down numbers should be within 10% of 10,000

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.232.93 (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Which community are you talking about? How can we possibly tell you how many police officers there are without knowing where it is? Or do you want to know how many would be needed, which is something that can't be answered precisely, especially without knowing the sort of place or what law enforcement policies you wish to pursue. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like homework. Ochson (talk) 14:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

A site like http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_phy_per_1000_peo-physicians-per-1-000-people may have some of these statistics. It has a section on physicians per 1000 people for a variety of countries...you can calculate up what that would be per 10,000 pretty easily from there. ny156uk (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking for general averages. I used police and doctors as examples because I know the rough averages for those professions. Military is roughly 350 service personel per 10,000 or 1 per 28 (though in some countries the military and police overlap). For the past several years I've been looking for the employment stats on western industral communities simply because thats what we live in, and thats what would be most avaliable. What I Would like to -eventually- determine is the breakdown on a bronze/ironage citystate that may have existed between the Black Sea and western Himalayas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.232.93 (talk) 14:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: per http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_phy_per_1000_peo-physicians-per-1-000-people world wide average is 1.7 doctors per 1000 people (or 1 per 588.235) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.232.93 (talk) 14:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Shia Sunni Monarchy

Are Shia Muslim anti-monarch and Sunni Muslims pro-monarch or is it a misconception? Shias in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia are against the Monarch and that's why I wanted to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.105.163 (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on this by any means, but I think it has more to do with the ruling family in Saudi Arabia being of a different Muslim sect, rather than any anti-monarchist sentiment in Shia Islam. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The Shahs of Iran were Shia. See Mohammad Reza Pahlavi which list his religion as Shia. Spot checking a few other random Shahs from List of kings of Persia confirms that the Shahs of Iran were Shia. --Jayron32 16:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

We have List of Shi'a Muslim dynasties. Those in early Islam opposed to a hereditary caliphate were the Kharijites... -- AnonMoos (talk) 17:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that Shia Muslims are against Sunni monarchs that discriminate against them and vice versa. Keep in mind that most Sunnis in Syria and abroad support the overthrow of Assad, who is not a monarch but whose dictatorship essentially functions like a monarchy. Assad is a Shiite (to be more specific Alawite, which is a branch of Shiism). Futurist110 (talk) 05:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Were any of the policies of Franklin Delano Roosevelt undemocratic?

I am asking this question as objectively as possible without any judgement. The main issue was the internment of 100,000 Japanese citizens during Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Presidency, although Italians and Germans were interned as well. Was Roosevelt ultimately a racist or did he hold racist views against Asians? His New Deal policies initially favored whites over black citizens. Please remember this is a discussion and not meant in anyway to condone or condemn any of FDR's actions while President. What do the sources say? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

He issued lots of public statements in favor of China, and his administration issued the Overrun Countries series of postage stamps honoring Korea (along with presumably plenty of other statements, although I've never looked for any), so I expect that the sources would credit his actions to the state of warfare against Japan. German and Italian immigrants had long been more thoroughly integrated into American culture than had Japanese immigrants, so the comparison probably isn't valid. Nyttend (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Defining someone as a "racist" is an inflamatory thing, as it is a loaded word which is not to be thrown around lightly. Using a term like that doesn't generally lead to a dispassionate discussion of the historical facts in question, instead it causes people to discuss the issue emotionally. One can look at the effects of the policies of Roosevelt on race relations within the United States, one can look at the personal statements or actions of Roosevelt regarding his relationship with people of other races, but to ask, point blank "Was he or wasn't he a racist?" is a completely unanswerable question. I suggest you reformulate your question if you want a serious discussion; leaving it as you have asked it won't be very helpful. --Jayron32 16:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I changed the question to policies rather then FDR. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I found a good source: By Order of the President: FDR and the Internment of Japanese Americans by Greg Robinson (2001). Cmguy777 (talk) 18:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Isn't this question an attempt to re-open the closed discussion above? Shouldn't this all be on the Talk page? AlexTiefling (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Insert: This is not the same discussion as above that had to do with placement of the Civil Rights section in the FDR article. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Is this about FDR being undemocratic (the title) or being racist (the text)? HiLo48 (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Insert: I used "undemocratic" to keep the question neutral. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

There are many wartime policies of the FDR administration that were undemocratic. The U.S. Government at the time basically nationalized the entire U.S. industry to make it work towards supporting the war effort. That's undemocratic. The administration suspended many constitutional and individual rights during the war, and the internment program of American citizens was just a part of that. The War Powers Acts of 1941 and 1942 made FDR functionally a dictator, if a benevolent one. It was a decidedly undemocratic way to run the country. Which is not to say that aspects of it were not justified (the mobilization of American industry to make war materiel would likely have not been as efficient without it, for example), but certain other aspects were less than honorable (the aformention internement of American citizens based on accident of ancestry). --Jayron32 20:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought the question was about the internment of Japanese, Italian and German citizens. No mention of American citizens. Interning the former, when the US was at war with those countries, would hardly be a surprise to anyone. You either intern or expel citizens of nations you're at war with. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 21:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Read the article titled Japanese American internment and the last line of the opening paragraph. I won't ruin the surprise for you. It will be a learning experience. --Jayron32 23:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, applying that to the precise phrasing of the question & Jack's response here involves a distinction not treated much in that article & paragraph - concerning the Japanese-Americans who were citizens of both Japan and the USA. How many of the US citizens interned were also citizens of Japan? Currently, Japan tends to discourage dual citizenship. Multiple_citizenship#Multiple_citizenship_prohibited.2Fdiscouraged . Back then - ? The line "The manifesto was backed by the Native Sons and Daughters of the Golden West and the California Department of the American Legion, which in January demanded that all Japanese with dual citizenship be placed in concentration camps" indicates that this was a significant group though - maybe the Nisei had dual citizenship (i.e. also Japanese) at the time?John Z (talk) 00:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I'm fully aware that a goodly chunk of the internees were American citizens. But the OP was not asking about them. He was asking about "the internment of 100,000 Japanese citizens ... although Italians and Germans were interned as well". He's referring to citizens of other countries, in particular, countries with which the USA was at war. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 00:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

He's asked several questions. I answered the one in the title. Imprisoning American citizens without due process was undemocratic. --Jayron32 01:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Was there a need for the Japanese internment? Roosevelt went against advise that there was no need to intern the Japanese. Even J. Edgar Hoover did not believe there was a need to inter the Japanese. According to Robinson, western farmers wanted to confiscate Japanese agriculture property. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The Naturalization Act of 1790 prohibited non whites from becoming citizens. The Naturalization Act of 1870 allowed African descent to become citizens. How could Asians be citizens of the United States prior to World War II? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Not correct. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (1868) specifically states "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." A person born in the U.S. was a U.S. citizen, regardless of race. This was already established law, as 2 years earlier the Civil Rights Act of 1866 already contained essentially the same text. This was not a specific enumeration of any one race, it was open to all ancestries. A person born in the United States of Japanese parents was an American citizen no different from any other American citizen, and this was constitutionally true since at the latest 1866-1868, and possibly earlier. Every time there was a legal test to this clause, it was generally upheld in as broad a definition as possible (excepting Native Americans who lived on reservations and retained citizenship of their tribes). United States v. Wong Kim Ark is relevent here. Even if we take the late date of United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) as when the matter became settled law, that's still some 40+ years before WWII. --Jayron32 23:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I will just say that defining this policy as "undemocratic" is very confusing to me. "Democratic" has a relatively distinct meaning that has to do with how people are elected and policies are created. FDR was just as "undemocratic" with respect to internment as many previous Presidents and many since. It was arguably a Constitutional violation (though the Supreme Court did not ruled it as such, disturbingly), it was arguably an awful policy, but it does not have any unique distinction as "undemocratic." More "undemocratic" were his actions in, say, creating the atomic bomb, which were done using black budgets, shielded from Congress, and more or less kept entirely out of the checks and balances that are required by the "democratic" requirements of the Constitution. Arguably the President can do this sort of thing under the requirements of executive power in wartime, though, so even then, it's not clear, but I'd argue that's much more "undemocratic." Democracy is not the same thing as equal rights, as centuries of American history have shown. You can have extremely racist and oppressive democracies if sufficient checks to the rule of the majority — or to executive power — are not put in place. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Democracy doesn't mean that people have a vote for their leaders or anything like that. It means that the people in a society have access to political power and the right to give or withhold their consent from the actions of their government. Civil rights are an inherent and inseperable corollary to democracy. In that way, democracy isn't a binary condition, but a continuum based on how much personal freedom and access to the machinery of the state that people have. FDR passed policies which restricted the freedoms of U.S. citizens in a direct way. That is fundementally undemocratic. It didn't make the U.S. 100% undemocratic, but it did make it less democratic at the time. --Jayron32 01:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a nice idea, but that's not the definition of democracy. It doesn't mean "all people" — it means "some subset of the people," even today. What you are describing is better termed liberal democracy, which is the definition of democracy plus a lot of other positive things that the standard definition can easily leave out. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The OP needs to keep in mind that there was a significant amount of wartime hysteria going on. For one thing, there were Japanese raids going on in the Pacific Northwest (a fact not widely publicized at the time), so the fears were not groundless. Locking up anyone who might conceivably have some connection with the enemy was the "carpet bombing" approach to the problem. There were indeed some Japanese-Americans who were considered subversives, but most of them were good Americans who got screwed, losing property as well as rights, for no legally justifiable reason. Just not killed, as the Germans did with theirs - but "only" confined to the internment camps. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Jayron that Democracy requires equality and clearly the Japanese did not have any equality or protection during WWII in America. If the Japanese were considered American's by birth, what Constitutional authority did Roosevelt have in making his internment prison camps? Cmguy777 (talk) 05:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

See Korematsu v. United States. Basically the Supreme Court ruled that in his role as Commander in Chief, the President can make wide-ranging policies during wartime for the protection of the homeland, including rounding up people based solely on their national heritage. Note that this was not the first time a President had done things of this nature during wartime — Lincoln and Wilson also did similarly wide-spread things in the name of national security. One of the many stains on the idea that the Constitution is adequate to protects individuals in times of strife. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Lincoln did not round up blacks and put them in prison, he set them free in the Emancipation Proclamation. Lincoln and Wilson rounded up people because of their political sympathies. The Japanese were interred simply because they were Japanese. Thanks for the input on the Supreme Court case, Mr. 98. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The Japanese were interred simply because they were Japanese. - That would make a lot of sense for the Japanese citizens you asked about, but a lot less sense for the Americans of Japanese descent. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 11:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Citing a US federal law

s:Page:United_States_Statutes_at_Large_Volume_106_Part_1.djvu/357 contains the text of a US federal law, Public Law 102-321, which is elsewhere cited as "106 Stat. 325". Is there some good reason that it's not simply cited as PL 102-321? I don't remember seeing "Number Stat. Number" before; what is it called, and where can I find guidelines for using it? I understand that the first number is the number of the volume in the printed US Code where this public law is found, but I can't understand what "325" signifies. Nyttend (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Because the public laws are collected in bound volumes, called "Statutes at Large", which is how most libraries had them. Congress did publish the text of laws, and as I recall they were generally available free, but books are easier to deal with than things that can range from a single page to telephone directory thickness. The number after is the page number, which makes it easier to find where to go. See here.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; not knowing what to call it, I didn't even know how to search for it. I wondered if 325 were the page number in this case, but I was dissuaded by the 357 in the Wikisource pagename. Moreover, I thought that 325 was assigned to the law itself, which apparently extends over multiple pages. Nyttend (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It's telling you where to find the first page of the law. If I were citing in a legal brief, and it was a long statute, I'd cite the page the provision I want the judge to look at as something like 106 Stat. 325, 331. He can find it from there.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

：It's a general legal convention throughout the common law world that anything that appears in anything multi-volume, be it judgments or articles (though usually not statutes as in many countries statutes are no longer published in continuous volumes the way they are done in the US), are cited as " ", to indicate the precise page referred to, the citation can be followed by "at " or simply ", ". In some contexts the date is important, as the volume numbers might get recycled from year to year, but in other contexts the volume number alone is sufficient. In any case, where relevant, the year usually precedes the volume number. Whether square brackets or round brackets are used for the year can also be significant depending on the type of work cited - with judgments, often "(2002)" means a judgment published in 2002, whereas "" means a case decided in 2002. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Nationalities of NATO officials

I stumbled across NATO#Structures, and was wondering why so many Deputy Secretaries General of NATO have been Italian - of the 14 so far, 10 have been Italian, and two of the others served under an Italian Secretary General. I see from Secretary General of NATO that that position is traditionally occupied by a European, while the Supreme Allied Commander Europe is traditionally American. I also noticed that of the 27 deputy SACEURs, 19 have been British and 8 German (between 1978 and and 1993 there was one of each for some reason, before 1973 they were all British, and since 1993 a mixture). Does anyone know the reasoning behind any of this? I suppose these four countries have generally been the most important members, excluding France (which has had strained relations with NATO), but how did these particular patterns emerge? 130.88.73.65 (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that the U.S. came to the realization that the exercising of real power has little to do with the name you call something. One of the key aspects of American Imperialism is the idea that you can basically do whatever you want, wherever you want, as long as you don't make any direct claims to the power. Old-style empires worked by actually conquering and incorporating territory into themselves. "You're not Gaul. You're now part of Rome", etc. etc. The U.S. realized, rather shrewdly, that if you let people keep the name of their country the same, you can claim you don't own that country, so people leave you alone, and you still get to own that country. The U.S. exerts no less control over those places than Rome or the British Empire did. The organization of NATO is no less so. It's moot who holds the named positions of leadership; the U.S. says "Jump!" and NATO says "How high?". The political machinations of who gets to put a title on their business cards doesn't mean much to how the system actually works. Perhaps the Italians are particular good at Politics. Maybe its a dumb, random streak. But it doesn't make much of a difference to the real politik. --Jayron32 20:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It is usual to bring a bunch of flowers to a date. You might end up with what happened to ANZUS if you forget the flowers. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I really think this is a bit of an exaggeration. The NATO article lists a number of serious disagreements between members, over command structures, expansion of the organisation's membership, and military interventions, and there are clearly cases where NATO has failed to adopt the US's preferred position (see the Iraq War). Your explanation would also seem to be contradicted by the fact the US has apparently insisted on having the SACEUR (the top military commander of NATO). I was more interested in why specifically these two deputy positions have consistently been given to Italians, Brits, and Germans in the manner that they have - it quite clearly isn't a coincidence. 130.88.73.65 (talk) 13:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

July 19

Does the BSA currently get to use federal property for anything it does?

Does the Boy Scouts of America, which discriminates on sexual orientation, currently use federal property for any of its jamborees or any other activities for free or after paying for access? 69.243.220.115 (talk) 00:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Surely the Boy Scouts have lots of events held on federal property. The National Parks, for example. Staecker (talk) 01:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Is there any federal civil rights protection for gays as such? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Considering that anyone can visit a national park, regardless of their political or moral views, why would the BSA be any different? Is there a law saying that discriminatory organizations may not use national parks to host their activities? If the BSA were using parks to incite violence or spread hate speech, that would be another matter, but as far as I know it does neither. --140.180.5.169 (talk) 04:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The National Scout Jamboree used to be held at Fort A.P. Hill but I don't think it is still. Dismas| 03:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

In Winkler v. Rumsfeld it was ruled that federal (more specifically, military) support of the BSA was permitted. In the past such support has included use of military land. Whether this will continue in the future hasn't yet been decided, though the possibility remains open. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

That case was only decided on a technicality. The actual question of whether federal support of BSA is allowed remains open. --108.227.29.193 (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I must ask again - Is there any federal civil rights legislation that forbids gay discrimination? The Army rules were specifically passed by Congress, which might suggest that there is not any widespread federal law on the matter. And if not, while I might sympathize with the OP's understandable irritation at the Boy Scouts for reaffirming their anti-gay stance, it would probably take a lengthy court battle to do anything about it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The Constitution's Equal Protection Clause has recently been held to apply to sexual orientation in some federal circuits. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 06:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that without a constitutional issue at play, the Support Our Scouts Act and Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act would seem to make limiting federal government support problematic. As our Boy Scouts of America membership controversies mentions, there has been a withdrawal of support from other branches of government in the US. BTW, the article is likely of interest to the OP since it describes some of the ways the federal government does support and get involved in the BSA. As the article mentions, it isn't just the sexual orientation thing that's a problem but also their policies towards non religious people. That was what was tested in Winkler v. Rumsfeld which as mentioned above failed due to a lack of standing. As hinted above and mentioned in our articles, future jamborees starting with the 2013 National Scout Jamboree will be held at The Summit Bechtel Family National Scout Reserve partly as a result of the failed lawsuit, however the DoD may still be involved because of the training and recruiting oppurtinities, I don't know whether this level of involvement would be enough for a plantiff who does have standing. Nil Einne (talk) 12:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Fake "reality" shows

The blogosphere contains numerous instances of people asserting that reality TV shows are often fake, with actors pretending to bring in items for purchase or appraisal, with the owner of the store where the item was previously listed for sale coming in to evaluate it. Similar complaints have been made about car towing shows, dating shows, survivor shows, home improvement shows, antique restoration shows, and shows where people purchasie storage lockers suspiciously full of extremely valuable articles. Quiz show scandals describes deceptive TV shows of the 1950's being investigated by the US Congress and grand juries, even without there apparently being laws at the time against coaching or instructing quiz show contestants. Laws were later supposedly passed in the US outlawing fake quiz shows. Does the US or other countries have laws against presenting fake reality shows as other than scripted entertainment, akin to TV wrestling? Edison (talk) 04:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Not an answer, but I think the reason why most people on Antiques Roadshow seem to have bought a Ming Vase for $1.98 at a local garage sale is that they don't air the vast majority of those who wasted their money buying junk. (They do air a tiny portion of those cases, usually when it's a very good fake.) That said, they did have some scandal involving swords, as I recall. And, this distortion of people's perceptions that buying "antiques" is almost a guaranteed investment is rather self-serving, as the people running the show are in that business, and would love millions of suckers showing up to buy junk which they assume in extremely valuable, despite the price. StuRat (talk) 04:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Do reality TV shows actually assert they are, in fact, real? Do these shows actually have a disclaimer that says "This work is non-fiction. All events presented are real"? I have never seen such a disclaimer but then again I don't watch a lot of TV.A8875 (talk) 05:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Even where 'everything is real' (i.e. people who aren't paid actors, no script etc.) the 'reality' on a reality show is going to be 'constructed': Producers might purposely select participants whom they can foresee won't get along, for example by choosing people with wastly dissimilar interests and incredibly confrontational personalities. Then, after filming, there is of course the editing process, and adding of narration, which can add a lot more drama then was there to begin with. I haven't heard of any country passing laws against reality shows being advertised as 'real', since they are entertainment. Obviously, where there is a cash prize involved, there might be general rules on prizes and fair competition that apply, but I don't think any outrage over a revelation that Jerry Springer's guest are 'playing a part' rather than actually being their honest true selves would pass, since people watch it for entertainment rather than finding out what's really happening in the world. What would the next step be? Making a law on how much a 'based on a true story'-movies can deviate from the original story? V85 (talk) 09:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

There is quite a bit of discussion about this at Reality television#Criticism. I suppose this is also similar to scripted programming that claims to be "Based on a true story" - this seems to be applied to everything from faithful dramatisations of real events, to fiction with only minor plot elements inspired by reality. 130.88.73.65 (talk) 13:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

There has been some discussion lately as to whether House Hunters and House Hunters International are fake. See this. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 01:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Then again, there was The Joe Schmo Show, which was admittedly a faked reality show, except to one person.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 09:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Quebec and the American War of Independence

This one's been bugging me for a while. Quebec was a British colony in the 1770s but seemingly wanted nothing to do with all those pesky troublemakers to the south, right? But why, exactly? Was there a broader reason for the Québécoise remaining loyal to the crown, other than the beneficial political measures of the Quebec Act? Apart from the language barrier, would there have been a noticeable difference in the culture and temperament of the people in, say, Upstate New York and southern Quebec? For that matter, what about Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and East Florida? Evanh2008 04:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You may find Letters to the inhabitants of Canada to be an interesting read. In the First Continental Congress, only 12 of the provinces in British North America showed up. The intent was to send invitations to all provinces of British North America to attend the Second Continental Congress, of the additional invitees, only Georgia showed up at the Second Congress. I can't find any information now, but I also believe that there was some effort to extend invitations to the British West Indies as well, perhaps due to Alexander Hamilton's connections there. I don't know how far that ended up. Quebec did offer some support to the Revolution, see 1st Canadian Regiment and 2nd Canadian Regiment. The support in Quebec and other parts of Canada likely dwindled rapidly after the disasterous Quebec campaign of 1775. The problem with Quebec was that it had no colonial legislature, so it had no way to organize to show any sort of support. It may or may not have been there, but without any formal way to organize a real support, it just sorta petered out. The Thirteen Colonies all had well established colonial legislatures, and these provided a focal point for the political organization of the Revolution; it was the legislatures that approved delegates to the Continental Congresses and that provided the needed local support for raising troops and other organizational needs. Without that in Quebec, nothing ever came of the overtures. --Jayron32 05:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

According to Donald W. Meinig in the Shaping of America, volume 1, the French of Quebec were sympathetic to the American Revolution but more interested in rejoining the French Empire than in joining the new United States. To that end they hoped that France would send troops to Quebec and liberate them. They did not want to become part of the United States but rather wanted to be rejoined to France. To that end they were tentatively supportive of the rebellion. But when French assistance failed to materialize Quebec failed to support the rebellion. Pfly (talk) 07:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Also according to Meinig, Newfoundland's population was far too small and far too closely linked to Britain to desire rebellion. East Florida had been only recently conquered from Spain and was populated with very loyal British subjects with little or no local democratic traditions--even if they wanted to rebel, which they didn't, they didn't have the political means to do so. Nova Scotia, on the other hand, came fairly close to open rebellion. See History of Nova Scotia#American Revolution. Since Halifax was the nearest major port to Britain it was imperative for the British to hold onto it as a base of operations. The American rebels made some attempt to win Nova Scotia over, and Nova Scotians made some effort to rebelling, but against the full force of the British Empire it was a lost effort. Pfly (talk) 07:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

And again according to Meinig, the West Indies in general were sympathetic to the rebellion but were unable to counter the might of the British Navy, and thus were able at best to offer a kind of passive resistance. Pfly (talk) 07:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to the aforementioned Quebec Act, Quebec was probably a bit better off under British rule. They got a pretty good deal from the British that wouldn't have been upheld if they had joined the Revolution, nor if they joined the US (established Catholic church, French-language rights, and especially exclusive rights to settle in the Ohio Valley and what is now Ontario). The Quebec Act was one of the Intolerable Acts, after all. As it turned out, it wasn't such a good deal after all...during and after the Revolution British Loyalists often fled to Canada, and among other things Quebec was split into Upper Canada (modern Ontario) and Lower Canada (modern Quebec). Quebec was mostly still loyal up to the War of 1812 (when, again, the Americans failed to conquer either Upper or Lower Canada), but after that, English power and influence increased so much in Quebec that they did rebel, in 1837. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

John Hopkins, who taught me international law in the seventies, used to cite Wolfe's campaign in Quebec as "the only successful modern instance of acquiring territory by conquest", and ascribed this success to the fact that the British government thereafter offered to ship any Quebecois who wanted back to France, free of charge. He said 80,000 took up the offer, and those that remained stayed loyal when the southern colonies revolted. --ColinFine (talk) 08:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The population of New France was around 60,000 at the time of conquest, so it's hard to see how 80,000 people could have been shipped back to France (only a few Acadians were, and that was not of their own free will). What the British did was leave the French people of New France largely alone, let them freely practice their religion and keep their traditions and legal system, while settling in areas (Upper Canada, the Eastern Townships) where French colonists were not present in significant numbers (it helped that there was still plenty of good virgin farm land available, except for Acadia, again, where the British decided to practice mass deportation to take over the land). As a result, there was little immediate friction between conquerer and conquered, and it took until 1837, as mentioned above, for things to boil over. --Xuxl (talk) 09:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies, everyone! Interesting stuff all around. Evanh2008 01:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

U.S. Copyright Laws

Does anyone here think that the U.S. govt. will extend the copyright of works published in 1923 and beyond which are due to expire in 2018 and beyond? After all, the U.S. govt. has extended copyright before on numerous occasions, and Disney and a lot of other entertainment companies will probably lobby extremely aggressively to extend the copyright of works published in 1923 and beyond. Futurist110 (talk) 05:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, based on Marxist understandings of primitive accumulation and the role of the state in maintaining the dominant property form. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we can persuade Jimbo to shut down the site in protest. I might even agree.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It'll make the MOS simpler. In relation to changing the dominant property form, out-producing the existing mode of production is usually a superior way forward (if you can avoid the existing dominant class merely expropriating the means of production). At the moment at least the working class seems "ungovernable" in relation to its refusal to treat intellectual "property" as property. OMMV: once we were ungovernable in relation to British elections. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It's very possible. There's a lot of money on the line, and the extend-copyright-indefinitely lobby is a hell of a lot bigger than the keep-copyright-temporary lobby. But we lack a crystal ball. Only Congress can do this, though, so if you feel strongly about it, write your Congressperson. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's a bigger lobby: it's a more concentrated lobby. —Tamfang (talk) 01:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm kind of hopeful -- at the time the last extension passed in 1998, there wasn't much of an anti-extension political force -- there were EFF and some law professors working against it, but nothing with much muscle -- while there were of course strong economic vested efforts in favor of extension. However, since that time, the RIAA has become one of the most hated groups in America, there have been anti-SOPA protests, etc. and many more people understand that rigid and unbalanced copyright laws can personally affect them. I don't think it will be a walkover the next time, as it almost was in 1998... AnonMoos (talk) 15:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Considering that my Congressman is a Republican (Republicans are more pro-corporations) and possibly a birther, despite the fact that he represents an affluent and educated area, I don't have too much faith in him or in writing to him. Also, I seriously doubt that many Congressmen directly read all the letters that get sent to them. Futurist110 (talk) 19:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Unless one is a billionaire, a well-connected lobbyist (presumably working for a billionaire), or another politician, one does not expect one's congressperson to read one's letters. That isn't how the grassroots game is played. Your letter will be opened and skimmed by a low-level staffer in your congresscritter's office. Your name will go into a database, and your views on whatever issues you address will be noted on your record. (For commonly-raised issues, there will likely be a form with checkboxes.) A form letter response will be generated using boilerplate text that may or may not directly respond to the points you make, but will probably be related to the topic at hand. (In the unlikely instance that your letter raises issues your congressman's office has never seen before, a somewhat higher-level aide may be called upon to draft new boilerplate for use in future letters.) Every so often, another aide will dump a report from the database, and say, "Hey, we're getting a lot more letters than we used to on Issue X. Maybe we need to think about this."

Your individual letter, by itself, will have no influence whatsoever. Large numbers of letters, in the aggregate, will draw attention. Original, mailed, paper letters written clearly, concisely, and politely, carry appreciably more weight than campaign form letters, which in turn carry more weight than emails. (They know that it takes a greater level of concern and motivation on the part of voter to drive them out of their chair and down to the mailbox. A dozen paper letters probably outweigh a thousand emails in the only calculus that matters: the number of votes represented by each message sent.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Why Did the U.S.S.R. Lose the Soviet-Finnish War of 1939?

Also, could this war have turned out differently had it lasted longer? Futurist110 (talk) 05:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

As Winter War#Soviet military plan states, Stalin's purge of the Red Army officer corps meant less experienced officers were in charge, and they were overseen by political commissars. So deviation from prearranged plans was essentially unthinkable, allowing the Finns to exploit the Soviet inflexibility. As for the outcome, it could only have gotten worse for Finland. They were already at the breaking point, and Sweden wouldn't allow reinforcements from the Western powers to transit its territory. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Something else I'd heard about Soviet military strategy at that time was that they refused to ever retreat, even executing those who did. This was a disastrous military strategy, since it allowed their enemies to concentrate their attack, break through, outflank, encircle, and then destroy Soviet forces. The effect on morale was equally catastrophic. StuRat (talk) 07:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You're talking about Stalin's Order_No._227 which didn't exist yet in 1939.A8875 (talk) 07:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. StuRat (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Could the USSR have captured all of Finland if it stayed in the war for another several months, though? Futurist110 (talk) 05:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I have never heard this counterfactual explored. In part because the Soviet Union did not wish to do so. In part because the Soviet Union did not wish to do so at the price expected. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not really accurate to say that the Soviets "lost" the war (except perhaps in a moral sense). While the conduct and result of the war did not meet their initial expectations, the Soviets were able to dictate surrender terms and a significant amount of Finnish territory was ceded. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 18:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, the Soviets did lose an enormous amount of prestige and suffered an embarrassing number of casualties, many times more than the Finns. The weak showing of the Red Army supported Hitler's belief that invading the Soviet Union was a good idea. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

has anyone ever ridden a dog?

has anyone ever ridden a dog? (I mean like a horse). I'm thinking some breeds of dog must be large enough that maybe a very small child could have ridden one, and they're also domesticated and quite easily trained to do things that are about that simple. It obviously wouldn't have to be for a long distance, I'm just wondering if it's been done. 84.3.160.86 (talk) 08:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course. Just do a Google image search for "riding a dog" or similar search terms. But I guess it's always casual and infrequent. There are probably few cases where a dog was ridden on a regular basis. --::Slomox:: >< 09:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Riding the dog like a small horse is FROWNED UPON IN THIS ESTABLISHMENT! Adam Bishop (talk) 09:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Dogs large enough to ride upon are called horses. μηδείς (talk) 16:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's correct, but a cow too small to ride on is a dogie.  Card Zero  (talk) 17:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The Dog article makes a brief mention of children riding on dogs underneath the "Work" subsection. In my own personal experience, I had briefly rode on the back of an adult black lab as a young child, much to my parents' displeasure. LlamaDude78 (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem of riding a dog is not just the sizes of the dog and of the rider, but the backbone of the animal. Horses' backbone cannot be bent down, contrary to backbones of dogs, which are more like humans' backbone. That's also the reason we don't ride zebras. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Persominus (talk • contribs) 12:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Currency of Newfoundland

The article Newfoundland dollar asserts (without citation), “The Newfoundland dollar was replaced by the Canadian dollar at par when Newfoundland joined Canada in 1949.” Presumably all circulating Newfoundland bills and coins would have been withdrawn through the banks. My question is, for how long after 1949 did Newfoundland bills and coins remain legal tender in Newfoundland? And, since they were being replaced at par with the Canadian dollar, were Newfoundland bills and coins ever legal tender in the rest of Canada? I am curious because I recently found a 1944 Newfoundland one cent coin mixed in with change I received in Vancouver, and I'm mystified as to how it has circulated all this time without anyone noticing. Kuzak999999 (talk) 09:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

My guess would be that because the Canadian penny and the Newfoundland penny are the same size (diameter) and somewhat similar colour, nobody ever bothered looking really hard at them, and they continued circulating. However, one would think that eventually these coins would pass through a bank, and be picked up as being different from the rest of the pennies. In London, I occasionally came across 2 cent € coins circulating as British 1 pennies. V85 (talk) 10:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I looked through the agreement between Canada and Newfoundland some time ago for information on demonitisation of stamps and coins, and could find nothing. I believe without particular evidence that Canadian coins probably already circulated in Newfoundland before 1949, due to the identical specifications for some denominations and the relatively low Newfoundland mintages you can see in Krause's or Charlton's. Something was probably done via order in council or as part of legislation implementing the admission of Newfoundland to Confederation. The Canadian Numismatic Association might be a useful source. I'm thinking that as banks would want the flexibility to move coins outside Newfoundland, where the former local currency might not be accepted, banks would have tellers put aside the Newfie coins and they'd be sent in to the Bank of Canada for redemption. Obviously there would be no trouble sorting out the Newfoundland half dime or 20 cent piece.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

This is an interesting column on that subject. It appears pre-1949, things were a bit freestyle in Newfoundland.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I was able to reference the sentence the OP mentioned to the Encylopedia of Newfoundland and Labrador, but that source doesn't answer the question of how long after 1949 the coins were legal tender. The Encylopedia is online at the wonderful Memorial University Digital Archives. Someone who's good with search terms might get those archives to cough up the answer; I'm out of time.184.147.130.16 (talk) 11:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

S Walter Stewart

Is S Walter Stewart the same as Walter Stewart and what does the S stand for?99.254.212.239 (talk) 13:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Not sure who you're talking about. Just fed Google with "Walter Stewart" and got....

Walter Stewart, 6th High Steward of Scotland

Walter Stewart (journalist)

Walter Stewart, 3rd High Steward of Scotland

Walter Stewart, Earl of Atholl

Walter Stewart's Market

Walt Stewart Studio

Walter Stewart Profile - University of Cincinnati Official Athletics Site

...etc. No S Walter Stewarts

Can you clarify please? HiLo48 (talk) 17:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

S. Walter Stewart is the name of a public library in Toronto -- it is named after a man who was the head of the library board starting in 1946. Walter Stewart is also the name of a well-known Toronto journalist, but his full name is Walter Donald Stewart and he is clearly a different person. Looie496 (talk) 17:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Nicknames and "short" names

Is a nickname for Calvin, Charles? Could a surname of FORD be short for the surname of Crawford? --Doug Coldwell 19:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

1) Not as far as I've ever known. 2) Sure, why not? Though again, I've never heard it used that way. Do you have any context for any of this? Was there some passage that you were reading where these things would make the passage make more sense? Dismas| 20:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I've never heard of Charles being a nickname for Calvin and vice versa. I suppose that someone with the last name of Crawford could theoretically be called "Ford" by his friends, though I've never heard of this actually happen in real life. From my personal life experiences, nicknames are primarily for first names, not for last names. I hope that I understood your question correctly. Futurist110 (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Surnames are sometimes shortened into nicknames, at least in the world of sports. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I do believe you BOTH understood my question and have answered it to my satisfaction. It was a long shot, but now that you gave me these answers I also do NOT believe Charles being a nickname for Calvin and vice versa. I didn't know if FORD would be common to be short for Crawford, but now I believe it is NOT. Thanks, I do believe you cleared it up.--Doug Coldwell 20:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Neither of these would be a natural phonological or semantic development. See nickname. μηδείς (talk) 23:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Vigen dynasty

Is the term "Vigen dynasty" or "Viken dynasty" ever applied to Olaf I of Norway and his family? Or of a Viken/Vigen branch of the Fairhair dynasty? It seems that the only basis of the term would be that his father was the King of Viken and modern scholars don't support the concept of a Fairhair dynasty after Harald II of Norway.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 20:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Neither term brings up any results at all in Google Scholar or in JSTOR, so it doesn't seem academics use the term at all.184.147.121.192 (talk) 23:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

evaluation of the currency

how the currency of a country is evaluated in the world market? what are the standreds the currencies are compared to, if they are compared to any? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.208.9 (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Free market trades in currency futures apply some pressure, primarily from the need by companies to hedge export/import trades, and then central banks try to stabilize that while producing just the right amount of liquidity to balance unemployment against inflation, and then the governments sell bonds. Then the currency speculators treat that mess as a big casino, and the tourists and import markets kind of keep the rest of them all in line. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 22:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

For currencies that are allowed to float, the rate is set by the same principles of supply and demand as for any other price. The supply and demand of a currency is determined by its international trade (exports create a demand for the currency, imports create a supply). In addition, there are speculators trying to make money out of currency movements. Another key factor that affects current movements is interest rates (see carry trade). --Tango (talk) 00:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

In short, why does Israel not want Palestine to be a state?

Topic says it all. ScienceApe (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Who says they don't? Meanwhile, why do Palestine and its allies want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

This is not a forum for discussion. The OP asked a question that I believe to be meant serious. Why are you answering it with a obviously provocative one? --Michael Fleischhacker (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The OP's question is loaded and provocative. Spare me your double-standard lectures. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Because then they would have to abide by stricter laws against occupation. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 22:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

They don't object in principle, but they believe that their security would be greatly compromised by a sovereign Palestinian state which they haven't any right to police. If the Israelis could be made to feel secure that there would be no further threats of attacks from the Occupied Territories, they'd stop occupying them. Which is not to say that Israel's hands are completely clean in the conflict either, there's plenty of blame to go around. But as far as the justification for the occupation, that's the Israeli position: it is about security, and as long as they don't trust that they won't be attacked from the Palestinian lands, they won't stop policing them. --Jayron32 22:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The question is misleading. Israel has no problem with the Palestinians creating a state, as long as this comes from direct negotiations between both sides. For this reason, we have the 1993 Oslo Accords, the 2000 Camp David Accords, and the 2008 Olmert offer. The generous 2000 Camp David Accords and 2008 Olmert offer were rejected by the Palestinians. Prime Minister Netanyahu caused a shift in Likud policy when he said Palestinians can create a state and Israel woudl reocgnize it, as long as it came through direct negotiations. In regards to the UN bid, he said Israel would be the 1st country to recognize the state of Palestine as long as it's not declared unilaterally, but rather through both sides.

A Palestinian state without direct negotiations is dangerous, and is not in the wishes of much of the international community, particularly the West. Consider the fact that the Palestinians currently have two governments, each hates each other furiously. The Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, and Hamas in Gaza. The latter won elections in 2006 (including the West Bank), but the P.A. didn't let them take over, and Hamas launched a bloody coup in 2007 and threw the P.A. out of Gaza and off of buildings and rooftops. Hamas has also launched approximately 13,000 rockets at Israel, and has engaged in lethal terrorist attacks. Gaza is also home to many other such organizations, including Islamic Jihad and the PFLP.

The dangers of unilateralism are immense. The situation in Gaza would probably not be like that had it not been for Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, in which settlers in Gaza and their homes were removed, in the hopes of making peace. This gave rise to Hamas, unfortunately.

Setting unilateral borders stifles peace, rather than promote it. While many doubt that peace will even come in our generations, most of those will say that if it does come (in any generation), it must be through direct negotiations and not unilateral moves and stunts in the U.N.

In the past, Israel gave up the entire Sinai Peninsula to Egypt, not in a unilateral move but rather through direct negotiations and the promies of creating peace between Egypt and Israel (on a side note, it was more of a cold peace, but until today, a bit over 30 years, Egypt has not attacked Israel, and Egypt used to be Israel's biggest rival). Israel is willing to concede land for peace, but not without assurances that Israelis will be safe and that peace will be created (which is made tougher with the fact Hamas was elected in 2006, currently controls Gaza, and mass-murderer Marwan Barghouti was predicted as the winner for leadership in polls ]. This can only come through direct negotiations.

I hope this clarifies it.

1. http://www.haaretz.com/news/full-text-of-netanyahu-s-foreign-policy-speech-at-bar-ilan-1.277922
2. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/netanyahus-un-speech_594122.html
3. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/peace_with_Egypt.html
4. http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/poll-barghouti-would-defeat-abbas-and-haniyeh-in-vote-for-palestinian-president.premium-1.444382

--Activism1234 22:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC) *

I fully agree with what Activism1234 said (especially in regards to the difference in a unilaterally declared state versus a negotiated peace), and I want to add that it was primarily the Palestinians whose actions have been holding back efforts to reach a negotiated peace over the last 20 years, rather than the Israeli actions:

-Before the 1996 Israeli elections, the Palestinians launch a wave of terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians. Arafat fails to stop those attacks, and in response Israelis throw the pro-peace Shimon Peres out of office. -In 2000 and 2001, Israel makes a lot of compromises (dividing Jerusalem, etc.) which previous Israeli leaders (such as Rabin) said that Israel should never make, even for a final peace treaty. The Palestinians refuse to make a counter-offer in 2000, and also refuse to give up their demands for a right of return to Israel proper and for sole Palestinian sovereignty over the Temple Mount, which is an extremely holy site to Jews as well. Also, as a "reward" for Israel making huge concessions, Palestinians launch the Second Intifada. -In 2006, Palestinians elect the terrorist organization Hamas, which further reduces the hope of peace in the region. -In 2009, once Benjamin Netanyahu becomes Israeli Prime Minister again and announces his support for a Palestinian state, Palestinians refuse to negotiate with him until they get an absolute, no-exceptions settlement freeze. Netanyahu implements a settlement freeze for 10 months (albeit not an absolute one), and the Palestinians still refuse to enter direct negotiations with Israel until the settlement freeze almost expired. The 2009-2010 Israeli settlement freeze was the longest in Israeli history, and it's even more surprising that a conservative/rightist-majority Knesset was able to implement it for that long. Once the settlement freeze expired, the Palestinians immediately stopped negotiating with Israel again, without much negotiations being able to occur in the first place. As a result of the Palestinians' intransigence, direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations have been deadlocked almost continuously over the last 3.5 years now.

In regards to the 2008 Olmert offer, the Palestinians rejected it, but Abbas (unlike Arafat) actually was willing to negotiate further in good faith. It's just that Olmert ran out of time to negotiate a final peace treaty due to him being forced to resign due to the corruption allegations against him.

In regards to Barghouti, I saw those polls showing that he'd win a Fatah/Palestinian leadership race right now. However, as long as he's in prison (and I don't see Netanyahu ever letting him out of prison), I seriously doubt that Israel would allow Barghouti to run in the next Fatah/Palestinian elections.

I hope that my response helped in responding to your question. Futurist110 (talk) 23:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Both these responses are in serious need of references. Please add them if you can. Mingmingla (talk) 01:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I added internal links and a few references. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have.--Activism1234 05:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

July 20

United States regulations on non-English content?

Hi there, I have a question regarding the regulatory situation in the United States (well, any country really, but I'm talking specifically about the US). I bought this package of noodles at a Japanese-American grocery store that advertises its health benefits on the package. In English it says it's "all natural" and "vegan," which is pretty generalized and I don't believe either of those terms are regulated by the FDA. But in Japanese it says "organic" (オーガニック, that is). I am almost positive the product did not receive FDA organic certification, or else they would have labelled it as organic in English.

So my question is, do federal regulations of content (such as truth in advertising, FTC radio broadcast regulations, etc.) apply only to English content? My intuition is that these regulations technically apply to content in all languages (since we have no official national language), but that in cases like these there is little outcry because the number of people who can speak Japanese in the United States is so small. Have there been any similar cases in the past, such as lawsuits for profanities uttered on Chinese or Spanish radio? Thanks in advance for your help. CaseyPenk (talk) 03:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I would be surprised if basic false advertising regulations only applied to English. Regulations about specific words, such as "organic", could easily be language specific, though. The word "organic" doesn't have a very precise definition in every day usage, so it's only because of the specific FDA regulations that they can't use the word (it is made up of carbon chains, which is the definition in organic chemistry, for instance). If those regulations don't say anything about other languages, then using words that would generally be translated to "organic" isn't really the same as saying "organic". --Tango (talk) 03:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Is there a precise Japanese term for either "all natural" or "vegan"? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure about native terms, but "all natural" and "vegan" could be transliterated into Japanese quite easily. So if the product maker wanted to use one of those terms, they could certainly have done so. CaseyPenk (talk) 06:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The thing about this particular word is that it is a transliterated loanword. The English is organic while the Japanese is オーガニック (pronounced but not written as ooganikku). So there is absolutely no doubt as to which English word オーガニック refers - if you know how to read オーガニック, that is. I suppose the issue at hand is the fact that Japanese (including the word オーガニック on this package) uses a non-Latin script, so most courts or regulatory agencies would require outside experts to "decipher" the text. As an example, any educated attorney/judge would find the French "organique" one in the same as "organic." But when confronted with something they are unable to read they might hesitate. That leaves an opening for products like these to be sold until an agency catches on and intervenes. Does anyone have other thoughts on the matter? CaseyPenk (talk) 06:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the French for "organic" (food) is biologique, often abbreviated bio. The regulation of this term would apply across the EU, no idea about North America sorry. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Same sex couple's rights in the U.S.

Hello, I have two questions for academic work. A. Does a partner of U.S. citizen in a same sex relationship, either by marriage or by regular relationship can get green card and later citizenship? B. Are the parents of a child born on U.S. soil, during the process of surrogacy, and therefore is eligible for U.S. citizenship, can get Green Card and later Citizenship? Please refer heterosexual couples and same sex couples. Thanks a lot!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.197.68.114 (talk) 05:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

See Permanent residence (United States). It lists the eligibility requirements (and is explicit about same sex and opposite sex spouses). As far as I'm aware, having a child that is a US citizen doesn't entitle the parents to anything (that would be far too open to abuse), regardless of whether the couple is same sex or opposite sex and regardless of whether a surrogate is used. --Tango (talk) 05:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's an article that might be useful in answering your question A. From the opening page of the paper published in the William and Mary Journal of Women and the Law:

Despite such advances, U.S. immigration law does not recognize gay partnerships between United States citizens and foreign nationals. If a United States citizen and a foreign national of the opposite sex get married, that foreign national immediately becomes eligible to apply for a green card, or legal permanent resident status. Same sex partners, however, "are viewed as 'strangers' before the law no matter how many years they have dedicated to building a home and life together."' Congress has repeatedly indicated that family unification is one of the most important goals of United States immigration law, and approximately 75 percent of green cards are issued on family unity grounds. But none of these goes to gay partners of United States citizens, leaving the relationships of these individuals, and the foreign nationals themselves, unrecognized by United States law

Bielle (talk) 05:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The federal government won't be able to recognize gay unions or marriages until the Defense of Marriage Act is repealed or ruled unconstitutional... AnonMoos (talk) 06:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Why Did George W. Bush Invade Iraq Before the U.N. Inspectors There Finished Their Work?

Was it because he wanted to remove Saddam for personal reasons (revenge against Saddam's assassination attempt on Bush's father in 1993) and was afraid that if the U.N. inspectors successfully finish their work and announce that Iraq no longer has any WMDs, then he wouldn't be able to invade Iraq anymore? Or was there another reason? Futurist110 (talk) 07:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

He didn't. The Coalition (in which the US was a prominent member) attacked Iraq. For discussion of the possible reasons, see Iraq War. The specific reasons that actuated George W. Bush, Tony Blair or anybody else can be known only insofar as they made them public (and are believed). Anything else is speculation and does not belong on this reference desk (though references to speculations in reliable published sources might). --ColinFine (talk) 09:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Part of the reason was military: they couldn't invade in summer because it would be too hot, so they had to either invade in winter/early spring, or wait 6 months till the following autumn. They wouldn't want to have soldiers waiting around for 6 months, when they thought they could get in and out quickly. Also, postponing the invasion till the winter of 2003-2004 would bring it close to an election year, which could have negative political implications, as well as the risk of public opinion souring, the desire to avoid a stalemate, and a reluctance to back down and show weakness. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

They also had faulty intelligence stating that whatever weapons of mass destruction might be available, were very well hidden (mainly being mobile), and therefore impossible to find without an invasion. 188.76.169.66 (talk) 12:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The phrase "Cymru am byth"

"Cymru am byth", meaning "Wales forever", is a widely used motto or slogan in Wales. It was inscribed on the Washington Monument (as "Cymry am byth", "Welsh people forever") in the 1850s - here - and became the motto of the Welsh Guards in 1915. My question is, what are the origins of the phrase? I have found no sources prior to the Washington Monument inscription, and no reliable citations for its use prior to then. For example, was it a mediaeval Welsh battle cry, or was it devised as a slogan by nationalists in the 18th or 19th centuries? Any help welcome - this is under active discussion at Talk:Wales. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Young Earth creationism and Gnosticism

Wouldn't a trickster deity who would plant all the obvious clues about the supposed 13+ billion year old Universe in her Young Earth creationism be the Demiurge of Gnosticism by definition? While I would never support a law banning the worship of an evil god, I would certainty point out the error to anybody I found doing so. Hcobb (talk) 09:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

No. --Dweller (talk) 09:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

To be civil, you ought to say why not. (I guess there could be a deist Demiurge, who merely created the big bang and didn't fake any evidence of the age of the universe, and yet was still considered malevolent, just because the material world is so awful or whatever it is Gnosticism says. In classical times there'd be no scientific research about the age of the world, anyway, so the planting of clues to fool scientists couldn't feature in the original definition of the Demiurge.)  Card Zero  (talk) 10:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't much like the tone of the question, which seems to be looking for an argument or to poke fun, rather than to elicit information. But the answer is simply "no" by dint of the fact that there are people who hold young earth views who are no by definition worshippers of that deity. I'd also add that there are other inherent flaws in the question, such as the loaded and insulting statement that young earth creationists believe in a "trickster" deity, as well as the contention, which seems to me to be insulting to Gnostics, that their deity, which our article specifically describes as "benevolent" is "evil". So, "no" will do. --Dweller (talk) 12:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I can see a believer not liking the tone, but that's the believer's problem. It's an illogical position, ignoring obvious evidence, with the reason being that their god is testing their faith, i.e. trying to trick them. HiLo48 (talk) 12:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Right. But that in no way equates the YEC's beliefs about their version of God with those of Gnostics about the Demiurge/Sammael/etc. Gnosticism is a complex thing, and you can't just say "these people have a rather weird belief about God, therefore they're Gnostics". AlexTiefling (talk) 12:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe that people's religious beliefs should be ridiculed at the ref desks, no matter how illogical the mocker may find them. "That's the believer's problem" is not the attitude we encourage here. --Dweller (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a place for rational thought. If that makes some religious beliefs look ridiculous, that's just too bad. Run off to Conservapedia for the fairytales and niceness you seek. HiLo48 (talk) 13:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thailand's king and Lèse majesté

Apparently, a few years ago, Thailand's king stated that he was rather unhappy with the lèse majesté laws and said that he would allow criticism of his reign. If this is the case, then why is lèse majesté still a major issue in Thailand? Why are people still being arrested because of it? I would have expected that the lèse majesté laws would be repealed or amended per the king's wishes. Do they love the king so much that they would not adhere to his wishes? Narutolovehinata5 10:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I think our Lèse majesté#Thailand and particularly Lèse majesté in Thailand explain this well enough. The later for example notes

Calls to reform the lese majeste laws have themselves resulted in charges with lèse majesté. Political scientist Giles Ungpakorn noted that "the lèse majesté laws are not really designed to protect the institution of the monarchy. In the past the laws have been used to protect governments, to protect military coups. This whole image is created to bolster a conservative elite well beyond the walls of the palace."

Note that while not all the cases may necessarily have much to do with the government, the nature of the law means thay you'll probably get cases which don't really matter to you.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Pages automatically checked for accidental language links
• Misplaced Pages resources for researchers
• Misplaced Pages help forums