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.
Where can I find information of people killed per person
Hello this is hursday. I was watching interview of Dr Richard Dawkins a UK professor and anti religious person in interview they asked him about the last hundred years being most secular or non religious and yet most people die in it i think attempting to tie less religion to more people dieing but I do not think this is correct as there are more people in earth now. what i would like is graph that shows number of people killed on a per person way that is if more are killed in last 100 years but because there are more people in last 100 years there would be less percentage of them being killed by violence including wars i think the trend would be down or that more percentage of people killed from violence in the past than now i have posted a link to the video where the question is asked (Dr hursday (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
EDIT: I forgot to ask question. Where can I find this data? (Dr hursday (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
I know of no such data, and worldwide it would be horribly difficult to calculate, especially since in many countries the number of people killed by violence is (or was) a state secret - the state having been responsible for much of it. Just look at the hugely varying estimates of World War II casualties there are around. If we can't get good estimates of deaths for a war that largely took place in industrialised countries and where the winning side (who is making the estimates) is likely to be fairly open about the results, what hope have we of estimating deaths in places where government is sketchy at best.
Incidentally in my personal opinion you shouldn't be interested in Dawkins opinions on this matter. This is where Dawkins scientific objectivity (which is excellent when applied to his own field of Biology) gets completely abandoned as he tries to 'stick it' to religion. In The God Delusion he assigns blame for any atrocity committed by any group calling itself religious to the religion itself, but then says that the fact that at least two of the three greatest genocides of last century (Mao, Stalin and Hitler) were carried out by atheists in the name of explicitly atheist ideologies is "no more relvant than Hitler and Saddam both having mustaches". If his students wrote stuff like that in Biology he would never let them get away with it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 01:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As the article on Adolf Hitler's religious views discusses, it really isn't accurate to describe him as an atheist, although it would be hard to ascribe any recognised religious faith to him, either. Warofdreamstalk 15:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I said two of the three. Hitler is the one whose killings were not done in the name of an explicitly atheist regime. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want statistics (and the difficulties in getting them), check out, for example, Democide. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think murder rateorhomicide rate would be a start, but they won't include deaths in war or internal oppression, and as DJ pointed out, figures for those are both hard to get and unreliable. I do think the question of violent deaths as a proportion of population is an interesting and legitimate one. DuncanHill (talk) 05:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For peace time numbers, you might be interested in actuarial tables. Here is a page with a lot of that sort of thing for the US. In general, most developed countries have experienced a steady decrease in violent crime per capita over the last few decades (see Crime in the United States for an example). As for wars, I agree getting casualties for those is difficult, especially since often many victims are killed indirectly, through starvation or disease, for example. You can see estimates for individual wars at War#List of wars by death toll. You could divide those tolls by the number of people thought to have lived at the time to get an approximation of their impact. At a glance, I would say the An Shi Rebellion is thought to be the most devastating war on a "per capita basis", killing (a disputed) 36 million people when the world population was less than 800 million. TastyCakes (talk) 06:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was a British man some decades ago who did pioneer work on the mathematics of war, which included the number of people killed for various sizes of war over history. You could take his data and rearrange it according to date and compare that with population. I've been reading the Alexiad, written around 1148, and although you may imagine they were more religious then, the emperor seemed to be constantly fighting almost non-stop in various wars and battles. Update: it was Statistics Of Deadly QuarrelsbyLewis Fry Richardson. 78.146.251.188 (talk) 12:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
People were very religious in the Crusades, yet they had lots of fighting and killing. Perhaps the more religious people are, the more they fight, not the other way around. 89.243.177.67 (talk) 00:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The homicide statistics will vary enormously depending on your (non)religious views on abortion. Peter jackson (talk) 10:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Homicide" is from Latin "homo", meaning "man", including human beings generally, not animals. However, you could certainly evaluate different cultures according to whatever criteria you wished. Peter jackson (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
religion questions
hello this is hursday. I have some religious questions or more specifically questions about non religion and the history of it should I put these questions on micelanious desk or humanities desk? or could we not set up a help desk for religion and sprituality i think the subjects are big enough to have own desk (Dr hursday (talk) 00:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
According to this new page, a Religion desk has been proposed and rejected four times. Here on the Humanities desk we do indeed take questions about religion (or the lack of it) and spirituality. As you can see from the above, this desk is not exactly drowning in religious questions that would require another desk. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's why it is "not exactly drowning in religious questions" — because it is a Humanities desk. Bus stop (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello this is hursday. I watched documetnary on Aubrey degray and in it they talk about cult in pacific island where they built airports out of trees with towers and stuff in hopes that the gods would send plains from the sky with supplies. is this true? why did they do these things? (Dr hursday (talk) 01:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
I have always wished that some billionaire would hire an old DC-3, fill it with goodies, and fly it to such a cargo cult "airport," just so the long-suffering true believers could say to the doubters: "See! I told you they would come back if only we were faithful." By the way this is not hursday, this is uesday. Edison (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it's uesday, this must be Elgium. :) -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no! That means we have to eat russels sprouts, and Russell won't like us taking his food! --Anonymous, 05:02 UTC, 2010-02-10.
Forgotten weapons of the Cold War
Hello, I've attempted researching these weapons on the web and using an older Jane's book but have not been having much luck. Does anyone know more about -- 1) the Heller antitank rocket launcher, reportedly used by Canadian forces in the 1950s and 1960s, 3.2" projectile, one web source says it was never fielded but in another web source a Canadian veteran recalls firing it while serving in Germany; 2) A 73-mm antitank rocket launcher used by the French in the 1950s, might have been called the "Strim" like the 89mm model which came later; 3) An 80-mm recoilless rifle called the APX-80 that was developed by France in the 1960s, not sure if it was fielded or not. Thanks for any comments. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think this really a Humanities desk question, maybe RD/Miscellanous? Anyway I found a mention of APX-80 on Wikipedia, but it was an American IFF reading device from Vietnam in this article/section. Mention of HellerHere, but appears no references. We have an article on the Strim, but it is called the LRAC F1 "sometime called STRIM ('Societe Techique de Recherches Industrielles et Mechanique)--220.101.28.25 (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I found was a 73mm ati-tank rifle grenade; "Grenade à fusil antichar de 73 mm modèle 1950"[1]. You can buy one from a French auction site apparently[2]. Alansplodge (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suilliac
Suilliac Beach (?) appears in several late 1942 archival photos of a seashore locale in Mauritius. I'm trying to confirm this name with its correct spelling. Also of interest: its location in relation to Rose Hill/Beau Bassin and Port Louis. -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent - yes, that must be it! And the shoreline in the lower photo image looks very much like the photos we hold. Thank you! -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Selling owned office building and leasing it back
I was told that a company would sometimes sell an office building it owns and uses, and then lease it back from the new owner. Supposedly an arrangement like that improves the financial performance of the company. I can think of two ways that kind of arrangement may help:
the financial metrics by which the company is judged count an office building on its books as capital used in its ongoing operations, but don't count cash in the bank the same way
the rents paid to the new owner are deductible expenses while the money that company would have saved by owning the building is not
My questions: 1. Is it indeed true that selling your office building and leasing it back somehow can improve your financial performance? 2. If so, are the reasons as I stated? --173.49.16.103 (talk) 13:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The way assets (particularly real assets, which unlike most assets often appreciate) are valued for accounting purposes can be very complex (and will vary both by jurisdiction and circumstance). If the the market value of such an asset exceeds its nominal book value, then the sell-and-leaseback arrangement would allow the company to realise that, otherwise theoretical, gain, and that certainly would make the accounts look rosier. Whether the company had taken on debt to finance the building is another factor (and again debt's role in accounts is complex). Another factor is liquidity - many otherwise viable companies fail due to lack of liquidity, and the sell-and-leaseback arrangement could allow a company's cash reserves to increase, something that makes both their bank and often their owners (particularly for a publicly-held company) more comfortable. Whether the deductability of rent is a factor depends on the business, and again the tax jurisdiction. Some large companies have a real-estate holding company that then leases premises to other companies in the group, in an attempt to minimise the local tax liability and offshore the profit. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 13:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the qualitative level, it also gives a company flexibility. The company I work for used to own most of its buildings. Now it leases most of them. That allows them to simply walk away once the lease is up and/or if they have a change in strategic direction. In another example, the Chicago White Sox, who had built and owned Comiskey Park for generations, sold it in the early 80s and leased it back. That gave them leverage when they wanted a new stadium. And it worked. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 14:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The university that I work for leases some buildings. It does so because the owner is responsible for repairs and upkeep. That removes the liability from the university. So, I can see it very reasonable that a company with an old building (which will need more repairs than a new one) will sell the building to someone else and lease it back. If the monthly lease is less than the cost of repairs and upkeep, the company profits. Of course, the company that now owns the building gets a raw deal unless they can do repairs and upkeep cheaper - which is usually the case. They are in the business of leasing buildings, so they have a crew that specifically goes around taking care of the property. -- kainaw™ 15:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But a large organization like a university that doesn't lease all of its buildings will have to have its own crew that specifically goes around taking care of the property so it is hard to see any savings coming from renting only some of them. If you only had one or a few buildings in a particular city, I can see that working. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! We have an article on this! Leaseback! Another reason some companies sell their property and lease it back is simply that this gives them a wad of cash they didn't formerly possess, and most companies believe they know how to get a good return on cash by expanding their current operations. If they forecast that the sale-and-leaseback will improve their return on assets in the short / medium / long term (whatever is important to the current management), then they'll usually do it. I would be remiss if I did not refer the original poster to this important reference, from 3:00 to 3:19. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
does anybody know about any universities in the Arab World that teaches History? like riyadh, doha, abu dhabi, kuwait, beirut and etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.116.14 (talk) 15:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The King Saud University in Riyadh has a History Department (http://colleges.ksu.edu.sa/Arts/DH/Pages/default.aspx) within the College of Arts. The Department offers BA's, MA's, and PhD's in History. This is just an example. I would think that most "general-scope" universities in the Arab World offer History programs and degrees. Rimush (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How would Ludwig Freiherr von und zu der Tann-Rathsamhausen have signed his name on a letter addressed to someone not too familiar (so "Ludwig" wouldn't have been enough), but also not to someone in whose case a formal letter would have been required? Rimush (talk) 15:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Freiherr is a title and can be dropped pretty readily. The German Wikipedia has his title entry as "Ludwig von der Tann-Rathsamhausen" which is something of a contraction that maintains a modicum of formality (the "von der") but eliminates a lot of the just flowery stuff. If he were a guy on the street, he'd maybe just be Ludwig Tann-Rathsamhausen, but that would be too informal for a Bavarian baron-general. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a ship named after him was called "Van der Tann" but why do we suppose that there was any level of formality such as this, requiring a different form of signature. Perhaps he always signed fully? 75.41.110.200 (talk) 16:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the UK aristocracy, the Duke of Norfolk signs himself simply "Norfolk" for instance. Perhaps old Ludwig would just write "Tann"? Alansplodge (talk) 17:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Worst electoral result for a sitting President
Sitting President Viktor Yushchenko was defeated in the Ukrainian presidential election, 2010, taking 5.45% of the votes. His article states "This score became the new world anti-record of an incumbent president's support, ahead of that of the Slovak presidential election, 2004." Is this really the worst electoral result ever for a sitting President? If so, what was the previous record - I can't believe it was the Slovak example given. Warofdreamstalk 16:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can't answer the question but "world anti-record" is just horrible English. --Dweller (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, absolutely - that's the first thing which attracted my eye to this passage. Warofdreamstalk 17:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The worst US results I saw was the 1912 election where sitting president William H Taft got a mere 23% of the vote, and only 8 electoral votes. Googlemeister (talk) 17:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, "ahead of that of the Slovak presidential election, 2004" would to me mean 'before the Slovak presidential election, 2004' which wrong, because the Ukrainian presidential election was in 2010, six years later, as stated. I know what it's trying to say, but it's not saying that. --KageTora - (影虎) (A word...?) 17:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a perfectly reasonable usage. Random House gives "be ahead" to mean "to be winning" and offers "superior to" as a meaning of "ahead".[3] Ahead does not always refer to relationships in time but also to positions in contests. --Normansmithy (talk) 12:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Warofdreams. If any head of state will do, not necessarily one called President, List of landslide victories may be a great place to start. Once you find the biggest landslide, look up who the loser was. In that list, btw, there is more than one example of an outgoing leader winning zero seats, starting with the 1935 election in Prince Edward Island, Canada, in which premier William J. P. MacMillan won no seats at all - every one was taken by his opponent Walter Lea. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link to the list of landslide victories, which I've not seen, although I was aware of most of the examples, also including the Alberta general election, 1935, where the governing party also lost all their seats, but took only 11% of the vote, and the Premier came third in his own seat. Warofdreamstalk 09:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rather, MacMillan's party won no seats. But that's clearly a different thing from winning 0% of the votes. In fact, according to the Wikipedia article, the party actually won 42% of the votes! But proportional representation was not in use and, to produce this result, the ratio of votes between the two parties must have been almost the same in all 30 seats. I think it is better to consider the original question was being limited to directly elected leaders. --Anonymous, 19:35 UTC, 2010-02-10.
The 1993 Canadian federal election was pretty bad for the Progressive Conservatives. They started out with 169 seats in Parliament and ended up with 2, an almost 99% drop. The actual popular vote only changed by about 27% but regional parties like the Reform and the Bloc Quebecois had sprung up in the meantime. The Prime Minister, Kim Campbell, did not even win her own seat back (although that's not as bad as it sounds, since she only won it by 200 votes in 1988 and only lost by 4000 in 1993). This actually pretty much killed the PC party entirely (now after various mergers and name changes it is just the Conservative Party). Adam Bishop (talk) 21:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@KageTora - I don't agree. In the context of records, I certainly understand "ahead of" to mean "exceeding" rather than "preceding". Not that I'd write that myself ... --ColinFine (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These are all good examples of very poor results for parties and, in some case, Prime Ministers, but I am particularly interested in results for President (or similar individually elected officials). Googlemeister's mention of William H Taft's poor result is useful - was that really the worst result for a sitting president anywhere until the Slovak election of 2004? Warofdreamstalk 09:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everything I can find about Taft's "record" doesn't specify if they are talking about American presidents or any president in any country. However, the google result description for this academic article (behind a paywall) says Jacques Chirac of France's first-round result of 19% in 2002 was the worst ever for an incumbent. However, Chirac went on to win in the final round by a landslide, so I don't know if you'd count it.
I'm moving on after googling these interesting facts that are still not your answer. Will you let us know if you find it?
The Guardian says the opposite of your question, the best result ever for an incumbent president, was William TubmanofLiberia's 1959 victory, where he won by 530,566 votes to 55.
I read in an old edition of the Guinness Book of Records that in the Liberian presidential election of 1928 the winning candidate's majority over the runner-up was about 40 times the number of people on the electoral register. (At the other extreme there was the election for the Southern Irish Parliament in 1921, in which not a single vote was cast, everyone being elected unopposed.) Peter jackson (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Need help finding a couple pieces of provincial legislature from the Ontario archives / e-laws
The pieces I'm interested in are from 1951-52 and 1964-65. The first is the legislature passed to renumber the Toronto Bypass and similar highways as Highway 401, and the second is to additionally name it the Macdonald-Cartier Freeway. Not sure who did the first, but the second was called for by William Rowe and passed by premier Robarts. The archives website is here.[4] - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲτ¢ 21:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're looking for legislation, not a legislature. Are you looking for the text of the statutes as passed by the provincial parliament? If they were statutes, that is, laws passed by the parliament, you should be able to find them with little difficulty at any large library in the province. (I don't think they're online.) If, on the other hand, the freeways were named through regulation or administrative action, you may need to get in touch with the archives to find what you're looking for. So the first thing you need to do is find out whether the highways were actually named by parliament itself or by the Ministry of Transportation. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Betting on the underdog ... always
I'm interested in any analysis that anyone can point to of the betting strategy of betting on the underdog in every single game across an entire season in any organized sport in which bookmakers use a point spread. My half-ass speculation is that the mechanism of the moving spread (whose purpose is to equalize betting on both sides, not to produce a 50% likely outcome on both sides) is insufficient to dampen human enthusiasm for betting on the favorite. Does anyone know of a site that does analysis like this? Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the opposite tends to be true: people bet more than they should on the longshots. See the short Favorite-longshot bias article. Searching Google with that phrase pulls up a ton of sites that you might be interested in. A better strategy is to always bet on the favorite. Addendum: that term is usually applied to horse races, where it's the payout odds that are varied, not the point spread. This article (which requires a subscription) suggests that there is relatively little favorite-longshot bias in Australian Football, though there's a significant home team bias in certain areas, and that algorithms to take advantage of these biases yield modest profits. A better strategy than to bet on the underdog or the favorite is to bet against the home team, it seems. Buddy431 (talk) 00:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the Favourite-longshot bias. This has been shown to apply even more later in the day, or on the last race, as the punters take a long shot in the hope of getting back their losses. In the stock market, on the other hand, annually buying the shares of last year's worst performing companies in the FT30 or whatever has been often put forward as an investment strategy, but due to the efficient markets hypothesis I'm doubtful it would work. Regression to the mean however may occur in sports and the stock market. 89.243.177.67 (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was a website in the UK a while ago, perhaps it still exists, which found opportunities where by combining bets from different bookmakers (since they would offer different odds), you could win whatever the outcome of the event. 89.243.182.24 (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This last strategy is called arbitrage and also works for the stock market. It only consist in buying in one market and selling in other. You wouldn't be actually betting actually. ProteanEd (talk) 16:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the references. This is great; I had not heard of any of this before. The largest study linked to in Favourite-longshot bias says that, at least in horse racing, although the bias is definitely present, it doesn't present a profit potential. It's too bad for all of us, really; I was going to make a killing in Las Vegas and donate the proceeds to the Reference Desk. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lately, I talked to people from the UK, who are quite knowledgeable in general. I was explained that the monarch (i.e., the Queen) is the de jure head of the government. I was very surprised to hear this and could not believe it. Of course, I was not provide proper references as you would expect on Wikipedia ;-)
Now, I see that this article clearly supports my initial understanding: "The position of Prime Minister, the UK's head of government, [...]". However, I have problems to believe that it was all utter nonsense what I was told.
To the people editing this article, I guess (and hope) this question is a piece of cake. TomeasyTC 08:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The queen is head of state. Parliament is her parliament, ministers are her ministers, etc. - ie they work on her behalf. The Prime Minister's role is what it says on the tin: the first/primary of the queen's ministers. He/she works more or less autonomously of course but does have to ask explicit permission from the queen to perform particular tasks, such as call a general election. Hope this helps! waggers (talk) 09:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We, the ordinary people of the UK, quite like this ambiguity because we don't like anyone to have too much power. The monarch can dissolve parliament, and parliament can abolish the monarchy! :) Dbfirs 09:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can see how Parliament could make the monarch's position untenable, or seize power unconstitutionally, but how could it alone abolish the monarchy, when all law requires the monarch's consent? Warofdreamstalk 10:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They couldn't do it legally without the monarch's consent. If there was a referendum that clearly showed the people wanted to get rid of the monarchy and the monarchy refused to comply, there would be a very short, bloodless coup and the monarchy would cease to be. (Although, even discussing such a referendum in parliament would require Queen's Consent (that article redirects to Royal Assent, but it is a different thing and is mentioned half way down the article), and holding the referendum would need Royal Assent, so there would probably be some questionable loopholes found to get as far as holding a referendum.) Of course, in reality it is very unlikely for the monarchy to stand in the way of abolishing the monarchy - they know the people would never stand for it. --Tango (talk) 12:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the answers, but you did not turn to my question (except for Ghmyrtle). Rather you assumed I need to be told another fact that I did not ask for. The term head of state, which I was repeatedly explained here, was clear to me before. This is actually why I came up asking if the queen was also head of government. There was no lack of understanding from my side that she is head of state.
Now, after explaining my basis, may I ask you again for your opinions. Who is the head of government in the UK? Ghmyrtle's answer is clear: It is the Prime Minister. And the UK article says so as well, and it is also what I always thought. Does this mean that these quite educated English people talked rubbish when naming the Queen de jure head of government?TomeasyTC 09:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The government is Her Majesty's Government, carries out its actions in the monarch's name, formally acting to advise her on the best course of action. The Queen selects the Prime Minister and carries various other actual or reserve powers. I can see how she could be described as the de jure head of government, but it wouldn't mean much, wouldn't meet the definition used in our head of government article, and clearly wouldn't reflect the de facto situation. Having no single constitution means the answers to a lot of questions like this are subject to debate. Warofdreamstalk 10:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) The earlier responses were IMHO fair. A lot of people, particularly those from countries were the head of government and head of state are the same such as the US don't understand the difference and it's an issue that often causes confusion here and elsewhere and could easily have been the cause of confusion in your case. In any case, it is important in any discussion that involves either that the difference is understood and you didn't mention that you understood the difference between the head of government and head of state before now (or even mention head of state at all). In terms of the more general question, it's difficult to say what the confusion was here without talking to these people. It's still possible that the difference between the head of government and head of state was the cause of confusion, undoutedly some people in the UK don't understand the difference. Similarly some may consider the queen the head of government since it's her government as are all the agencies of the government like Her Majesty's Civil Service but that doesn't tally with the normal accepted definitions or agreements surrounding the head of government. For example even the government itself says the PM is the head of government [5] and the Queen as the ceremonial head of the Commonwealth of Nations attends the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meetings where the UK will usually be represented by their head of government the PM. A more interesting and slightly related question is who is the head of state of a Commonwealth Realm other then the UK? The general accepted answer is the monarch however the alternative answer that it is the Governor General sometimes receives some serious consideration by scholars e.g. Monarchy of Canada#Head of stateNil Einne (talk) 10:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That very question came under national scrutiny during Australia's 1999 Referendum on whether or not to replace our monarchy with a republic, and the non-resident Queen with a home-grown President. Many of the advocates for the NO case argued that there was no need to change the arrangements because the Head of State was the Governor-General, who, since 1965, has always been an Australian. This was argued perhaps most strongly by Sir David Smith, a former Official Secretary to the Governor-General of Australia. He even wrote a book on the subject, called Head of State, which cited various documents that demonstrated conclusively, in his opinion, that our G-G is our head of state. It's not provable definitively one way or the other, as the term "Head of State" appears nowhere in our Constitution. However, most commentators disagree with Smith and his ilk, and say that the monarch is the Head of State; otherwise, it would make no sense to have a head of state (the Governor-General) appointed by a non-Australian (the Queen) to represent that non-Australian to Australians, which would make a mockery of the very notion of "head of state". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there even such a thing as a de jure head of government? I thought head of government was a purely practical distinction for the purpose of analysing constitutional monarchies, and I don't think any constitution makes explicit reference to such a role. If this is the case, the question posed in this section is meaningless. User:Krator (tc) 13:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all of you to the interesting discussion so far. It has really shaped my understanding. The role I wanted to see defined might really not have a clear definition, especially in a country without constitution. If someone knows even more, i am looking forward t hearing it.
Perhaps the link provided by Nil would be a good reference in the UK article to back up the statement that the Prime Minister can be called Head of Government. Otherwise, people reading it may think that Wikipedia made up this definition by itself, just for the sake of simplicity or lack of thinking. What do you think? TomeasyTC 14:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I had learned somewhere that the term "government" in parliamentary countries refers to what the US would call the Executive Branch. So, the Parliament (the equivalent of Congress) is not part of the government. It instead passes laws telling the government what to do. The ministers of this and that, equivalent of the US Cabinet, are generally members of Parliament elected to their posts by the other MP's, including the chief of the ministers, also known the Prime Minister. The UK Queen similarly is not part of the government and is therefore not its head, even though the government in sense reports to her (the government and Parliament are theoretically subservient to the Crown). Again the comparable US situation is that Margaret Hamburg, not President Obama, is the head of the Food and Drug Administration, even though the FDA chief reports to the President. But then again again, I'm an ignorant USA-ian so maybe I have this all completely wrong. 66.127.55.192 (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To give a brief sense of how different it is: the Prime Minister asks the Queen to dissolve parliament by Royal Proclamation, and a general election is held. MPs are elected to the House of Commons. The Queen invites the person she thinks will be able to command a majority in parliament to form a government: this is the prime minister, and he puts together a cabinet from members of either house (eg, they can be peers from the House of Lords. This goverment is Her Majesty's Government and the second largest group forms Her Majesty's loyal opposition with a shadow cabinet. 86.182.209.69 (talk) 02:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But I cannot use Google News to find the rest of the sentence. I tried to get it to show the rest of the sentence, but I could not. Who is an LA Times subscriber or can access the LA Times from a library database? Would someone mind finding out what the rest of the sentence says? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 12:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this fails, of course, you're supposed to go to a physical library and use their microfiched back catalog of the entire LA Times corpus. No, I never have time to do this, either. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The rest of the article is online, but I believe only an LA Times subscriber can see it for free. Other people have to pay for it. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! Lemme go put my request there right now. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
British royalty mostly descended from the fifth-century Saxon King Cerdic?
The Kings & Queens Of Britain, by GSP Freeman-Grenville, published in 1997, says that since 495AD, "In all that time there has been an almost unbroken family succession. Only five rulers - Sweyn, Canute I, Harold I, Harold II, and William I the Conqueror - have not descended from Cerdic, who led the West Saxons into England in 495. "
Is this true? Is Queen Elizabeth II descended from King Cerdic? According to the book, there have been a few changes since then - House Of Plantagenet, Lancaster, York, Tudor, Stewart, Hanover, Windsor - but the Hanover-Windsor change was simply a convenient name-change, do not know about the rest. 89.243.182.24 (talk) 18:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Genealogy of the British Royal Family. Remember, the aristocracy interbreed so much that even when the crown didn't pass to the heir of the last monarch it still passed to a reasonably close relative. --Tango (talk) 18:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this page would be more useful. --Tango (talk) 18:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may also find Issue of Edward III of England interesting. It gives a specific example of my claim that the crown always moved to close relatives - Henry VII took the crown by force from Richard III, both were descended from Edward III (Henry was through an illegitimate line). --Tango (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the Cerdic of Wessex article, there is a suggestion that he may have been an administrator for the Romans who siezed the opportunity and took power when they left. Well I never. 89.243.182.24 (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...although since there was at least an 85 year gap between the Romans leaving and him becoming king, it seems impossible. 92.29.136.128 (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)The statement by The Kings and Queens of Britain is not reliable, if only because it fails to mention Harthacnut, the son of Cnut the Great (or Canute I). Harthacnut's ancestry was the same as Cnut's except obviously for the ancestry of his mother, Emma of Normandy, whose descent from Cerdic cannot be proved. Beyond this, if you look at the family tree of the house of Wessex, you can see that all of the rulers of Wessex could claim descent from Cerdic. William the Conqueror could not claim such descent, but all of the descendants of William the Conqueror could claim descent from Cerdic, because William married Matilda of Flanders. Matilda was a descendant of Arnulf I of Flanders, whose mother was Ælfthryth, daughter of Alfred the Great of the House of Wessex, and therefore a descendant of Cerdic. Every king and queen of England after William the Conqueror could claim descent from him, and therefore, through his wife Matilda, from Cerdic. Marco polo (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So the Cerdic/Windsor family have owned/exploited us for over one and a half thousand years? Thats very impressive. 89.243.182.24 (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How did the Cerdic descendants fasmily get back into power despite William the Conqueror taking over in 1066? 89.243.182.24 (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, I don't think it's fair to say that the Windsors are "the Cerdic family". Cerdic lived 1500 years ago, or about 60 generations ago. In theory, that means that each person alive today had more than a quintillion ancestors living at that time. Of course, there were nowhere near that many people living on Earth in 500 CE, so there has been some degree of inbreeding. Still, the ancestors of Queen Elizabeth II in 500 CE probably included much of the population of northwestern Europe at that time, including many peasants whose descendants rose through the social hierarchy to join the nobility in medieval or early modern times. For that matter, probably most people living in Britain today are descendants of Cerdic. So the house of Windsor is no more the family of Cerdic, King of Wessex, than it is of a long-forgotten drunken serf named Sebbi (for example). Also, the Windsors do not descend in a direct male line from Cerdic, so they are not part of his family in the usual patrilineal sense. As for how Cerdic's descendants occupied the throne of England after the rule of William the Conqueror, as I've said, it is because William married Matilda of Flanders, who happened to be an indirect descendant of Cerdic. Marco polo (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is no defence. If my great great great.....great great grandfather passed his power wealth and privelidge down through the generations to me, we would only have an infinitesimal proportion of our genes in common. But that does not mean such nepotism would be fair or ethical. 89.243.182.24 (talk) 00:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is an "indirect descendant"? --Tango (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who's not within a direct patrilineal line of descendants. --Kvasir (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have to only exclude patrilineal. A direct descendant of any of my siblings would be an indirect descendant of me. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 23:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So an indirect descendant is a relative that isn't a descendant? That can't be right... --Tango (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some observations.
Firstly, Cerdic of Wessex may not have existed as such, and the line of descent given for subsequent monarchs is a theory, not an incontestable fact. The study of genealogies in the so-called 'Dark Ages' is an uncertain and tentative matter at best, even when dealing with the most privileged members of society.
Secondly, it was common for those taking power to marry into established dynasties. To take an example from Sweden, Jean Baptiste Bernadotte was the son of a laywer from Pau in southern France, but his descendants married into existing royal lines, so that the present Swedish royal family are related to the House of Vasa, and to their predecessors back to the viking age (again, assuming the records are tolerably accurate).
Thirdly, the UK has not been effectively ruled by its monarchs since about 1707. This is a parliamentary democracy.
Fourthly, the descent of the present British Royal family from Cerdic is an arbitrary choice; you can just as readily show their descent from Gorm the Old, Pepin the Short, or Walter the Steward.
Fifthly, and incidentally, the term 'indirect descent' does not mean anything useful. Either a person A descends from an ancestor B, or they do not. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't Harold II a descendant of one of king Alfred's brothers? 148.197.114.158 (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, but there's probably no definite proof. Peter jackson (talk) 11:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
origin of term "the good war"
What is the origin of the term "the good war" with regard to WWII? I'm familiar with the Studs Terkel book of that title that was published in 1984 (though I have not read it). Was he the first to use the term? If so, was he using the term ironically? If he was not the first to use it, who was and was the original use ironic? I'm having a hard time seeing how anyone could describe any war as "good"!--Eriastrum (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The alternative was to let Hitler take over Europe and Hirohito to take over much of the Pacific Rim. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 19:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't necessarily make it good though. I think it's mostly nostalgia by people who were alive during it or who have relatives who were alive then. In the next generation or two when all those people are dead maybe we can have a more sober understanding of it. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Lindbergh was of the opinion that it was better to let Hitler take over Europe than to give the Soviet Union a foothold. Needless to say, that isolationist view did not hold much water after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and sucked us into the war. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 19:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's a perception that we were fighting "forces of evil". Given the Holocaust, it's hard to argue with that. If it weren't for the American Civil War, we might still have slavery in the South. If it weren't for various wars, we would still be ruled by Rome. It goes on forever. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 19:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible that Terkel was influenced by the idea of a just war?Adam Bishop (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WW II was a transitional point in US politics. prior to WW II, the US was isolationist outside of the Americas: we'd interfere a bit in south and central american issues but largely ignored Europe. WW II, however, forced us into the role of a world power and made an ideologically clean case - the Germans and Japanese were clearly identifiable as evil (for German Imperialism and the Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor initially, and for the human rights abuses later). WW II was the 'good war' because (unlike any military action that followed) it had an undeniable moral value that defined the American self-image as noble, powerful and self-sacrificing for an entire generation. --Ludwigs2 19:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a minute, no one has tried to answer my main questions: what is the origin of the term "the good war"? Studs Terkel or someone before him? And, was it first used ironically, or was it actually thought that any war could actually be "good"?--Eriastrum (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure it is a common term? I can't say I've heard it before, unlike "Fight the good fight", which is apparently from the bible. I doubt he was trying to be ironic - as pointed out above there was (and is) a general feeling that it was a "just war", a necessary war and overall a noble effort, as opposed to, for example, the Vietnam war where all those things were brought into question by large numbers of people. TastyCakes (talk) 20:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard it many times. (Often used ironically to mock people nostalgic for WWII or other warhawks.) I'd always assumed that it was supposed to be a contrast to Vietnam and Korea which were 'messier' in various ways. But I've got absolutely nothing to back that up, it's just always been my personal understanding of the phrase. APL (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Terkel attributed the title to Herbert Mitgang and stated: "...it is a phrase that has been frequently voiced by men of his and my generation, to distinguish the war from other wars, declared and undeclared. Quotation marks have been added, not as a matter of caprice or editorial comment, but simply because the adjective 'good' mated to the noun 'war' is so incongruous." [7].—eric 01:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was not uncommon for people in Britain after WWII to say that they personally had "had a good war", meaning that the changes to their personal circumstances due to the War had been of benefit to them. (For example, many young men were recruited out of a likely destiny of humdrum or arduous manual work into the Services and experienced mind- and opportunity-broadening training, travel, experiences and education; many young women were, by recruitment for war work into traditionally masculine roles or simply by taking on previously male family responsibilities, able to embark on careers previously closed to them and enjoy greater autonomy. Both sexes were often taken out of traditional and regressive social circumstances into more liberal and sexually liberated situations.) The term is used in various memoirs of the period (and was doubtless orally current), usually accompanied by the implicit or explicit understanding that the user had been lucky compared to many others who had suffered personal tragedies or unpleasant experiences. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As an American, when I hear the Second World War being described as the "good war", I assume that the speaker believes somewhat of the following statements [forgive me for using "we"; it's simpler than saying "the USA" every time] — it was good because we got into it without meaning to (while our involvement in the Atlantic wasn't exactly neutral, we didn't do anything warlike to provoke Japan [especially a surprise attack; they weren't even fair enough to warn us!], and Germany declared war against the USA because Japan had, not because of our involvement in the Atlantic), and we generally saw the war as a clearly moral issue. Contrast that with most other wars of the century: in Korea and Viet Nam, we joined because we meant to (whether or not it was right to go there, it wasn't forced on us with a surprise attack on our navy), while World War I was more of a political war — we fought with countries that were somewhat like us against countries that were closer to some of our allies than we were (consider that we fought with monarchies such as Italy and Romania), and both the Germans and the British had been violating the rights of our merchant sailors as neutrals. Nyttend (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, I'd say that the reasons are this: (1) Americans saw their reason for joining the war as entirely justified, (2) Americans saw the enemies as clearly evil, and (3) the war was concluded quite successfully for the USA. Nyttend (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, you didn't do anything warlike to provoke Japan, but you did impose trade sanctions. There's a theory that Roosevelt intended this to provoke a war.
On the surprise attack. The Japanese plan was to deliver the declaration of war 1/2 an hour before the attack began. However, they left it to the last minute for security reasons, and the Japanese embassy typist was off sick so the ambassador had to type it himself. He wasn't much of a typist, so it took quite a long time & was delivered only after news of the attack was starting to come in. Peter jackson (talk) 12:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Eric (five postings above), you gave me the answer I was looking for.--Eriastrum (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Average length of service for current US house of reps
I am interested in know the average service length that the current members of the US house of reps has served in that role. I also am interested in knowing the average number of times that they have been re-elected. Googlemeister (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of members of the United States Congress by longevity of service has a complete list; you could add the numbers and divide. And you could derive the number of times they have been re-elected by dividing that by 2 — won't be exact because some have presumably lost and come back; but it will be close. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not seeing a complete list for the 111th US congress there, only the top 50 or 100 in all US history. Googlemeister (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The meister part of the name is ironic. I suck at google. Besides, I was hoping that there was something out there that would give me the answer without me needing to add up all 435 members time served and then divide to find the average. That would take far more then 5 sec. Googlemeister (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
German Empire education
Dominic Lieven, whom I trust to get his facts right, states that "Germany had the best schools, universities and research institutes on the European continent" (referring to the pre-First World War period), or words to that effect. Could you refdeskers find any additional supporting material to back up this claim, preferably (but not necessarily) containing comparison to Britain or other similar nations. I'm thinking statistics of some kind, but by all means throw anything at me. Thanks. 92.9.133.200 (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Our article History of European research universities quotes Walter Rüegg (a historian of education) stating that the German university system was responsible for the development of the modern research university. I have heard this elsewhere and think that it is a commonly accepted view. Tallying Nobel prizes awarded between 1901 and 1914 for physics, chemistry, and physiology/medicine (under the assumption that achievements in peace and literature are not as closely correlated with research or educational excellence), I find that the Germans won 12 prizes, the French won 11, the Dutch won 5, the British won 4, and no other people won more than 3. However, if I count each of the joint Nobel prizewinners as the equivalent of half of a sole Nobel prize winner, then I find that the Germans won 11 prizes (10 sole prizes and 2 shared prizes); the French won 8.5 (6 sole and 5 shared), the Dutch won 4 (3 sole, 2 shared), the British won 4 (all sole), and no other people won more than 3. By this count, the Germans were clearly the most accomplished scientists in the world, evidence of the excellence of their university system. Marco polo (talk) 03:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
During most of the 18th and 19th centuries, the university system in England was not really in all that great a shape. The only two officially recognized universities, Oxford and Cambridge, were open only to members of the Church of England, and mostly taught Classical languages (Greek and Latin). Their main purpose was generally considered to be to train Church of England clergymen, rather than to conduct research, and the sciences were rather weak (though there was a certain tradition of mathematics at Cambridge). Some of the academic positions required being an ordained Church of England clergyman, and many of the colleges were dominated by narrow involuted cliques of people who were tended to be more interested in receiving a salary and convivially drinking port and sherry than in either teaching or research. Oxford was a hotbed of Jacobitism. This situation was why in the nineteenth century higher education in the United States was influenced more by the Scottish and German systems than by the English system... AnonMoos (talk) 09:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A good point that the only two universities in England were not particularly intellectually stimulating in those centuries, and perhaps had not recovered by circa 1900. (It may not be evident to those outside the United Kingdom, but the Scottish education system has always been quite distinct.) On the other hand, England from the late C17 to early C19 had a whole slew of Dissenting academies, and many alumni went on to get either earned or awarded degrees from Scottish universities. If you are particularly looking for comparions between Germany and Britain, you may find some leads in History of education in England and History of education in Scotland. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
February 12
Guantanamo Terrorists
I was speaking to my friends and they alerted me to the fact that Terrorists released from Guantanamo Bay went on to rejoin Al-Qaeda. Is this entirely true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.148.193 (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the side debate over whether they qualify as "terrorists", Mr. 98 has answered the question: Yes. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 13:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? The OP specified terrorists, so it's hardly a "side issue". You seem to think that any and every Guantanamo detainee qualifies as an enemy of the state, simply because the US government put them in there. A touching faith, for sure. --Richardrjtalk email 13:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They didn't drop out of the sky into GTMO. If they're there, they were picked up for being enemy combatants in some way or another. You can debate all day long whether they should have been held this way. That's a different question. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 13:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear to goodness,you are certain without having any facts arn't you?hotclaws 18:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article on Ghafour can't even decide who it is about, which named detainee he was, or if he was released before or after being killed in Afghanistan, so no he hasn't. And the Taleban is not the same as al Qaeda, as anyone who hasn't been asleep for the last ten years should know. DuncanHill (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
....and wether they were terrorists in the first place is questionable. They certainly were never convicted by a competent and fair court, and many were taken on flimsy grounds. That they are pissed off after the experience of several years of imprisonment with plenty of abuse is not really surprising. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notice the IP said rejoin al-Qaeda. So they were enemies of the U.S. before GTMO. They can't use GTMO as their excuse. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 12:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you ignore earlier posts? The one right above yours made the excellent point that whether or not any detainee at Guantanamo is or is not a terrorist or "enemy of the US" depends on whether or not they were convicted on a terrorism-related charge in a court of law. Who says they are "enemies of the US"? --Richardrjtalk email 13:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What, every single person who has ever expressed sympathies for either of those groups? Or do you have to be holding a membership card to be considered an enemy? Wake up. --Richardrjtalk email 13:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you sympathize with the 9/11 bombers? Nice. In any case, if the OP had said "detainees" instead of "terrorists", this would be a much shorter section. Although I wouldn't rule out that the IP worded it that way for the purpose of fomenting this debate. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 13:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can all agree that there's a possibility that not everyone in GITMO is a terrorist. There are a number of high-profile cases that look pretty clearly like cases of mistaken identity, e.g. Khalid El-Masri. It is not exactly a precise science as to who gets into GITMO—there have been reports, for example, that "friendly" locals in Afghanistan have alleged Taliban/al Qaeda affiliations to people whom they didn't like, or had reason to benefit from being removed, or simply because there were rewards involved. We should be wary about completely abandoning the presumption of innocence—there is a good reason we don't have that as part of our "normal" legal system, and it is not completely clear whether terrorism warrants such an extreme response (far more people die per year from other criminal activity than from terrorism, yet we rarely deign it worthwhile to throw out legal protections in such circumstances). --Mr.98 (talk) 03:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have any terrorists been released from Guantanamo Bay? DuncanHill (talk) 13:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to Mr.98, GTMO detainees rejoined the Taliban. If you're asking were they "terrorists"?, I suppose that's a matter of opinion. There's no question they are enemies of the U.S. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 13:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article linked by Mr.98 about a former detainee who is said to have rejoined the Taleban can't even decide who the article is about, whether he was released before or after he was killed in Afghanistan, and does not demonstrate that he was a member of al Qaeda or the Taleban before he was in Guantanamo. DuncanHill (talk) 13:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that even if you accept that the person in question was a member of the Taliban and then rejoined it again... that doesn't necessarily mean that his release was a bad idea. There are more factors involved than just "he was an enemy and he was released." Ditto even if someone was a member of al Qaeda. You can say that without sympathizing with the group or thinking that they are right. Low-level flunkies, or people whose primary concern is the localized conflict in Afghanistan, do not necessarily justify indefinite imprisonment without conviction. We should be careful not to simplify the issue into idiotic talking-heads positions (of whatever political stripe). --Mr.98 (talk) 15:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As with any inflammatory topic, sane people are easily pushed to extreme views in an attempt to get others to admit that there are exceptions to their extreme views. In reality, most people are actually centered between the extremes, even when pushed to make comments that are clearly not middle-ground. -- kainaw™ 15:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to have gotten off track here. The list mentioned in the first answer lists some who have like Abdallah al-Ajmi who apparently died in a suicide bombing in Iraq. Typing Gitmo detainees into Google brought up the suggestion "Gitmo detainees return to terrorism". One of the first hits in the search shows Pentagon claims that "20% of released detainees returning to terrorism"[8]. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which, if it was true in every respect (e.g., they were terrorists ahead of time, and then they went back), is kind of an interesting statistic. It could be interpreted to mean that 80% of those arrested were not terrorists to begin with (which is interesting), or it could mean that they assume all were terrorists or whatever to begin with, and the recidivism rate for those released is only 20%, which is probably better than most criminal recidivism. Of course, if you don't necessarily take them at face value that they were originally terrorists, or their metric, or whatever, then it gets more problematic. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why hasn't this Supreme Court decision, which basically declared that America can ignore treaties if it feels like it, gotten the US kicked out of the United Nations? --76.211.88.21 (talk) 01:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But couldn't all the other countries simply decide that, while the US technically has veto power, they're just going to ignore it and expel America anyway? --76.211.88.21 (talk) 02:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, maybe. However, the reason why the United States is able to ignore international law is the same reason why the other Security Council members will not expel it: It has the world's most powerful military, without which the United Nations would lack the power to enforce much of anything. Note that I am not defending the position of the United States, merely explaining it. Marco polo (talk) 03:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, the UN was never intended as a governing body which compels member states to obey. it is a convention body that tries to get member states to commit to international norms. expelling a state would be counter-productive, since expulsion accomplishes nothing (except for a momentary pithy statement) and removes the possibility that the expelled state might in the future come to commit to international norms. --Ludwigs2 03:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Plus the US pays for a large portion of the UN's funding. Woogee (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The thing about that treaty (guaranteeing consular access to prisoners) is that it's the federal government which signed it, but in the vast majority of cases it's the 50 individual states which have to implement it -- and under the United States Constitution, the executive and legislative branches of the federal government can't really issue direct orders to state governments about how they conduct their law enforcement and judicial activities. At most, the Congress could decide to cut off certain supplemental funding to states (such as federal funds that used to be given to keep more cops on the beat in the Clinton years etc.), but the states actually obtain most of their funding from local taxes. AnonMoos (talk) 09:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, since then-President Bush was a clear supporter of Medellín, why didn't he simply issue a Presidential Pardon? --70.141.193.11 (talk) 03:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bush probably used up all his "pardon this guy even though he's clearly guilty" cards. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or, you just responded to a troll. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In practice the General Assembly could expel the USA by derecognizing its government, as they did with the old South Africa. Might I suggest the real reason is that the USA pays 1/4 of the budget? Peter jackson (talk) 15:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since the U.S. plays such a major role in pretty much everything the UN does, it would be a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face. Most UN actions without American involvement would be empty gestures. Money is not a primary consideration; the U.S. refused to pay its dues for a while as a protest and didn't receive anything more serious than a few complaints. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything in the article Medellín v. Texas that indicates "American can ignore treaties if it feels like it." It says treaties that are not "self-executing" require action by Congress to become enforceable domestic law. A better example might be the Nicaragua v. United States case in which the Reagan administration simply ignored an ICJ ruling, then vetoed a Security Counsel resolution demanding compliance. I suppose you could say that if the U.S. was ejected for failing to comply with international law, you'd have to kick out a whole bunch more countries who are even worse, such as North Korea and Iran. As far as I know, the UN has never ejected a country, although it has replaced recognition of one government with another, as in the China/Taiwan dispute. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 13:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even so, the UN could have imposed sanctions on the US, as it has done to many others. Again, the reason why this doesn't happen is that the US is too powerful to mess with, hence "above the law".--91.148.159.4 (talk) 15:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well they've never imposed sanctions on China since it's been in the UN either, despite its various misdeeds, nor did they ever impose sanctions on the Soviet Union. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned above, the General Assembly derecognized the government of South Africa (in 1974), effectively expelling it.
UN sanctions legally require the approval of the Security Council, where the above-mentioned powers have a veto. Of course the General Assembly could pass a resolution, but that wouldn't legally constitute UN sanctions.
I was just at news articles from 1974 in the Google News Archive and it turns out the US, France and UK vetoed a Security Council resolution to expel South Africa from the UN. The General Assembly voted not to accept the credentials of the country's delegation to the assembly in 1974 and the following years, but the country formally remained a member of the UN. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the GA could have done the same to the US theoretically, although I guess it still would have remained in the SC. Also, the GA could have symbolically condemned the US in a resolution; yet it's never happened - even during the Cold War, when the US' power was more disputed, US actions in Vietnam and elsewhere were generally left without comment, whereas the USSR was condemned for Hungary and Afghanistan. (official archives of GA activity, official archives of SC activity)--91.148.159.4 (talk) 11:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Enforcement powers of the European Union
As an American, I sometimes find the European Union baffling. Can someone who is more knowledgeable about it explain what powers the EU has to compel Greece to cut its budget deficit? EU leaders have said that 1) that they will not allow Greece to go bankrupt and that 2) their loan guarantees are conditional on Greece cutting its deficit sharply. What if the present Greek government tries to enforce sharp austerity measures but is forced from power by popular unrest and replaced with a government that refuses to make the cuts? What can the EU do, if anything, to enforce austerity measures if allowing Greece to fail is out of the question? If Greece is in fact able to blackmail the EU into funding a deficit over which the EU has no control, what is to stop Spain, Portugal, Italy, or Ireland from doing the same? Marco polo (talk) 03:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As per our article, EU laws supersede national laws, whether they are binding legislation, regulations, directives or decisions limited to a particular issue. According to the Maastricht TreatyConvergence criteria, members adopting the euro (which Greece did) should meet inflation, fiscal and interest rate targets. The fiscal target is a deficit-to-GDP ratio of no more than 3%; Greece’s is -13%. Enforcement comes from national parliaments passing national laws, regulations, etc. requiring compliance with EU laws, regulations, etc. Should the current government fall, and a subsequent one refuse to reduce the deficit (by whatever means), it would be in violation of its own laws. Those laws could be changed, but then the country would no longer meet the Maastricht Treaty requirements. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So the key question is, supposing an EU member absolutely, unequivocally refused to abide by that treaty, what would the EU's options be? Drop them from the EU? Initiate an embargo or other trade sanctions? Send an invading military force? Do nothing? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 13:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article 126, the consolidated version (the others are unreadable) provides for this. After a tour along all EU institutions (as usual), the actual enforcement powers come down to the following:
As long as a Member State fails to comply with a decision taken in accordance with paragraph 9, the Council may decide to apply or, as the case may be, intensify one or more of the following measures:
to require the Member State concerned to publish additional information, to be specified by the Council, before issuing bonds and securities,
to invite the European Investment Bank to reconsider its lending policy towards the Member State concerned,
to require the Member State concerned to make a non-interest-bearing deposit of an appropriate size with the Union until the excessive deficit has, in the view of the Council, been corrected,
to impose fines of an appropriate size.
The President of the Council shall inform the European Parliament of the decisions taken.
OK, so there are various penalties, all of them monetary. Makes sense. The EU has no army, right? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 14:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The EU is not a state therefore has no legal basis to establish a military force. As with everything it does the individual states that are members of the union enact the EU directives in their own law. There are instruments that allow member states to contribute to an EU taskforce, although in practice it's dual-roling of existing NATO commitments with the NATO commitment taking precedence. Member states act on behalf of the union, rather than the union acting on behalf of the member states. The Lisbon treaty enshrines elements of that with a common foreign and defence policy that's intended to be complementary to member states foreign and defence policies, rather than superseding them.
As each member state enacts the directives using it's own law there can be significant differences in what those look like in practice, particularly given the mix of Common and Civil legal systems in use. A number of instruments exist to mitigate for those differences, but again adherence to them is enshrined in the member state legal system. Probably the best example would be the European arrest warrants, that empower the policing system in a member state to act on behalf of another for detention purposes even if the offence committed isn't arrestable in that country.
The EU is fundamentally an economic entity and the majority of the directives are related, albeit tenuously at times, to easing transactions and assuring commonality of standards. There two flaws in that; member states implementing the directives in ways that mitigate against that objective and some of the directives have very little to do with economic transactions and reflect a tendency towards interventionism exacerbated by nationalism within the member states.
Note, that in the above, it reads "the council may decide to apply." That can only happen with large majorities. The army question isn't really realistic, I believe, if you look at the possible majorities in the Council. User:Krator (tc) 14:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a UK citizen, the way I see it is that the EU has become more or less a country. The old countries within it are like the States in the United States. Many laws are European wide, there is a European parliament, even a European president (big pity the first one wasnt British - it was really stupid of the opposition party leader to wreck that, or at least seem to be), and Europeans can live and work anywhere in the EU they like. Of course I'm using "European" as a shorthand to mean the EU - Switzerland is not a member. By the way, the EU GDP and population are higher than that of the USAs. 92.29.136.128 (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The EU lacks a police force, so it can't actually enforce any of its laws. They are enforced by the member states. If a member state decided to disobey an EU law, they couldn't be forced to do so. Throwing them out of the EU is as strong an action as they can take (the other members could take military action, but that isn't actually going to happen). --Tango (talk) 12:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You could say that about the states of the United States. There is a EU police force, its divided up into countries. I do not know if some country's finance minister could or would actually be arrested for breaking EU economic policies or laws. I think in actually fact regulation is done by financial penalties - in effect fining the country or reducing any money they get from the EU. If the country did not comply with that, then I suppose they would have effectively left the EU, and I expect they would as a result get a credit rating like that of Zimbabwe, be shunned by investors, and go into economic melt-down. I understand there is a Eurocorps who could I suppose go in an arrest someone in an extreme case. 92.29.62.115 (talk) 13:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You could say it, but you would be wrong. In the US there are state law enforcement officers (police) and federal law enforcement officers (the FBI). There are also state courts and federal courts. --Tango (talk) 13:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is at least one European court where British cases are quite often heard and, if you didnt know, a lot of central EU administration. I presume national police forces would comply with orders from the EU even if it involved taking action against people within that country. There is also Interpol although this seems to be world-wide. 78.147.202.148 (talk) 12:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The nations of the EU have effectively bartered away sovereignty for a few shekels (euros). --Nricardo (talk) 02:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's all well and good when many are making money. Beware the dark side, the simmering nationalism. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 05:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Particularly as you appear to be neither European, nor living here, that is a trollish statement. 92.29.62.115 (talk) 13:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a UK citizen, I see the situation very differently from the view of 92.29.136.128. I see the EU as just an association of sovereign countries, with no power whatsoever except that which is agreed and formally ratified by the parliaments of constituent countries. Yes, BB, there is simmering nationalism throughout the EU! And to Nricardo I would say: some countries may have bartered shekels, but we retain solid (we hope) sterling along with our sovereignty! Dbfirs 11:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One can only wonder why the UK joined the UE at all. Flamarande (talk) 08:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The economic advantages inherent in free trade and free movement. --Tango (talk) 13:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For senimental reasons its a pity the Commonwealth could not be formed into something like the EU - there would have been major movements in population as a result, including lots of British people moving to Australia or New Zealand. But I suppose it was not feasible. 92.29.62.115 (talk) 13:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The EU started as primarily a free trade area. A free trade area scattered throughout the world wouldn't make much sense. --Tango (talk) 15:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the EU is scattered throughout the world. French Guiana (in South America), Guadeloupe & Martinique (in the Caribbean) & Reunion (in the Indian Ocean) are all parts of France & the EU. (I think some other distant territories are also included in the EU.) Thus the EU produces its own bananas & imposes tariffs on imported ones. Peter jackson (talk) 10:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So as a British person could I simply move to any of them, no problems? 78.147.202.148 (talk) 12:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, subject to the usual rules, whatever they might be. Peter jackson (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2nd undefeated German commander in World War I?
As the article states, Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck "commanded one of only two German colonial forces of that war which were not defeated". I don't know about a second force; what/where was it, who was its commander? --KnightMove (talk) 09:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to the edit summary provided by the editor who added the information, it was Hermann Detzner's force in German New Guinea. Apparently, Detzner was even celebrated as『Lettow-Vorbeck der deutschen Südsee』("Lettow-Vorbeck of the German South Seas"), see Spiegel online. ---Sluzzelintalk 09:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That being said, I recommend reading the featured article on Detzner (or, if you read German, as KnightMove does, Jürgen Ritter's article I linked to). It is a stretch to lump the two together as "one of only two", and, as hinted in the article's title, the "Lettow-Vorbeck of the German South Sea" quickly became the "Münchhausen of the German South Sea", once the confabulating nature of his accounts was revealed. ---Sluzzelintalk 19:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking for a children's book that ...
... includes fungi that destroy buildings after having been accidentally released from a lab the father of the main characters works in (or so I remember). Might also include magic, less unspecifically a couple (wizards, perhaps) who's son was bewitched/gone. Possibly an english book. Sorry should I be wrong here. Any ideas? Thnx in advance, --G-41614 (talk) 09:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking for an image I've seen in many places in Sierra Leone. Usually its a painting, sometimes a mural. There is a man, hanging from a vine tied to a tree branch over the river. In the river, crocodiles. On the bank of the river, lion. Winding down the vine, is the snake. Gnawing on the vine is a rat. This guy has a pretty big problem, and no one to help him. I would like to have a link to the image, and if anyone knows the story that this popular painting depicts, that would be interesting too. Thanks if you can help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.101.134.43 (talk) 11:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is likely based on a religious story. I heard it once and I don't remember it. There is a guy who God promised to protect. He ends up in what is certainly death, but he doesn't lose faith. The crocodile and the lion fight. The snake catches the rat. The guy walks away just fine. I wouldn't remember it at all if it didn't remind me of a joke my grandfather (a preacher) told me about a guy who is on top of his roof with flood waters rising. A big truck pulls by, but he says he will stay because God will save him. The waters rise. A boat pulls by, but he says he will stay because God will save him. Waters rise. A helicopter comes by, but he says he will stay because God will save him. Waters rise. He drowns. In Heaven, he asks God why he didn't save him. God complains that he sent a truck, a boat, and a helicopter. What more did he want? -- kainaw™ 14:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's like that cool picture of a guy who has a big snake wrapped around him and some other dangerous animal close by, and he's struggling with the snake on train tracks, and the train is approaching. Rimush (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Philosophers and translations
It is often said that many philosophers use words that have no analogue in languages they are translated into. For example, Hegel's Geist, which loosely indicates "mind", "spirit" or "soul". What I do not understand is why we, as English readers of Hegel's translation, suffer? Surely the word itself is irrelevant if it is attached to a specific idea or meaning that can be grasped by anyone with the ability to reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.255.225 (talk) 13:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it is truly untranslatable (e.g. incommensurable), then that means the concepts won't translate, not just the definition. Whether that is the case in any given area is up for dispute. If an English speaker cannot really understand Geist in the sense that Hegel meant it, then how can they really understand Hegel? Such concepts are not just a one-to-one mapping of the world onto language (e.g. chair, table, dog), but involve complex abstractions that hypothetically take a lifetime of living in a culture to truly understand. (There is a lot of reason to doubt that language concepts are truly incommensurable, though. It might take some time to deeply understand it, but I do think a non-German speaker can eventually get the point of Geist if they are given some explication and examples. But so would go the argument.)
An example:It is often said that in Soviet Russia, the concept of "privacy" was almost impossible to explain to anyone living there, because it was truly alien to their experiences. If that is the case, how could a Soviet Russian truly understand a philosophy that used the concept of privacy as a central tenet?
Another example—even a concept like "honor" can be tricky, if we think we know what it means. Can an American really understand how another culture might consider a loss of "honor" to be sufficient for suicide, other than thinking that the other person is crazy (i.e. belittling the belief)? The difference of understanding in such a case is great enough for me to consider that one could not really understand the other in any meaningful sense—it reflects a profound difference in culture upbringing, potentially an unbridgeable one. It is not a case of just "defining" the word or even the behavior, but really be capable of living it. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In good translations the translator inserts a note when a word in the original language is problematic or are meant to have several meanings in the original text. However it is not always possible to discern when an author deliberately wants a word to indicate several terms, so no translation will be perfect. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Philosophers tend to use everyday words with special non-everyday meanings, and to understand their philosophy you need to understand the sense in which they are using that word: whether you are reading Hegel in German or English you need to understand what he means by the concept "Geist", which has a specific and distinctive meaning for Hegel that is distinct to what "Geist" means either for other philosophers or to ordinary Germans. As Saddhiyama says, it is important when translating philosophy to take account of the special meanings the philosopher attaches to different words, to be consistent, and to preserve distinctions in the original language. --Normansmithy (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think philosophers sometimes just make up words. Isn't Heidegger's dasein an example? Peter jackson (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, "dasein" is a normal German word denoting (roughly) the state of being (as opposed to "not being"). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Though he certainly does give it a more-than-standard definition. Philosophers don't "make up words" so much as take existing words and assign generally different definitions to them, e.g. paradigm, discourse, genealogy, etc. Of course, occasionally they do make up words, or make compound/complex words that didn't really exist before (e.g. biopower). --Mr.98 (talk) 03:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Greek word Arete is often translated as virtue, and yet, in Greek, a knife can have arete.
One for one translations rarely capture the whole meaning of words. -Pollinosisss (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This focus on 'words' is a bit misleading. Philosophy in any language is an attempt to explain a novel idea (i.e. an idea that is not already part of people's conventional understanding of the world), and so it usually has to use analogy to things people do know, or allegorical references to cultural tropes, and then reframe them to make the novel idea make sense. It's hard enough within the philosopher's language to understand the meaning, because you have to stretch your mind to use common knowledge in a different way. It's much more difficult in translation, because you have to relate the common knowledge in the original language to some equivalent common knowledge in the translated language. 'Geist', for instance, was an evocative word for 19th century Germans (who had a long history of devout christianity blended with a intellectual philosophy). for Americans, philosophy is almost entirely secular: they have no intellectual place to put the concept of 'Geist', and will reduce it either to new-agish spirituality or to some flat material psychology, neither of which can capture Hegel's original sense. --Ludwigs2 17:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kennedy and his leg
Which Kennedy lost his leg? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.53.200.138 (talk) 14:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the discussion about "British royalty mostly descended from the fifth-century Saxon King Cerdic?" posted yesterday led me to Pedigree collapse and its statement of "Some geneticists believe that everybody on Earth is at least 50th cousin to everybody else." As far as we know, the Native American inhabitants of the most isolated parts of the South American rainforests have been separated from the Andaman Islanders for much more time than is necessary to produce 50th cousins. Therefore, how could this be true? Nyttend (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All it takes is one of the members of the isolated group to move out or someone else to move into the isolated tribe. After marriage or just sex, the entire isolated group is part of the current worldwide family. Therefore, it is hard to find an isolated group that is truly isolated and has been for, say, the past 25 years. -- kainaw™ 17:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is a woman impregnated every time there is sex? Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article Most recent common ancestor (interesting read!) has a discussion of this, as well as time estimates for the last common ancestor, and links to academic papers discussing the subject. Jørgen (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it is an interesting article. It puts the estimated MCRA for all humans at somewhere between 1BC and 6000BC. If we assume an average generation length (ie. average age of mothers when giving birth) of 20 years (it's more than that these days, but I think averaged over the last few millennia 20 years is plausible) then 2000 to 8000 years corresponds to 100 to 400 generations. That would make everyone at least 100th to 400th cousins. If we restrict ourselves to Western Europeans (and their colonies) then 50th cousins is about right. --Tango (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even so, there does appear to be some biological evidence that there was contact between the Americas and, for example, Pacific Islanders in the pre-European colonization past. There are sweet potatos native to New Guinea and parts of Polynesia, for example, and the only reasonable explanation for how they got there is that they were carried by people. It is somewhat uncertain as to whether these were carried to the islands by Native Americans traveling west, or by Proto-polynesians landing in South America and carrying them back. Either way, however, generally anytime there is significant contact between people groups, there is sex. So if sweet potatos made it to New Guinea, it is likely that some South American genetics made it there as well. Once we reach those areas, its not many leaps to get back to Europe between groups that have well documented historical connections (Say New Guinea-> Philipines -> China -> India -> Greece). There's also documented historical contact between North Americans Natives and Europeans as early as 1000 AD. (L'Anse aux Meadows and other sites documenting the Norse colonization of the Americas) . --Jayron32 20:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suicide rates for various occupations and lifestyles
1) Which occupations have the lowest suicide rates? 2) How do the suicide rates among various social classes compare? 3) Is the suicide rate among celebrities truely higher than that among non-celebrities, or is that just an artefact of their passing away being considered more newsworthy? 92.29.82.48 (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To answer question 1, President of the US has a suicide rate of exactly 0 (and has maintained that rate for the last 200+ years). Tough to get lower then that. Might not meet the definition of an occupation though rather then a specific job title. Googlemeister (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but I imagine the death-by-homicide rate is astronomically higher than any other job. Vranak (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On that first item, for what it's worth, this link at the American Psychological Association website says, "Occupation is not a major predictor of suicide and it does not explain much about why the person commits suicide." Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but that job has a dreadful mortality rate :-) Alansplodge (talk) 01:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to our article Epidemiology of suicide, suicide levels are highest among the retired, unemployed, impoverished, divorced, the childless, urbanites, empty nesters, and other people who live alone. The article is silent about suicide rates among the employed. I can add to this, regarding employed people, that the highest suicide rates are found among physicians, see this study, which also finds high suicide rates among female nurses, intermediate suicide rates among police officers, and low suicide rates among theologians. There are more details from what appears to be the same study here. Although the article is in Norwegian, it should be possible to read the tables with this translation:
In many cases, "career politician" would be a good way to describe the occupation, at least in the USA — someone like Robert Byrd has been in full-time political office for decades now, and he's held the position to an age far greater than that at which most people retire. Overall, American career politicians have a very low rate of suicide; R. Budd Dwyer is the only exception that I can think of. Nyttend (talk) 16:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
February 13
monopoly of physical force in a state
why should monopoly of physical force be with a state? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.219.249.227 (talk) 09:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In a Democracy, use of physical force is (in theory at least) by consent of the majority of the people who might be subject to that force, and, even for those who don't support it, the force is carefully regulated and controlled with the (mainly successful?) aim of preventing abuse. The alternative is unregulated and uncontrolled force by ad-hoc local militias (I almost wrote malitias), which most people would not be happy about. In most countries, parents retain a right to limited physical force within their family, and occasionally, physical force outside the control of the state is permitted elsewhere, though there is the risk that such lack of control might lead to anarchy. Dbfirs 11:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is often considered part of the definition of a state, so the reason is simply "by definition". --Tango (talk) 16:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Côte d’Ivoire Coat of Arms
The article about the Coat of arms of Côte d'Ivoire states that it was adopted in the current form in 2001. What did it look like before, and why was it changed? Caspian Rehbinder (talk) 10:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's a nice clear depiction of the ca. 1964-2000 arms in the book Guide to the Flags of the World by Mauro Talocci, revised and updated by Whitney Smith (ISBN 0-688-01141-1). -- AnonMoos (talk) 11:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know the Jews have many laws and covenants, which for the most part are constants rather than variables, have no published exceptions. Some laws are variables, for instance, the laws which pertain to anything occurring on the Sabbath. Is there a list of exceptions published of not of Jewish laws and covenants that distinguish what constitutes theft or murder or other issues of concern? 71.100.8.16 (talk) 11:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Traditional post-Biblical Judaism is more given to extended debates about the fine points of religious law (as in the Talmud etc.) than to formulating a definitive static ultra-detailed casuistic legal code, but there is the famous list of 613 Mitzvot... -- AnonMoos (talk) 11:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...but how does anyone argue the fine points of anything without first categorizing the criteria? For instance if I want to argue the fine points of murder I must start with the role death plays, whether someone can be considered "murdered" if they are not dead. Next variable might be the cause, means and perpetrator such that all these thing need to be delineated before a proper discussion or argument can know where to begin. 71.100.8.16 (talk) 12:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the rabbis generally took as their starting point the words of the Old Testament, rather than postponing all discussion until fully satisfactory philosophical metaphysical definitions of concepts in the abstract were found. AnonMoos (talk) 13:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...that's great for historical reference but many synagogues are closing and one of the predominant reasons given by former Jews to join for instance the Seventh Day Adventist Church is failure to update the old to be understood or comprehended by the lay person of today. We see languages and cultures going extinct all of the time from failure to keep followers who find the lack of adaptation to modern life impossible to cope with in modern times. Surely Jewish clergy is not so self-centered or ignorant to fail to recognize the need to state the old in the context and means of the new. Someone must be updating the format of the law just as some Christians have done with the NIV (New International Version) of the Bible. Even secular law is being considered for publication in the form of a polychotomous key. Certainly there must be some clergy who recognize and responded to this opportunity to retain the fact of the laws while making them comprehensible for everyone in the modern age. 71.100.8.16 (talk) 14:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
what exactly is your question? "Clergy who recognize and respond to the fact that laws need to be comprehensible for everyone in the modern age" -- paraphrased from your post immediately above -- neither your position nor intent are easily discernible. If there is something you would actually like to know it can be provided by myself or another editor, but your comments seem to be ambiguous in the form of a run-on commentary comparing Judaism and Christianity. DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs) 20:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Talmud says killing a gentile doesn't count as murder in the context of the 10 commandments. Peter jackson (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know that. The Gentile would be a variable and Ten Commandments would be a variable and a Jew would be a variable (in the context of a perpetrator assuming a gentile killing a gentile might or might not be murder) such that if you asked the question was there a murder then you would have to answer "no" if the perpetrator was a Jew, if the context of the question was in reference to the Ten commandments and if the victim was a gentile. This makes the conditions and definition of murder more clear as it relates to Jewish law. 71.100.8.16 (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's at least part of the reason Jesus said, "You have been told to love your neighbor and hate your enemy; I say love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you." Obviously a dangerous thinker, who had to be done away with. And, sadly, words that have been ignored as much by Christians as by anyone else. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 19:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Such a teaching may seem to be what a wine bibbler would say but the practice of such a rule has accomplished goals far greater than physically putting an enemy to death ever could. Consider Sam Walton (I almost called him Sam Walmart). His return policy when practiced correctly and with a joyful spirit has turned buyers that return big screen TV's they bought to watch the Superbowl into regular customers that have spent far more on cloths and food and hardware and things they don't even need. The Golden Rule is so powerful not only did it single handily make Walton a Billionaire and get him a Presidential Medal of Freedom but show me a retail business that can afford not to simulate the president he set. 71.100.8.16 (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Emulate the precedent' I think you mean. :) Vranak (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]
I fail to see who changing a system of religious laws based on "inspired" religious texts to a system based on a humanistic philosophical model can at all be compared to translating a group of Hebrew and Greek texts into modern English (NIV) instead of using an older translation of the same texts. Is there anyone besides you that thinks that the civil law is being or can be published as a polychotomous key? 75.41.110.200 (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a matter of changing. The New International Version did not change the King James Version and the New Testament did not change the Old Testament. Its a matter of putting rules and laws into a format which anyone can follow and obey. 71.100.8.16 (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also you might want to consider that the Mason have secret rules they refuse to publish in any form much less a polychotomous key. Not wanting to publish in the form of a polychotomous key makes suspicious the legitimacy of rules. 71.100.8.16 (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also there are 30% more synagogues in the U.S. now than in 1936[9]. Does this count as a decline? 75.41.110.200 (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Has the whole population been limited to a 30% increase? What about the percent increase of other religions? 71.100.8.16 (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see evidence that "The Talmud says killing a gentile doesn't count as murder in the context of the 10 commandments." This sounds like one of the antisemitic libels against the Talmud that floats around the Internet. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 12:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In reference to killing a gentile, the Minchat Chinuch (Mitzvah 34 - v. I page 184-8) states that said violation is specifically for "one who murders of Yisroel," in reference to the seed of Jacob (1-hahoreig), to include slaves, which are partial converts. It then continues to state that "one who kills a gentile is not killed in return (i.e. given the death penalty) which is the normal punishment for such a transgression, and any prohibition of murdering gentiles is not included within this violation -- Maimonidies concurs, stating that punishment for murder of a gentile is not provided for in court, and the Kesef Mishna, based on the Mechilta, states that such punishment will be dealt "from Heaven." DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs) 20:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I read this in Susan Blackmore, The Meme Machine. One of the notes at the back of the book cites a source, which in turn presumably cites the original passage. I'll try to find time to look this up over the next few days. Peter jackson (talk) 11:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand the question, but I'll do my best.
Traditional Jews would view all of the basic Jewish laws as constant since the major inconsistencies of Chinese Whispers of the Oral law were ironed out in Talmudic times. Since then, Rabbinic law generally has dealt with apparent gaps in the existing body of law, or where developments in technology etc leave question marks, or where the rabbis perceived a danger of laws being broken and therefore instituted a "Gezeira" to prevent the circumstance.
Laws pertaining to murder and theft have followed this pattern, with a need to respond to innovation, such as credit cards (re theft). However, as there has not been a country (including Israel) that operates under Torah law for some centuries, all of these issues are irrelevant, as there's an over-riding law called Dinah d'malchuta, in short, the law of the country takes precedence.
As all civilised states prohibit murder and theft under their own laws, these apply to the Jews living there. Where the country's laws are less stringent than Jewish law, the practising Jew will need to observe the Jewish law on top, for example, Jewish law is very strict on lost property, which can result in no issue according to secular law, but a Jewish perception of theft. --Dweller (talk) 12:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your assertion that such analysis is "irrelevant" is highly erroneous, as dinah d'malchuta dinah only applies in a situation in which local government law is more strict than Jewish law. When government law is more lenient than Jewish law, the strictures of Jewish law remain -- and laws of murder are certainly a front runner in such overlap as Jewish and (US?) laws regarding murder. Congressional beginning-of-life and end-of-life debate has little effect on the observant Jew. Instances in which abortion, for example, are permitted by state and federal law have no bearing on the observant Jew if permissibility in said regulations violate the Jewish definition of murder (and the same would apply to euthenasia. On the flip side, if Jewish law mandates abortion (of course there are multiple things to take into account, but in general, such as when the mother's life in in mortal danger), performance of an abortion would be obligatory despite any federal or state law to the contrary -- and dinah d'malchuta dinah would not supersede. Even your closing remarks may be taken out of context, because every leniency possesses within it a stringency. DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs) 19:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to break human religious views into programmatical concepts ("constant" & "variable") seems destined to fail. People don't act logically. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
People act logically. There is internal logic and external logic. Internal logic is infallible. Bus stop (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
British royal family
1) Queen Victoria is the great-great-grandmother of Queen Elizabeth. Queen Elizabeth had sixteen great-great-grandparents. What was the nationality at birth of each of them? What country were they born in? 2) Prince Philip changed his name from the one he was born with: Prince Philippos of Greece and Denmark. Lord Mountbatten also changed his name from the one he was born with: His Serene Highness Prince Louis of Battenberg. Have any other recent royals changed their name or nationality? 92.29.55.65 (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(after ec) See Ancestry of Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. I note the Bowes-Lyon side doesn't list the nationality of the ancestors, possibly because they were commoners. However, it is safe to assume they were all British. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From the information given in the links from the Wikipedia article, the places of birth are as far as I can tell 16. Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Germany, 17. Victoria of the United Kingdom Britain, 18. Christian IX of Denmark Germany, 19. Louise of Hesse-Kassel (or Hesse-Cassel) Germany, 20. Duke Alexander of Württemberg Germany, 21. Countess Claudine Rhédey von Kis-Rhéde Transylvania, 22. Prince Adolphus, Duke of Cambridge Britain, 23. Princess Augusta of Hesse-Cassel (or Hesse-Kassel) Germany, 24. Thomas George Lyon-Bowes, Lord Glamis Britain, 25. Charlotte Grimstead Britain, 26. Oswald Smith British?, 27. Henrietta Hodgson Britain?, 28. Lord Charles Bentinck Britain, 29. Anne Wellesley, former Lady Abdy Ireland?, 30. Edwyn Burnaby Britain, 31. Anne Caroline Salisbury Britain?
So the Queen is 5/16 German, probably 8/16 British, 1/16 Transylvanian, and 2/16 Irish. 92.24.131.69 (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course that is only true if you decide to stop exactly at this particular generation, which a completely arbitrary choice. --Lgriot (talk) 23:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Bowes-Lyons were Scottish peers, though many of them were born in England. Woogee (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This site [10] appears to confirm this, with the possible exception of the Burnaby/Salisbury marriage. The places of birth of each of her great-great-grand parents is given on this site.--TammyMoet (talk) 12:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear 92.29.55.65, from about 1688 to 1871 (the wedding year of Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll), the immediate members of the British royal family couldn't ordinarily marry Catholics (because of a long sequence of events culminating in the Succession Act of 1701) and it was disapproved of for them to marry non-royal subjects of the British crown (since this would be to show favoritism, and create possibly entangling relationships between non-royal families and the British royal family), so their only real remaining available marriage possibilities were members of Scandinavian and German royal families, and lesser German princely families, with an occasional eastern Orthodox royal family member thrown in. AnonMoos (talk) 13:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Monarchs often change their names when they assume the throne. Elizabeth II's father, George VI of the United Kingdom, was born Albert (George was one of his middle names). --Tango (talk) 13:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Louis Mountbatten was born in Berkshire, so a British subject by birth anyway. DuncanHill (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
George VI wasn't so much a name change as a use of one of his other given names (he was christened Albert Frederick Arthur George). No British monarch has taken an entirely new name, afaik, upon accession; they're unlike popes in this respect. But his father George Vdid change the House name, from Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, to Windsor. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True, but rather pedantic! House names are odd - they don't seem to actually be used for much. They aren't used as surnames (well, Windsor actually is sometimes now, but that's the Queen's decision rather than convention). --Tango (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pedantic? We're getting into the minutiae of royal protocol here, so either everything in this discussion is pedantic, or none of it is. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"No British monarch has taken an entirely new name, afaik, upon accession" Depends what you mean by British monarch. Robert III was christened John. Peter jackson (talk) 11:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Debunking JFK conspiracy theory
A friend sent me the following, which claims that a book called Ultimate Sacrifice solves the JFK assassination by blaming it on the Mafia, who co-opted a JFK/RFK anti-Castro plot and used some of its players to get rid of Bobby Kennedy (their enemy) by killing JFK. What are the best arguments against it?:
JFK was killed by the Mafia, who in November 1963 attempted to kill him in Chicago, Tampa, and finally Dallas.
(Oswald -- who may or may not have been involved, so what? -- is a red herring. All the hand-wringing about the magic bullet, and so on, is BS. If the Mafia had succeeded in Chicago or Tampa, we would never have heard of Oswald; and if Oswald hadn't existed, the Mafia would still have succeeded in Dallas.)
It's simple:
1) After Castro came to power in 1959, some of the USA's plots to overthrow him involved the Mafia and Mafia hangers-on.
2) After JFK was inaugurated in 1961, Bobby Kennedy attacked the Mafia (including certain "godfathers" ... such as Carlos Marcello, whom the justice department enormously humiliated); the Mafia therefore wanted to get rid of RFK.
3) The Mafia understood they could get rid of RFK by killing JFK.
4) The Kennedys wanted to overthrow Castro, but decided to do so without the Mafia's help. They eventually implemented a plan to overthrow (without apparent USA involvement) Castro, scheduled for December 1, 1963.
5) But the anti-Castro plans dating from 1959 -- some involving the Mafia -- continued to roll along in other branches of intelligence and their chaotic off-shoots.
6) As a result, the Mafia learned enough of the Kennedys' 12/1/1963 anti-Castro plans to entangle themselves with them.
Here's the point:
7a) By entangling themselves with the Kennedys' plotted coup against Castro, AND UTILIZING OR IMPLICATING SOME OF THE PEOPLE ENTANGLED IN THAT PLAN, the Mafia could kill JFK (RFK by proxy) ...
7b) ... AND ensure that no government investigation would reveal the truth. Any investigation into the plot would necessarily (eventually) also reveal the fact that the USA had been about to overthrow Castro -- a revelation which would be a huge headache, or even (it was feared, after the Cuban missile crisis) the source of a nuclear war.
(Note, the Mafia hated Castro, too. They hoped Castro would get blamed for the assassination, but it didn't work.)
It's very simple: The Mafia, severely screwed with by RFK (but also involved in remnants of USA plots against Castro), co-opted a Kennedy Administration coup against Castro and entangled/implicated some of its Mafia-connected players in killing JFK (RFK by proxy) ... and thus stifled any further investigation -- AND, indeed, enlisted unwilling co-conspirators (such as "the government") in the cover-up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.17.36.206 (talk) 12:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is about as coherent and as plausible as the alternative theory that the little green men did it to stop the Apollo program before the US hit onto their secret moon base... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Castro existed, USA plots against Castro existed, JFK had invaded Cuba, the Mafia was heavily involved in anti-Castro USA intelligence operations, and RFK (whose power derived from JFK) was overwhelmingly active in attacking the Mafia and sometimes humiliating mafia leaders. So, Steve, you're right -- it's JUST like blaming "little green men" and a "secret moon base." Because there's no such thing! Are you with me, people? It's just plain nuts! Great debunking, Steve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.17.36.206 (talk) 12:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Debunking of such an argument is a matter of saying, "OK, so where is the evidence?" There's nothing inherently impossible about the accusation, but there's also nothing inherently impossible about saying that Jackie planned it. The only way you can sift out the silly speculation is through appeal to evidence... which is not an easy matter, even for people steeped in historical research. (Cf. the length of Vincent Bugiosi's book the JFK assassination, where he tries to debunk a number of theories... 1648 pages hardcover!) These conspiracy theories are "advanced" enough that the supporters of them will shove mountains of purported evidence in your face if asked, and then it will be your job to debunk every piece of it (or to show how it doesn't fit together to the whole they claim it to be). I don't know about you, but that's not actually how I want to spend my time.
I think we need to acknowledge, though, that unlike the Apollo moon landing theories, JFK ones are certainly within the realm of plausibility. The Mafia did hate RFK, they did come to hate JFK, they did hate Castro—these are all pretty easy to document from existing evidence. Were they able to pull off a complex assassination, or was it Osward the lone nut, or something else? Not the easiest questions to answer, not the sorts of questions that necessarily would have left behind evidence for us to check against. Debunking of such a thing is always going to be problematic, just as arguing for Oswald as the lone nut has always itself been problematic. I say this as an historian who finds this kind of stuff amusing when James Ellroy fictionalizes it, but as a professional I would prefer to stay pretty far away from it, because it seems like an endless black hole of work and speculation. (And I see no reason to a priori privilege the official account.) --Mr.98 (talk) 13:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The more complex the theory, the more difficult it is to analyze. That's why I prefer the theory that the mastermind was JFK. PaulStansifer 14:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My basic attitude to conspiracy theories is simply to observe closely how the world is run. It soon becomes rather painfully obvious that these people couldn't conspire their way out of a paper bag. Peter jackson (talk) 15:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Though it is not as if a very brilliant plot would be needed to explain the JFK assassination. Indeed, even the official version recognizes this—Oswald was no mastermind. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Kennedys had plenty of enemies and there were any number of those enemies who might have wanted JFK and/or RFK dead, thus providing fuel for endless and contradictory conspiracy theories. The idea that one lone nut could change the world is unacceptable to a lot of people. Yet there's plenty of evidence that Oswald was involved and was capable of doing it alone, as the official reports concluded. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 19:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not honestly sure why people who don't "work" on this sort of thing feel compelled to either knee-jerk defend the Warren Commission conclusion or to knee-jerk attack it. The whole thing seems rather murky to me. Maybe Oswald acted alone. Maybe not. Maybe it was a mob thing. Maybe not. If you accept the possibility that there could be, say, murky FBI or CIA connections, then you get into a situation where the relevant evidence could easily have been destroyed, or falsified, or both. Personally I'm rather agnostic about the whole thing. A lot of things are plausible, and sorting out the actual truth from all of the strange evidence and individuals (Oswald, Jack Ruby, etc.) seems pretty difficult to me. I suspect it is not possible to have a full picture that one is fully confident in. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And, while I'm going on and on... the reason I am agnostic about the JFK question, and not, say, the Apollo moon landings, is simply because 1. there actually were a good number of powerful people who would have benefitted from JFK being killed, 2. the number of people who would have to be involved in a potential assassination conspiracy is small, and 3. there is little way, after the fact, to get at the truth of the matter. By comparison, with Apollo the motivations for doing it are rather fleeting (yes, yes, Cold War space race, but things were already winding down a bit by then, and the chances of being found out a fake would have made it an extraordinarily risky gamble), the number of people involved would have to be massive, and there are various ways of confirming the moon landing long after the fact (which would make the chances of discovering the a hoax quite large, if it were one). All is just a way of saying, I don't think all conspiracy theories are anywhere nearly equal—almost all are quite loony and improbable and impossible—and the idea that the JFK assassination was more complicated than the Warren Commission report made it out to be is, in my judgment, perfectly possible by comparison.--Mr.98 (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When in doubt, Its best just to go with Occam's Razor I find. What's more likely, some convoluted plot involving the mafia and cuba, or that it was some lunatic?--Jac16888Talk 01:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not like the Warren Commission version is really all that more simple. Oswald is a left-wing weirdo who somehow manages to pull off an amazingly complicated shot on a President who is taking absolutely no precautions (no secret service next to the limo, no screening of nearby buildings, nothing), is then promptly caught, and is then almost immediately shot by another nut, who then himself is somewhat quickly convicted and put in a series of hospitals and jails until he himself conveniently dies a couple years later. I mean, it's all plausible—it certainly could have played that way. But it's certainly not the simplest case of affairs! There are ways in which a mafia plot is less convoluted in that it relies less on lucky nuts. I'm not sure how Occam's Razor is any more helpful, especially when we do know that, for example, there were intricate plots between the CIA and the mafia to kill Fidel Castro ([11]). Intricate conspiracies do sometimes exist—the Church Committee revelations are pretty impressive in that respect—assassinations, COINTELPRO, cooperation with the mafia, etc., all generally accepted as actually having occurred at this point. The sixties was a pretty nutty time by any account. Again, I'm not a conspiracy theorist myself, and in general I find that most conspiracies regarding UFOs, international cabals, and so forth are pretty bonkers. I'm just playing the devil's advocate here—as I expressed above, I see no a priori reason to believe the Warren Commission results were 100% correct. I find it hard to sign on to any explanation wholeheartedly. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually,he wasn 't,he kept getting Maggie's Drawers.hotclaws 18:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)carrots→ 08:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those who weren't around during that weekend in November '63 don't really grasp what it was like. It was basically chaos, with people milling around all over the place. Jack Ruby has been spotted on kinescopes of the time, wandering around the police station freely - and probably packing heat the whole time. Then there was Oswald, emerging from an interrogation room and actually being interviewed by the press. When asked if he had killed the President, Oswald calmly and coolly remarked that he had not been accused of that (he was being held for the Tippitt murder), and claimed that he did not know about the President being killed until he was asked the question. Yet there was not a hint of being startled by that question. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 08:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unless 63.17.36.206 has some specific, new and compelling evidence never before seen, his speculation is just a theory, and cannot be proven. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"New and compelling evidence," including the fact that the Kennedys planned to oust Castro on 12/1/63, is being released all the time. See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/3649371/Who-killed-JFK.html (note: when the link was written, the files had not yet been released that contradicted the reviewer's incorrect guess that Che Guevarra was the planned successor to Castro; in fact, it was Juan Almeida). The Congressional investigation in the mid-70s strongly supported a "mafia did it" conclusion, but, alas, the deponents kept getting whacked! (see e.g. Johnny Roselli); then it wasn't until the early 90s that the majority of the files began to be released, and more than a million files are still classified. "New and compelling evidence"? ... it comes out and is promptly ignored, because conspiracy theories are crazy, right? Some people are crazy enough to believe Julius Caesar and Abe Lincoln were killed by conspiracies ...
(sigh) So, how does Kennedy planning another attempted coup of Castro translate into evidence for a conspiracy? (Short answer: it doesn't.) — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Statistical data on career motivation
Are there any data quantifying what motivates people in the workplace (e.g., something like "36% of people list money as their biggest motivator, 20% list intellectual stimulation, etc.)? 71.161.49.106 (talk) 14:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Motivates people to do what? The primary motivation for working will almost certainly be money for most people (since most people can't live a comfortable life without a wage). The primary motivation for having a particular job as opposed to some other job is going to depend on the jobs. --Tango (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any citations or references pertaining to the statements in that section.71.161.49.106 (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or even any studies quoted... --Tango (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point, but references 20 and 21 appear and these refer to textbooks. However, the Hawthorne effect does have some relevant references. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
References 20 and 21 are cited in a completely different section... --Tango (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How are the children of prostitutes characterized, as bastards if the mother is unmarried and not if the mother is married, even where prostitution is not legal? 71.100.8.16 (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Characterized by whom? --Mr.98 (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the mother is unmarried then the child is a bastard, by definition. Under UK law, a child of a married woman is assumed to be a child of her husband unless there is evidence otherwise (see Paternity (law) for some details). That she is a prostitute wouldn't be relevant. --Tango (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, was Jesus a bastard? AFAIK his mother wasn't married. Flamarande (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At the time he was born she was (which was what counted under traditional Common Law). AnonMoos (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Bible, she wasn't married when she conceived, but was betrothed to Joseph and married him before giving birth. I think he was considered Joseph's son by most people. --Tango (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the usual disparagement attached to the term bastard (at least in that culture) implied shame in your mother having had sex out of wedlock, which in his case wouldn't really apply as an ultimately legitimate insult. —Akrabbimtalk 22:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC) (Reworded, Akrabbim 00:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Was the mother the only dirty one? What about the father, or is it OK for men to play around but not for women? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... `
Generally speaking, yes. The slang term for a promiscuous woman is "slut"; the slang term for a promiscuous man is "stud". The two words have completely different connotations. --Tango (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stigma is only really relevant at the time and at the time there were very few people that believed Jesus was the son of God. Also, whether sex out of marriage has stigma attached depends on the society you are talking about - mistresses were very common in the medieval aristocracy in Europe with very little stigma (at best they were open secrets, often they were entirely public). --Tango (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of who would be an intestate heir? 71.100.8.16 (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the UK, at least, the husband is assumed to be the father for such purposes, unless someone contests it and has evidence (DNA evidence, usually). --Tango (talk) 00:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tango thinks that Jesus was considered Joseph's son by most people, and I think so too. In the King James Bible, I found this: "And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?" (Joh 6:42) -- Irene1949 (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One way to look at it is that if Mary and Joseph had advertised that Jesus was actually God's soon, it's likely Jesus would have been done away with much sooner than he was. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 14:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nicotine as a Schedule I
I am wondering if the DEA has ever offically explained why nicotine is not a schedule 1 drug. It seems to fit the definition of a schedule 1 better than some of the others on list. I would think that this has been brought up to them at some point.--76.123.226.199 (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if they have ever given an official reason, but the real reason is very simple - it was in very widespread usage when drug prohibition laws started coming into force and a lot of people would have opposed it being banned. --Tango (talk) 20:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I feel thats the real reason too. I just think it would be amusing to hear their cock and bull reason.--76.123.226.199 (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From the Controlled Substance Act article, we see that "The term does not include distilled spirits, wine, malt beverages, or tobacco, as those terms are defined or used in subtitle E of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986". You can hop over to Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for more information, or even check out Subtitle E itself to see how nicotine is regulated.
As an editorial comment, the nicotine article suggests that nicotine may have limited use in medicine, which would probably put it on schedule 2 or 3, rather than schedule 1 (although, under that rational, marijuana probably ought to go on schedule 2 or 3 as well). Nicotine has also historically been used as an insecticide. I'm not sure how the legitimate use of a substance outside of medicine affects its placement within the scheduling system. Buddy431 (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So I guess they would say that nicotine cannot be made illegal because it can't be considered a controlled substance becuase it has a tax and manufacturing regulation structure built around it?--76.123.226.199 (talk) 02:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No,I am actually against the prohibition of all drugs. Its just that I feel if the government is going to decide what substances People can consume, they should look at all drugs equally. Nicotine seems to warrant being a schedule 1 substance more than marijuana, MDMA, psilocybin, LSD, mescaline,and bufotenin for example.--76.123.226.199 (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Congress can do whatever it likes with nicotine or with any other drugs. It's delegated some of that decision making authority to the Drug Enforcement Agency. To understand the dimensions of that authority, see that article, or the United States administrative law article. Shadowjams (talk) 11:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quibble: Congress can't do whatever it likes with drugs if "whatever it likes" is found to be unconstitutional. I can't point to an example. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True, but as far as drugs that have interstate commerce implications, that seems to be the situation. Shadowjams (talk) 08:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interstate commerce is the wedge that seems to be used, and the Congress decides, by law, what's legal and what isn't. Alcohol and tobacco are legal but are regulated, as are prescription drugs. Philosophically I'm inclined to agree with what Drew Carey said: "I don't think the government has the right to limit the ways I can hurt myself." But the reality seems to be otherwise. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 14:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indo-Pakistani war of 1971 -- speech by Indira Gandhi
Hello, reference deskers. I understand that Indira Gandhi made a speech on the evening of 3 December, 1971, declaring war on Pakistan, as part of the Bangladesh Liberation War. I find most of that speech here. But this link is full of elipses. I can't seem to find the entire speech listed anywhere at all. I would be happy to transcribe it myself, but I've looked at google video and youtube and can't find her speaking there, either. Could someone help me find the full text of this war declaration? Thank you. Llamabr (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The text was published in the New York Times of December 4, 1971 in an article entitled "Mrs. Gandhi's Statement". A non-subscriber can buy the text from the NYT for four dollars but someone at the Resource Exchange might be able to provide it for you from a library etc.--Cam (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I should have known. Thank you. I believe I can take it from here. Llamabr (talk) 12:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're going to have to ask a specific question instead of telling us your general topic. Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Without a specific question, all we can really do is point you to things like the Red Cross and the New Orleans government who would probably be able to tell you what organizations helped with the search and rescue efforts, especially those concerning rescue dogs. Dismas|(talk) 16:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This site [12] has a few links for contacting the Louisiana Search and Rescue Dog Team. They may be able to direct you to suitable sources and references for your project. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant to ask was are there any Hurricane Katrina search and rescue dogs still alive today?24.90.204.234 (talk) 23:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, don't know. To save other Refdesk regulars from looking it up, this IP user asked the Katrina rescue dog question in December and didn't get an answer. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even large breed dogs live more than twice as long as the five years since Katrina so the answer is almost certainly yes, some are still alive. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 02:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other Royal families with British members
Apart from the British royalty, have any other non-British royal families had British royalty marry into them? 92.29.62.115 (talk) 14:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. All European royal families are inter-related. For example, take a look at Queen Victoria#Children and see what happened to her daughters. Most of them married foreign royalty (as did her sons, but that would be considered their wives joining the British royal family). --Tango (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. I was going to claim that Harald is the highest-ranking non-British subject in the line of succession, but that distinction seems to belong to Tewa Lascelles. Does anybody know anything about him, other than that he was born in the US? Woogee (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear that he is a "private citizen", i.e. there's probably not a lot of public information about him in that he does not have an occupation that puts him into the public eye. His father is James Lascelles, a jazz keyboardist, so there's a bit more about him, being a performer. --Jayron32 00:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If his father was born in Britain, then he'd be a British citizen by descent, I think. Peter jackson (talk) 10:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lufthansa has facilities in both cities. The question is, where are the executives based out of? I understand that the Investor Relations and Media Relations departments are out of Frankfurt. I believe that the finance department is in Cologne. In which facility does the executive leadership of Lufthansa work out of? WhisperToMe (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The site that describes a headquarters in Frankfurt refers to it simply as a headquarters, whereas every other source I've seen, including the company's own main website, refer to the Cologne office as the "corporate headquarters". If you are right that the finance department is in Cologne, that would seem to confirm that it is the executive headquarters, since executives are largely concerned with numbers. Probably the the headquarters in Frankfurt is just that, the "headquarters in Frankfurt". Since the Frankfurt Airport is the airline's most important hub, and since Frankfurt is also Germany's financial hub, I would expect that the company's executives sometimes have meetings in Frankfurt, even if their main office is in Cologne. As you may know, executives are rather nomadic these days. Lufthansa's CEO apparently lives in Hamburg. I expect that his routine involves a (chauffeured?) drive most mornings to the Hamburg airport, where he takes a first-class seat on a morning flight to to the city where his meetings are scheduled each day. Marco polo (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The source here http://www.kfz.net/autonews/grundsteinlegung-fuer-lufthansa-hauptverwaltung-in-koeln/ says in German『Ende 2007 werden rund 800 Kölner Lufthanseaten, vor allem aus dem Konzernressort Finanzen, das Hochhaus am Rhein verlassen und in den nur wenige hundert Meter entfernten Neubau umziehen, erklärte das Unternehmen.』- A Google translation stated that the finance department was being moved from one building in Cologne to the other. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Their registered office is in Cologne.[13] (In most countries, corporations must declare a location as being their registered office, although this need not be where most of their business or administration takes place.) --Normansmithy (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When was World War I first called World War I?
I believe at the time it was called the Great War right? When was it first referred to as World War I?ScienceApe (talk) 22:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was called the Great War initially. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am guessing they began to call it World War I when World War II occurred, perhaps a few years before the actual outbreak (I think I have seen contemporary commentators calling it the "previous World War" or "the first World War" some time in the late 30's), because it was clear at that time another war would begin. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) As World War I indicates, it was called "The First World War" as early as 1920, following Charles à Court Repington. That's a bit different than "World War I" (it is ambiguous as to whether there will be more), but close. I suspect it started being called WWI in the late 1930s, when people started referring to the then-current conflict was "World War II." --Mr.98 (talk) 22:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Time Magazine used the term as early as July 1939. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"First World War" is retrospective - it means the first time in history that the entire (civilized) world was involved in a war. It was pretty much synonymous with 'The War to End All Wars". a bit hyperbolic, I suppose, but there you go... --Ludwigs2 23:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is not synonymous to me. First does not mean that it is the end. --Lgriot (talk) 00:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody ever calls what happened under Hitler "The First Holocaust". Why? Because most everyone hopes and assumes it could never be repeated. Surely they hoped and assumed that about the 1914-18 war; after all, it was called "the war to end all wars". It could only have been in the context of a subsequent potential world-wide conflict that it would have been referred to as the "first". -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 01:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No that isn't true - read the sources already given. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 02:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Holocaust was not the first genocide by any count; but the name Holocaust is a unique moniker for the genocide against the Jews by the Germans during the 1930's-1940's. There have been historical genocides which share many things in common with The Holocaust; often many things, but there has only been one Holocaust. --Jayron32 03:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC) I stand corrected. --Jayron32 03:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per The Holocaust#Etymology and use of the term, the word has been applied to massive sacrifices and great slaughters or massacres for hundreds of years, including that in Armenia. I recognise there are schools of thought that the word should relate only to genocide with Jewish victims, or to the Nazi atrocities, but I'm not a subscriber. --Tagishsimon(talk) 03:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a definite semantic difference between "World War I" and "The First World War." Consider the difference between saying that Obama is the "first African-American U.S. President" and saying he is "African-American U.S. President #1." The latter clearly implies that you are counting off numbers; the former does not imply it, it is ambiguous on the point. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd guess that it was in the middle of the war that began in 1939. Various names were floated around for that war at one time; I have an American book (somewhere; I'm not looking at it, so I can't quite it exactly) from about 1942 that includes a note discussing the subject. It mentions possibilities such as "Global War", "Universal War", and "World War II", and it concludes by saying something such as "We need to find a name for the current war, and President Roosevelt's suggestion of 'World War II' makes the most sense; 'Global" is redundent to 'World', and 'Universal' is a bit pretentious". Nyttend (talk) 00:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, here is the New York Times on Armistice Day, 1918, in which it's referred to as "the world war", not capitalized. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also for what it's worth, this site[14] has a list of books about WWI including publishing dates. The earliest one I see that says "First World War" is 1928. However, "The World War" seems to be in more common usage at that time. I found this item by googling ["world war i" "new york times" 1939]. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Finding a poem
I'm trying to recall a poem. In it, the author has shouted at his young son and sent him to bed without a kiss. Later, feeling a bit of a heel, he goes up to the boy's bedroom. His son is asleep, with tears still on his lashes, and beside his bed he has arranged his precious things, a sea-shell, a piece of coloured glass, etc. Probably late C18th, maybe C19th. DuncanHill (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
can you recall any snippets from it? even a short passage will help. --Ludwigs2 23:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I searched poem boy son kiss bed seashell coloured glass but so far I can't find it. Bus stop (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's the thing, some poems I recall the words, others I recall as little films, and this one is the latter. DuncanHill (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it's come back to me somehow - it's The ToysbyCoventry Patmore. Sometimes asking the question helps jog the memory! Thanks for your efforts. DuncanHill (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting word in that poem (that I never knew) is "counters," which can be "an imitation coin; a token,"or"a piece of money."Bus stop (talk) 00:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Counter - "a disc or the like... used in games as a substitute for a coin or a marker of one's position" (from Chambers 20th Century Dictionary, 1983 edition), is the sense I get from the poem. DuncanHill (talk) 01:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would guess it could also be loosely thought of as "play money" as it would lend itself to use this way by children. Bus stop (talk) 04:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "counters" (plastic discs of various colours) were used as an educational aid (to practise counting, of course), as well as being used as place markers in games. Dbfirs 08:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What, no article on these yet? In my elementary school (thirty years ago), we used the centers cut out of 45rpm records. Most vinyl albums had a small hole in the center to fit on the record player spindle, but 45s often had oversize holes (which necessitated the creation of "spider" adaptors) cut into them. We used the bits that had been cut out. Matt Deres (talk) 14:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
February 15
British Queen consorts
Ok. King George VI of the United Kingdom was the titular Duke of Normandy on the Channel Islands. Was his wife, Queen Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, titular Duchess of Normandy? Also was she Lady consort of the Isle of Mann? I'm using a pass King of the U.K. because the current British consort is a man and traditionally not considered consorts of Duchies or Lordships. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 02:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After searching fruitlessly through Duke of Normandy for verification of this, but finding it in Duchy of Normandy - I'd say the answer is: Yes, QE (the future Queen Mother) was the Duchess of Normandy. There's nothing unusual about this duchy as far as I can see, in this respect. I cannot help you with your Isle of Man query. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A quick-ish look yielded this page[15] which says: 'This ManxPrayer Book (the "New Version" of 1763) contains no prayer for the High Court of Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland; but, instead of it, there is a prayer for the members of the House of Keys, together with a prayer for the Lord and Lady of the Isle, as clauses in the Litany, and in the prayer for the Royal family, viz.: “And with them the Lord and Lady, and Rulers of this Isle.”' The Lord and Lady in question being George III and Queen Charlotte. I can't see that there would have been any change since then. No luck with the Channel Islands though. Alansplodge (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder what Prince Phillip is known as in those places... --Kvasir (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where is F5?
The article F (musical note) mentions F5, but does not make at all clear where it is on the piano keyboard or in the treble clef. Is it the F above middle C, or one or two octaves above that? Edison (talk) 03:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's the second F above middle C (C4). Middle C is 261.626 Hz, F4 is 349.228 Hz, F5 is one octave above that (698.457 Hz), where C5 is 523.251 Hz, all from the various articles. -- Flyguy649talk 03:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What nations other than the US require heads of state to be natural-born citizens (or, if this is more common, which nations do not require it)? I know it's not a requirement in Canada (Queen Elizabeth II isn't Canadian born), and I don't think the prime minister needs to be. Aaronite (talk) 06:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added: Why is it even an issue?Aaronite (talk) 06:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the U.S., the requirement was put in place expressly to prevent European nobility from moving to the U.S., establishing citizenship via residence, and then taking over the presidency and turning it into a sort of monarchical position. The term "natural born citizen" has not been defined by any sort of law, either express statutory law or case law, though the issue has been raised about a few presidents, namely Chester Alan Arthur and Barack Obama, however in both cases all officially availible records indicate they meet most normal definitions of "natural born citizen". The courts have heard a few cases on the matter, but have only basically noted that the term ONLY applies in cases of eligibility for the President of the United States, while also simultaneously not defining what it means, even in that context. See Natural born citizen of the United States for a more thorough discussion. In common terms, it is understood merely to mean "a citizen since birth", but even that is poorly understood; as there are several different ways that could happen. Anyone born on U.S. soil is automatically a citizen since birth, as is anyone born anywhere in the world to two parents who are both U.S. citizens, as is anyone born anywhere in the world to at least one parent who is a citizen and whom has resided for at least five years in the United States at any time prior to the birth of their child. See [16] for the relevent statute. --Jayron32 06:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When was the requirement brought in? I'm certain that Washington wasn't born a citizen of the United States. DuncanHill (talk) 10:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The constitution says natural born or citizen at the time of coming into force of the constitution. Peter jackson (talk) 11:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Every nation I know of that elects heads of state requires them to be natural-born citizens (though the definition of 'natural born' varies from nation to nation). This is largely pragmatic: it's to prevent a different nation from entering a candidate, getting him/her elected, and setting up a puppet government. Natural-born citizens are assumed to have stronger loyalties to the nation than naturalized citizens or non-citizens. Canada and the other british colonies are a special case (since they still owe some tentative national allegiance to Great Britain), but even in canada I doubt that it's legal for members of parliament to be non-Canadians. --Ludwigs2 06:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Citation needed, Ludwigs. Most countries don't have natural-born-citizen requirements for their elected officials. Which countries are you thinking of? DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If by "non-Canadians" you mean "non-citizens", then I guess you're right. Countries typically require that you be able to vote before you can sit in parliament. If you mean "born outside Canada", see [17] and [18]. Gabbe (talk) 07:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really true. Adolf Hitler was born in Austria and was elected as head of state of Germany. I'm sure we could dig up more examples, but that one sprung to mind right away. --Jayron32 06:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pedantic (?) correction: Hitler was not elected head of state -- he lost the German presidential election, 1932. He was appointed chancellor, that is, head of government by president Hindenburg in 1933 and unilaterally took over Hindenburg's powers when he died later that year. The Nazis later held an unfree plebiscite on whether people approved of that action, which of course passed by a wide margin. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know of no monarchy that has a requirement that the monarch be born within the territory of a certain country. To be a monarch it typically suffices to be related to the previous monarch, regardless of where you were born. Regarding heads of government and/or elected heads of state, I think the US is pretty rare in requiring them to be "natural born". The President of Argentina has to be either born in Argentina or to Argentinian parents if born abroad. In other countries there are lots of examples of foreign-born politicial heads: Presidents of Israel have been born in Russia, Ireland and Iran. Dominique de Villepin was born in Morocco (albeit a French protectorate at the time), Éamon de Valera was born in New York, Billy Hughes was born in London, etc. Gabbe (talk) 07:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Australia doesn't mind its Prime Ministers being born overseas; but they have to become Australian citizens before entering Parliament. To have had a "natural born citizen"-type requirement would have excluded most of the early PMs and politicians. It's interesting that Australians (and other citizens of Commonwealth realms) can still become members of the UK Parliament without adopting UK citizenship, but the UK is considered a foreign power as far as our Parliament is concerned, so any UK citizen (or citizen of any other country) who migrates here must become an Aussie citizen before attempting to represent other Aussies. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, in British law, citizens of Commonwealth member states, and the Republic of Ireland, are not foreigners. DuncanHill (talk) 10:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As we've discussed before a monarch typically doesn't even have citizenship so the idea of a monarch being a 'natural born citizen' is of course in many ways nonsense. And of course for most of the Commonwealth realms other then the UK, the head of state doesn't even live in the country and in extreme cases (rare nowadays but still possible) the head of state may not have even visited all countries they are head of state of. In a similar vein, while the governor general is generally not considered the head of state, I'm not sure whether there is any legal requirement for citizenship however it is rather unlikely a non citizen will be appointed nowadays given the widespread controversy it will cause and indeed Michaëlle Jean (who was born in Haiti) the current GG of Canada held French and Canadian dual citizenship but gave up her French citizenship due to the controversy it caused. As various people have mentioned, when it comes to heads of governments in countries with a parliamentary system, there's often no additional citizenship requirement to be the Prime Minister/head of government beyond that required to become a member of parliament and this usually requires citizenship but not 'natural born citizenship'. Of course in a number of countries, gaining citizenship is not easy (e.g. Foreign-born Japanese). And even if there's no legal requirement, a non natural born citizen may still face strong opposition and difficulty because of it, e.g. Sonia Gandhi. Note that New Zealand allows residents to vote in all elections, but still requires citizenship for MPs. P.S. Abhisit Vejjajiva was born and educated in the UK although to a prominent Thai family so may have been a citizen from birth. Nil Einne (talk) 14:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's no citizenship requirement for the Australian Governor-General. After the creation of Australian citizenship in 1949, we had 3 more non-Australians become G-G (Slim, Dunrossil, De L'Isle), before Casey in 1965 became the first of an unbroken line of Australians. Were there an Australian citizenship requirement, the notion that Prince William or Prince Charles might be appointed our G-G could never have arisen. Those plans died a natural death, but it wasn't because they weren't Australian citizens. Technically, there's nothing in the law to prevent Barack Obama from being appointed the Governor-General of Australia. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Provided he swore to be faithful and bear true allegiance to HM the Q. [19]. DuncanHill (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently Alexander Hamilton was never considered for the Presidency of the US, because he was not born in the territory which became the United States. Note also that Michaëlle Jean, the current Governor-General of Canada, was not born in Canada. Woogee (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because the US Constitution permitted foreign-born individuals to become president if they were US citizens at the time of its adoption, Hamilton was eligible. Nyttend (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, where in the US Constitution is that clause located? Woogee (talk) 05:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As to why this was even an issue: the U.S. Constitution was written only 15 years after the First Partition of Poland. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was an elective monarchy were the king was elected by the nobility. The only requirements were to be Catholic and of at least noble birth. Most elective kings of Poland were foreign monarchs or members of foreign dynasties. This allowed neighboring powers to exert increasing influence on Polish internal affairs. In effect, Poland gradually became ruled by a network of foreign ambassadors and spies who bribed Polish nobles to vote or obstruct parliamentary sessions according to their instructions. The first half of the 18th century was a period of rivalry between Saxony, Russia, Sweden and France trying to put their own protégés on the Polish throne. In 1764, Empress Catherine II of Russia succeeded in making her former lover a king of Poland. By 1787, Poland, once a regional power, had become a truncated Russian protectorate. It was wiped off the map altogether eight years later.
American founding fathers were clearly impressed by these developments. When discussing the provisions for future elections of the PotUS, Gouverneur Morris argued that "the mode least favorable to intrigue and corruption, that in which the unbiassed voice of the people will be most attended to, and that which is least likely to terminate in violence and usurpation, ought to be adopted. To impress conviction on this subject, the case of Poland was not unaptly cited. Great and ambitious Princes took part in the election of a Polish King. Money, threats, and force were employed; violence, bloodshed, and oppression ensued; and now that country is parcelled out among the neighboring Potentates, one of whom was but a petty Prince two centuries ago."
Charles Pinckney also warned that "we shall soon have the scenes of the Polish Diets and elections re-acted here, and in not many years the fate of Poland may be that of United America."
James Madison, too, observed that "altho' the elected Magistrate [in Poland] has very little real power, his election has at all times produced the most eager interference of foreign princes, and has at length slid entirely into foreign hands", adding Germany and the Roman pontificate as other examples of foreign interference in elections where people other than natural-born citizens could run for the highest office. — Kpalion(talk) 10:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Catherine herself was Prussian. Woogee (talk) 18:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Colorado Springs mayor Robert M. Isaac
File:Robert M. Isaac.jpg was deleted with the mistaken idea that a mayor who died two years ago should be easy to find a picture of. That is wrong, it is proving impossible. Anyone have any ideas? --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 09:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was the only image I could find, either, and it was the one we had here, now deleted. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 03:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Double Entry Bookkeeping
The various accounts used in double entry bookkeeping seem like a good way to categorise my office filing. Does anyone know where I can find a list preferably online of the accounts used in a typical business, or home? I have seen the double entry bookkeeping article, but it is not specific enough. For example some commercial bookkeeping software has I think lists of such accounts or categories - does anyone know if a copy of them is available anywhere?
My second enquiry is - Double entry bookkeeping updates two (or more) accounts for each transaction. Is there a list anywhere of these pairs? Thanks 89.240.201.172 (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Try a basic accounting text book at your local academic book shop. Or, simpler yet, buy your own home/small business accounting software. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Accounting and bookkeeping are not the same. 78.147.202.148 (talk) 12:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both take as a starting point the assurance that any text is human in inspiration, structure and phrasing, and will necessarily reflect the cultural milieu in which it was composed.--Wetman (talk) 19:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - but are they two slightly different methods, or just two names for the same method? -- Irene1949 (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Time traveling
An incredibly stupid question: Say some time traveler started propositioning me. Unsure of her age, I ask for some ID, and notice that her birthdate is several hundred years in the future! Do the courts count the number of years since the birthdate or do they count the biological age of the subject? Am I going to jail? 24.77.27.166 (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the (highly unlikely) event that time travel becomes possible, the courts would interpret the law as biological age, but they would have much more serious consequences of time travel to occupy their time! Dbfirs 18:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you are a 20 year old man who gets in a time machine and goes 50 years into the future, you would either be 70 or 20 when you came out, depending on which of your two methods you suggest. If you go 50 years into the past, by one reasoning you would be age of minus thirty! Also, in your circumstance, you would be sexing someone who is not yet to be born, so you should make sure you are not related! Also, if someone came from the past before the introduction of the Gregorian Calendar, there would be another 11 days to work with. Agatha Christie went missing for 11 days, which suggests she may have been travelling in time, possibly in connection with the Gregorian Calendar. But would you want to go back in time and sexing with Agatha Christie. I would be tempted to tell her how her stories finish! She would be so cross! Or pleased. Anyway, I am going back to my workshop to perfect my cold glassy pencil! Ice Pencil Made of Glass (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Note: Indef'd for trolling. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
truth is, in the future no one will be allowed to use a time travel machine without a state-issued license, which will only be given at the age of 35 (35 in the future is equivalent to a current 18, given the tendency towards infantile characteristics in human evolution). further, any statutory rape charges would be filed in the complainant's district, which (being several hundred years in the future) would probably exceed the statue of limitations for the crime.
however, being told that someone comes from the future probably won't wash in the current-day court system, so I don't think you can use this as a viable defense. --Ludwigs2 18:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, no jurisdiction has laws covering time travel. When a situation comes before a judge that is not covered by existing law, the judge will create new law. They do this by looking at various forms of persuasive authority and the motivation of the existing law. In this case, they probably wouldn't find any persuasive authority, so would look at the motivation of the law. The motivation of laws against sexual intercourse with minors is to protect people too young to make an informed decision. It is clear that it is the proper time of the possible victim, ie. the time that they've experienced, that matters, not the time from the perspective of anyone else, that matters. So, you wouldn't go to jail. --Tango (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, insisting that someone came from the future could be a good step toward mounting an insanity defense. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 18:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Ref. Desk rule against giving legal advice does not apply to incredibly stupid questions. Statutory rape laws are based on the precept that a young person is legally unable to consent to sexual intercourse by reason of their age. However persons of negative age must have negative rights so it is an offence not to have sexual intercourse with them. .dessimsid esaC Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The judges wouldn't have to invent new law. They could just travel back in time to get it changed in advance. Peter jackson (talk) 11:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If time travel worked on the Primer model, then the situation could never arise... AnonMoos (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
M.I.A not allowed into the U.S.A
Hi everyone! I'm a BIG fan of the singer M.I.A and just recently found out she's apparently not allowed in the U.S. Does anyone know why?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvgofishband (talk • contribs) 21:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think thats it... there must be a reason why they wont let her immigrate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvgofishband (talk • contribs) 21:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a reason, but she hasn't publicly announced it at this point, and these things aren't publicly available so we simply don't know yet. She is engaged to an American (Ben Brewer of The Exit), so we'll see if that does anything for her. This is pure speculation, but it may have to do with family ties to a Sri-Lankan militant group. —Akrabbimtalk 21:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Famous artists, musicians, actors, and the like who work temporarily in the US generally do so under the terms of a O-1 visa, which covers "aliens who have extraordinary ability", and grants them a non-immigrant temporary work permit. The most obvious criterion for refusal is if they don't think someone is "extraordinary" enough (and I really don't know where, for musicians, they draw the line). Secondly the embassy (or DoS) will decline if they think the person is likely to overstay, or to work outwith the scope of the visa (if, for example, they felt it likely that in addition to her work as a rap artist, M.I.A. was likely to work as a drywall contractor or an obstetrician). Thirdly they have a (fairly nebulous) bunch of criteria where they disqualify someone as "undesirable". This can be for criminal convictions (these were the grounds under which Amy Winehouse was initially denied a visa), security grounds, and (at least allegedly) politics. But it's very possible that, for a specific case, the lawyers simply failed to provide enough documentation or did some other cack-handed lawyer snafu like not using the correctly-headed stationery or using last year's version of a form. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 22:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We need a lawyer to fill out a visa application now? FiggyBee (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking not (you don't need a lawyer for anything, right up to your death-row appeal to SCOTUS), but anyone applying for an O-1 already has an existing business arrangement in the US, so they'd really be silly to do the paperwork themselves. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 23:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stating on record(1) things such as "Terrorism is a method, but America has successfully tied all these pockets of independence struggles, revolutions, and extremists into one big notion of terrorism." might have something to do with her visa difficulties. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That could well be sufficient, or possibly the tip of an iceberg. The U.S. government, as with any country's government, can refuse entry to non-citizens for pretty much any reason. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to The Guardian it is related to her political views. In this 2008 article is says she was keen to stay in the USA (they did let her in on a 1-year visa). Obviously, she didn't marry Kanye West and was unable to stay. Astronaut (talk) 02:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
February 16
When did the majority of western women become stay at home housewives?
when did women LEAVE the workforce?
i mean they were farmers in agrarian times and the industrial revolution forced them into factories so when did they become housewives? --Gary123 (talk) 00:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a little bit of knowledge I happen to have: in the 17th century, a stay at home wife/housewife was a status symbol in regions such as the Netherlands. User:Krator (tc) 00:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was a luxury for women whose husbands were affluent. That's why it was such a big deal for women not to work in the USA in the 1950s, when there was resurgent prosperity. The idea of women pursuing a career, as opposed to simply working to bring money in, is a relatively new concept. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→
P.S. Thorstein Veblen famously explored how having women not work could be a status symbol in 1899 (before feminism had ever made much impact) in his work on so-called "Conspicuous Consumption" (a term he invented). AnonMoos (talk) 13:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the middle ages and renaissance in Europe, a great deal of production went on in the household, so that while rather few married women had formal salaried "jobs" in the sense that we would understand today, they were frequently very busy overseeing all the affairs of the household, including the animals, cloth production, and in fact probably the majority of economic activities other than plowing and other heavy agricultural fieldwork. It was in the nineteenth century, with the rise of industrialization and mass production, and much economic activity moving out of individual households into centralized factories, that upper-class women and many middle-class women were separated from most practical productive tasks, and a kind of cult of decorous lady-hood sprung up. AnonMoos (talk) 02:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm being facetious here, I could say it was 1945 in the UK, when British women were expected to stay at home and replenish the population. During my family history researches, I haven't found many examples of non-working women before that date, for the reasons given by AnonMoos above. But then I don't have any upper or middle class ancestors! --TammyMoet (talk) 12:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make clear, in the UK its now unusual for a married woman not to do part-time or full-time work, and has been for some decades. 78.147.202.148 (talk) 12:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unless they have a young child. Lots of women give up work for a few years when they have children (or, in some families, the man does). --Tango (talk) 13:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Boy, it'd be nice to have actual statistics, rather than just anecdotes... I'm not sure I'm sold that the majority of women in Western countries are housewives. Unfortunately our housewife article is virtually empty of statistics and citations, and quick Googling didn't turn up much. Alas. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't now, but women going out to work is considered a modern thing, which suggests there was a time when it was unusual. We also know that women used to work just as much as men before industrialisation. That means there must be a point where women stopped working (excluding housework, of course). --Tango (talk) 15:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tango -- A significant number of married women going "out" to work at formal jobs with salaries is mainly a modern thing. Before the 19th century, married women did a lot of economically important work, but it was usually within the household... AnonMoos (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the UK before the 1960s, it was expected that when women married they would leave their employment. My mother worked for Shellmex-BP in London as a teleprinter operator and her job was terminated on her wedding day in 1956. My aunt lost her teaching job on marrying just prior to WWII but was able to take it up again for the duration of the war. During the war, younger women were expected to either work or join-up, but mothers were exempt. The professions were closed to women until a few pioneers in the early 20th Century. WWI saw many women enter the workplace for the first time in their lives - but only "for the duration". Being a housewife was a much harder job than today and most middle-class families would have employed a maid to help (the weekly wash would have taken them both a whole day of hard labour). Some good reads here[21], [22], [23]. Alansplodge (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It should be possible for anyone curious enough about the employment of U.S. women over the years to get pretty good statistical data from the compiled census data from 1880 through 2000. The questioner's assumption that earlier most wives worked is difficult to verify, and statistics for the women in the workforce in colonial days or in the early 19th century may be more anecdotal than reliable. Artisans' wives were likely to help with the cottage industry; farmer's wives cooked and cleaned in general, as well as gardening and tending animals, including milking. Relatives or poor girls might be hired or made to work for board. A plantation lady spent hours on domestic management of the servants. Statistical data are available from the U.S. Census, which, starting with 1880, recorded "the Profession, Occupation or Trade of each person, male or female," and the number of months they were unemployed during the census year. Earlier censuses had only recorded the occupations of enumerated males. 1890 also requested the "Profession, trade or occupation of each person." The 1900 census requested the "Occupation, Trade, or Profession of each person TEN YEARS of age and older, as well as the months employed." The 1910 census went into more detail on occupation:"Trade or profession or particular kind of work done by this person, general nature of industry, business or establishment in which this person works, whether an employer, employee, or working on own account," and number of weeks worked. The 1920 Census had similar questions. The 1930 census added summary codes to classify the work and the industry. The 1940 and more recent censuses have not yet been released to the public, but statistical summaries should be available from the Census Bureau. The 1930 census might list as occupation "None" for the housewife, and seamstress, stenographer, private secretary, school teacher, nurse, clerk, saleslady for others. I looked at 13 pages for a small farm town from 1900 and of many women listed most had the occupation left blank, but two women had "school teacher" and they each had a woman in the household listed as a "servant" whose occupation was "housekeeper." In the same small town in 1930, there were women with occupation nurse, clerk in store, clerk in post office, or operator at phone company, but most women still had no occupation listed. So the data was collected and doubtless compiled and analyzed, but it may take some skill to do the proper search among the census summaries to get a comprehensive and accurate answer. Edison (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Checking Google News archive, an early article I found comparing "stay at home housewives" to "working wives" was from 1958. "Homemaker" was a preferred term for the "stay at home." Homemakers did not cook and clean all day, but had club meetings, bridge, and coffee klatche. So statistics were presented. A 1964 article said the number of U.S. working mothers increased from 4.5 million to 9 million, amounting to one of three mothers of children under 18, but did not extend the comparison to all wives. A 1982 article said that stay at home housewivers were older and less educated than most adult women and spent less money. It said that52% of America's women worked outside the home (one had to be careful not to suggest that homemakers "did not work.") 60% of "active adult women" worked. A 1989 article said that the "traditional family" with a working dad, 2 children, and a stay at home housewife had decreased to 4 % of households. (Specifying the number of children is perhaps a statistical red herring). Another search for homemaker "working wife" statistics showed some promising results. A 1963 article said that in 1940 couples with both working were only 11% of working couples. By 1950, they amounted to 22% of married couples, and by 1960 to 31% of married couples. Edison (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
how is the iraq war significant to the civil rights movement?
i heard the question from somewhere and i cant get my mind off of it cuz i dont know the answer....plz help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cali7287 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Considering many people who lived in Iraq under Saddam Hussein didn't have many or any civil rights, the two topics are very much related. Dismas|(talk) 01:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the issue than in America, certain members of certain socioeconomic classes are over-represented in the fighting forces of the Military, while members of other socioeconomic classes are over-represented in the government, both with regards to their representation in the population as a whole. In general, the people who are standing in front of bullets and walking over IEDs in the military tend to be more likely to be poor and from a minority racial, ethnic, or linguistic group; while those in high decision making positions in the Pentagon or in the government at large tend to be more likely to be rich and white. This has been true for any war the U.S. has fought in the past 100 years, but it is not really much less true today. So there are cases to be made that there is an inherant civil rights problem that the decision makers, representing largely a rich white population, are sending poorer people with less political power, off to die in a war. Of course, its not like 100% of the government is white and 100% of the military is of a minority group, but the numbers for each are not in balance with the numbers representing the population as a whole. --Jayron32 04:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Class, yes, but race, no. Here is a breakdown of US casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan. Whites make up 74.7% of deaths in Iraq and 79.4% of deaths in Afghanistan as of early 2009. That is out of proportion to their numbers in both the military and the US population at large. TastyCakes (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a common notion that dates back to the Civil War, when anti-war Democrats claimed that it was a "rich man's war, but a poor man's fight". As historian James M. McPherson demonstrated, the notion turns out to be false (poor immigrants were the most underrepresented group in that war), but it remained a powerful emotional argument against the war, however unrelated to the facts. The situation remains true today: whenever I see a study that actually looks at the numbers, like this one, it turns out that the poor are not overrepresented on the front lines, just as they were not in the Civil War. Southerners, as it turns out, are the overrepresented group today, while New Englanders are underrepresented. But none of this has anything to do with civil rights in an all-volunteer military. —KevinMyers 05:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Civil War claim was based on the fact that it was possible to buy one's way out of conscription. A little more recently, one complaint in the Vietnam War was that it was "the black man fighting the yellow man to defend land the white man stole from the red man." Getting more modern, Colin Powell once said that he joined the Army because he "wanted a job". That would be true of many in the military, and if the south is overrepresented it could be a combination of that along with a stronger sense of patriotic duty. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 07:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reuben James Burial Place?
Reuben James was an early American naval hero. He saved the life of another naval hero, Stephen Decatur. Children were named after him, as were ships (there is still a USN ship is named after him). Does anyone know where he is buried? He died in Washington,D.C., and I suspect that he may be buried there. Any help would be appreciated! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salamanca34 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In 1900, the Secretary of the Interior advised the author of a book about James to consult the Navy about details of his career. Nothing I found at Google Book Search had more information about where he was buried after he presumable died in Washington D.C. You might check where military veterans who died in Washington D.C. in 1838 were buried and look for the last names "James." Edison (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reuben James claimed to have saved Decatur many years after the fact, when some of the witnesses were long dead. Our article on him doesn't mention the controversy that he may have taken the credit for another man's deed. The last biography of Decatur I read concluded that we can never be sure if it was really James or Daniel Frazier who saved Decatur. James was not famous in his lifetime; he was an obscure person when he died, and his place of burial may have been lost by the time writers made him famous. He doesn't appear to be listed at Find A Grave. If you do find out where he's buried, please be sure to add it to our article. —KevinMyers 06:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Her LinkedIn site says she lives in the "Greater Los Angeles area." I imagine she doesn't advertise her whereabouts for security reasons. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone know what year the AD year numbering first started in? Did the council of trent change the current year number? Other sources claim that the year number has been continuous since the council of Nicaea. There seems to be very little information about it. It seems to me that almost no one used the current AD count until at least the 12th century, and by the council of trent there were several different numbers floating around. Would it therefore be correct to say that the current 2010 year number has only incremeted exactly since about 1550?--Dacium (talk) 01:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A more common dating terminology in ancient times was "In the 10th year of the reign of His Majesty Ignoramus III." Something had to happen to make the passage of time since the (supposed) year of the birth of the Messiah to be more important than how many years some tyrant had begun to rule. "Anno Domini" was used on a coin of 1220, in the reign of King Waldemar II of Copenhagen, per [24]. [[[User:Edison|Edison]] (talk) 01:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was invented by Dionysius Exiguus in the 6th-century A.D., but the vast majority of people (other than a few scribal types, mainly monks) had very little awareness of it in their daily lives until well over 500 years later... AnonMoos (talk) 02:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is the kind of question whee the earliest attested usage wins. Dionysus Exiguus (c500-560) sought to break the marking of the passage of time, for Easter occurrences, away from temporal rulers (tyrants such as Diocletian) to Jesus, and in 525 AD he proposed to the Pope that Anno Domini be used as the dating scheme, per [25]. Venerable Bede used "A.D." in A.D. 731 in "Ecclesiastical Tables." "B.C." only came to be used by scholars in the 17th century. Edison (talk) 02:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was used in the Anglo-Saxon charter from 736 at right. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen it in papal documents from the eleventh century. More often they just used the regnal year of the pope/king/duke or whoever else, although sometimes they use both forms. Sometimes medieval documents aren't dated at all, which is loads of fun. But that's just for letters and chaters. The places where anno domini dates are used most, I think, are annals and chronicles, especially if they are listing events that happened hundreds of years earlier. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If "BC" was only used beginning in the 1600s, what did people use before that? Is it simply that they didn't have precise enough dates for that period, so they didn't have any need for "BC"? Nyttend (talk) 05:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Anno Domini article is not exactly definitive, but it suggests a couple of possibilities. One is that a different term (such as Ante Christum) was used. Another is that Anno Mundi (year of the earth, as reckoned by literal Bible interpretation) was used. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 09:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but there were numerous different calculations of that date, so it would have been very confusing. Possibly they used the dating used by ancient people themselves: Olympiads, AUC, consulships &c. Peter jackson (talk) 11:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Generally they didn't care about "BC" dates, and events that mattered to them took place vaguely "in ancient times" (whether real or not - the Trojan War, Alexander, stuff like that). The beginning of the Historia Brittonum counts the number of years since creation for certain events from the Bible, the Trojan War, Brutus' travels to Britain, and Caesar's invasion, and it ends up saying "accepit Iulius imperium Brittannicae gentis xlvii annis ante nativitatem Christi, ab initio autem mundi vccxv" (57 BC or 5215 Anno Mundi). So BC was, sort of, in use. The Byzantine calendar was always Anno Mundi; Anna Comnena, for example, wrote in the 6600s according to her understanding (which was not exactly the same as the AM used by the Historia Brittonum). Adam Bishop (talk) 14:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if they started using the BC approach for the simple reason that they could not agree on which Anno Mundi they were living in, but all (or most) agreed on which Anno Domini they were living in? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 14:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, "BC" works as an abbreviation for "before Christ" only in English. Did Germans, French, Dutch, Italians and the rest use their languages' equivalents of "before Christ" and come up with their own abbreviations? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a guess here that the language of scholarship was Latin, and meanwhile the average citizen didn't spend much time concerning himself with it. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but there is certainly medieval literature in those languages that deal with the ancient past, the Roman d'Alexandre for example. Offhand I don't know what they did with the date, if they did anything at all (the Roman d'Alexandre doesn't seem to mention it). Adam Bishop (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tri-lateral War?
Has there ever been a war with three or more sides to it all duking it out over something? 69.77.247.18 (talk) 02:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Bosnian War of the 1990s was a three-way war between the Serbs, Croats and Bosnian Muslims, with the Croats and Muslims eventually uniting. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in the aftermath of the Russian Revolution there were many armies fighting, especially in the Ukraine, where you had the Bolsheviks, anti-Bolshevik Russians, Ukrainian nationalists, Ukrainian anarchists, Poles, Germans, etc. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another example is the Congo Crisis of the early- and mid-1960's, in which three separate coalitions fought one another for control of the Congo. Laurinavicius (talk) 04:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There were a 3-way civil war in Mexico in the early 20th century, & a 4-way one (Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, pagans) in Uganda in the late 19th. Peter jackson (talk) 11:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many wars have more than two parties, but usually they split into two alliances. An example of this is the alliance between the UK/France/USA/etc. and the USSR in WWII. They weren't on particularly good terms with each other but joined forces to fight a 3rd party that they both considered to be a greater evil. --Tango (talk) 01:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Poggle who had no toes
Help. Does anyone have the words for the children's poem The Poggle who had no Toes. From memory he went to see against his mother's wishes and lost his toes as she told him he would.
My grandchildren want all the words. Many thanks in advance.
Kathy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.35.207.114 (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confusion isn't helped by the fact that the House of Holstein-Gottorp is a branch of the House of Oldenburg. Peter jackson (talk) 11:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Government response to 1990 recession
I'm looking for a (preferably online) article that addresses the U.S. federal government's response to the early 1990s recession, and the effectiveness of that response. I've found plenty of information on the causes and characteristics of the recession, but I haven't had much luck finding anything much about the government's response.
Thanks. 74.105.132.151 (talk) 04:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's rather infamous that the Federal Reserve Bank refused to loosen the money supply in 1992 to help George H.W. Bush (a manipulation that had been seen several times in the past); at the time, Bush attributed his loss to Clinton largely to this... AnonMoos (talk) 12:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Napoleon, Oldenburg, and Russia
The Duchy of Oldenburg was formerly a County, whose line died out in 1667 and after passed to Denmark. Why did the distant Empire of Russia gave up his territories in Holstein-Gottorp for a piece of land that they only held for less than a year? And why was the would Russia's relation with the Empire of France turn sour because Napoleon annexed it in 1810. Oldenburg was seperate from Russia by Prussia and many other countries and could not have been a seriously reliable ally to the Russians. It is mostly because the rulers of Oldenburg and the Emperor of Russia were cousins. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 05:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the relations between Napoleon and Russia turned sour mainly because Napoleon insisted on incorporating Russia into his "Continental System", and because he took lands in the Balkans and eastern Europe wholly for France instead of divvying them up with Russia... AnonMoos (talk) 12:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carbon economics
Traditionally organic materials have been reduced to ash by burning. Such burning is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, especially emissions of CO2. Through application of heat in the absence of O2, CO2 gas is sequestered by conversion of such organic material to BioChar. Through application of hot, pressurized KOH such organic materials are reduced to ash and base compounds with the result of even less expenditure of energy and no greenhouse harm to the environment. Is the cost/return of each processes what prevents industry from moving to the third from the second and from the first? 71.100.8.16 (talk) 12:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where does this magic 'hot, pressurized KOH' come from that requires no expenditure of energy and no greenhouse harm to the environment? Nil Einne (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I.E., compared to open burning (harm to atmosphere) and very high temp for BioChar. (potasium hydroxide bath only needs 160 deg F compared to 800 to 1500 deg F for biochar.) 71.100.8.16 (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I've understood correctly, surely the issue is that generally the purpose of burning organic material isn't to reduce it to ash. 128.232.241.211 (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ludwigshafen memorial installation, 28 October 2008
In the population pyramid on Côte d’Ivoire at U.S. Census bureau (link) that fewer people than would be expected was born between 1960 and 1965. This is just after the independence, and according to several sources I’ve read, mainly in Swedish, at the same time as a great economic growth in the country. How come that fewer people were born in a time of economic growth and just after the independence? Caspian Rehbinder (talk) 15:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Were people too busy making money to have sex? --TammyMoet (talk) 15:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The pyramids don't seem to indicate that. They indicate a big jump between the number of people currently in the 45-50 age group and the 40-45 age group. That suggests an increase in birth rates, or perhaps survival rates, in about 1965. --Tango (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why are people so sexually minded on the internet, but not in real life?
What are the reasons? Functional, ethical? For example the way people are said to behave on Chatroulette according to articles I've read. 89.243.72.5 (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your premise. Sex plays a major role in real life. --Tango (talk) 16:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, let's make sure the phenomena you're describing is real. What are you comparing? Do you hang out with 80 year old rural priests in real life, and big city teenagers online? APL (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming the premise has some validity, a lot of it has to do with safety. You can't catch the clap from the internet. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 16:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And anonymity. Social mores and taboos much more easily fall by the wayside when everyone is wearing a mask. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Related to that, lack of consequences. You can't say "tits or gtfo" if a girl walks into your IT lesson without expecting a slap. Vimescarrot (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, parents won't find out what you're doing online. Vimescarrot (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At least for many of this generation, but when we become parents I rather suspect i'd stand a much better chance of being able to find out. ny156uk (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you jest! In 20 years, Quantum computers will be so complicated that no one over the age of 12 will be able to learn how to operate them. Googlemeister (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]
Maybe its something to do with the internet-terminal being within private space. 89.242.101.230 (talk) 00:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Meaning of "progressive" as an adjective in music
I have seen several styles of music, very different from each other, that have the adjective "progressive" added to their names. I don't know what they have in common to be called that way. So, what does "progressive" mean in a musical context? --Belchman (talk) 16:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per the article at Progressive rock, Progressive rock bands pushed "rock's technical and compositional boundaries" by going beyond the standard rock or popular verse-chorus-based song structures. I think that can be generalised in any genre to encompass those who go beyond the standard forms. However, note that not all those who go beyond conventional forms are labelled progressive. The label is applied to musical genres such as rock and metal and, err, that's about it. --Tagishsimon(talk) 16:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) As with many music genres and subgenres, the definition can be quite fuzzy, with a large dollop of Humpty-Dumpty-esque "it means what I want it to mean." Still, you could start at Progressive music which is mostly a disambiguation page (albeit with "disputed" and "OR" tags), and the various articles linked from there, such as Progressive rock. --LarryMac | Talk 16:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Zingh empire
Where can I learn more about Emperor Tirus Afrik and the Zingh Empire? (Don't say Google). The Hero of This Nation (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Google says you need this[26] book: "A History of the African-Olmecs: Black Civilizations of America from Prehistoric Times to the Present Era" by Paul Alfred Barton. Your local library may be able to help if you don't want to own a copy. You see, even Google has its uses ;-). Alansplodge (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, something about that book blurb and the article about the Washitaw Nation makes me think it would not be considered a reliable source here on Wikipedia, for what it matters. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An article on the Zingh Empire would be pretty cool though. There must be sources that discuss the concept and its problems...maybe it wouldn't be as big as the Atlantic article, but it would still be interesting. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is some more speculation about the "Zingh empire" and the Olmecs here - "According to Blisshords Communications, one of the oldest empires and civilizions on earth existed just north of the coastal regions into what is today Mauritania. It was called the Zingh Empire and was highly advanced. In fact, they were the first to use the red, black and green African flag and to plant it throughout their territory all over Africa and the world. The Zingh Empire existed about fifteen thousand years ago...." However, I don't think those views are shared by the majority of archaeologists. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is the probability of being a victim of murder or assault if you are a an average middle class American? National average or average for a state or region is OK but it needs to be divided up by income level or social class. I've scoured the net and various statistics databases and I simply can't find anything which isn't an average across all income levels in a given area. Does anyone know where I can find this data? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.239.246.106 (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Search databases with the keywords /murder victim income quintile/. There's a bunch of links on Google but I don't have time to go through all of them now. Google Scholar is a good place to start. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
US armed forces demographics
I was unable to find information on the demographics in the US military, only that minority groups seem overrepresented. What is the % of Hispanic, AfAm, white, asian, N-Am for the 4 branches of the US military? Looking for both officer, and total. Googlemeister (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only as a start: "West Point's graduating Class of 2009 is nearly 7 percent Asian, 8 percent Hispanic, 7 percent African-American and 15 percent female."[27]75.41.110.200 (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This suggests whites, blacks and Asians are overrepresented, hispanics underrepresented. It's from 2004 so getting a little dated. This story looks at how jobs differ between races (specifically whites and blacks) with blacks making up more support staff and whites making up more front line troops (probably also why whites make up more than 64% of casualties). It notes that some elite units, like the Green Berets and Navy SEALs, are less than 5% black, and that blacks may feel unwelcome or out of place in such units. TastyCakes (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On officers: "Blacks currently comprise 11.3 percent of all active component Army officers."[28] (year 2000) 75.41.110.200 (talk) 17:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is Ma Ying-jeou allowed to travel to the European Union? --88.76.18.70 (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason you think he wouldn't be? It says in his article he traveled there in 2006, and his legal situation does not appear to have changed since then. TastyCakes (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would mean that national leaders would probably refuse to meet with him, or treat his sojourn as an official head-of-state visit; it wouldn't necessarily mean that he would be forbidden to travel. AnonMoos (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think big China has complained in the past when the U.S. has allowed Taiwanese leaders to visit on "unofficial" trips. I would assume Beijing wouldn't be any happier to see Taiwan's president making the rounds in Europe. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
quake memorial
I know the recovery and clean-up efforts are still going on in Haiti. But will there be a memorial to the victims of the 2010 Haiti earthquake? If so, where can I send a donation?24.90.204.234 (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, but do be careful who you send money to. A number of fake charity scams have come to light , some bad enough to cause the FBI to investigate (eg. see this BBC news report and this CBS news report). Astronaut (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ebook site like Amazon?
I want to buy some non-fiction ebooks. I cannot see any ebooks on Amazon (at least not on Amazon.co.uk). Is there any site that would allow me to search for books, and in particular allows me to make sure that I am buying the latest edition? (I want to buy the latest edition of either ebook or paperbook). Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.101.230 (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(after e/c with SineBot)
While Amazon has lots of eBooks, I think that they are only compatible with the Kindle readers. (They've also got a desktop version and an iphone version of the software) If you want something non-kindle, you could try Barnes and Noble. APL (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OrWaterstones ebook service. I also use archive.org to find copyright-expired quality historic ebooks, fiction and non-fiction, free in epub and pdf formats. Karenjc 23:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Buying books secondhand via Amazon
Can I be sure that if I choose the option to buy a used, instead of a new, textbook through Amazon, that I will get the same edition as the new book shown, and not some other earlier edition? I'm using Amazon.co.uk. Thanks 89.242.101.230 (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're supposed to get the same version as described in the "product details". If you don't, I'd return it and register a complaint with Amazon. APL (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, go by the "product details" not the photo. I've noticed that they sometimes run the wrong photo. APL (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience using the service in the US, used book sellers sometimes make mistakes in identifying which edition (or volume, etc.) they have for sale. When in doubt, email the seller and verify that they have what you want. I've done this with good results. —KevinMyers 22:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Latest edition of an ebook or paperbook?
Do publishers tend to publish an ebook first, and then a paperbook? I'm wondering if an ebook published in say 2003 is going to be the same edition as a paperbook published in say 2004. Thanks 89.242.101.230 (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
February 17
foreign literature in schools
In the American school system, why are European and American classics the only writings that are studied? Why isn't African or Asian literature studied?
--Metroman (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just wait until they get to college. When I was in college (and this was nearly 15 years ago) I said the prototypical college class would be called "Gay and Lesbian Literature of the Asian Diaspora." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm too old to have been in said school system when Black History Month became a big thing, but I'd be surprised if African ones weren't at least options. Or, does this month mostly celebrate African-American history?
As far as a reason, remember that the major influx of Asians only began in the last few decades. Also, it was only in the last few decades that American schools were integrated. Now, consider that the students who grew up in the integrated schools/schools with more Asian students are just now becoming the leaders of various school systems. it is these leaders who must purchase the books and decide on the curriculum. So, it sems quite logical that any said classics are just now entering the curriculum, and that it might take a while.
Another problem, of course, is that some teachers complain they spend all their time teaching kids how to pass the aptitude tests to graduate, so they have no time to teach a large multitude of things, but I'm nto sure if this would really apply, so I won't go futher on that point.209.244.187.155 (talk) 01:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
is the New York Times on Armistice Day, 1918, in which it's referred to as "the world war", not capitalized. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do your own homework.
