Revision as of 02:10, 23 November 2013

• 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

November 17

totila's siege of rome

How exactly was rome depopulated by totila?. Did he go around killing everybody, or did he drive evrybody out? It would have been very hard to kill everybody in rome, since it had a million people.Joey13952 (talk) 05:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't seem right, since they were back at it three years later. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

All he had to do was stop food coming in and let the people leave Rome freely.
Sleigh (talk) 11:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Justinian and the Later Roman Empire John W. Barker, 1966 (p. 160) says; "...the miserable remnant of the city's ravaged and starving population were given over to massacre and pillage." Alansplodge (talk) 13:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I finally found the account of the siege by the contemporary historian Procopius; the relevant Book VII having been deleted from Wikisource for some reason. In Book VII chapter xvii vv. 15-25, he describes the famine during the siege, in which the ordinary Romans, who weren't rich enough to buy grain from the military commanders, were reduced to eating bran, nettles, dogs, mice and finally "each other's dung". Some committed suicide. Finally, the imperial commanders "released such of the Romans as desired to depart from the city". He continues that many perished on the journey, since they were already enfeebled by famine and many were killed on the road by the enemy. "Only a few were left in the city". Once the gates had been treacherously opened and Totila and his men were inside the walls, he called a halt fearing an ambush. Meanwhile, "most of the Roman soldiers were fleeing with their commanders through another gate". Only 500 were left who sought refuge in various churches. Procopius gives the number killed as 26 soldiers and 60 civilians (chapter xx vv. 16-25). After the Goths had left, Bellisarius hastily rebuilt the walls and lured "all the Romans who lived in the neighbourhood" back to the city by bringing in "all manner of provisions" by boat (xxiv, 1-8). Alansplodge (talk) 17:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

But I thought the population was reduced to 30,000?Joey13952 (talk) 19:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Where does that figure come from? Alansplodge (talk) 20:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, it's 50,000 people. That's according to the article 'history of rome' on wikipedia.Joey13952 (talk) 22:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Joey13952 -- When ancient Rome's population was at its maximum, it was strongly dependent on regular grain imports from the two "breadbaskets" (i.e. extensive agricultural regions with Mediterranean maritime access) of "Africa" (today's northern Tunisia and northeastern Algeria) and Egypt. When the grain imports were cut off, a population decrease automatically followed, one way or another... AnonMoos (talk) 23:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Procopius doesn't quantify the number of people who died in the famine or who fled towards the end of the siege. But he is an impeccable source since he was actually in the entourage of the Byzantine general Bellisarius, who only narrowly failed to relieve the siege and reoccupied the city as soon as the Goths had left. The gist of his story is that the surviving Roman refugees returned to the city before the third siege. Alansplodge (talk) 08:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Is Islamism typically considered right-wing...

...left-wing, or not applicable? --Immerhin (talk) 10:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

By whom? Also, I don't think there's any such word as "Islamism". The religion is called "Islam" and its followers are called "Muslims". I've also seen the religion called "Muhammedenism" or something like that, but I think that term is pretty much obsolete. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

... ... ... ehm... ... : Islamism (Islam+-ism) or Political Islam (Arabic: إسلام سياسي Islām siyāsī, or الإسلامية al-Islāmīyah) is a set of ideologies holding that "Islam should guide social and political as well as personal life ". --Immerhin (talk) 14:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I would say "not applicable". "Right-wing" and "Left-wing" are distinctly western political concepts (and even there, we need to distinguish between how the terms are used in an American context vs a European context)... We should be wary of applying western concepts in non-western contexts. Blueboar (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

You could say "liberal" vs. "conservative", which is what left and right wing are supposed to imply. Muslims have differing degrees of one or the other, just like anyone else. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Um, no, not really. The equation of 'liberal' with 'left wing' is a peculiarity of contemporary U.S. political discourse, and is often just plain confusing when applied elsewhere. And to answer the original question, Islamism is socially conservative - it is however difficult to generalise beyond that, in that the term covers some very disparate ideologies, and is based upon the premise that the answers to political questions can be found in Islamic texts and tradition, rather than elsewhere - though of course, interpretation of such texts and tradition leaves a great deal of leeway when it comes to actual political action. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Right, and "liberal" and "conservative" are not even necessarily in opposition (we even have articles on liberal conservatism and conservative liberalism). They measure different things — "liberal" is about where you want to be, and "conservative" is about how fast you want to get there. --Trovatore (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Andy and Blueboar. Consider the Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party which is generally considered an Islamist party. They started as an Islamic socialist party and went through a few different phases but nowadays generally concentrate on their Islamic concenpt of an Islamic welfare state ("Negara Islam Berkebajikan") (so some suggest they're back at Islamic socalism ) both making noises about Islamist issues like Malaysia being an Islamic state and hudud laws and criticising the cuts in petrol subidies or the introduction of GST (VAT) .

These ideas aren't of course uncommon among Islamist parties.

This of course is always a problem when trying to simplify complicated things in to a limited set of categories. (Supporters of the Nolan Chart may suggest it here. While it works a bit better because it has multiple data points it still ultimately hits the same problems. Even more so, as Andy has said, when you're talking about politicial ideas outside of the Western norm most of these grew out of).

Nil Einne (talk) 07:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Blueboar the terms are not applicable. Would calling them right wing, or conservative, mean they are for the free market and a limited constitutional state? The only terms you hear regularly associated with Islamism are fascism and Nazism. See, for instance, the reference in the Muslim Brotherhood article that have the word Nazi in them. We also have Category:Middle Eastern collaborators with Nazi Germany. One can draw a broad comparison between fascism and Islamism. I think it's dangerous to equate it unqualifiedly with Nazism. Such an equation would be meaningless in other circumstances, like the recent Jihadist destruction in north west Africa. In the end, these terms are words we use as tags for vague ideas, and Islamism is sui generis. μηδείς (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The term "conservative" is about a lot more than just money. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the first response to the OP should have been, "Define left wing and right wing." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

From a Marxist perspective this concretely shook itself out in 1979-1982, either left or right depending on class seems to be an adequate answer People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran#Ideology Fifelfoo (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

equal temperament math question.

I was reading about equal temperament and the wikipedia article says "An equal temperament is a musical temperament, or a system of tuning, in which every pair of adjacent notes has an identical frequency ratio."
Then there is a table that shows this 440 =1.000000 (decimal value in 12tet), the next decimal value is 1.059463, 1.122462....
If we want to every frequency between A and the next A have the same ratio shouldnt the frequencies be like this 440=1, next one = 1 +((1/12)*1), next one is 1 +((1/12)*2), next one is 1 +((1/12)*3), then after 880 it would be 2 +((2/12)*1), then 2 +((2/12)*2), then 2 +((2/12)*3)201.78.212.43 (talk) 14:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

That sounds more like a Just intonation system to me - but I can't understand all the math behind these (or rather why the math is applied as it is) Rmhermen (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The scheme proposed by the OP does not give equal ratios. You can check this using a calculator -- just divide a few values by their predecessors, and you'll see that you get different numbers. To get equal ratios, the logarithms of the frequencies need to be evenly spaced, not the values themselves. Looie496 (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

My system will not give equal ratios? What/how? As some example the notes between A4 and A5 would be equaly distributed between A4 and A5. For the sake of simplicity, lets imagine 10tet and imagine we tune A4 as 100hz. The frequencies would be like this, 100, 110, 120, 130, 140, 150, 160, 170, 180, 190, 200. We have 10 tones, and every number is 10% closer to 200 than the last one. 201.78.212.43 (talk) 16:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

No.

110/100 = 1.100000

120/110 = 1.090909

130/120 = 1.083333

140/130 = 1.076923

Etc. As you can see, the ratios are all different. Looie496 (talk) 16:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I dont get it, as some example if you want split the numbers between 100 and 200 (including 100) in 10 groups of numbers, with each groups having the same amount of numbers, each group would have 10 numbers.

I think your problem is that you don't know what the word "ratio" means. The ratio of two numbers a and b is the number obtained by dividing them, in other words, the ratio of a and b is a/b. Looie496 (talk) 17:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Right. If you want the *difference* between each successive number to be equal, you'd split it 100,110,120, etc. But if you want the *ratio* between each successive number to be equal, you'll have to evenly space the logarithms. This is the same as the difference between an arithmetic progression and a geometric progression. Since log(100) = 2 and log(200) = 2.301..., in logarithms you'd space them 2, ~2.0301, ~2.0602, ~2.0903, ~2.1204 ... Progressively adding ~0.0301 to the logarithms is the same as progressively multiplying by ~1.07177..., So you're equally spaced ratios would be 100, ~107.18, ~114.87, ~123.11 ... -- 162.238.241.136 (talk) 17:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

201.78.212.43 -- The number "1.059463" above is the 12th root of 2 (√2). See geometric mean -- the geometric mean of 1 (base note) and 2 (same note in next octave) is √2 or 1.414, not 1.5. If you extend the geometric mean concept to have 11 intermediate steps between 1 and 2 (instead of just one intermediate step), then you get those numbers 1.059463 etc... AnonMoos (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

November 18

Islamic scholars giving lectures in French

Is there any videos where a Muslim scholar or a bunch Muslim scholars that give lectures in French? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.23.232 (talk) 02:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

It might be hard to find videos in which the scholars' religion is mentioned, unless of course they're lecturing based on their own religious beliefs. Are you looking specifically for lectures on Islamic topics, or are you looking for just any old topic, as long as it's a Muslim speaking in French? Nyttend (talk) 02:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The OP should simply search for islamique or musulman at youtube. Toronto doesn't block such searches, does it? μηδείς (talk) 03:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The term Muslim scholar gives better results than either of those. érudite musalman site:youtube.com. Taknaran (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Most of those are in Arabic. The first one in French is this, where a "scholar" celebrates a woman's death and blames all terrorism and immorality on her. He additionally blames the mothers (note: not the fathers) who taught their children this corruption. And some people still wonder why lots of French people hate Muslims. --Bowlhover (talk) 06:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

From the description, that's actually an extreme partisan Shi`ite speech, whose main target would be Sunnis, or traditional Sunni historiography (it goes together with Dua Sanamain Quraish)... AnonMoos (talk) 08:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

James Le Jeune date of death etc.

I just move a draft article by new editor Enuejel to James Le Jeune. Please help find and source James Le Jeune's exact date of death in 1983. Also, can you please find a reference for the information in the article: "great uncle is the English Victorian artist/painter Henry Le Jeune." Thanks. -- Jreferee (talk) 10:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I gave Google a through going over without finding anything to help. Sorry. Alansplodge (talk) 08:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Neolithic revolution vs Industrial Revolution...Which demographic explosions for a given territory?

Dear Oracle, Hello,

Knowing that the human carrying capacity of a given territory (the human number that can live on this territory), is different depending on the type of society (hunter-gatherers / agricultural civilization / industrial civilization), what is precisely the relative importance between the Neolithic revolution(hunter-gatherers -> agricultural civilization ) and the industrial revolution(agricultural civilization -> industrial civilization), in terms of demographic multiplication?

About the Neolithic Revolution, J.C. bar and G. Bigot write, in their very interesting book "Toute l'histoire du monde"(in french): << the consequences of this technical change were formidable. Why? Because agriculture allows a same territory to feed one hundred times more men than hunting. For example, the territory of the current France, which can live 300 000 hunters to the maximum, can feed 30 million peasants! Suddenly, humanity, which was, in the good years, few million people on Earth at it's best, was, after the agricultural revolution, hundreds of millions of people - data that will not change until the industrial revolution of the XIX century, eight thousand years later! >> ( http://othmanmekouar.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Toute-lhistoire-du-monde-Jean-Claude-Barreau-Guillaume-Bigot.pdf )

A multiplication by 100 of the population during the transition of society Hunter-gatherers to agricultural civilization? ..to compare with an increase only by 7 of the earth population during the Industrial Revolution... (And, as it is based on cheap rarefying fossil energy and polluting the planet, we are actually above the carrying capacity of the planet...)

But different passages of wikipedia articles tend to give different multiplication of the human carrying capacity in the transition from hunter-gatherers to agricultural civilization society: times 10, times 30, or times 100...

Thanks in advance for your thought on this question!

Tangoman.fr (talk) 14:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think industrialization per se is unsustainable, just certain forms of it. Similarly, certain forms of agriculture are unsustainable, such as the slash-and-burn method. StuRat (talk) 20:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The OP's essay seems more an invitation to discussion than a request for a reference--especially since he himself quotes references and refers to our articles. μηδείς (talk) 20:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Do tell. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

μηδείς , i don't understand, you mean that this reference desk is only for asking for references?? I am more familiar with the french wiki where the corresponding page of this 'Reference desk' is called "Oracle", and its purpose is to ask any question of encyclopedic matter... ( https://fr.wikipedia.org/Wikipédia:Oracle ) Tangoman.fr (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

StuRat, i wouldn't understand anyone saying that "industrialization is sustainable" while the 75% of the energy this industrialization is using are fossil energies that are getting rare soon and that is starting to drive the climate mad. Anyway, thank for your answers, i got plenty of responses in .fr ( https://fr.wikipedia.org/Wikipédia:Oracle#R.C3.A9volution_n.C3.A9olithique_vs_R.C3.A9volution_industrielle_.E2.80.A6Quelle_explosions_d.C3.A9mographiques_pour_un_territoire_donn.C3.A9_.3F ) ;-) Tangoman.fr (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

In England, where it all started, the Industrial Revolution was accompanied by the Agrarian Revolution. The Agrarian Revolution saw common grazing land being turned over to improved arable production which needed fewer labourers and put small-scale subsistence farmers out of business. These migrated to the towns to become the industrial workforce. The industrial workforce could be sustained because of improved agricultural production. Alansplodge (talk) 21:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Private property a new phenomenon

I was just reading the article on socialism and I see in one part of it that economist Joseph Schumpeter that instutitions like "the state" (not quite sure what that means), property and taxation are exclusive to capitalist societies or only make sense in them and and in another part that says "Modern socialism originated from an 18th-century intellectual and working class political movement that criticised the effects of industrialisation and private property on society.". Am I missing something here? I thought taxes, government, and property have existed for thousands of years. It seems like these views can't see back farther than the Industrial Revolution. — Melab±1 ☎ 16:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Think feudal system and caste system, and you'll see it goes back a lot farther. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

• Taxes are known go back to the farming societies of the Middle East. Egyptian farmers had to pay a percentage of their crops to the state. The same in the fertile crescent. Egyptians seem to have been treated as hereditary tenant farmers, so our notion of real estate law would obviously vary from theirs. The Hebrews had plenty of law about property, there are the famous laws on gored oxen. Roman law was very complex, with private property law being very important and much more similar to ours than earlier societies. μηδείς (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

According to Exodus 21:28–32, there were laws about an ox that gored a man or a woman, but there is no mention of an ox being the recipient of the act of goring. Perhaps this should be included in the article "List of common misconceptions".

—Wavelength (talk) 19:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

There's much more than the one chapter of Exodus on this and other property laws. See Damages_(Jewish_law)#The_Four_.22Father_Categories.22_of_Damage. μηδείς (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I imagine there was always some personal property, like clothes and personal weapons and small tools. However, land and buildings might have tended to have more of a public ownership than they have now. The difference is that clothes, for example, are made for, and often by, one person, and only one person can wear them at a time, while it would take multiple people working together to farm the land and construct and maintain buildings. StuRat (talk) 19:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

A broad anthropological view will help here. Chimps live in groups of about 30, and defend a home territory from other chimp tribes, occasionally going to war with their neighbors which involves some sort of trespass. Chimps also hunt, and to the victor go the spoils, then shared out by rank. In other words, property in land and rare commodities are phenomena that predate humanity, and made our evolution possible. Primitive hunter-gatherer tribes still live on this basis of a clan averaging 30 members making exclusive claim to a certain territory and hunting rights on it, going to war to defend themselves and just for the masculine fun of aggression. Chimps and humans in such societies have a mortality rate of about 30-35% by violence. See Before the Dawn for statistics. Such clans have common ownership of a territory and its hunting rights. Successful hunters get the choice cuts of meat. Prestige items can be held as personal property. In New Guinea, this lifestyle augmented by the communal planting of yams, and the individual ownership of pigs, used in barter, is common.

When agricultural societies with limited resources become large enough, state societies emerge. Who has the right to farm what land becomes subject to a bureaucracy. In societies with tens of thousands of people, a lifestyle that required one to know everyone in his tribe face-to-face becomes impossible. People live in households of families and extended families, with the ownership of household goods and perhaps communal ownership of land. The origin of writing seems to have arisen in part as a way to keep track of contracts and taxes. Note that this was the business of priests in the beginning. The Romans still registered their wills with the Vestal Virgins, not a notary, at the end of the Republic.

You get the idea at this point. Even birds have nests. Property is a phenomenon that predates Marx, and predates our common ancestor with the Chimp. μηδείς (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Property is a set of social relations that only emerges in some particular societies, much like industrial bureaucracies only arise in particular societies. Schumpeter clearly believed in the social construction of institutions (Joseph_Schumpeter#Schumpeter_and_capitalism.27s_demise). Schumpeter was influenced by historicism (Historical_school_of_economics) and so for Schumpeter institutions like "the state," "property," and "tax" were almost certainly historically specific and historically contingent forms. Large western bureaucracies (which didn't previously exist) didn't rely on continuous consumption taxes on mass products levied through a consumer market before the 18th and 19th centuries; as a crude example. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Also for a really lovely example of the emergence of private property, which in our society requires production for exchange (often anticipatory), scholarly publishing has radically shifted in the past 200 (20) years. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. You should probably have started that off with "Schumpeter holds that property is a set of social relations that only emerges in some particular societies." This seems to be a no true Scotsman theory of property.

I'd like to see the dog's notion of property as a formal construct, when Schumpeter tried to take its bone.

μηδείς (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to see a dog talk and enact law. You seem to be playing eisegesis with the animal world. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

You might as well insist there's no such thing as justice, self-defense, or even a person, until these are defined legally. If you want to play marxist word games, that's fine; just attribute your narrow constructs to the minority who hold such notions. But republics are established to protect rights that inhere in the individual, not fantasies that happen to be the whim of some group that calls itself a legislature. μηδείς (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course there's justice, self-defence and the person. The former two are liberal constructs of the enlightenment period, and the latter something more modern but based out of a long tradition of ideas. The reality of these things extends as far as tolerated by society. "Self-defence" doesn't exist in the United Kingdom (try it, be a martyr to your own word game) Fifelfoo (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Self-defence in English law. Check and mate. It even uses the British spelling. — Melab±1 ☎ 00:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

(ec) On a factual matter, self-defence is part of English law (there isn't such a thing as "UK Law", Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own legal systems) - this is the official guidance on the issue. The main points of difference between England and the USA are that the force used in self-defence must be "reasonable and proportionate" to the threat (specifically, lethal force may not be used to defend one's property - see Tony Martin), and self-defence is not a "lawful excuse" for carrying a weapon (of any sort) in public. Tevildo (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Reasonability and proportionality are socio-cultural limits. Medeis is strongly arguing for a liberal conception of inherent and transcendent rights embodied in a person. Medeis' "self-defence" can't brook these limits—such limits would be culturally or socially impose and thus produce "self-defence" as a social or cultural norm changing throughout history, not a universal. (And, honestly, we should thank him for clearly and often representing a major view point on the humanities ref desk.) Fifelfoo (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't disagree with your basic point, just with your specific assertion. (I won't comment on Medeis' gender, sie can do that hirself if sie feels it's important). Tevildo (talk) 00:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Him or her is fine. It's not a "statement", just a preference not to identify myself in certain ways. As for self-defense, I hold that governments are properly instituted to defend individual rights in as objective a manner as possible. (The alternates being tyranny, mob rule, or civil war.) We have found empirically that court systems like those established by common law work best at this. Personally, I would have no qualms defending myself or my own with vigilante justice if I thought it morally necessary. I just wouldn't then complain (although I might plead justifiable homicide) if I were arrested for it. Justice is like health. Health is no more a creation of doctors, but rather a reason for their existence, than justice is a creation of jurists, but a reason for their existence. μηδείς (talk) 02:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I've asked a question aimed at elucidating the perspective you put below in a new section. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I have answered you in the new thread below in two words. I'll answer you here that the concepts of health and ill heath are prior to the concept of healthcare professional in the same way that a concept of guilt or innocence is prior to the concept of a justice system. The notion of property predates various forms of property law. μηδείς (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll need to call you out on that bit about republics. The Romans didn't have liberalism. — Melab±1 ☎ 00:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure if you are addressing me, but if Paul could appeal to Rome based on his citizenship, that was the rule of law protecting his individual rights. Rome at its best was more liberal in the classic liberalism sense than any state before its time. μηδείς (talk) 03:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but Laozi held anti-authoritarian political positions, but it would be a mistake to call him a liberal. — Melab±1 ☎ 17:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The typical animal is more about "territory" than about "property" as such. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Territory is property, so is a dog's bone. μηδείς (talk) 03:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Territory is more about what we call "personal space". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Private property, as referred to by leftists, is modern in terms of the age of humanity. I covered the state in another post on this page, which has been archived here. Unfortunately, I am tired and have work to do, so I can't explain private property in detail.

Keep on questioning. →Σσς. (Sigma) 01:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• One thing to note is that the modern concept of the nation-state is a relatively recent phenomenon. Without answering the economic question; the political and historic bit there on the relatively modern invention of "The State" is relatively new. Really, the idea of the nation-state, of a coincidence of "people-culture-government-land" as a cohesive single entity (for example "The French are a people who speak French and live in France which is defined by strict and inerrant borders that contain all the French people and French land") IS a modern concept. The nation-state was long in developing, but really has only existed in modern (i.e. post-Medieval; after about 1500) times, and in many places, most modern nation-states did not develop until the 1800s (Germany (1871) and Italy (1870) for example) or later (the Balkan or former Soviet states did not become established until the end of the 1900s). What this has to do with "capitalism vs. socialism" will probably be explained shortly by Fifelfoo in obfuscatory and impossible to understand communism-babble, but from a historic point of view, the idea of the "State" is modern. --Jayron32 03:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

"The state" as an idea or as an existing phenomenon? Because I see practically no difference between the Roman Republic and modern polities in essentials. — Melab±1 ☎ 17:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The nation-state is a concept distinct from the state. According to this, you are correct in that there is practically no difference between the Roman Republic and modern polities in essentials. They both protect the property of an upper class; they both enforce hierarchy. →Σσς. (Sigma) 04:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hold on a second. What you're saying is that states exist to enforce hierarchy, but the states themselves are the hierarchies. It would correctly be the forces that reside in the polity that do the enforcing. I never could understand the line of thinking (whether Marxist or anarcho-capitalist) that sees states themselves as somehow significant. — Melab±1 ☎ 05:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The state is the conceptual structure and not the people who hold the roles within it. That's the distinction. For example, you can play any number of games with, say, the pieces in a chess set. What makes it chess is the rules by which the game is played, which tells you what the pieces do, how they move, how to win, etc. The rules are distinct from the pieces. Likewise, the state is the "rules" by which the heirarchy is built. The state exists as a conceptual thing aside from the people who hold the roles within it. If it isn't what you have is essentially a totalitarian dictatorship built solely on cult-of-personality of the person or persons who rule it and nothing more. If you really want to understand the difference between "the state" and "the people who hold jobs within the state", the difference is succinctly explained in John Adams explanation of a desire to build "an empire of laws, and not of men". What he was saying was that the institutions of the state persist outside of the men who hold them; and that THAT sort of state is the way to build a lasting society. Of course, the people who hold said roles shape them to their skills and personalities, but that doesn't mean the state is a non-entity or insignificant. The kind of state which exists is vitally important to the kind of society which is living under it. --Jayron32 00:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Not quite. The state, in Marxist terminology, is a mechanism for class rule. It is the primary instrument of political power in class society, consisting of organs of administration, and of force. A state of one kind or another will exist as long as social classes exist.

The state is created, in a way, by the upper class as a tool to legitimise everything that allows the upper class to stay on top of society. If you have a solid understanding of the basics of Marxism, you can see how Lenin puts it in chapter 1 of The State and Revolution.

For example, suppose that I walk into a community garden and declare "This is my garden now, and you can only work on it if you pay me half of whatever grows". If you accused me of stealing the land, your meaning would be understood at once. No extended argument would be required. And because I stole it, what prevents the citizens who work in the garden from taking back what is rightfully theirs? What prevents them from defending their garden from me, the invader? The answer is simple. Violence. And when this violence is legitimised, we have the state.

The very fact that I need the state in order to keep control of the garden makes anarcho-capitalism impossible.

I hope this was a bit less obfuscatory and more possible to understand than what you usually see, @Jayron32: :) →Σσς. (Sigma) 02:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, because I haven't tried to steal any vegetables from a community garden, nor have I ever tried to hurt anyone to enforce my desire to do so... --Jayron32 03:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

That's very interesting and all, but have you tried to appropriate the garden for yourself? →Σσς. (Sigma) 03:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Nope. --Jayron32 03:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The perfect analogy to the state being separate from the people is the erection being separate from the penis. One gets fucked by erections, no particular penis being necessary. μηδείς (talk) 02:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Lovely. — Melab±1 ☎ 23:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Seems synonymous with government to me. Then maybe defining a state as the governed community is better? A failed state would then be one where the government has collapsed. — Melab±1 ☎ 23:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Not quite. Government does not require a state. The state has authority over the people, and yet it is a tool used by the upper class in order to enforce property. Its only interest is to serve and protect the upper class. Therefore, in an abstract sense, the state is the people, but in a concrete sense, it is the upper class. The state is one class of society, it is separate (some prefer to use the word 'external', in case you see that in reading) from the people.

A system of government that is not separate from the people would have rules without rulers. Such a system would be anarchism of some kind. As I said here, it would be where every decision, from social to economic policy, is collectively decided by those who will be affected, not a higher power.

But is there a difference between anarchism and Marxism if the end goal is the same? Yes. Anarchists view any kind of state as inherently undesirable, and want to abolish it immediately. Marxists, on the other hand, acknowledge that the state serves an upper class, not necessarily the capitalists. The state can be repurposed in the interests of the workers, allowing us to build a state that protects the property of workers. Eventually, through a process I won't describe here, social classes are abolished, and because the state can only exist in the presence of social classes, it "withers away". The end result is the same, but the means and reasoning used to reach it are different.

I actually don't understand the state as well as I should, so this might be a confusing explanation. If it is, please, tell me, so we can all learn about this. →Σσς. (Sigma) 03:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

1. It is important to note that anarcho-capitalists are seen as jokes by actual anarchists. They are a relatively recent deviation from the vast majority (I'd guess at least 95%) of anti-capitalist anarchists.

Is it possible to be a theologically liberal Fundamentalist Christian?

Is it possible to be a theologically liberal Fundamentalist Christian? Maybe a person may grow up in a Fundamentalist Church, but unlike his or her conservative parents, he or she adopts a very liberal theology but still retains the low-church style of worship. 140.254.229.160 (talk) 22:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The obvious answer is yes, all sorts of things are possible. But you need to define theologically liberal if you want a helpful, rather than an obvious answer. Defining what you mean by fundamentalist wouldn't hurt either. I am not sure low-church is a synonym. μηδείς (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm picturing someone who, for example, both believes and disbelieves the virgin birth. Or maybe picture a Unitarian going to a Southern Baptist church regularly just because he likes it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

As pointed out above, it depends how you define your terms. However, if by "Fundamentalist Christian" you mean what is described in our article Christian fundamentalism, and if by "theologically liberal" you mean Progressive Christianity (or maybe even Liberal Christianity), I would have to say no. Christian fundamentalism, by definition, has its roots in The Fundamentals and holds to conservative Protestant orthodoxy. It would be impossible to hold both views without a large helping of cognitive dissonance. On the other hand, if you are referring broadly to Evangelical Christians, then yes, one could believe in a liberal theology and still be Evangelical (there are churches in my city which consider themselves "Evangelical" that do not stress biblical inerrancy and are not against gay marriage for example).--William Thweatt 02:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

It should also be noted that there's a historical tension between "evangelical" and "fundamentalist" ideologies, though non-Protestants tend to miss the difference; if only because both theologies tend to be very "strongly" religious, in the sense that both "evangelicals" and "fundamentalists" see themselves as putting their faith in a prominent place in their lives. This page explains some of the differences pretty well. Fundamentalism tends to be more inward-looking; most fundamentalists see the world as evil and corrupting and tend to withdraw from it. Fundamentalists are against modern music; contemporary Christian music and Christian rap for example would be abhorrant to Fundamentalist Christians, who often see popular music as corrupting. Evangelical Christians, on the other hand, are primarily outward looking, with a focus on missions and conversion of others to Christianity, using any tool and means at their disposal. CCM and Christian Rap are, at their core, Evangelical in nature. That's a bit of an oversimplification, and as with anything painted in such broad strokes, would be inaccurate on a person-by-person nature, but in general, it captures the differences between Evangelicals (outward, missionary) and Fundamentalists (inward, withdrawn, condeming) pretty well. Other differences in theology are pretty stark; most fundamentalists believe in Biblical literalism whereas only some Evangelicals may believe so. Evangelicals are a more diverse group, and tend more towards Biblical inerrancy rather than literalism. From the outside, it may look like the two are nearly identical; but consider this difference: A biblical literalist would say that every story in the bible, word for word, happened exactly as described. Biblical inerrancy would just mean that all parts of the Bible are true, but are more liberal in their understanding of "truth", and accept metaphorical and allegorical truths as a reasonable interpretation of the bible. Which is to say, where a "biblical literalist" (Fundamentalist) would read every story as having happened exactly as described, others (non-literalist Evangelicals) may see "truth in the lessons of the story" in the allegorical, rather than literal, sense. Again, these are broad strokes, and you're likely to find a diversity of beliefs under any of these camps, but this captures the general differences. Looking for other good articles, this one here does a good job of capturing the distinctions, including the inward-looking nature of Christian Fundamentalism and the outward-looking nature of Christian Evangelicalism. And another one here also has a good analysis of the difference. --Jayron32 02:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Shorter answer: Yes. The issue is not about what the individual person believes, but what beliefs that person feels are required of others. Thus the Pope certainly believes in the Immaculate Conception, but that does not mean that the Pope believes that all who do not believe in that dogma are doomed -- heck what if a new dogma is voted on after a person is dead (that one was voted on in 1870), there is no way for anyone to know if people believe in a future dogma. In the same way, it is possible for a person to believe in some sort of creation fact or allegory (yes -- fundamentalists certainly know that parables and allegories are found in the Bible, and do not require a belief that an actual "Good Samaritan" was known to Jesus, and the claim that this is only true of non-fundamentalists is flawed) while some others who are also "fundamentalist" may personally believe that the Great Flood was an historically verifiable event. And fundamentalists may absolutely be evangelical - that distinction is flawed - the terms are not contradictory to each other. Collect (talk) 12:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Where are the real ten commandments?

I generally disregard Disinfo as a reliable source. But the book of them "50 things you are not supposed to know" left me thinking where they are wrong, if at all. They claim that "the ten commandments we always see aren't the ten commandments." According to the source, for the bible are not THE commandments, although these are regarded as the ten commandments. The real ten commandments, according to them, are significantly different, and are to be found in , on. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

• The relevant article appears to be Ritual Decalogue.--90.165.122.84 (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

• When conservative groups argue for placement of the Ten Commandments in public places, they are clearly not referring to this "alternate" version. Somehow, "Thou shalt not kill" seems a bit more relevant to society in general than does "Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • On a fairly literal reading of the text, the commandments in Exodus 34 are the ones written on the second set of stone tablets that Moses received on Mt Sinai after the episode with the Golden Calf (and which are described in the text as "the ten commandments", aseret ha-dvarîm), while the traditional Decalogue of Exodus 21 consists of the commandments that God spoke to Moses on the Israelites' first arrival at Sinai. Tevildo (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

It must be said that many people find the word "real" inappropriate when discussing religious matters. HiLo48 (talk) 00:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

It must be said that you have to take an 'in-universe' interpretation, when discussing any matter. For example, if asked whether in Back to the future they traveled first to the past or to the future, your answer cannot be 'it's not possible to time travel.' 'Real' here it therefore from a believer's perspective. It doesn't mean what god really told us. OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The Hebrew Bible uses the term translated as 'the ten commandments' three times: in Exodus 34:28, Deuteronomy 4:13 and Deuteronomy 10:4. In both instances in Deuteronomy, these 'ten commandments' are clearly identified as the words spoken by God from the mountain (thus the traditional ten commandments from Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5). Only the phrase in Exodus 34:28 can possibly be connected to the ritual decalogue, but if you read carefully, you'll notice that the words on the two tablets were to be written by God himself (Exodus 34:1), while the 'ritual decalogue' was written down by Moses. Lindert (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

If you examine the passages in Exodus and Deuteronomy, you'll find it's possible to draw the dividing lines between commandments in different places. IIRC, our article on Ten Commandments points out these canonical differences. Which one is "real" will be down to POV. --Dweller (talk) 01:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The question was not about that, Dweller. It was about the two sets in Exodus and it was answered above. OsmanRF34 (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

November 19

Medical "norms" and the thought of inhering natural rights advocates?

Given the weight inhering natural rights advocates put upon the person, how have they responded to the complication of the "norm" and "normal" in medicine that have been put by historians of medicine or, separately, by Foucault? In particular, how do they view health as the antonym of "disorder" given that historians of medicine perceive medical health to have come about in the 19th century as the inversion of disorderliness? Fifelfoo (talk) 03:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

In English? --Trovatore (talk) 03:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Fifelfoo only speak communism. You'll have to wait for an outside translator to English. --Jayron32 03:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• Foucault? Sokal. μηδείς (talk) 03:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• And a response I share particular to that scholar. But separate to Foucault, you suggested above that "health" appears unconstructed. Sensible historians tracing the history of things such as DSM or ICD see "normal" and "healthy" as constructed. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Alan Sokal is a member of the Old Left anyone can respect. — Melab±1 ☎ 17:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• I expect that the question relates to natural rights, as defined in our article on natural and legal rights. But unless somebody believes that there is a natural right to health -- which would be an unusual belief -- I can't see how a contradiction with a relativistic definition of health would arise. Looie496 (talk) 03:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• The natural-rights part I got. I didn't get the bit about norm and normal and disorder. --Trovatore (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• I suspect he's talking about a natural right to health care. I also think he means "inherent" when he says "inhering". It seems as though he is dedicated to posing his question in as convoluted terminology as he can possibly manage. StuRat (talk) 03:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I never heard of anyone believing in a natural right to health care. Natural rights are almost always negative; they don't need to be provided, just not infringed. --Trovatore (talk) 04:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

See this: . StuRat (talk) 04:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, now I've heard of it. But then I've heard of a lot of things that don't make sense. --Trovatore (talk) 04:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Such as the proponents of a so-called "right to life" who won't lift a finger to help the child that they would force the mother to carry to full term. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The positive/negative distinction between rights isn't always clear and there may be more distinctions to make. — Melab±1 ☎ 17:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• I'm talking about natural right's discourse, an ideology if you will that people possess natural rights that are inherent, that "inhere," in the person; would have a problem with the common historical approach to the discussion of how the idea of "normal" "health" in Western society came to be. I suggested this because Medeis used "health" above as an uncomplicated example of a thing that inheres or lives within the body; when elucidating a natural rights discourse. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• Normal in the sense FF intends and healthy are two separate and unlike concepts. Normal as he means it is a subjective societal fashion. Circumcision is normal for you, bound feet and lip plates normal for me. Health is an objective standard based on observation of nature. We find all the time that out notions about health (high blood pressure is a sign of potency) have turned out to be wrong, because they are contradicted by the needs of a well-functioning body. μηδείς (talk) 05:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Given that everyone eventually dies, even the ones who were in the best possible health, listing health as a "natural right" seems a tad idealistic. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for this answer Medeis, it supplies what I sought to understand. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

This is more of an attempt to restate Fifelfoo's question than to answer it, but I believe the issue is - how do those thinkers who regard rights as being "natural" (nonsense on stilts), as being inherent in our nature rather than being imposed by society; for instance, to use Medeis' example above, who think that "a concept of guilt or innocence is prior to the concept of a justice system"; regard the idea of "health" as being a _correction_ of nature, of removing a "disease" from the body which has got there by natural means? There's also the point regarding the equivalence (or otherwise) of "healthy" with "normal" - is having a high blood pressure a "disease" in and of itself? If so, how do we determine what "high" means, other than by saying "high is what received medical opinion considers to be high"? If not, why does the medical profession treat people for high blood pressure? Tevildo (talk) 19:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

"Endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." If you take "endowed by their creator" either literally (as God) or metaphorically (as Nature), then good health fails the test. What we are endowed with is mortality. Regardless of the level of health care provided, some folks are inherently going to have better health than others. That's just the way it goes. We as a nation have chosen to provide widespread health care. Having that choice is arguably where the natural right comes into it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, if "good health" isn't a natural right - (a) why is "liberty" a natural right? Because Jefferson said so? (b) Is the definition of "good health" nevertheless something intrinsic to humanity, or is it an arbitrary standard determined by the medical profession? If the latter, why isn't "justice" an arbitrary standard determined by the State? (I suspect "because it's a natural right" may be a tempting answer...) Tevildo (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

More directly to the point, why is life a natural right? Given that by nature we all die? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Right, which is why the "right to life" really means the right not to be killed. It doesn't require anyone to provide you with the wherewithal for life. --Trovatore (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

...and now we come to what may be some of Fifelfoo's point. You interpret the right to life as "the right not to be killed", but there are other "constructions" of this right. The German Basic Law currently is understood to indicate that indeed everyone has the right not only to the means of life, but even to sufficient means for "living with dignity", which includes health care and a degree of participation in public life. Just like different people have interpreted the same religious texts quite differently, so different societies have interpreted the same enlightenment ideas differently - including such seemingly simple things as "fundamental rights". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• Once again, this is so easy even a caveman can do it. A individual's right to X is a moral-political obligation on others not to take X from him without his consent. Even dogs and toddlers understand their own rights to concrete things, if they haven't yet mastered the art of not committing violence against others. A supposed right, to, say, healthcare, is not a right to keep the healthcare you've chosen to pay for. We see that in all it's naked glory. The supposed right to healthcare means the government pointing guns at some people to give money to other people at the directive of Kathleen Sebelius, subject to Obama's declaring insurers can continue offering now illegal plans to their customers for the near future without fear as of this moment they be sued for doing so. Which situation is by nature and which isn't is as obvious as a slap in the face. μηδείς (talk) 03:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

This directly answers the question, which you can see in our article on the minarchist/libertariannon-aggression axiom and is not debating anyone's statement. μηδείς (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

This does not begin to address the question. If we can derive the "right to property" from "nature", why can't we derive the definition of "good health" (not the "right to health") from nature? Tevildo (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Medeis needs to strike his/her tea-party driven propaganda about Obamacare. If I'm not allowed to respond to such garbage, Medeis is not allowed to post it either. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The only reason I didn't hat it is because the response was somewhat related to the question. Granted, it's mostly a soapbox political comment only marginally related to the question, and if you want to put it under the hat, go ahead. The Reference Desk is not the place for pissing contests. You cannot express opinions unrelated to the question no matter what, regardless of what any other person does or does not do. --Bowlhover (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I did, and someone changed it. And my comments are every bit as relevant to the topic as those of Medeis. Medeis is using the topic as an excuse to spout tea-party pseudo-libertarian propaganda. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

In case its unclear, this thread was created for the express expectation of my giving the classic liberal/minarchist/libertarian/anarcho-capitalist response: "I've asked a question aimed at elucidating the perspective you put below in a new section. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:03 pm, 18 November 2013, last Monday (3 days ago) (UTC−5)" I responded to that question less cryptically than "foucault sokal" in my above response and its adendum--"rights are those things no one is allowed to deprive you of against your consent." A bunch of responses were then posted asserting that was bunkum or asserting other definitions. I neither hatted nor unhatted those. (In fact, I believe the one who's complaining he's been hatted is the hatter--imagine that.) In any case, I gave the exact answer the OP was looking for. If he wants more he can have it. μηδείς (talk) 03:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Your editorial against Obamacare had nothing to do with the OP's question, it was just an opportunity for you to make a political statement. If I can't make political statements, neither can you. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Are Stephen Schwarzschild and Henry Schwarzschild brothers?

The wikipedia articles for both are incomplete for family records. It's known that Steven Schwarzschild had a brother named Henry . Both escaped from Germany in 1939. Both had education at the City College of New York , and it's known that Steven's brother, lived in White Plains, NY, which is the same location as Henry's death. I can't find any information other than that, but it's a mighty large coincidence if it's just that.

206.21.123.40 (talk) 04:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Summer vacation of US Congress

In Germany, where I came from, the Bundestag has a summer vacation of approx. six weeks during July and August. Aren't Senators and Representatives on vacation in summer? As I look through the legislation, congress also passes laws during summer. Even decades ago, just remember the gulf of tonking resolution of august 1964. --84.160.174.68 (talk) 10:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

They have a regular schedule, but the President can request an emergency session of Congress, when something urgent comes up. Also, they may delay a recess themselves, if they have important unfinished business (perhaps some scoundrel has managed to remain untaxed). StuRat (talk) 11:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

In terms of accomplishments, the current US Congress has been on vacation for nearly three years now. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

But the Senate can't get in any golf on their vacation, seems all the courses are booked by some guy in a big White House. _{⧐ Diamond Way} 01:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

That's been true since the Eisenhower days. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually more like Woodrow Wilson, but interesting to see you let the disappointment in the Senate slide. _{⧐ Diamond Way} 08:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia

Do Saudi Arabian nationals get money from the state out of the oil profit? 194.144.231.142 (talk) 10:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

"There is no personal income tax in Saudi Arabia." Otherwise, the answer seems to be "no". Alansplodge (talk) 11:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

That is, no direct money transfer. However, many things are done with the oil revenue which benefit the citizens, such as building the nation's infrastructure (roads and such). StuRat (talk) 11:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Their auto gas prices are US$0.50 a gallon whereas the U.S. gas prices are from $3 to $4 a gallon. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

In the UK, it's USD 7.92 per US gallon by my calculations (GBP 1.30 per litre if you're lucky). Alansplodge (talk) 13:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

This article could give an idea of how the kingdom goes around when it wants to "buy" the people off. In addition to no taxes and huge infrastructure investments, some of the other ways include large unemployment benefits and large bonuses to all public employees (which is kind of a direct payout but does not cover all the citizens and is not regular).129.178.88.84 (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Philosophy

I vaguely remember reading something philosophical about just by suddenly spotting somebody on an otherwise lonely walk, a relation is instantly formed in which you are somebody being seen by another being and how just another person's perspective has the force to change us. Does anybody recognize this line of thought? 194.144.231.142 (talk) 10:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Possibly Sartre's regard (or "look") in Being and Nothingness? ---Sluzzelin talk 17:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds correct, although it's been a long time since I read Being an Nothingness. μηδείς (talk) 18:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Might also want to check out writing around male gaze which deals with being changed by (in general) being seen. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, certain homosexual males with mirrors have been know to spontaneously combust due to that phenomenon. μηδείς (talk) 02:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

That's certainly going to be the case for the average mugging. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

PD-USGov satellite images

Does anyone know of a website that provides {{PD-USGov}} satellite images of most or all of the USA? I recently visited and photographed the "Studebaker Clubhouse and Tree Sign" that's at National Register of Historic Places listings in St. Joseph County, Indiana, so I have a photo to upload, but at ground level it doesn't look anything like the unique aerial view, which is really the basis for its historic status. I'd love to get an aerial or satellite image for the St. Joseph County page, but I don't know where to look. Nyttend (talk) 23:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Your easiest bet is to install one of the implementations of NASA World Wind, which accesses a range of PD-USGov imagery. Most comprehensive cover is Landsat 7, but the spacial resolution is low (much lower than the commercial providers you'd get on say Google Earth). WorldWind also finds old black and white aerial images and newer Urban Area Ortho, which is stripy aerial coverage of some US urban areas. Beyond that what World Wind finds, there is patchy Skylab, STS, and ISS imagery, but I don't know of a good library for finding any of that. I think it's unlikely that you'll find a PD-USGov of that area which is sufficiently detailed, unless you luck out and find it in the Urban Area Ortho data. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 23:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The Boundary Between Judaism and Christianity

Is a group of righteous gentiles which follows Jewish law and tradition and which teaches that Jesus was a human rabbi of the school of Hillel, that Jesus was not God or part of the Godhead, and that he was not the Messiah be considered a Jewish sect and not a "Christian sect." Thanks. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I can't think anybody would call them Christian, but whether or not they would be "considered" Jewish depends entirely on who is doing the "considering". --ColinFine (talk) 23:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

"Christians" by definition believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah. If they don't believe that then they wouldn't be a Christian sect. According to Who is a Jew and Conversion to Judaism, established Jewish traditions wouldn't consider them a Jewish sect either unless the individuals have each undergone an "official" conversion process. However, regardless of such "non-recognition" they may be described as a "Jewish sect" by outsiders and/or choose to self-identify as "Jewish" or even "Christian" for that matter.--William Thweatt 00:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

That reminds me of a story I heard on the M72 Bus one Friday afternoon a few years back. A rather well-dressed man boarded the bus going across town and joined two other conservatively attired men already seated. He was rather upset looking, and said, "Brothers, thank you for joining me to talk about this matter. You know my son has just graduated Yeshiva. This summer we sent him on sabbatical to Israel. To my great distress, when he returned this week he told me he had come back a Christian. And I had always thought he would take over the congregation after me!" One of the other men already seated on the bus began to rock back and forth. "Oy, I have not spoken of it for years, but I too have a son, and I too sent him to Israel, and he too came back a Christian!"

The third gentleman, obviously a man of great wisdom and restraint, said, "Brothers, you are aware my son has been travelling for the last three years. What you are not aware of is that after I had sent him for the first time to Israel as well, he too became a Christian. Let us not despair. We are three of the most learned scholars in New York City. Let us pray together to the Lord for guidance." As they prayed, a howl of wind arose and a dark storm suddenly fell. After a brief, flooding downpour, there was a single booming flash of lightning. The bus was struck, and the roof torn open. The rain stopped; not a drop fell inside. A shaft of light fell on the three rabbis. From the sky, a voice spoke, "My children, I too had a Son, and I too sent Him to Israel...." μηδείς (talk) 02:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Wich in turn reminds me of something a friend once said: "I'm definitely a Christian, I'm just not sure about all the whole God and Jesus thing". An interesting discussion on how morality and religion are separable followed, once we'd finished laughing MChesterMC (talk) 09:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Further to what User:WilliamThweatt wrote above, see Noahidism and Seven Laws of Noah. -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

November 20

Historical Statistics of/for Various Large Countries

Other than for the United States (see Historical Statistics of the United States, as well as here: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/past_years.html), Canada (see here: http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/bsolc/olc-cel/olc-cel?catno=11-516-X&lang=eng), and Japan (see here: http://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/chouki/), has any large country's (a country with a current population of 35 million people or above) government/official statistical agency ever (regardless of when) published a "Historical Statistics" book/report/et cetera for that specific country? Hopefully my question here is clear enough already and no one here misunderstands and/or is confused by what I am asking here. Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 07:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

There is a privately published one for the United Kingdom: British Historical Statistics (working on the update here: ). Rmhermen (talk) 16:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

There is a database of Historical Statistics for Germany. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much to both of you. Is the German one free? The British one doesn't appear to be free, but I am unsure about the German one. For the record, though, for/in this question, I was asking specifically about "Historical Statistics" published by the governments/official statistical agencies of specific large countries, rather than by private organizations/private agencies. Futurist110 (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

INSEE in France has historical statistics on their website...although it takes some digging to find them. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen some historical statistics on their website as well. That said, is there some kind/sort of easy way(s) to successfully search for and find all of these statistics on their website? Futurist110 (talk) 06:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

In my experience with the INSEE wesbite, no, not at all :) Adam Bishop (talk) 10:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Prehistoric Europe article

Could you help in editing the article?

Prehistoric Europe article states: "Northern Europe, including Northern Russia, remained in the prehistoric period until as late as the Late Middle Ages, around AD 1400, with the Northern Crusades. Thus, much of Europe was in a stage of proto-history for a long period". However at the same time, viking travel between Northern Europe - Western Europe (I.E. Normandy), and across Russia in early Viking period, tied those regions with Southern Europe/Bizantium, Persia, and other western European countries. So to differentiate dramatically that NOrthern Europe and Northern Russia remained in prehistoric period until 1400 is absolutely false. How can they be separated as early Russian Princes were tied by marriage to emperors of Bizantium? And while vikings have created/ruled Normandy in France before they have invaded England in 1066? This events have happened much before 1400s. Please bring this to the attention of whoever wrote this article... and ask them to review their facts.

Certainly there were many parallel developments in Northern Europe, there were thriving cultures in Nordic Europe ... and it is well written and described already in Misplaced Pages other cultures. So writing in such terms is certainly sound utterly contrary to the facts.

Thanks, Eugene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.74.28.15 (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The statement is not true for all of northern Europe, but it is somewhat true for northeastern Europe. The eastern Baltic lands (present-day Baltic states and Finland) did indeed enter the historical record as a result of the Northern Crusades, but in the 12th century, not the 15th. As for northern (European) Russia, the expansion of Russian settlement northward from Novgorod in the 11th and 12th centuries brought that region into the historical record. This was a separate development from the Northern Crusades. I will edit the article. Marco polo (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

corruption of boardmembers in a non-profit organization-SPCA

Name for a human position

It's not in human positions, but I think I've somewhere seen a name for the following position: you're standing, one of your hands is on your chest or high abdomen, and the other is out of the way. In Westsern culture, a speaker in this pose gives the sense of "I'm talking about myself right now". You can imagine someone starting akimbo and moving one hand up to the chest. What do we call this? 2001:18E8:2:28C9:F000:0:0:611E (talk) 21:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

A Napoleonic pose? Try Google Images for "Napoleonic pose" and see if it's what you're talking about. Looie496 (talk) 00:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hill's manual of social and business forms: A guide to correct writing, page 454] describes a "Dignity" pose, but I do not think that is the pose you are asking about. I looked around for "oratory posturing", "theatrical gestures" and "body language" and there doesn't seem to be a place where there are formal names for specific poses. I also Google'd "Drawing poses", "action poses", etc. I found lots of drawings, but no names. Wikimedia Commons has Commons:Category:Hand on Chest and Commons:Category:Hand over heart and Commons:Category:Hand gestures in conversation. I hope this helps. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 11:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The most famous Napoleonic pose is at Hand-in-waistcoat and commons:Category:Hand-in-waistcoat... -- AnonMoos (talk) 06:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Obamacare and job loss

All the sources on Obamacare - even the Obamacare site itself - refer people to the income calculator at the Kaiser foundation for estimation of benefits. Now I know that Obamacare has an infamous lower cutoff for subsidy benefits at the poverty line - but additionally, the link above says that subsidies are offered according to expected 2014 income. People with variable income can adjust their subsidies over the course of the year. Now for the normal situation - if a person makes more money, they might have to pay back subsidies - this is a fairly small problem, because they have more money than they ever expected. But what happens when someone loses a source of income and is left high and dry at the end of the year?

For example, consider a person making $11,500 a year. Of course, they have no employer insurance option. The yearly payment is only $230 - easily affordable, indeed - with a subsidy of $7,637 per year. Great!

Problem is, they get laid off around Thanksgiving, and their annual income turns out to be $10,000 a year. The subsidy is now officially zero - same as if they were making $100,000. We'll assume they live in one of the nearly half the states that will not expand Medicaid - even if they did, the person has already been on the private insurance with subsidy.

• Are they now on the hook for $7407 in back insurance subsidies? Wnt (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• The best place to get this answer is from a customer service representative at your insurance company. --Jayron32 00:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone anywhere gets Obamacare before January 1. Wnt (talk) 06:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

(EC) It seems unlikely it's something that hasn't been discussed. Sure enough, a search for 'obamacare 2014 income changes' finds which provides a clue, there appears to be a limit to how much you have to payback depending on your income level. A semi mistaken search for 'subsidy pay back' is actually fairly fruitful finding which says for for individuals below 200% of the poverty line, the maximum they will have to payback is $300. I presume this is what your $10000 person will have to pay back.

Incidentally, I don't know that much about the US tax system except that it generally seems insanely complicated (although Pay-as-you-earn tax and Tax withholding in the United States suggests a form of PAYE or withholding tax is used), but is there a chance this person might have overpaid tax anyway, so they will be due a tax refund and the actual repayment will end up less than $300?

Nil Einne (talk) 00:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The limit on payback is very interesting. Does this mean that the very low income (unemployed, etc.) people ineligible for Obamacare can enjoy subsidies all year, then pay $300 penalty, plus the $230 for the insurance, by simply:

• A) withdraw $1000 in retirement funds in January 2014 (plus something for penalty adjustment, I think)

• B) get Obamacare with full subsidy

• C) don't report the change in income (it doesn't sound like they're required to)

• D) file their return with the penalty

Interesting social implications if true - it would largely undo the effect of Republicans banning poor from Medicaid, but rewarding their states by shifting the cost to the federal government. Wnt (talk) 06:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

November 21

Handgun handle angle

Is there any historical or engineering reason that handguns from centuries ago- the flintlock, matchlock, etc.,- had handles that were nearly in line with the barrel compared to 20th century handguns, in which the handle is nearly at 90 degrees to the barrel? Thedoorhinge (talk) 11:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The arquebus, matchlock, wheellock and flintlock have stocks. The handgun has a handle. You need to compare the handgun to a muzzle-loaded, smoothbore pistol.
Sleigh (talk) 11:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

See also Stock (firearms)#Anatomy of a gunstock for some variations in shape. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

See also RefDesk Archives: What is the big ball on most wheellock pistols?. The answer is that in early pistols, the firing mechanism had to be forward of the trigger, so makers had to extend the "handle" in the opposite direction with a counter-weight at the end, to make it balance in the user's hand. Alansplodge (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

logistically, what difficulties would moving Israel entail?

Ok. Try this... In the 1960's UNESCO came up with a plan to save the world heritage site of Abu Simbel from the rising waters of Lake Nasser. They moved this ancient temple just 200 m further up the hill and away from the water. It took four years and cost $40 million (in 1968 dollars - that's well over $250 million today). That was for an irreplaceable temple that they really wanted to save - and they still had to make some compromises. Quite why anyone would want to dig up someone's house, his garden, his garage, and the street outside; move it some vast distance and reconstruct it, is beyond belief. A very rough guess gives me "millions of dollars" per house. Then it is just the maths to multiply by the number of houses and then add more very rough guesses for all the other infrastructure.

Then there is the time involved - four years to move one temple 200 m, so moving a house ~2000 km (ie. far enough to be out of the Middle East) with the same level of care could take much longer. And there are resources like trucks, ships, etc. People would have to wait their turn - or build more trucks and ships while waiting. You would need a vast army of workers for the hard bit for which you don't have the expertise, consider the food the workers eat and the people to grow that food, the waste they produce, etc, etc, etc. How about the pay they all require to do the work. You are asking trillions upon trillions of dollars, per year, for multiple generations.

This is why when people have to leave due to war or disaster, they become refugees with only what they can carry. This is why it is vastly cheaper to abandon the old infrastructure and build anew. The planet Earth is littered with abandoned infrastructure because it is too much trouble to move it.

If you really wanted to move Jews to a new homeland, and could get round the "land of the bible" bit, move just the people and a minimum of their possessions. Oh, and move them somewhere where the sudden arrival of 6 million people won't upset the neighbours, or you'll just end up moving them all over again. Astronaut (talk) 18:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, this answers my question. If anyone has anything to add to it feel free to reply. (The hatted portion above is a lot of people saying that nobody can write a response like this.) Incidentally I am shocked that it would cost $250 million to move a single temple some 200 meters. I would have thought it's at least 2 orders of magnitude cheaper if not 3. I guess I saw a house being moved on a special truck, and thought that relocating infratsructure or buildings like this is not that impossible. Thanks. Logisticsnightmare (talk) 23:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Moving a factory-assembled home is easy: it's designed to come apart into portable pieces. Moving a wood-frame building isn't much harder, since it's reasonably flexible and all the pieces are nailed together. The expense comes when you try to move things like unreinforced masonry structures: you basically need to build a supporting framework around it, and then move the building very slowly and carefully so it doesn't crack. A wood-frame house can probably flex by several centimeters across the length of the building without damage; a similar-sized brick house can't survive more than a few millimeters of bending. --Carnildo (talk) 03:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

But aren't things (like even castles!) moved by disassembling them brick by brick and reassembling them somewhere else in the same order? Logisticsnightmare (talk) 09:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The cost of moving the Cape Hatteras lighthouse 2,900 feet was 11.8 million dollars. And that was just for moving it intact, never mind disassembling it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Verified cases of passenger landing commercial jet

It's a fairly common TV/movie trope, but are there any real cases in which both pilot and copilot were in some way incapacitated and a passenger took the controls and landed the plane with help from the control tower? 75.75.42.89 (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk down aircraft landing is the relevant article. According to it, "here is no record of a talk down landing of a large commercial aircraft." Tevildo (talk) 14:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Last month, in a small plane. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

(ec) : I'm not sure how "commercial" the flight was, and it was a "light aircraft", so presumably not a jet, but there was a case of this very recently. TVTropes has a "real life" section for this trope. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

It's possible, though, especially if the jet is equipped with Autoland, so take along these pointers, just in case. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Did you know, incidentally, that the Handley Page Victor could land itself without a pilot or autopilot? Once established on the approach, the aerodynamics of the wing and tail would perform the round-out and touchdown without any control inputs. One of my favourite aviation facts. Tevildo (talk) 14:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

They don't make 'em like that any more. My dad was involved in the avionics suite of the Victor. Alansplodge (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Ahh, the first thing I worked on professionally was the triangle resolver for the Vulcan. It's a small world. :) Tevildo (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I think Dad worked on a sort of rolling map that followed the terrain below, but I may have got the wrong end of the stick on that. I'll ask next time I'm in touch. He worked for Kelvin Hughes. Other readers, please excuse our digression. Alansplodge (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

That's OK. Such a connection almost makes you two cousins. Or something. -- Jack of Oz 17:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I have to admit, I find the pessimistic attitude of the linked PopSci blog entry (the 'pointers') rather irritating. The emphasis is on the difficulty of a perfect landing, not on what it takes to get a jumbo jet on the ground in such a condition that the passengers survive. (Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing!) If I'm in the Airplane! scenario where all the flight crew are disabled by food poisoning, I don't care about pretty and I don't care if United has to write off the airframe after I'm done with it. I don't care if I don't have the flaps all the way down; I don't care if I blow a tire or two because I'm twitchy on the brakes. I don't care if I apply the thrust reversers or not. If I overrun the end of the runway at forty knots, I don't care; modern runways are designed with arresting areas. Hell, if I come in a little nose down and hot and crush the nose gear then slide off the runway, I still might be okay: . And I'm not even going to attempt to taxi to the correct gate after I land. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

According to Pilot certification in the United States#Number of active pilots, roughly 1 in 50 Americans is a pilot, so there is likely to be someone better qualified than Ted Striker to make the attempt. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you missed a zero there: 1/500. Rmhermen (talk) 14:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Oops. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Is there a Sir Quiller-Couch character in J.M. Barrie's book Peter and Wendy ?

Hello Learned Ones ! I see that JP Hogan has included a Sir (along with a Lady) Edward Quiller-Couch in his Peter Pan (2003 film). I don't recall if in the book (I read it so many years ago, & maybe it was a simplified version...) there existed such a character. Does it refer to Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch (Q and Barrie were friends) ? Thanks a lot beforehand for your answers Arapaima (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

No, this character is original to the 2003 film. In the book, Mr Darling is a stockbroker, and we don't see him at work (only going to work in the dog kennel). Tevildo (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The official list of most interesting things

Is there a billboard chart like there are for songs, where people can vote for the 1000 topmost interesting facts, researches, phenomena, etc? A list that would probably include trees falling without a sound, the Milgram experiment, Schrödinger's cat, people getting quite old in the 17th century, deja-vu, the Moebius ring, dividing by zero, Epimedes, etc.

In short, not the "Best articles" on Misplaced Pages nor the articles a small encyclopedia would include, nor a daily top 10 list of funny facts on the internet, but a list that is compiled by simply voting. Joepnl (talk) 21:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

GQ has a list, but they tend to be material things. "Interesting" depends on interests, of course, so it would be hard to compile a definitive "official" list for the world.

Anyway, you've piqued my interest. How old did 17th-century people get? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:23, November 21, 2013 (UTC)

According to our article, the "official" record holder is one Ferdinand Ashmall, born in 1695 and died in 1798 at the age of 103. There are unofficial record holders such as Tom Parr (1483–1635), of course. Tevildo (talk) 23:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Parr sounds official enough to me, just going by what's in our article. Pretty impressive, even if untrue. I like the way his death is relayed, as if being 152 isn't cause enough. And I love how it makes him sound like a transplanted sturgeon (definitely on my Top 100 North American Fish list).

Back on that topic, I found Discovery's Top 100 Discoveries here. They're about as globally mainstream as this kind of thing gets, so maybe the most official. It's not a thousand, but it's something. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:19, November 22, 2013 (UTC)

Important figures buried in present-day Israel

Who was or were the companion(s) of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) or other important figure of Islam died and buried in present-day Israel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.20.21 (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Very few of them have died in present day Israel. Did you mean to ask a slightly different question? Other important figure is too vague to address. μηδείς (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Ubayda ibn as-Samit, a sahabi and an ancestor of the Nusaybah clan, seems to be buried in Jerusalem...apparently his grave was dug up by Israel to build a hotel, if we are to believe various anti-Israel blogs and such. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Would they have preferred that the hotel be built over top of the grave? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Which Pope worshipped Satan?

Historical Pope, I mean. I saw on a documentary once that one of the Popes hundreds of years ago was reported (by his enemies, maybe? not sure) to hail Satan from the Vatican. Anyone know who this was?

I tried to Google this myself, but all I found were pages and pages of modern-day conspiracy theories and anti-Catholic nonsense. --146.90.108.78 (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

You may have Pope John XII in mind. As you say, his biographer, Liudprand of Cremona, wrote that John toasted the devil with wine. But Liudprand was hardly a neutral observer. I think there may also be similar stories detailed with regard to some of those mentioned in The Bad Popes. Even if there aren't, it's an interesting book. - Nunh-huh 00:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

November 22

Products "shipped" vs "sold"

Many headlines of technology blogs feature stories when manufactures claim to have "shipped" a high volume of products. The common counter argument is that while these are sold to retailers, it should not count as "sold" until a consumer has purchased them from the retailer. So a company can manufacture 1,000,000 new gadgets and ship them to stores, they linger in warehouse shelves if consumer demand is low. So can someone explain the process of how retailers obtain products? Do they pay for the products upfront? Who is responsible for unsold products? Is the retailer responsible for the unsold products? Can they return them to the manufacturer for a refund? --209.203.125.162 (talk) 02:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure it varies according to country/economic system, but since your IP address indicates you are in the US, I assume that is the market to which you are referring. As for the process of how retailers obtain products this google search would be a good start. And yes, most stores pay for their product up front. Unsold products most often end up in a "clearance bin"/"clearance rack" or are packed on a pallet and sold en masse to Outlet Stores or Discount Stores (e.g. Big Lots, etc.). FWIW, the same thing happens in the publishing world. Books on most "Best Seller" lists are there because Barnes & Noble, Amazon, etc. pre-ordered a huge amount, not because some certain amount of individual units have been sold to the end consumer.--William Thweatt 03:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

What if the King dies before the heir apparent is born?

Under the rules of the British monarchy, what happens if a king dies while his wife is pregnant with their first child? Since the child isn't born yet, presumably it doesn't become monarch instantly, but instead the crown passes to whoever's next in line (e.g. a younger brother of the king). But then once the baby's born, where does it go in the line of succession? Ahead of the new king's own children? Is it booted out of the line of succession for ever? Or what if a queen regnant dies while pregnant with her first child and the doctors are able to save the baby? There would probably a few minutes at least between the death of the queen and the birth of the child; is that enough for the crown to pass to someone else? Is there even a law already in effect for such a circumstance? Or would parliament have to convene and quickly decide what to do? Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

This has never happened in England, although it has happened in other countries, as well as for noble titles in England. You can read about a number of cases at Posthumous birth#In monarchies. Note that although several English Kings are listed there, in all cases the posthumously born King only took that title long after birth (i.e. his father was not the King). There are Spanish and French kings who took the throne after a posthumous birth, and in these cases no other heir was seated during the intervening period. At least one English Duke was born after his father's death, Charles Edward - as with the kings, no other duke was declared until his birth. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

This is actually a genealogy question. The point is that the next in line to the throne would be the one with the most direct line to the monarch. That is NEVER an easy question to answer, but, if the King was on the throne when his wife became pregnant, his son (lets face it...it's almost always about the son...until recently) would probably have to prove his line all over again to the satisfaction of those in charge of such decisions. This is common in royal circles. But this is still a very interesting question and one I would wonder if there is a legitimate answer for. Seems that it really depends on the period in question. Today, I believe, the answer is simply, yes, they still take the throne...in Great Britain. But heraldry and royal lines do have a slightly different take depending on the country of origin.--Mark Miller (talk) 13:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe that Angr has produced the most likely scenario; that the first person in the existing line of succession would accede immediately, and the parliaments of the Commonwealth Realms would have to decide jointly if the unborn infant should go to number one on the new list. If it happens, it's not going to be for a long time. Alansplodge (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Our article on posthumous birth#In monarchies touches on this point, though without references. This question came up a while ago on this same desk; see Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 July 8#Posthumous births in the Commonwealth Realms succession. The proclamation of Queen Victoria's accession included the proviso "...Saving the Rights of any Issue of His late Majesty King William the Fourth which may be born of His late Majesty's Consort..." (see Regency Act 1830) which indicates that the lawyers and lawmakers of the day were well aware of the potential problem. You may be able to locate more specific resources through Royal Succession Bills and Acts, but I make no promises. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

In the 19th century, it was decided that Victoria would become queen upon William IV's death but that her reign would end should a posthumous child be born to William IV's widow Adelaide. In such scenario, Victoria's reign would have ended as if she had died, and her newborn cousin would have ascended with Adelaide as regent. Since the British throne is never vacant (a new reign begins the moment the previous one ends), such a solution makes sense. For example, had Elizabeth II, Charles and William all died before Catherine gave birth to George, it is safe to assume that Henry would have reigned as monarch until the birth of his nephew. Anyway, this exact same question has been asked many, many times - try searching the archives for previous responses. Surtsicna (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Does this economic data on "Arabs" involve Chaldeans?

In this document http://econdev.cus.wayne.edu/Files/ArabAmericanStudy.pdf it states that some figures for "Arabs" do not include people who identify themselves as "Chaldeans" (often Chaldeans do not identify themselves as Arab) and that some of the figures do include Chaldeans.

But I am unclear how this data was used for the conclusions on p. 18 about the 47,924 to 58,515 jobs held by "Arab Americans" and the 99,494 and 141,541 jobs associted with economic activity from that group. Does this figure include Chaldeans or does it not? WhisperToMe (talk) 22:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Charles Martel of Anjou

Why was Charles Martel of Anjou name Charles Martel? Was that his own personal nickname or to honor the earlier Charles Martel?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 23:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

"marriage of adults to kids custom" modern USA

I need information on this custom. Well, maybe not literally marriage, but forcing a strong bond to be created between adults and children. Children pretend to be former victims of the adult's past transgressions in the realm of combat sports, while other people torture the adult and suggest/promise him near paradise with these kids should he withstand the torture such as sleep deprivation and other nastiness. Relies on natural love for children existing in a normal person. Exists in 21st century USA, particularly San Diego, relies on sophisticated sureveillance equimpment and the whole town participates in the fun. Whatever you know about this weird, crazy custom, please. It's very real.

1. http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/05/obituaries/steven-s-schwarzchild-professor-65.html
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/Henry_Schwarzschild
3. http://books.google.com/books?id=Ijpj1tB3Qr0C&pg=PA2168&lpg=PA2168&dq=steven+schwarzschild+biography&source=bl&ots=8BiNcRoDHu&sig=5LNSBphgckIlG2t15ULFf9BcmVM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=67CKUrOtJ4ex2AXu0YDIDQ&ved=0CFMQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

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