Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

January 4

Ursula K. Le Guin recommendations

I dedicated a large part of my misspent youth to the great masters of science fiction. Many hours (and visual acuity points) were lost to Stanislaw Lem, Philip K Dick, Philip José Farmer, Olaf Stapledon and others. However, for unknown reasons, the marvelous (or so I hear) Ursula K. Le Guin were omitted. I mean to rectify that. Normally I would go to my trusted Encyclopedia of Science Fiction for recommendations, but alas, I have just moved and it has either been misplaced or put in storage. Either way, I turn to you, my fellow reference desk dwellers, a fount of information such as the world has never seen. Where should my quest begin? A Wizard of Earthsea? Left Hand of Darkness? I am yours to command. 83.250.203.75 (talk) 12:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly recommend all four books of the Earthsea Trilogy - I read one as an eleven year old, and recently read them all. I found them interesting, exciting and thought-provoking. DuncanHill (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

For four read five, since 2001. On the science fiction front, her best novels are probably the Left Hand of Darkness, the Dispossessed and the Lathe of Heaven. </OR> Algebraist 12:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The article on The Lathe of Heaven intrigues me... Seems vaguely phildickian, no? Although Earthsea seems good too... I think I shall be greedy and read both. So it shall be! To the bookstore! 83.250.203.75 (talk) 13:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Speculative fiction, set in the post-apocalyptic future, may or may not fall within your definition of SF. I was entranced by Always Coming Home. BrainyBabe (talk) 14:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Like Duncan, I enjoyed the Earthsea books as a child, especially the first, A Wizard of Earthsea. If you want something more mainstream, try Orsinian Tales. Xn4 16:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I cannot recommend the short story "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" highly enough. It's actually not even a story, but more like a prose poem. Corvus cornix_talk 17:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

“To light a candle is to cast a shadow. . .” Start with A Wizard of Earthsea. Who need Lord of the Rings when there are books like that! There’s something almost Bergmanesc about that book. --S.dedalus (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Justice Potter's birthday?

In the Potter Stewart article: Born January 26, 1915. (Used to be Jan 23; Jan 26 since July 28, 2007)

However, there are also some other sources [1] that stated Justice Potter was born on January 23.

Blackmun, Thurgood Marshall, Potter & Brennan, JJ

Brennan, Potter, Thurgood Marshall & Blackmun, JJ -- Toytoy (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This would be an excellent point to make at Talk:Potter Stewart, and/or be bold enough to change the article yourself to correct the error without further ado. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I was not very sure yesterday because I did not have a complete picture of his grave. But I find this today. -- Toytoy (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

How do you draw a supply / demand curve for public radio and non-profits?

I am trying to figure out what the supply demand curve looks like for these - the two examples I am specifically interested in are public radio, and non-profits - let's say a homeless shelter that runs on donations. Thank you.

Basically, they look the same for any good. Supply can be supposed to be an increasing function, and demand a decreasing one.

The caveats: it is clear that the examples you are posing mean strong externalities. In this case, demand and supply mean private marginal benefits and costs. Social benefits/costs (the real ones for the whole society) are different: see externalities. Hence, the point of intersection between private curves gives the competitive equilibrium, while the intersection between the social curves relates to the efficient outcome.

The preceding paragraph refers to private provision. One price for all, different quantities provided by/to different agents. Public provision implies, in turn, that one quantity is serviced to all demandants, who may contribute with different payments. If this is the case, public demand is then the vertical (rather than horizontal) sum of individual demands. I notice the corresponding articles are somewhat incomplete in regard to this topic. Pallida  Mors 18:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - do you think you could point me to some more resources on this, I'm not really understanding it - how can a good that is given away for nothing and supported voluntarily look the same on the curve as one that is sold? Thanks.

Sure, sorry for the delay in answering again! Let us say that the idea is that, like we economists like to say, there are no free lunchs. Hence, a good is in general not given away just for nothing: maybe you don't expect a monetary reward, but you invest time and effort and are willing to receive something for it. Take the ordinate scale of such "supply" curves to represent the reward given to such suppliers. Same analysis for "demand" curves. Take it as a stylized analysis of something that is not enterily free, but rather an activity of people that have to deal with a bunch of additional activities and decide how much of the first activity to "supply" based in a type of cost/benefit analysis.

For bibliographic support, most of basic microeconomic handbooks cope with externalities, giving enough insights into the concepts I have described above. Public goods' coverage may not be that complete.

For relatively intermediate material, you may consult Varian's Intermediate Microeconomics; Pindyck and Rubinfeld, Microeconomics; and Mankiw, Principles of Microeconomics (this last one just for externalities). More advanced treatment of the topic exists. But no graphs. Just formulas :( Pallida  Mors 14:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it true that USA let a lot of Japanese WW2 war criminals go free/covered up war crimes in return for money?

I heard that Japan looted many of the countries that they invaded. Stole gold, diamonds, riches etc. Is it true that they used this loot to bribe USA big wigs not to bring certain political figures like Hirohito to trial, and covered up their war crimes? 64.236.121.129 (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Btw, here's the source video where I got this info from, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cASXu5RE3QI 64.236.121.129 (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, a number of Japanese were put on trial for war crimes, see International Military Tribunal for the Far East; China also held its own tribunals against the Japanese, as did the Russians (see Khabarovsk War Crime Trials). It seems unlikely to me that mere "loot" alone would be effective enough as bribery materials, as you'd have to bribe a lot of officials to get away with it and it only takes one to screw up something like that, but I don't really know. More interesting to me is MacArthur's secret granting of immunity to Unit 731 scientists in exchange for biological warfare information. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yamashita's gold, a controversial page I've had on my watchlist for months. Draw your own conclusions. - Carbon ^[Nyan?] 05:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Witness information

Can the personal details of a witness in a UK court be disclosed to the court, for example, if they have a job, or are claiming any benefits, if they have any qualifications etc?86.154.156.181 (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC) Phillipa

Such questions might come up under cross-examination, though in the case of an expert witness relevant qualifications will be set out in their witness statement. The court can direct a witness to answer any question, but it won't usually do so unless there's some possible relevance to the matter in hand, the witness's evidence or credibility. Xn4 00:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

For a common assault case, with a non expert witness, are these sort of questions common?86.154.156.181 (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It depends. If the other side knows something about a witness which would tend to discredit that person's evidence, then it may come up. It would be unusual for being unemployed to be relevant to someone's credibility in itself, but if (say) a witness were fraudulently claiming benefits, or if a witness had been sacked by the defendant and had a grudge against him/her... Xn4 00:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

January 5

Average number of friends

How many friends ordinary people normally have?217.168.4.140 (talk) 03:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

33, according to a MSN Messenger study mentioned here. But 54, according to a newer MSN study mentioned here.Dunbar's number and The Tipping Point are mentioned too and might interest you as well. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

But how many are REAL friends, (those who would leap to help you if you were in trouble), or just acquaintances?--88.110.7.255 (talk) 07:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The first big problem with your question is, what the heck is an ordinary person? A farmer in China or India? A teen in a western country? A retired person in Japan? Nil Einne (talk) 12:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ordinary person = ordinary wikipedia user. 217.168.3.246 (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that is a problem but for me the biggest problem is defining what is a 'friend'. Am I someones friend if I only ever see them 'through' someone else (i.e. I have 'friends' that are friends of friends, we get along but without the intermediary friend i'm 99% sure we'd lose touch)? How about if I speak to them daily at work, socialise with drinks after work but wouldn't likely continue seeing them if one of us left that place of work? Is that a friend or a work acquaintance, and where does the line get drawn? How about friends through a hobby? I have friends I play football (soccer) with, we have social events, we have regular matches but if they left the team I expect we would love touch. I don't know where friend ends and colleague/person I know begins. I know I have 'close' friends, these are the guys I see week in week out, that i have known for years, that come over to mine, that I go to theres, that I discuss my life with, that we can go 3 months without meeting up but would instantly be 'normal' as soon as we met again. So if you ask me how many friends i have? Somewhere in the region of 10 and maybe as much as 200 (yah i'm popular...ha ha know i think 200 is probably too much), depending on your definition of friend. ny156uk (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

In Russian there is a word for "friend", of which you are only supposed to have a couple at most over the course of your life, and everyone else, even if they are friendly, is just an "acquaintance." --24.147.86.187 (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

If you believe the average Facebook profile the number of “friends” people have is more like 333. --S.dedalus (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It is said that most people can count thier true friends made throughout thier lives on one hand. I agree with this as although I have many acquaintences, and numerous friends, those that would leap to my aid if I was in distress, I would say there are 3 steve, carl and rowan. and I only see them every few years. but the bond remains.

WWII alternate history

Hello and sorry to bother you again! Are there any WWII alternate history novels written from a Slavic perspective (don't have to be known or translated), as in what would happen if Germany had won etc. ? Cptukbo (talk) 08:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

There are probably several, but the one that comes to mind is Fatherland (novel). Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 02:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

And if you look at the See Also section in the article, it's pretty much filled with other "Germany won the War" stories. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 02:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Phillip K Dick's The Man in the High Castle is a great one that falls into this category. 86.137.88.172 (talk) 01:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

McCain/Giuliani

Why didn't these candidates run in Iowa? 136.206.1.17 (talk) 14:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Because they knew they wouldn't do well with Iowa's conservatives (the evangelical base never liked McCain and Rudy is a twice-divorced, pro-choice catholic adulterer). Now they can pretend that they did poorly in the Caucus there just because they didn't campaign, and hope for a comeback in New Hampshire. Jacques l'Aumône (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

When you have limited amounts of money, and about 30 States to campaign in, you have to make strategic decisions on where you can get the most votes for your buck. Rudy has developed an unusual (and risky) strategy where he is focusing his money entirely on States where his message will be better appreciated (Florida, New York, California), but these are later in the campaign. If one Republican can get a head of steam early in the race, it may be too late for him to catch up. He is gambling that the early states will be close, or that they are divided out among the other candidates, so that there is no front runner by the time he gets in the game.

McCain is slightly different, his big chance comes in New Hampshire next week. So he was focusing his efforts there, where Romney is his biggest threat. He was hoping that Huckabee could beat Romney in Iowa, which would then hamper Romney's chances in New Hampshire, giving McCain the edge there. A big bonus for McCain was the fact that he pulled in around 13% in Iowa, despite not campaigning too much there, which gives him a real boost going into New Hampshire. Rockpocket 21:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Religious-use of cannabis by Buddhists

In order to settle a dispute I have with User:Pundit over Cannabis Culture magazine as a source for the article on Chocolate Thai, I request that anyone take a look at this forum thread and tell me whether you think their claims are accurate or not. Zenwhat (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I thank Zenwhat for giving me the link to his post here. I have to, however, kindly disagree with the definition of reference desk problem as he gave here. In our discussion I referred to published (and sometimes scholarly) resources such as this or this or this or this or this to prove that the idea that historically in some cases Buddhists were using cannabis isn't controversial. It is the validity of these sources that has to be decided - I don't think that claims from any Internet forum even qualify for being discussed. Pundit|utter 16:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. In traditional Buddhism, the taking of intoxicants is prohibited by The Five Precepts, but some so-called Buddhists will just say and do whatever they want, as with the followers of any other "religion".--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It's important to note, however, that Cannabis Culture magazine does not acknowledge the precept against intoxicants and also claims that Soma did, in fact, contain cannabis or other psychadelics, not the mainstream historical claim that Soma may have contained cannabis or other psychadelics. Zenwhat (talk) 17:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Why did you go out of your way to link Soma (disambiguation) and make us take another step to find the relevant article? —Tamfang (talk) 04:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Zenwhat, this is a bit silly and is not really what the reference desk is meant to be used for. Work our your dispute with the other editor or go to one of the many places for mediation. Sources are not judged as reliable or not based on a cherry picking of various sentences and seeing if they are accurate or not. It is clear that you are not really looking for the sake of really figuring out whether it is a good source; you are searching for evidence to support an argument of yours to buffer an AfD which you sponsored. Take a breather and think over whether this is really worth getting worked up about. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Process of suing Wikipedia for copyright infringement

A lot of confusing discussion goes back and forth over whether certain borderline images should be deleted. I wonder if it would be more efficient, in such cases as these, to just leave it and delete upon the unlikely receipt of cease and desist letter? Is that really a risky tactic? --Seans Potato Business 17:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not that risky (the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act is pretty good about making sure people get due notice before getting sued) but it's not in the spirit of things, especially not for Commons. If something is on Commons it should be unambiguously free content—not because anyway is that worried about Commons getting sued, but because Commons is meant to be a free repository for others, and anything on there should be fair game for re-use. Going with a "its free until we hear otherwise" approach would not be good for the overall goal of Commons and would encourage a lot of copyright ignorance. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

And, just because the likelihood of a successful suit is small, wouldn't make it an ethical course to take. Bielle (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, modern copyright law owes less to ethics as does a certain money-making mouse and his compadres. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

If something had no market value, there would be no need for its copyright. As soon as someone or something other than the originator wants to use it or a copy of it, it has value. The amount of value is not the ethical issue though it may be behind, and in front of, the legal one. Artists of every medium ought to be grateful to Mickey and Walt, if what you say is true. Bielle (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Patents and copyrights are meant to expire: they are meant to be contracts for limited monopolies, with the full knowledge that they only contribute to innovation when the intellectual property in question can later revert back to the public domain (and with full knowledge that all innovators and artists draw upon the public domain in their own works). Disney and other major media producers have used their influence with politicians to extend their monopolies almost indefinitely. Think of it this way: if they had not extended the copyright terms over and over and over again, much of the music of the 1960s would be today in the public domain, free for re-use, for transformation. Instead, such property becomes simply another commodity, long after the artist in question has died and gone on.

Copyright has become a powerful tool for media suppression, not innovation, in the modern world. It is the ugly downside of intellectual property law that it can often be more effectively used to silence potential competitors or innovators than it can be a motivation for further innovation. You might take a look at Lawrence Lessig's wonderful Free Culture (free online) if you'd like to have a somewhat more nuanced understanding of the history of copyright law and the thinking that goes behind it; it doesn't sound like something you've read too much about, and it's a very serious issue in our current age. It's a great book, very well written, easy to understand, and a great primer for thinking about IP in general. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The way I think about Mickey and his buddies is this: one company (Disney) and one company alone has invested time, money and effort at developing and popularizing the character. What possible reason could there be for picking a date after which anyone could use the character? So that Joe Blow Industries can make their own Mickey lunchboxes? Under what convoluted reasoning is that fair? Patents need to have an expiry date so that innovations can spread and wealth can be distributed among other folks that are interested in developing the idea. Copyrighted movies and pictures (and trademarked characters) aren't going to be developed; they're not an innovation that can be built on. If Mickey became public domain, we wouldn't see new animation houses cranking out exciting new cartoons; artists prefer to create their own thing. All we'd get was a glut of cheap merchandise - even cheaper than we have now since the folks churning it out would have no investment to protect. Matt Deres (talk) 14:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You still couldn't use the character willy-nilly—trademark law has no such expirations for this purpose. As for Mickey, don't overestimate how original he is. Steamboat Willie was a deliberately derivative work from the start (based on Steamboat Bill, Jr. by Buster Keaton, and both were based around a song that was—wait for it—free to use because it was in the public domain!!), and that's all that would have entered into the public domain. That's right—the Mouse, himself, his big debut, the big thing they've been working so hard to make sure others can't possibly feature it in their own films without paying a hefty fee, to make sure others can't view it online without proper licensing, is itself based on another work. To think what would have happened if they had the pants sued off them from the beginning! What would Disney, the company, have been without being able to amply develop from works in the public domain? Cinderella, Snow White, Pinnochio, Hercules, Aladdin? Disney's "classic" repertoire is nothing more than adaptations of public domain texts, and yet they are somehow supposed to be exempt from ever becoming "common culture"? Why should that be—simply because there is more money involved today than there was in the late-19th century? Do you know that legally you are supposed to pay a royalty every time you sing the song Happy Birthday to You? Don't you think at some point such things should pass into being part of common culture, the public domain?

Please, please read up on copyright law, theory, and history before making an off-the-cuff defense of some of the worst copyright abusers in history. It's an important issue. Knock-offs are really not the worst possible thing.

As for what would happen if more media was public domain, I think we're already seeing the beginnings of the possible innovations that can come out of people being able to draw upon multiple sources for media; but more importantly, we're also seeing exactly how much big corporations will go to suppress the innovation of others in the name of copyright protection. If you don't believe people will use existing things to innovate, surely you can believe that people have had their own work clamped down upon because it featured derivative elements. Artists' rights are important, but not so much that they trump the rights of others. And in all of the copyright-expiration cases, the artists themselves have been long, long since dead and gone. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

To give you an example of a famous work that today would be considered a copyright violation, consider the US national anthem: The Star-Spangled Banner. It's an unauthorized derivative work of the song To Anacreon in Heaven, and if it had been composed under modern copyright law, Francis Scott Key could have been sued into oblivion by John Stafford Smith. --Carnildo (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Election tresholds

In my newspaper (De Volkskrant, Dutch, 5 Jan. 2008 p. 5, left wing), I just read a rather bizarre article about the Iowa caucuses where the supporters of Biden and Richardson had to "run" to one of the larger three candidates' because they did not meet the election threshold of fifteen percent. I have a question concerning this threshold, and hope others more knowledgeable in American politics can answer it.

Why have an election threshold at this level? Election thresholds generally make sense, for example the 5% in the German Bundestag, but as far as I know the threshold is applied after all votes are counted and added together. Doesn't this threshold dramatically increase the negative effect of thresholds, such as the spoiler effect and the vicious circle minor parties find themselves in? User:Krator (t c) 22:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an idiosyncrasy of the Democratic caucus rules (the Republican's do not have a threshold). Why set this level? Who knows, there is enormous complexity in the rules for each state and the exact reasons for many are lost in the mists political history. The point of the early Iowa caucuses is to create buzz. To draw attention by creating a story around the winners and losers. Its not much of a story if the delegates are spread thinly across a number of candidates, and there are no real winners and losers. So by setting a a high threshold you can ensure that the delegates "wasted" on the minor runners gets distributed among the major candidates, thereby artificially inflating the popularity of the winners and artificially deflating the popularity in the losers.

The thing to remember about the early primaries and caucuses (and its odd concept for non-Americans) is that the actual number of delegates being elected are tiny and not really influential when it comes to electing the candidate. It is all about perception of popularity, in the hope and expectation that the rest of the country likes to back a winner. This is particularly noticeable when you consider that, in terms of delegate count, Clinton is currently way ahead of the field (due to the number of superdelegates she has), [2] but the perception of coming third in a caucus is much more influential than the fact that Obama got an extra delegate or two as a result of his victory. Thats the story. Rockpocket 22:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It's actually a threshhold at the local precinct caucus level... AnonMoos (talk) 23:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

A party caucus is also quite different from a general election conducted under a system of proportional representation. In a general election, you mark your ballot, then go home. You don't get a second chance. The Iowa Democratic caucus is not a secret ballot, so participants who see their candidate is below the 15% threshold can move to another candidate. It's more like a multi-round runoff election. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

During the Iowa Democratic caucus, you literally stand in a corner representing your candidate. If yours doesn't get fifteen percent of all people in the room, you listen to speeches from representitves for the other candidates and move to a new corner of your new choice. Rmhermen (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Delegate anomaly

Further to the question above, I was looking into the CNN coverage on the Iowa caucus here and am wondering if anyone can explain what appears to me to be an anomaly. The page lists:

Candidate	State Delegates	Pledged Delegates
Obama	940	16
Edwards	744	14
Clinton	739	15

The third column doesn't total include superdelegates. So my question is, why does Clinton have more pledged delegates (which should be proportionally allotted from the number of state delegates) than Edwards? Is it simply a mistake, or is it something to do with the pledged at-large delegates, some of which haven't officially pledged their allegiance yet? Rockpocket 22:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This is merely speculation, but it could have something to do with the fact that delegates are chosen by district, and Edwards may have had more people vote for him as a whole, but Clinton won more districts by small margins. Corvus cornix_talk 22:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought that at first, but if that was the case then Clinton would have more State delegates too, since they are appointed not by the percentage of the popular vote, but by the result within each district. Rockpocket 04:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

United Statesian caucuses/primaries etc.

Is there any legal reason for American political parties having such (to an outsider) bizarre and complicated methods of choosing their candidates? Why not have one member-one vote? DuncanHill (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a historical consequence of the individual States' desire for a form of representation in the federal system. It used to be that Congressmen from each party would just nominate one candidate, but in the 1830s the system changed to one of a convention. This system is loosely based on the United States Electoral College, which is used to electing presidents.

The reason this system is used, is because one member, one vote, would mean that hugely populated states would have had undue influence over the unpopulated states. Yet if its left entirely in the hands of the State political bodies, there is a lack of transparency and potential for abuse. So they devised a mixture of the two. They have caucuses or primaries (one member, one vote) for delegates to a state convention, where the state parties can elect their delegate to send to the national convention, where they elect their candidate. In general, the elected delegates follow the wishes of those that vote and they make up the majority of the convention, but there are lots of other types of delegate that makes up a minority (unpledged add-on delegates, "superdelegates", party leaders and elected officials). Its all part of the "checks and balances" that are found throughout US the political system, to ensures all stakeholders (both the people and the States) have influence over the federal system. Rockpocket 22:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Am I right in thinking that American political parties don't have a membership system like we do in Britain (i.e. here one applies for membership of a party, pays a subscription, and in return one has some sort of input into policy-making, selection of candidates etc., but must agree not to do anything to support another party)? DuncanHill (talk) 23:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You are correct in thinking they do not have membership in the same with Britain does. Instead, you have a system whereby when you register to vote (the US equivalent of getting put on the British electoral roll) you can, but are not required to, declare an affiliation. This means most registered voters are either "registered Democrats", "registered Republicans" or "registered independents". In Presidential primaries you are only permitted to choose a candidate in one party. Some States hold a closed primary, where you can only vote if you are registered with that party. Others hold a open primary, where you can still only vote in one, but can choose any one in the voting booth, irrespective of whom you are registered with. This gives the odd situation where a registered Democrat can try to influence which Republican will get the nomination, a form of tactical voting. There are minor variations in some States, for example, California has a "modified closed primary", which allows each party to choose its own system for each election. Only a tiny fraction of those registered with a party actually get involved with the grass-roots party in the way paid up members of British parties do, and these are often end up being the delegates that represent the voters at the State, then National conventions. Rockpocket 00:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks, fascinating stuff. I do think it a trifle odd that one register one's political affiliation with the state. DuncanHill (talk) 01:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

As Rockpocket hinted on, the U.S. is (at this time) a republic of independent states. A one-person-one-vote democratic system is acceptable in a democracy, but not a republic. In a perfect republic, all in-state issues are handled by the state without any outside influence. All inter-state issues are handled by the federal government. The people should rarely find federal matters affecting their day-to-day lives because the federal government would only be concerned with relations between states, not people. Of course, the U.S. is not perfect and many people do not want it to be a republic. They want a democracy where people in one state can have a voice in the issues of another state. So, you will find what appears to be weird conflicting political practices throughout the U.S. while it continues through a state of transition to (hopefully) find a balance between a republic and a democracy. -- kainaw™ 01:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

In the above, is Republic synonymous with Federation? User:Krator (t c) 01:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Republic isn't synonymous with federation, but Kainaw meant federation, not republic. There are a lot of republics in the world that aren't federations, and a few federations that aren't republics. FiggyBee (talk) 01:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I know what I meant. "Republic" is a very general term. The U.S. is a "federal republic". That is pretty much a "federation". I didn't see the need to define it so precisely when comparing a republic to a democracy. -- kainaw™ 02:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I was confused by the terminology, because, for example, Germany is a republic, a federation, and a democracy. Apples and oranges came to mind. User:Krator (t c) 02:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

"Republic" is a very general term, which is why I said you mean federation. "In a perfect republic, all in-state issues are handled by the state without any outside influence. All inter-state issues are handled by the federal government" makes no sense if applied to a republic which isn't a federation, because such a republic has no states. On the other hand, if you replace "republic" with "federation", it makes perfect sense, even if applied to federations that aren't republics (like the one I live in, for example). FiggyBee (talk) 02:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Democracies and republics

It's time again for the Democracy/Republic chart:

	Republics	Monarchies
Democratic	Italy, USA	Canada, Netherlands
Not democratic	Cuba, Turkmenistan	Saudi Arabia, Nepal

A republic is any country with a president or similar official instead of a monarch, whether or not it is democratic. A democracy is any country where the "people rule," whether it is a republic or a monarchy. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Nepal's been a democracy and a republic for a week now :P User:Krator (t c) 03:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess once the king leaves Kathmandu I'll need a new example for an undemocratic monarchy. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest Brunei to take the place of Nepal the next time you need the chart? Sadly, I am certain you will. /Kriko (talk) 13:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Just don't link to democracy when using the chart. In normal usage in the United States, it means direct democracy - which the United States is not. As the link shows, it is one of those words that can mean just about anything you want it to mean - similar to republic. It could even mean a government in which the people vote each year to have a dictator make all their decisions. -- kainaw™ 22:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the democracy article makes it clear there are many kinds of "democracies," including both direct and representative ones. I would disagree that in the United States, "democracy" necessarily means "direct democracy." When Woodrow Wilson talked about making the world "safe for democracy" by entering World War I, he wasn't talking about direct democracy. When Ronald Reagan told WWII veterans that "Democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man," he wasn't talking about direct democracy. When George W. Bush told the UN, "Peaceful nations must stand for the advance of democracy," he wasn't talking about direct democracy, either.

There is a misconception out there that, "The United States is a republic, not a democracy." That's comparing apples and oranges. The United States is a republic because it has a president, and it's generally considered to be one of the world's more democratic countries, despite its faults, because it has competitive elections between two parties, both of which have an opportunity to make their voice heard. If George Bush were to declare marshal law, abrogate the Constitution, arrest his political opponents and declare himself president-for-life, the U.S. would no longer be a democracy, but it would still be a republic as long as he didn't call himself king.

True, the meaning of "democracy" is fuzzy. There are some people out there -- quite misguided, in my view, who believe Cuba is a real democracy and the United States is a corporate oligarchy. Well, they might be half right. But when used nowadays by political scientists, and by everyone besides certain misguided Americans, the word "republic" has a very clear meaning. It's a state with an elected or appointed (or self-appointed) head of state instead of a monarch. Thus, in 1999, Australia, one of the world's most democratic countries, had a referendum on whether to become a republic instead of remaining under the British crown. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

One could argue that a republic is any state in which all public power arises from the people. Such a definition would make Sweden a republic. In the United Kingdom public power derives from the Crown. I do not know where public power in the USA arises or derives from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DuncanHill (talk • contribs) 12:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Back to the original question

To go back to the original question, primary elections are largely a creation of the Progressive Era 100 years ago, invented to stem the power of party bosses. From the parties' perspective, letting the states conduct primary elections is a lot cheaper than trying to conduct them yourself. A party certainly could go around the state and hold its own procedure to select a candidate, but the candidate would then have to gather lots of signatures to get on the ballot and likely would be listed as an independent in many states.

It's worth noting that there are really no such things as the national Democratic and Republican parties. There are only the national committees, which serve to organize the conventions and coordinate among the state parties and federal elected officials. Each of the state parties send delegations to the national conventions, which formally choose the candidates.

There's no reason to establish national-level mass-membership party organizations, since the only nationwide election in the U.S. is for president, and even that's done through the infamous Electoral College. Elections for Senate and the House of Representatives are very much state and local affairs despite the important role of national Democratic and Republicn campaign committees in providing money for the candidates' campaigns. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that delegates to national conventions do not represent the population of each state, but the political representation of each state. For example, if one state has a Democratic governor, several Democratic Congressmembers and Senators, and a majority of Democratic representatives in the state legislature, they may get more delegates to the Democratic convention than would a state with a larger population, but fewer elected Democratic officeholders. Corvus cornix_talk 23:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Really good stuff, very helpful, thank you to all. DuncanHill (talk) 12:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

getting a physical stock certificate to hang on a wall

this page has the product I'd like: [3] but also, quite decent of them, the page mentions "the SEC requires us to charge at least twice the stock price, we expect that you would be able to purchase this more economically through a broker"

so...how would i go about getting that piece of paper to hand, through a broker?

Thank you... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.122.21 (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I have not been able to get actual shares of stock through a broker. What I've done is work with the companies directly. They usually have a shareholder representative section. Explain to them that you want a paper share. They will tell you who you can purchase one from. I glanced at price differences between GiveAShare that you linked and OneShare. It appears that OneShare is much cheaper. -- kainaw™ 00:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the help exclpoint —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.122.4 (talk) 03:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

January 6

us wars

i hope some one can help me please i have been searching 4 two days long story short my son wants to join the marines wat a mistake he will most likley be a ground pounder i am looking for a list of us soldiers killed/wounded in war since ww1 to present listed by the branch of service one may not exhist without having to copy ever war one at a time i have gone to the national arcives ect ect ect i have alot of difficulty trying to find any thing on the web with out all the crap no matter how i try to find a certin topic lol. any kind of help will be helpfull ty a very concerned parient —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.4.70.253 (talk) 15:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't answer your question but would suggest you just compile the list from first sources. You really only need to concentrate on the major conflicts IMHO since the rest are too small to make any difference to the final outcome. I would suggest you talk to your son about why he wants to join the marines. Does he know what they do? Does he understand the responsibilities and requirements of being a marine? Does he understand he may have to kill people? Does he understand he may have to follow orders to do things including kill people to some extent regardless of his personal feelings? Does he understand the risk to life and limb (concentrating on deaths is probably a a bad idea since nowadays given the standard of medical care many US soldiers are receiving serious injuries but surviving)? Has he considered whether he truly supports all the military causes the US is involved in? More generally, does he understand the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan? I don't just mean the military/security situation but the history, culture, beliefs of the people etc. Does he understand the complexity of the world including its religions, cultures and countries (developing countries in general and especially and Africa and the Americas are an important component here). Encourage him to read from a diverse (by diverse I mean include many non American ones and indeed non-Western) range of sources to help him better understand the world we live in. Perhaps most importantly, encourage him to keep an open mind. I say whether any of this will change his mind. Perhaps it will just make him more enthusiastic. But I will say it's important for anyone embarking on what will potentially be a very major life change experience to understand what he's doing and why he's doing it and to truly consider whether it all makes sense. BTW I'm presuming your son is joining the marines because he want's to serve and help defend his country. If he's doing it for another reason like because he think it'll be beneficial to his job prospects or because they'll help pay for his university (or college as you say) fees well I don't know how much of what I suggested will help although if you encourage him to think about it he might realise it's a bad idea to do it for those reasons, particularly in a time of significant conflict. Nil Einne (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It is very honorable to desire to serve one's country. Keep in mind, not all Marines are "ground pounders." Depending on his ASVAB score, he will be able to serve in the Military Occupational Specialty of his choice. If you want to try to convince him, please use reasonable evidence. All soldiers killed since WW1 is not really applicable. The concept of wars has changed very much. It would be more proper to use the data from just Operation Iraqi Freedom or maybe in the past ten years. Once he commits though, please support him. Your admonishment will seriously hurt his morale, and that is the last thing he needs. --Omnipotence407 (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Further... Most Marines do not kill anyone. They are not ordered to do so. They are never put in a position to do so. The "grunts" are the ground military that goes into front-line combat. A majority of the Marines serve in support roles and do not see any form of combat. It is possible (but rare in modern war) for support camps to be bombed. It is possible for a civilian working on a well-protected large city in the United States to be killed by a bomb as well. It all depends on his ASVAB score. If he scores above 100, the Marines will not waste his brain on front-line duty. If he scores above 130, he will most likely go to Communications/Electronics school in 29 Palms. If he passes his classes (which I found harder than any of my undergrad and postgrad college courses), he will be an electronics or computer engineer. At that point, if you've been supporting him, you will be able to discuss the Officer program to him (MECEP). As an enlisted Marine, he will be allowed to go to College and get a degree. Upon completion, he will begin in the Officer program. In the end, he gets a cheap education and experience in the military. That is a great head-start on a non-military career. -- kainaw™ 01:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Serving one's government, incidentally, is not the only way to serve one's country. It's often not even a good way. —Tamfang (talk) 04:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Orion

is orion an archer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.59.130 (talk) 15:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could check out Orion --Omnipotence407 (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

He/she/it may have already, since Orion, specifically Orion (mythology) doesn't give any indication. There is surprisingly little on the internet to indicate this famous hunter's actual method, although as a follower of Artemis it might be assumed that he was. According to this (see the last page) he did use arrows against the scorpion that by some accounts indirectly led to his death. ◄Zahakiel► 13:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

US presidential election

This may seem a slightly odd query, but I live in the UK and can't gauge this myself. Who will win the election? I understand that the American system is absurdly complicated and this probably makes it harder to tell, but in Britain we can usually say fairly surely which party will win. In the US, of course, it's not done on a party basis as such, but with candidates. Is it possible to name a candidate who's likely? I'm particularly interested in the chances of Clinton and Obama. Thanks! --anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.51.149.80 (talk) 15:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible to tell since no one is even sure who will win the primaries. At the moment Clinton and Romney are consider the most likely for their parties but this remains fairly uncertain. Here's one poll I came across [4]. There are probably some polls comparing a Romney vs Clinton race, I don't know what they show. But bear in mind most polls in the US presidential race seem to gauge popular support which is of limited value. A more complicated poll actually gauging support in each state and using that to determine putative electoral college seats would be more useful (although would also cost a lot more to do). Presuming such things are conducted I suspect no one will bother until the candidates have at least been determined. Bear in mind also that the US system by it's nature is very open to a slight varience making all the difference. In the UK for example, a party will mostly have to lose/gain a significant number of seats for a difference to the final result. But in the US, since some states do an all or nothing with electoral college seats a change in just one state can result in a resonably big difference e.g. as happened with Florida in 2000. Things are also often a lot closer in the U.S probably partially because it's in a number of ways more proportional compared to the UK (and as is often the case with FFP) where parties usually have significant majorities regardless of their actual proportional support. For example in NZ we use a mixed-member proportional system, and seats between the major parties are often close enough that you do not know until after election day (it's possible several weeks after) who will form the next government. Nil Einne (talk) 15:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind the election's not for another 10 months! It's way too early now to tell what's going to happen. It was certainly clear in 1984, 1988, 1992 and 1996 who was going to win before they started counting the votes. 2000 and 2004 were so close, of course, that it was anyone's guess even on the day of the election. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

In the 2008 Iowa Caucus Barrack Obama (for the Democrats) and Mike Huckabee (Republican) received the most votes. Although this is a good indication of who will be fighting for their party's nomination, it still doesn't mean too much. --71.117.34.180 (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Because the election is still 10 months away, and because we do not know which candidates will face each other in the election, we cannot know who will win. As others have pointed out, we are now only at the beginning of the process whereby the two major parties, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, select their candidates through a series of primaries and caucuses. At the moment, it is too early to know which candidate will be the nominee of either party. However, this will probably be known after Super Duper Tuesday on February 5 (the results of which will be known on February 6). Nonetheless, there will still be another 9 months before the general election, during which time anything can happen. So even if one or the other of the two party nominees is preferred in the polls in February, a series of events (terrorist attack, military progress or setbacks in Iraq, economic trouble) or changes in the public's perception of the candidates (for example, if one of the candidate is found to have an interest in underage teenage girls) could result in dramatically different results in the general election next November. Even on the eve of the election, the contest can be too close to call. Marco polo (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the best answer now available is that given by betting markets. —Tamfang (talk) 04:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Unpledged delegates / Superdelegates

I have similar difficulties understanding the whole candidate selection process. E.g., here at CNN and accordingly here, it says that Clinton has 154 superdelegates "on her side" (or whatever). But Superdelegate says that Superdelegates are not bound by the result of their state caucuses or primary. So where exactly do those figures come from? Is it based on statements of each of the appointed superdelegates? Dorfklatsch 16:48, January 6, 2008

The 765 Democratic superdelegates are party officials and elected officials who automatically get a spot at the national convention. Since they get to cast a vote for the nominee without representing anyone but themselves, they can choose whoever they want. They are also free to publicly endorse a candidate in advance, or keep the own counsel until the vote. The ones who have expressed an opinion are the ones listed for Clinton. Now, since all the superdelegates don't always state "I intend to vote for X" publicly, the media come up with their own threshold for deciding what counts as an endorsement, either through polls or though "understandings" their political correspondents have with "insiders". Thus different media outlets come up with slightly different numbers for the superdelegates endorsing each candidate (though they tend to be roughly the same). Its highly unlikely that superdelegates would be in a position to influence the nomination, as usually one candidate has a large enough majority of regular delegates (though of course, endorsements do influence public opinion). However, it such a close race as this one, it is not impossible to imagine that the superdelegates could hold the balance. If that was to happen, there would be one hell of a convention as the candidates went into lobby overdrive. More info here. Rockpocket 22:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Dorfklatsch 08:56, January 7, 2008

You are very welcome! Rockpocket 09:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Law Citations

How would I cite a law in APA format? When I cite it in text, do I say Title 8 §1084 (12)(d) or what?

Also, how would I read this out loud: §1804 (12)(d)?

Thanks, --Omnipotence407 (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

As to reading it aloud, I would normally pronounce the latter citation as if it were "section eighteen oh four twelve dee". However, I would use a less casual phrasing, say, if I were reading out loud to a copy editor to specify how the citation should appear in print, something more like "section symbol space one eight zero four open paren twelve close paren open paren dee close paren". That would read as "§ 1804(12)(d)" (note that there would be a space after the section symbol). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Best to make it a nonbreaking space. —Tamfang (talk) 04:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Which APA? —Tamfang (talk) 04:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Presumably the one that created APA style. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably "section ten eighty four oh dee", actually. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

So, would the citation for this be: New York State Educational Law. § 1804 (12) I can't seem to find the appropriate citation for law--Omnipotence407 (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

information about a female activitist mentioned in Noam Chomsky film "Manufacturing Consent"

Sarah Luxemburg, or could be Sara Luxemburg. I am not sure of exact spelling. I have not heard of her before and am interested in knowing a little about her. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.242.190 (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you mean Rosa Luxemburg. --Omnipotence407 (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Most requested US military job

I was wondering what the most common job requested in the US military was. Im figuring it would be artillery because your in a "relitivly" safe location and still get to fire a big ass gun. Help would be uber appreciated. BonesBrigade 19:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I am assuming flying a fighter plane, as you learn to fly, which can be later used as skills to pilot a passenger aircraft. --Obsolete.fax (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I read an article awhile back about how lasik surgery had affected US military assignments because now everybody wanted to be a fighter pilot and nobody wanted to work in nuclear submarines, which is where they had originally put people with bad eyesight. Not exactly a rigorous analysis but I thought it was interesting. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably the best source of information would be to call your local recruiters. --Omnipotence407 (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I doubt recruiters keep that information. They "promise" and "guarantee" you a job, but it all a lie. I was guaranteed to be a sniper. Because I scored too high on the ASVAB, I was a computer/electronic engineer. I still got to go to school for sniper shooting though. So, it wasn't all bad. -- kainaw™ 01:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

But wouldnt they be able to find out, or at least steer you in the proper direction?--Omnipotence407 (talk) 02:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Teen Money

What are some ways a 14 year old boy can make money? I live in a rural area so I'm not able to do many of the normal ways of making money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.61.7 (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I live in a rural area too, and what I did was put a sign up at church with those little tearoff thingies with my number, selling myself for "oddjobs." Doing this, I was able to raise around $1000. If you are raising money for a certian thing, like a field trip, or something like that, people will give you huge tips. I used $5 an hour for price, but people frequently raised that, or gave me $20 for less than an hours worth of work.--Omnipotence407 (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I grew up in a rural area and, like many of my schoolmates, worked on a farm. Low wages, hard work, long hours but a crash course in a foreign language communicating with migrant workers and stay in shape for sports. Labor laws for farm work may be different than normal child labor laws. Rmhermen (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• There are lots of ways to make money on the internet, through organizations that pay you to perform simple, computer-based tasks. In general, I advise you to work for one of the reputable, big-name ones, like Amazon Mechanical Turk, rather than clicking on a banner ad that says "make $$$$ here!!!!111one!" -- if you've never heard of the place, it's probably a scam. --M@rēino 23:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

2 door disel car in NA?

Do manufacturers sell in North America a 2 door diesel car? If so what models do they sell? --Obsolete.fax (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Volkswagen Rabbit LS - [5], Chevrolet Suburban/Chevrolet Tahoe - [6]. Those are just the first two I found while doing a Google search for "2-door diesel". Corvus cornix_talk 23:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Volvo has the Volvo D5 engine which you can get in the c70 there are a few others, though most of them seem foreign. I am not sure the Suburban or the Tahoe quite match as they are 4 door truck vehicles. Dureo (talk) 10:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Alberta Law Schools

Does anyone know how many students applied to University of Alberta & University of Calgary law school? And how many were accepted? --Obsolete.fax (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Would a call to the admissions offices work?--Omnipotence407 (talk) 00:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The information should be on the internet? --Obsolete.fax (talk) 01:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Why? Is that what they told you when you called/emailed them? Nil Einne (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

After an email to the colleges: University of Alberta says that for 2007 they received 1250 applications and accepted 354. 175 actually began the program. University of Calgary received 930 applications and accepted 100. University of Alberta does not post this information, and the University of Calgary says that it is on their website here but I do not know where. --Omnipotence407 (talk) 22:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

January 7

Best city in the US for a bootstrapped startup

What is the best city in the US for a bootstrapped startup?217.168.5.50 (talk) 01:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Most modern bootstrapped startups exist primarily on the Internet. Therefore, physical location is irrelevant. If physical location is important, then by definition the "best" location is also the only location: wherever the startup is providing physical services to its customers. If your startup must provide face-to-face contact with geographically-dispersed customers, then the "best" location is near a major airport that as low landing fees and therefore lower ticket prices to other major airports. If your customer base is geographically unusual and also dispersed, then the best location is a function of the transportation costs to those customers. Example: if you are trying to sell blowout-preventer valves to oilfields in Siberia, you need to be in Moscow or Vladivostok. If you want to sell visualization monitoring software to major data centers, you can probably be anywhere that has very good internet connectivity. If you intend to eventually sell your bootstrap company to a VC or do an IPO to cash out, you are (slightly) better off to start in a major financial center, but if you really believe in your plan, you should ignore this and plan toe keep the company.In any event you need to locate in an area that has a good supply of the employees you will need to grow, or you need to figure out how to manage a distributed workforce. -Arch dude (talk) 02:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Treason in the U.S.

From what I understand, in the U.S. the crime of treason is punishable by death. Who was the last person to be sentenced to death for treason? And if the answer is different, who was the last person who was actually killed after being sentenced to death for treason. Dismas|^(talk) 03:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Read [7]217.168.5.50 (talk) 03:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, thanks. That doesn't really help at all but it did make me notice the link to List of people convicted of treason. In that list there are a few people listed, most of which were released or pardoned. John Brown (abolitionist) seems to be the only one that was actually sentenced and had that sentence carried out. One other was sentenced to life in prison and died there four years later. Dismas|^(talk) 04:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Our article on Capital_punishment_in_the_United_States says the last execution for treason in the U,S was John Conn in 1862 in Texas, but that of course was treason to the Confederate States of America... - Nunh-huh 04:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, to answer part two: apparently, after WWII, Tomoya Kawakita was tried for treason and sentenced to death, but his sentence was commuted and he was deported to Japan rather than hanged. - Nunh-huh 05:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Further, it seems John Brown was convicted of treason against the Commonwealth of Virginia, and so was not executed for treason against the United States. - Nunh-huh 03:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed (in 1953) for espionage rather than treason, but it amounts to the same thing. --Sean 18:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they were executed for conspiracy to commit espionage, not even espionage itself. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 01:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

We also have List of people convicted of treason. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 23:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Midweek Bible Class and Sunday Night Services

When and why did the Church of Christ start midweek bible classes and Sunday night services? 208.168.242.101 (talk) 04:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Church of Christ (disambiguation) as a name covers a lot of religious groups, including Christianity as a whole. To which specific "Church of Christ" do you refer? Bielle (talk) 06:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It's worth noting that those "Churches of Christ" with ties to the Restoration Movement (the most typical use seen in terms of building name, such as the First Christianville Church of Christ) are wholly independent congregations. Any question about why a particular congregation did something can only be properly answered by that congregation. Try calling their office phone number and asking. — Lomn 14:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Back-weighted primary victory - historically precedented?

I'm curious about the historical significance of the early primaries/caucuses in U.S. presidential elections. Specifically, has a candidate of either party ever won his party's nomination primarily or exclusively as a result of late primary victories? I'm curious because this is the avowed strategy of Rudy Giuliani and the evident strategy of Hillary Clinton. I know there have been many primary contests in which the eventual winners fared notably poorly in more than one of the early primaries, hence the "comeback kid" meme. Off the top of my head, I'm vaguely aware that Mondale, Clinton, Dukakis, and Kerry all exhibited some form of this phenomenon, but I know nothing about the Republican side. To narrow the question, has a candidate who won none of the early primaries ever rebounded against a candidate who won them all, except by the chance intervention of scandal, assassination, or some other catastrophic event? In other words, has a candidate ever managed what Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani are apparently trying to do? I'm not averse to interpretation and inference, because my political memory isn't long, but my main interest are the bare historical facts: Is such a back-loaded strategy precedented, and if so, has it ever shown any success? Lantzy ^talk 05:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• The best example I can think of is Bill Clinton in 1992. Clinton did not win any of the first three events (Iowa caucus to Harkin, NH primary to Tsongas, South Dakota primary to Kerrey), then there were five events on the same day of which Clinton only won one (won Georgia primary, lost Colorado primary to Brown, Maryland primary to Tsongas, Minnesota and Idaho caucuses to Harkin). Thus, out of the first eight events, Clinton only won one. He then turned things around by winning in South Carolina and then eight out of eleven events on Super Tuesday. Mondale and Kerry both won the first events of their nomination year in Iowa, and Dukakis lost in Iowa but won in New Hampshire. McGovern in 1972 also did not win any primaries until the fourth primary of the season that year, although there were much fewer primaries at the time. As to the Republicans: the eventual nominee has always won at least Iowa or New Hampshire since the Iowa caucuses began through 2004, although no non-incumbent Republican has won both Iowa and New Hampshire over that period. The best example of what you are describing was in 1976, Ronald Reagan managed to run a competitive campaign against Gerald Ford for the nomination despite losing the first five primaries (he started winning after that), although of course Reagan didn't actually win the nomination that year. Before 1972, and even to some extent in 1972, the nomination system was so different that it's not possible to make a reasonable comparison; Hubert Humphrey didn't even enter any primaries in 1968 when he won the Democratic nomination. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I should probably note that it would be easier for a candidate to come back after winning none of a group of primaries if the victories were split among multiple opponents, as was the case for Clinton in 1992 (the early wins were divided among Harkin, Tsongas, Kerrey, and Brown). That way, none of the opponents has an insurmountable lead. Reagan in 1976 had a much more difficult path for a comeback since he only had one opponent. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for a very informative answer. I had a notion that the current primary configuration came about recently, but I wasn't sure how recently. For some reason I thought it was the early eighties. The Reagan '76 campaign is one I had forgotten about, and quite interesting. Lantzy ^talk 10:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Magazines

I think this particular desk is most aligned with my interests, so.. My subscription to The Economist has just run out, and I'm not really inclined to renewing it again. What magazines do all of you read that I should subscribe too as well? Throw out your ideas at will. AlmostCrimes (talk) 12:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Some that may be of interest - The New Statesman, Prospect, the New Internationalist, the Times Literary Supplement, the Geographical Magazine, and (I believe that the sciences have much to contribute to the humanities) New Scientist. DuncanHill (talk) 12:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I would add the London Review of Books. I have heard it said that the Scientific American is superior to the New Scientist, but myself read neither. Algebraist 14:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Scientific American is weightier, New Scientist more readable, and more "newsy". LRB is good. DuncanHill (talk) 14:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)\

Just to let you know, I let my subscription to the Economist run out back in May (I was graduating and needed to save money since jobs were hard to come by), and sometime in December they finally cut off my access to the online version. So you may have a few more months of free reading of the online version if you already had that set up. I may end up resubscribing, but I read a ton I wouldn't really subscribe to: Discover, The Ecologist, the Economist, Harpers, National Geographic, New Republic, New Scientist, Psychology Today, Reason, and the Scientific American. But then again, I work in an academic library so I have plenty of access to these sorts of things. If I had to subscribe to magazines, they'd probably be: The Economist, New Scientist, and Reason. Also realize I am not reading every article in every magazine. I usually scan the contents for something that piques my interest and try to read that article. Psychology Today is usually quite horrible, but since I plan to go to grad school for research psychology, I try to see what all is out there.--droptone (talk) 15:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

As a reader of The Economist (an excellent publication, surprised you wouldn't continue with it) If you are looking for a similar news magazine The Spectator isn't bad, if a little moralistic compared to The Economist. Also New Statesman as stated above ain't too bad if a bit too mean spirited. Personally I prefer New Scientist to Scientific American. Time isn't my bag, and neither is Newsweek (think that's the name). The New Yorker is a very enjoyable read and often has articles from Malcolm Gladwell, whom I could read every day. The Oldie is a bit bad to buy if you're my age (20s) but is surprisingly entertaining. I've never really gotten into too many of the ones that push their morality/ethics into the articles. Hope you find something good to read. ny156uk (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised no one's mentioned The Atlantic Monthly -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Once upon a time I subscribed to Science (journal) but soon found that everything in it that interested me was in the next week's Science News. As for Scientific American, unless it has improved in recent years, the writing tends to be dull and obscure. – I mean to restart The Economist any day now. —Tamfang (talk) 04:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I often enjoy reading Harper's, and just for some variety from all these stuffy literary and academic choices I reccommend Vice Magazine. Azi Like a Fox (talk) 05:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Go to a library and look at some. I enjoy ReNew.Polypipe Wrangler (talk) 11:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

As an American leftie, The Nation (weekly) is a necessity--but also The Progressive, In These Times, Dissent, Extra, The Humanist, American Prospect, and Mother Jones are good. I subscribe to all of them.--Eriastrum (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Oldest continually functioning democracy

According to the Electoral College, the United States is "the oldest continuously functioning democracy in the world". By what strange and pedantic criteria is this claim made? I would have thought there are a number of countries in other parts of the world that have a greater claim. 80.254.147.52 (talk) 13:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Iceland as part of Denmark-Norway was not democratic, nor was Switzerland "continuously functioning" while conquered by Napoleon I. The UK's democracy may be older, but a writer seeking to establish a certain view may just as well argue that one of the 19th century parliamentary reform acts (such as the 1832 one) was the beginning of democracy in the UK, because the Lords (parliamentary, yes, democratic, no) held most of the power before that. User:Krator (t c) 13:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that the Commons had little claim to be democratic before the 1832 Reform Act. A different brand of writer would point out the New Zealand boasts the world's longest history of universal adult suffrage. Algebraist 14:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

As to Switzerland, some of the Old Swiss Confederacy's constituent republics were indeed democracies, but most were aristocratic city-states with very limited suffrage. Sandstein (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, how old is democracy in the US ? Would you date it from the Declaration of Independence in 1776, the Constitution a few years later, after the Civil War when blacks theoretically were given the right to vote, or after the Civil Rights era of the 1950s and 60s when blacks, in reality, gained the right to vote ? StuRat (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

List of constitutions by age may shed some light on this (and suggest the US is trumped by San Marino) Rockpocket 18:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it would if it weren't such a dreadful page. It reckons a country is defined by its government rather than its borders, but then claims that the UK dates from 1927, a claim which can only be based on that being the year in which the current border was settled. The British parliament today is a direct and uninterrupted descendant of the parliament called by Simon de Montfort in 1265, which rather puts San Marino in the shade. And don't give me that line about Britain not being a democracy before 1832. Democracy is government by discussion. Malcolm Starkey (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It does what it says on the tin. Irrespective of how old one wishes to argue Britain has been a democracy for, it doesn't have a constitution. Therefore by that "strange and pedantic criteria" Britain isn't in the game. The US is, however, and this is probably the basis for the claim the OP cites, but it actually loses to San Marino by a couple of hundred years. Rockpocket 03:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The United Kingdom does have a constitution. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Note that the page the original poster cites is just one guy's opinion. "The Electoral College" is the title of the page. The U.S. Electoral College itself has no permanent existence; it's just something that happens once every four years. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

When did US citizens gain the right to elect Senators, rather than them being appointed by legislatures of the states? It was with the 17th amendment to the Constitution in 1913. Was the US much of a democracy before then? And the Electoral College selects the President. Under US law, the electors could be selected by the state legislature, or they could in turn select someone such as the governor to appoint the electors. Not really a democracy. Edison (talk) 01:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Amendment XIV section 2 appears – backhandedly – to require popular election of the presidential Electors. —Tamfang (talk) 04:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No. You're talking about the words "the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof". Since it says "any election", this includes the possibility that there are no such elections and the right to vote does not apply. --Anonymous, 19:25 UTC, January 8.

Twice since the 14th amendment was ratified, states have had their electors chosen by the state legislatures rather than the voters, so the inference is invalid. Edison (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Anon: good point, thanks! And Edison, thanks for backing it up. —Tamfang (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

<pedantry> I note that the question is not explicitly confined to sovereign states. How about nongovernmental organizations that run on democratic principles? —Tamfang (talk) 04:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Many women would argue that the US was fundamentally undemocratic prior to the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, in 1920. As Algebraist points out, New Zealand gave women the vote in 1893. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

And Wyoming in 1869! Since all elections in the U.S. are conducted by states and localities, you could make the case that the "Equality State" is the world's oldest democracy. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 08:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Detective Author

Hi, A very good detective story was stolen from me, I would like to buy it again, the only thing i remember was that the author was famous for two detective characters, one lived in lndon and the other lived in paris. Does anyone know this detective author? 196.205.146.246 (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC) Sultan

A E W Mason had Inspector Hanaud? - CarbonLifeForm (talk) 13:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Try Category:Fictional_detectives. - CarbonLifeForm (talk) 13:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean London right? (Not being pedantic, lndon looks like Indon in the default font for display) Nil Einne (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

John Dickson Carr? Rhinoracer (talk) 11:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I know it's a cheap shot, but can I just point out the irony of a detective story being stolen? On a different note, I know you didn't ask, but if you like detective stories, the Lord Peter Wimsey books by Dorothy L Sayers are very good. 86.137.88.172 (talk) 01:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Treaty of Servres

Does Wikipedia have an article on this ? Am I spelling it correctly ? Perhaps it has some accent marks ? If we don't have any such article I would be interested in creating one and linking to it from our Kurdistan, Iraqi Kurdistan and Kurdish people articles. StuRat (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Treaty of Sèvres. Jacques l'Aumône (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. My spelling was apparently too far off for Google to fix (it suggested "treaty of servers", the end of the Internet Wars, perhaps ?) StuRat (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, you can get there by typing "Treaty of Sevres", which is helpful for those of us whose American keyboards don't make it easy to type accents. --LarryMac | Talk 18:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a good idea. We could probably also use some mentions of the treaty in the articles I listed. StuRat (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I see someone has added a redirect from my spelling. Also, parts of that article look like they were written by someone who speaks another language, it badly needs some attention. StuRat (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

MAJOR help Needed. Guarani Primary Sources!

Hi everyone, If anyone knows some links to a primary source dealing with the Guarani during the 17th and 18th century, please help me out! Any type of source is fine and i need two. Even if you have only one, please do help me. I can not find any links not even things like a Jesuit's diary or A guarani's diary about the Guarani War or Treaty of Madrid (1750). Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.38.106 (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The contemporary Pedro Lozano's Historia de las revoluciones de la provincia del Paraguay (1721-1735) can be found online at http://www.cervantesvirtual.com/servlet/SirveObras/35772730101144831754491/index.htm William Avery (talk) 13:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

January 8

The Memory Man (novel)

Hi there, I know it may sound like homework but it isn't. There some questions about "The Memory Man", written by Lisa Appignanesi. Please, take some time to read the questions, after reading the book and please answer the questions. yes, I have read the book but I don't get the subject and genre, setting, narrative structure, character, images and symbols, theme, point of view, tone, the beginning. the ending, overview, sentence structure and diction.

1) What is the novel about? 2) Does this work belong to a particular genre of fiction or fictional tradition(e.g., romance, detective, science fiction)? What are the main characteristics of this genre? 3) What are the most important locations in the work? How extensively are they described? 4)During what historical period is the work set? What period of time does it encompass? 5)Does the work create a particular social environment through the portrayal of manners, customs, and moral values? 6)How important is setting to the novel as a whole? 7)What is the main conflict? 8) Does the action lead action lead towards a climax? Is there a resolution of conflicts or a conclusive revelation? If there is no climax or resolution, how does the action develop? Is there a turning point/ 9) What is the principle by which events are linked? Cause-and-effect? The development of the main character? A physical, mental, or spiritual quest? A seemingly random association? 10) Are events are presented in chronological order? If not, in what order are they presented? Are flashbacks used? 11) To what extent are events presented as a series of dramatic scenes? To what extent are events summarized(e.g., "Five years had passed, five hard years in which the cow had died, the barn had burned and Jane had married Tom.")? 12) Is there more than one story being told? What purposes do these subplots serve? 13) Is the story set within some outer framework that is exterior to the plot? If so, why? 14) Is the work divided into parts? Do these parts correspond to stages in the development of the action? 15) What is the motivation of the central character? 16) What traits-psychological, moral or physical-help or hinder the central character in the achievement if his or her purpose?

17) What other characters support or oppose the actions of the central character? 18) In which scenes does the central character make choices essential to success or failure. Are they the result of conscious deliberation or the consequence of certain deeply embedded character traits? 19) Are the main characters round (with complex or contradictory aspects) or flats (type characters, stereotypes)? Is there a broad or narrow range of characters? 20) In what ways, if any, do the main characters change? 21) How is character revealed? Indirectly or directly? 22) Are there any figures of speech (metaphors, similes, personification) employed in the narrative or used by the characters that seem significant because of placement or repetition? 23) Are there any sensory descriptions (e.g., heat, cold, dark, color, smells, sound) that seem significant because of placement or repetition? 24) Are there any objects, images, actions or settings that take on symbolic meaning? Are there any conventional symbols (cowboy's black hat, represents evil)? Are there any contextual symbols (conch shell in "Lord of the Flies", which is associated with order)? 25) What are the main thematic concerns of the work? Is there one which seems to be most important? 26) What comments does the work make on these subjects? 27) What techniques does the writer use to convey these views? Consider as vehicles character, dialogue, action, setting point of view and tone. 28) What is the point of the view from which the story is told? First-person; third-person limited or omniscient or third-person objective? 29) Is the narrator also a character in action? 30) Is the narrator's attitude toward the story? Seriously? Playful? Ironic? or detached? 31) What main concern does the title suggest? 32) What central characters are introduced? 33) Is the ending "just" or "right"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 00:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you even take the plastic wrap off the book? Adam Bishop (talk) 03:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that it is not schoolwork, I am curious about how this list of questions was composed! Maybe User:Don Mustafa works for a library that does some exceptionally detailed classification of its fictional holdings. —Tamfang (talk) 04:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Given how long the question is, he might have told us what he did understand about the book. Not that this would do me any good; I haven't read it. It was nice of User:Don Mustafa to suggest we take some time to read the book first, before attempting the questions. Bielle (talk) 05:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

If this isn't homework, what is it? I can't imagine someone setting out to answer these questions just for fun. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you also notice that the list of questions is completely off the peg, i.e. they are questions that could be asked of any novel. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 11:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This may not apply, but I've noticed that some books now have questions such as this listed in an appendix for use in book clubs. I've never actually taken part in a book club, but if I were to do so, I'd hope that the discussion could be a lot more spontaneous. --LarryMac | Talk 14:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The first question I find particularly odd. I mean sure I can understand if you don't quite understand some details of the plot. But if you can't at least come up with some answer for 'what is this novel about' after reading a book then perhaps your English & comprehension skills are in serious need of work Nil Einne (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, can you answer the questions or not? Did you read the book, yet in order to read the questions? Please, answer them. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 02:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes.I have read the book.No,I can't spend a couple of hours answering your questionshotclaws 08:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You might try reading it yourself. You should have tentative answers to #2 and #4 after reading the first two pages. —Tamfang (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Avoiding USAs indpendence

If England had given the American colonies representation in the British government, could the whole independence thing have been avoided? Someone really dropped the ball, huh? ----Seans Potato Business 01:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Its possible. but unless there opionion had real weight it wouldnt of made a differnce. BonesBrigade 01:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a commonwealth status like that presently held by Canada could have tamed the revolutionary American zeal. Edison (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Something like this is the premise of The Two Georges by Harry Turtledove. Algebraist 01:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think a whiff of grapeshot early on would have sorted the whole thing out. DuncanHill (talk) 02:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It's hard impossible to know. It would be interesting to speculate how the slavery issue would have worked out, though—would the American bid for independence have been launched by secessionist Southerners? Creepy thought. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 02:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Importation of slaves to the the North American colonies had largely ceased by 1776, and the trade was mostly handled by European ships, not American ships, before and after independence. Statistically, almost all slaves went to Brazil, with North America getting less than ten percent of the intake. If we are to speculate on an avoidance of seccession, the most likely scenario would be that the Southern colonies would evolve like the other English slave-holding colonies like Jamacia. -Arch dude (talk) 03:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC) England emancipated the Jamacian slaves in 1838. The United states emancipated the slaves of the South 25 years later, in 1863. -Arch dude (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that would have had any possibility of happening. If Americans had representation equal to their population, they would have rivaled the British representation. Other colonies would have sougth the same rights. With communication as poor as it was, representation could never have been as good as the Americans wanted. No, representation was part of a larger issue which Americans began to see. Many of them felt destined to be independent and set the standard for the world as a nation. Many others argued that it made no sense to be ruled by country so far away. Thomas Paine argued this very point in his Common Sense. The plea for representation was part of a larger philosophy, brought on by the fact that America was populated by a highly educated group familiar with the principles of freedom, representation, and communication, many of whom had strong religious beliefs. Wrad (talk) 04:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The American colonies of Britain in the 1770's was about half the British population, so proportional representation would have given the US quite a block of voting power. It would also be interesting to know how much of the tax revenue at the time came from the future US. Some limited representation and the right to speak in parliament might have helped to foster communication, just as the District of Columbia has limited representation in the US Congress at present. Edison (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's see... A nation with limited resources (space, money, etc) locates a huge place overflowing with natural resources that's too far away for effective control, secures it's external borders, helps the settlers with their aborigine problem, and then both forcibly settles it with people who can reasonably be expected to hate the establishment (the poor, the homeless, the criminal, the wrong religion), and, on top of that, allows/encourages immigration by people who already admit they hate the establishment (all the Scots after the Act of Union, my ancestors). What did they expect the resulting population to do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SandyJax (talk • contribs) 17:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Searching a place to live

I want to move out to live in a new place. I am searching for a big city, with subway, in Europe or North America, no huge problem with criminality, sea not far from, mountains for climbing.

What are my options?217.168.1.83 (talk) 04:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

San Francisco —Tamfang (talk) 04:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean subway or subway? Pretty much any city on the US or Canadian west coast fits the bill. FiggyBee (talk) 05:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The restaurant chain is nice, but I meant subway system.217.168.1.83 (talk) 06:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

As a starting point, see list of rapid transit systems. In the UK, the only place I know that might fit your criteria is Glasgow, which is close to some great mountain country, but its subway system is rather minimal (basically one loop), and like any city there is no shortage of crime.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

As usual in life, you may not get everything you are looking for. But you could at least consider Vienna. It's got an excellent public transport system, crime is very low and the Alps are not far away. Austria is a landlocked country so you won't get the sea, but there are many beautiful lakes here instead. By the way, how are you planning to support yourself? Many European countries, and the USA, place strict restrictions on immigrants' ability to work. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 11:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried findyourspot.com? Dismas|^(talk) 11:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

How about Oslo? Beautiful city, very safe, you've got sea and Norway is positively teeming with mountains. DuncanHill (talk) 11:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I preferred Tromsø to Oslo. I didn't see a subway there - but I rode the bus around without a problem. -- kainaw™ 13:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Tromsø is certainly not a "big city", as requested. Many people would say that Oslo isn't either, and its subway (T-Bane) system, like San Francisco's BART (but more so in the case of Oslo), consists mostly of above-ground lines to suburbs with a relatively short urban underground section. (This may seem unimportant to some people, like the ones who mutated Wikipedia's article on subways into Rapid Transit, but it actually makes a difference. Actual subways give a place more of a big-city feel, because everything can be closer together at ground level when there aren't ground-level rail lines consuming space, and still close to subway stations as well. Elevated lines are next best in this respect.) --Anonymous, 19:35 (edited 23:38) UTC, January 8, 2008.

San Francisco's rapid transit leaves a lot to be desired for, says this former resident. But other than that it seems to fit the bill, although it is very expensive to live there. It's hard to beat the San Francisco Bay Area for sheer natural beauty—right on the ocean, very near to all manner of state parks, mountains, whatever—coupled with cultural offerings. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Some more nice European options:

• Zürich. Sea's a bit far though.
• For hardcore climbing, move to Chamonix. The best climbing town in Europe.
• Milan. Both close sea and mountains.
• Munich. Far from the sea, though the Bodensee is close.

User:Krator (t c) 15:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest Slough? No mountains, no sea, no underground system, more than a little crime, but it's really lovely. Honest. 80.254.147.52 (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers so far. Until now I am seriously considering San Francisco and Glasgow. Milan, Munich, Slough, Oslo, Zürich, Vienne and Chamonix seem like nice places to visit or stay some months. Strange that nobody suggested New York or London. @Richardrj: Immigration is not a problem since I work online.217.168.3.246 (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Chamonix is a small town. Slough is an outer suburb of London and used to be considered notoriously unattractive, although I can't say about today; I think was mentioned as a joke. Zurich, like Oslo, would not be considered a large city by some people, and while (like most German-speaking cities) there is good public transportation, it has no subway. --Anonymous, 23:40 UTC, January 8, 2008.

OK, but you can't just expect to walk into any country in the world and be allowed to stay there indefinitely, even if you don't intend to seek paid employment. Most countries only allow you to enter on a work permit, a student visa or a tourist visa. All of these are time limited. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 21:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• I am not walking into any country and staying there indefinitely. I limited the scope to North America and Europe because in these countries I can set this problem. There are, BTW, many more kinds of visa besides the three that you cited above. 217.168.3.246 (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Not a lot of mountains in either New York (City) or London. --LarryMac | Talk 16:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You said "mountain climbing". That rules out Great Britain and the east coast of the United States. If you'd be content with hiking in stubby old worn-down mountains, then OK. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

San Diego fits the bill except it has no subway. It does have a trolly system though. It also has a milder climate than all the other suggestions. Rockpocket 18:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm astounded no one has mentioned Vancouver yet. Mountains, sea, something like a subway. Well worth your consideration. - Eron^Talk 19:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point, although the SkyTrain of course is almost entirely an elevated system, not subway.

Looking back to Europe, Milan was already mentioned, but Turin (Torino) has similar advantages. It's within 100 miles of the Mediterranean in one direction and the Alps in the other, it's a major city, and it now has a subway although not yet a big subway system. I don't know anything about crime there, though. --Anonymous, 19:43 UTC, January 8.

I did think it was rather curious that the original question specified "subway". I'm not sure why underground transportation would be considered a necessity, as opposed to any other form of rapid transit system. In fact, there is no Wikipedia article on subways, as in "underground rapid transit system". Subway is a disambiguation page, and the relevant article, Rapid transit, addresses both above- and below-ground systems. - Eron^Talk 20:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• On this point see my comments above. --Anonymous, 23:40 UTC, January 8, 2008.

I do think subway is a necessity. It allows to move quickly from one point of the city to other. Above-ground transportation system normally don't offer a tight transport net. Usually they just communicate the city center with the airport or some suburbs.217.168.3.246 (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

San Francisco would be a good choice for you. I used to live there. You can even get to the (nearby, low) mountains by a bus connecting to the subway. You'd have no real need for a car. You should take into account that the ocean is very cold near both San Francisco and Glasgow, too cold for comfortable swimming. Another city you might want to consider is my present home, Boston. It is close to the ocean, and the ocean actually gets almost warm enough in August for comfortable swimming. It is certainly warm enough for swimming all summer at Horseneck Beach State Reservation, a little more than an hour's drive south of Boston. Very close to Boston, and somewhat accessible by public transport are the Blue Hills. These hills are not very high but are surprisingly rugged and offer great views. The hills cover a large enough area that you can get a real workout on their trails. A little over an hour from Boston is the surprisingly steep Mount Monadnock, with its spectacular views, and bit further (two hours' drive) from Boston are the White Mountains, which have many steep peaks and hundreds of miles/kilometres of trails. Boston has an extensive transit system. Crime varies, but most parts of Boston are quite safe, as are most neighboring cities that share Boston's transit system. Marco polo (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Toronto has a subway and not a huge crime problem (depending on where you live and whether or not you are in a drug-running gang, really), although I guess the lack of sea and mountains negates that. Unless you count the shores of beautiful Lake Ontario and the Canadian Shield which is well over dozens of feet high in some places! Adam Bishop (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Seattle seems to fulfill all your criteria, except no subway. It does have a bus tunnel and a short monorail. --S.dedalus (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male--prosecution of doctors?

Was there an attempt to prosecute the doctors? I hope there was some law against what they did! Thanks, Rich (talk) 06:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's a form of medical malpractice, that's for sure, but I'm not sure that's criminal law so much as civil law, and even then it gets into legal questions about the role of "experimental" treatment in clinical research. There was a class-action suit that probably included some clause in it about the doctors in question not having any criminal charges filed against them, but I don't know that for a fact. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

KathyR (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean that you think the class action suit had a clause that complained about the injustice of no prosecution or that you think it had a clause saying no criminal complaint would be filed by the plaintiffs? Thanks, Rich Peterson130.86.14.165 (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not uncommon for class action suits to contain in them clauses that say that if the defendant agrees to pay a certain amount then they get to admit no guilt and not be liable for criminal charges from anyone who takes the money, or something along those lines. Again, no clue if that applies here. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Cost of Living increases the U.S. over the last 10 years

I would like to know how to figure out the cost of living increases for the last 10 years, and put it in a graph form to be used as a visual aid. Example: a person makes 42,000 a year in salary in 1997. How much would his salary have to be in 2007 to be equal in buying power, and to be able to maintain the same quality of life? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Checker148 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a very vague topic. You can look at this to see the change in the consumer price index since 1913. Keep in mind that you are trying to pack the value of the dollar and the increase/decrease in the cost of many different things into one figure. For example, gas prices have increased faster than the price of milk where I live in the U.S. - how do you account for that with one number, especially since I don't drive and I go through two gallons of milk every week? -- kainaw™ 16:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

What I am trying to do is try and figure out how much of an increase in salary based on inflation(?) there should have been in the last 10 years You cannot buy as many gallons of milk or gallons of gas with the same 42,000 now as you could have 10 years ago.KathyR (talk) 23:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Cost of living and value of the dollar are two completely different things. While they are related in the trend that both continue to increase in a capitalistic economy, they are not actually related. The cost of living is based mostly on how much things cost, such as houses, cars, food, clothing, and medicine. The value of the dollar forced downward by inflation to keep people investing in the economy. Consider an economy where a dollar increases in value over time. You can stick cash in your mattress and it will increase in value over time. We want people to invest - so we devalue cash over time to keep the money in the system, not in someone's mattress. I explain this because you asked about the cost of living increases, which are not based on inflation. Then, you asked how much of an increase is needed, based on inflation. The link I gave you before is a general cost of living change over time (since 1913 if I remember correctly. United States dollar#Value has a table of dollar values over time (since 1774). You can see for yourself on the two charts (the Cost of Living one and the dollar value) that cost of living and dollar values follow similar trend lines, but they are not directly related. One may go up when another goes down. -- kainaw™ 03:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Source of Quotation from Spenser

I'm looking for the poem this comes from -

"In evile howre thou hentst in hond,

Thus holy hills to blame;

For sacred unto saints they stand,

And of them have their name.

St Michael's Mount, who does not know,

That wards the western coast."

Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Look here. -- kainaw™ 18:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful - thank you! DuncanHill (talk) 18:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

And we have an article on it too - The Shepheardes Calender. DuncanHill (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

a simply question.

is hitler living in a "ice glass" at southpole? thank you sir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.227.53.65 (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No. --LarryMac | Talk 19:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

We have an article Death of Adolf Hitler which may be of interest. DuncanHill (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to know more about hitler's last days we have an article called Death of Adolf Hitler that should be of interest. Also the recent film Downfall was an extremely interesting film portrayal of this (I have no idea how factually accurate it was but as drama it was excellent). Though I suspect your question was more an attempt at humour than genuine confusion as to the whereabouts/life of Hitler. ny156uk (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

In any case, whether or not you think he died in 1945 or not, if he were alive today he'd have to be 119 years old, which would make him the current oldest man in the world by quite a large margin, and in the running for oldest person of all time. Unlikely. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 15:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

British government department naming

Is there any reason why government departments in the U.K. are sometimes named "ministries" and sometimes "departments," and sometimes "offices?" For example, the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Health and the Foreign Office.

At first I thought that Ministries were older, established departments, like the MoD, and the former MAFF. But the establishment of the Ministry of Justice seems to make that theory incorrect.

82.44.114.243 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

To be extremely general, a ministry is headed by a minister while a department is headed by a secretary. So, the Ministry of Defence is headed by the Minister of Defence. The Department of Health is headed by the Secretary of State for Health. I assume an office is headed by a person with neither a minister or secretary title. -- kainaw™ 19:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That is not true. All government departments are headed by Secretaries of State, whether their departments are known as Departments or Ministries. (Confusingly, though, these guys are collectively referred to as Cabinet Ministers.) As William says below, it's arbitrary/historical. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 21:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Which begs the question - why are some such limbs of government headed by Secretaries, and some by Ministers? DuncanHill (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Auuuugh. Fifty lashes with a cold, used teabag for using "begs the question" that way. --LarryMac | Talk 20:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The answer given begs another question - which I then gave. I am not a logician - I am a native speaker of English. DuncanHill (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what point you are making here. LarryMac's point was that your usage of "begs the question" in your previous post was incorrect. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 21:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The point I was making was that my usage was perfectly correct in English "as she is spoke" by natives - logicians speak a strange variant which has its own rules. DuncanHill (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

So you are saying that widespread usage of an incorrect phrase makes it correct. That is, to say the least, debatable. If everyone started saying "could of" for "could have", would that make it correct? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 21:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Eventually, yes (at least for a language like English). Consider the evolution of the split infinitive. — Lomn 21:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Language is not a free-for-all. We need norms and standards, otherwise the whole thing falls into disarray. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 22:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

English has norms, yes, but it doesn't have formal standards (look to French for those). Obviously, then, they're not needed. English evolves solely because people use "incorrect" vocabulary, syntax, or grammar until it becomes a new norm. — Lomn 17:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

What should I do with this teabag? ----Seans Potato Business 21:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Assuming it's in the EU you have a Composting Mandate. William Avery (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I suspect it's all rather arbitrary. See Departments of the United Kingdom Government and Secretary of State (United Kingdom). William Avery (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It is very confusing. We have a Westminster-based system in Australia, but we're a little more consistent with our terminology. There are no Ministries of anything. There is the overall ministry (e.g. First Rudd Ministry) which is the collection of Executive Councillors who form the government (not all of whom are necessarily members of the Cabinet). There are various Departments of state. The minister (always a member of the parliament) who administers the Department of XYZ is the Minister for XYZ (although it can be Minister for X, or XY, or AX, or ABXY ...). One minister can administer more than one department, and a department can be administered by more than one minister. The ministry also includes Parliamentary Secretaries, who are also members of the parliament. They are like assistant ministers, but they don't directly administer any departments. The bureaucrat/civil servant (we call them public servants) who heads the Department of XYZ is usually known as the Secretary of the Department of XYZ. They used to be called Directors-General, but that's passé now. As well as the departments, we have various agencies, offices, bureaus, government business enterprises etc, which all come under the ultimate administration of some minister; in some cases they're formally a part of a larger department albeit with their own separate public identity; in other cases they exist independently of any department and report directly to the minister; in yet other cases they report directly to the parliament, but are still under the general administrative control of a minister. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Viet Nam War Memorial: Funding

It is my belief that the final funding/approval for the Viet Nam War Memorial was contingent upon the selection of Mia Lin as the winning artist. Is there any truth in this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.109.75 (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't you get proof for it before making it your belief? Anyway, the relevant section of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial makes this sound unlikely: the choosing of the artists was done blindly by a selection committee, the money seems to have been privately raised, and the designer (Maya Lin) was apparently not even named during the dedication ceremony and had to defend her design at every turn. So I'm not sure what you mean by "contingent upon the selection" though if I understand correctly you're implying that the funding would have been there for a memorial ONLY if they had chosen Lin's design, and I don't see any evidence for this at all and much to the contrary. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 01:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

City Smoke Commissioner

What would such a person do? Fill the cigarette boxes in City Hall? I ask, because I see that Raymond Tucker was once such a person. DuncanHill (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Or was he responsible for filling rooms with smoke? DuncanHill (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

A smoke commissioner would be responsible for improving air quality by reducing emissions from sources of smoke -- probably factories and maybe also household fireplaces, steam locomotives, etc. Here's an article about Tucker that mentions his contributions in that role.

Try this google search: "Black Tuesday" "St Louis" "November 28" 1939. Also, Tucker was smoke commissioner from 1937 to 1942 (not 34-37) according to Gonzalez, George A. (2002) "Urban Growth and the Politics of Air Pollution." Polity. 35.2.—eric 00:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the role title reflected an early version of town twinning and Mr Tucker's city was twinned with the Smoke (aka London)? BrainyBabe (talk) 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Now why didn't I think of that! :) DuncanHill (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Expelled from the party

Worldwide and throughout history, political parties have often dealt with problematic members, especially those with influence or notoriety, by expelling them. But I don't know of one instance where a U.S. party has expelled a member. George Wallace, Lyndon LaRouche, David Duke, Pat Buchanan, Zell Miller, Joe Lieberman, and currently Ron Paul have all worked "against" their respective parties, or at least at cross purposes to them, and have sometimes been intensely unpopular among other party members, but as far as I can tell none of them has ever run the risk of being formally ejected. David Duke, for example, has belonged to both major parties and neither made any formal attempt to force him out. As far as I know, he's still a GOP member. It seems that if it were even a theoretical possibility, someone like Duke would be expelled, if only for PR value. So why does it not happen? Is it merely a convention to prevent the party from appearing draconian or undemocratic? Is it a consequence of the federal structure of parties? Or are there other reasons? I would also be interested in the situation in other democracies, particularly in Europe and Asia. Are there other countries where the situation is like the U.S.? Lantzy ^talk 22:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• In the UK Ken Livingstone was expelled from Labour for standing against an official candidate after he failed to win secure the Labour nomination in the London mayoral election. See Ken_Livingstone#Greater_London.27s_first_mayor. William Avery (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Recently populist Dutch politician Rita Verdonk was expelled from the VVD.User:Krator (t c) 22:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • And Geert Wilders before her. And Ali Lazrak and Duzgun Yildirim who had been expelled from the SP. And what about the List Pim Fortuyn? I think half of their members of parliament were expelled from the party, while the other half broke with the party a few months later, so you eventually had a political party carrying the name LPF, and a no longer affiliated parliamentary faction carrying the same name. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

In Australia it's relatively common for people to be expelled from their party. Some prominent examples include: in October 2007 Kevin Rudd insisted the Labor Party expel Joe McDonald [8]; in 1996 Pauline Hanson, an endorsed Liberal candidate, was disendorsed (not sure if she was formally expelled from the Liberal Party) and went on to create a new party One Nation; in 1975 Albert Field was expelled from the Labor Party for accepting his appointment by Queensland Premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen as a Labor Senator, over the party's nomination of Mal Colston. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Two recent examples in CAnada are Carolyn Parrish and Garth Turner. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

In Switzerland, party exclusions of prominent politicians are almost unheard of, I think. This is perhaps because parties are organised at the municipal and cantonal level, and the national party is an umbrella organisation that can, by itself, expel no-one. Recently, when the Swiss parliament elected Eveline Widmer Schlumpf (a member of the Swiss People's Party) to the Swiss government instead of that party's official candidate Christoph Blocher, she was stymied by the national party leadership and excluded from the meetings of the party's parliamentary group, but no one proposed to expel her from the party. Sandstein (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Do parliamentary parties tend to be more centralized? Lantzy ^talk 01:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

In the U.S., party "membership" pretty much only means that you vote in a particular party's primaries during primary election time -- and this is handled by public voter registrars who are local government employees (not by any private party secretariat). There's nothing that party officials could do to prevent a validly-registered voter from voting in that party's primary, and very little they could do to prevent a legally-eligible candidate from running in that party's primary. What's very significant is when the party structure refuses to support the candidate who won that party's own primary election -- that's the meaningful U.S. equivalent to expelling someone from a party... AnonMoos (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed -- American parties can't expel members because they don't really control their membership. What they can do is expel someone from a legislative caucus. That's exactly what congressional Democrats did in 2001 when Jim Traficant voted for the Republican candidate for House speaker, i.e., to continue Republican control of the House. That's the only time I know of when someone has been expelled from a legislative caucus in the U.S. Individual legislators in the U.S. have wide leeway to vote how they wish, even on things like budget resolutions, and it's generally accepted that while party leadership can beg, cajole, push and encourage members to vote a certain way, they can't force them. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 08:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Surely the CPUSA has expelled any number of revisionist Trotskyite running-dog objective Fascists etc ? Rhinoracer (talk) 13:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It may have maintained membership lists, but the U.S. Republican and Democratic parties don't (not in the sense that if you're not on the list, then then you're not considered to be a member of the party). AnonMoos (talk) 01:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

In the US, the Congressional representatives of a party can strip a member of his/her rights to chair or be a member of a committee. Corvus cornix_talk 19:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

In the Netherlands, and I presume this applies to other European countries as well, expulsions are not all that common though. Expulsions create a lot of drama and negative media attention, so parties prefer to avoid going that route. Difficult politicians are often "promoted away" (in Dutch: weggepromoveerd) to harmless positions elsewhere, like being the alderman of a medium-sized town or the chairman of a semi-political committee or organisation. Aecis^Brievenbus 19:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't a town alderman be elected by the people of that town? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Not in the Netherlands. The council of aldermen (in Dutch: wethouders) is formed from a number of parties in the city council, like the Dutch government is formed from a number of parties in the Dutch parliament. The mayor is appointed by the Home Secretary or the Queen. Only the city council is elected in the Netherlands. See Politics of the Netherlands (terminology)#Burgemeester, #College van Burgemeester en Wethouders, #Gemeenteraad and #Wethouder. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

January 9

"Fingerings of a piano"

I have Casio keyboard at my house of which I do not know how to play correctly through fingering (after six months) and cannot play two staves at once. I'm having trouble playing chords on the right side of piano using my left hand on chords that don't require no more than five fingers. Can anyone help? I also having seem to have to stop in the middle piece of music whenever the notes on ledger lines above or below the staff.

Writer Cartoonist (forgot to log-in; I didn't want this information lost for me to write again) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.250.175.113 (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll solve the easy problem first. Before you play the piece of music, look through it and write in the names of the notes on the ledger lines. That way, you can simply read the letter you wrote instead of stopping to count the number of lines/spaces.

Also, a little more clarification is needed on the first question. When you are trying to hit chords on the right side of the keyboard with your left hand, is it a crossover (where your left hand plays notes that are higher than your right hand)? If so, then that just takes practice and conditioning. If it isn't a crossover, then you probably ought to scoot down on the bench ;-] Hope I could help 71.57.26.126 (talk) 03:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Modern Torah scrolls

Do any denominations of Judaism allow the permanent or interim liturgical use of a Torah scroll printed on ordinary paper (rather than handwritten on kosher parchment)? NeonMerlin 03:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not Jewish, but I did used to study it as a hobby. I can't give you a definitive answer, but based on what I know of their overall Torah philosophies, it's highly likely that Reform Jews will say "anything goes", Orthodox Jews have say, "Torah scrolls MUST be handwritten by an Orthodox Rabbi," and Conservative Jews are somewhere in the middle. If nobody can answer your question, what I would do is check these results on Google. If they only mention Orthodox Jews and\or Conservative Jews, the answer is probably not, though they might not do that in practice.

Things like requirements for Torah scrolls to be handwritten fall under halakha. Reform Jews do not consider halakha binding. Again, I don't know if they do this in practice, just noting that they do not forbid it. Zenwhat (talk) 14:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I have never seen any Jewish congregation, even the most liberal, use anything but a real Torah written on parchment by a sofer. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Note, however, that a Sofer is not required to be a rabbi. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Louis G. Kaufman

Louis G. Kaufman was one of the original investors in the Empire State Building. I know he lived in Michigan before New York but where was his place of birth? 71.194.190.11 (talk) 06:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Louis Graveraet Kaufman was born on November 13, 1870 in Marquette, Michigan. [9][10] Rockpocket 07:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.190.11 (talk) 11:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Martial Arts Instruction

Is there any perfect reference in internet wide web of instruction of chinese martial arts? Flakture (talk) 11:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

What martial art? Shaolin Kung Fu? Tai chi chuan? Qi Gong (although I don't think this is technically a martial art)? I'm sure it varies by the martial art you are interested in.--droptone (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a little hard to learn martial arts online, but there are sites where you can buy books and videos of martial arts, try here http://maols.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlo2012 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Economists: How do I draw indifference curves?

I posted this question in the math forum, because it's an economics question, but it's about the specific mathematical models they use. Please answer it there if you can. Thanks. Zenwhat (talk) 14:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

How are the relatonships between centre and states in USA?

I am in 10th grade in india and have to compare federalism in india and USA. i assure you i have already tried my best and am asking the question here only as a last resort.

can the federal govt dissolve a state govt? is the federal govt more powerful than the state govts?

pls can u write a corresponding version for USA like the one for India below? :

"In India, legislature, executive and judiciary are present in a 3 tier system. The jurisdiction of all the 3 levels is clearly specified in the constitution. The subjects on which each level of legislature can make laws are clearly specified through the union list, state list and concurrent list.

The central government tends to be slightly more powerful than the state governments.

Earlier, it was a common practice for the central government to dissolve any state government formed by the opposition party. However, the evolution of coalition governments and a Supreme Court ruling in 1990, made the states more powerful."

Anajus (talk) 15:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Anajus

I don't think it's appropriate to write a homework sentence for you, but some references may help you understand the situation. Federalism_in_the_United_States may help. I would say that the federal government in the US was originally less powerful than the state governments but that balance is now reversed. But the federal government does not go around dissolving state governments, it generally just pressures them to do what it wants. We have a similar 3-branch setup in the federal government, see Separation of powers under the United States Constitution. Friday (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Going a bit further, "Can the federal government dissolve a state government" is an interesting question. Unlike parliamentary systems, the US doesn't have any provision for government dissolving (at least not in the style of the UK; I'm not familiar with Indian particulars). The majority in legislative houses can change hands via party defections -- for instance, in 2001, senator Jim Jeffords defected from the Republican party, giving the Democrats a one-seat advantage. This allowed the Democrat Minority Leader to become Senate Majority Leader. While this sounds somewhat like a new Prime Minister being appointed, there's not nearly as much practical importance to the position. Slightly more significant would be a change in the Speaker of the House of Representatives due to party defection, as the Speaker is second in the presidential line of succession. I am not personally aware of a party shift in Speaker control without an election, though, and the line of succession has not yet gone that far in any event.

Now, circling back to dissolving state governments: As far as I know, all state governments are structured similarly enough the federal government that the "dissolving does not apply" provision holds true -- though any state could adopt such a parliamentary system if they so chose. Further, some states (none of which I've lived in) have provisions for recall elections such as those that made Arnold Schwarzenegger the Governor of California, and that seems somewhat like dissolution. Even in that case, though, recall elections are initiated by voters, not a higher level of government. Should the federal government attempt to dissolve a state government, the matter would undoubtedly be taken to court, and the 10th Amendment would likely be used to resolve the dispute: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution... are reserved to the States...." — Lomn 16:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The US federal government has the authority to grant statehood to an area or to withhold it. They admitted each of the states to the US, beyond the initial 13 colonies which revolted against the British King. During the US Civil War, statehood was granted to West Virginia, perhaps to punish Virginia for attempting to secede from the US. Statehod was withheld from Franklin, which was later included in Tennessee. I cannot think of an instance where there was a proposal for withdrawing statehood from an existing state, but if circumstances warranted, a state could probably be merged into another state, sold to a foreign power, or made into a territory. Other countries (France, in the Louisiana Purchase, and Mexico have ended the ownership and power over areas formerly under their control. The argument against residents giving up their statehood in favor of merger (for instance North Dakota and South Dakota merging into "Dakota") is that the residents would lose the extra voting power they had in the federal government due to the 2 US Senators allowed each state, in addition to the US Representatives who are apportioned according to equal representation. I can't think of any provision for the federal government doing this unilaterally. In a parliamentary country, "dissolving a state government" might mean declaring that new elections are required, as opposed to dissolving the statehood. I can only think of the context of the US Civil War, in which the elected governors and state representatives in the Confederate States were thrown out of office and replaced under the guns of federal troops when the Confederacy lost, but they had never claimed to be governing the state as part of the US. They still claimed to be the elected government of the state as such, although as part of a different nation. In 1861 the US government recognized officials from future West Virginia as representing the entire state of Virginia, annd accepted the Senators selected by this rump legislature as those for the state of Virginia. Then there was a statehood plebescite which was an irregular election (see History of West Virginia#separation) in what became West Virginia, conducted under the guard of federal troops, with perhaps 5% of the eligible voters casting votes, in which statehood was voted for. This was basically a federal action removing the jurisdiction of the Virginia state officials over a substantial part of Virginia, but not actually removing the statehood of Virginia. This might be an instance close to what the questioner described. Edison (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The US Constitution has a requirement that the federal government must assure that all states have a republican form of government. I don't know how this would ever be enforced, short of armed intervention, though. Corvus cornix_talk 19:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There are two instances of a state attempting to withdraw statehood. One is self-imposed - seceding from the Union (as Edison pointed out). The Federal government does not allow states to secede (which was the point of the Civil War - forcing the south to remain in the Union so Federal laws and especially taxes would be enforced). Another is a state attempting to have the Federal government withdraw their statehood. That is the point of the Hawaiian sovereignty movement. Again, this is not allowed by the Federal government. Once a state becomes a state (even if it is done through illegal means) it must remain a state. -- kainaw™ 19:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

If the US had ever suffered a military defeat, it is quite possible that the victors might have nibbled away some of the states. In WW1 the Germans offered Mexico the return of some of their former land if they would aid Germany. Many countries have had to cede land, and if it had ever come to that, I am sure a Constitutional means would have been found. Edison (talk) 00:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I seem to recall the US suffering a military defeat in the War of 1812. Oh, and Vietnam. 80.254.147.52 (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The War of 1812 was not a defeat but a draw and the Vietnam War did not affect the territory of the United States. We briefly lost the Aleutian Islands in World War II but Alaska was still a territory, not a state and Japan lost the war in the end. Rmhermen (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• It's my understanding that dissolving a state government in the sense that the original poster meant does not refer to causing the state to cease to exist, but rather to dismissing the incumbent executive leadership of that state, in the context of a parliamentary system. I would recommend that the original poster compare the articles parliamentary system and presidential system for context, as well as reading the Constitution of the United States and looking out for the provisions with phrases such as "The Congress shall have power to..." and "No state shall...", as well as the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

michigan law

on a webpage for Holds of an inmate in a michigan jail, it states the crime as U&P (uttering and publishing) but it is followed by X3 (f/w). Can u possibly explain to me what the these stand for in the charge? looks like U&P X3 (f/w). Thanks. [email removed] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.194.255 (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like a legal question to me. I would say that you need to pay the fee and talk to a lawyer. Any advice you get over the Internet is not going to serve as legal advice, at least not through this web site, according to the guidelines at the beginning of Wikipedia Reference Desk (below). Also, you might try searching the web site you refer to, to see if they have some table or glossary or index to explain the codes.

See Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer.

-- Mitch —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.212.118.76 (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The question isn't a request for legal advice, it is a request for translation of a term used by a prison. DuncanHill (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The following does not constitute legal research or advice, but Google book search shows some results containing the word "Michigan" and the phrase "uttering and publishing." [11] Edison (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"U&P" is indeed "uttering and publishing". Interesting usage. It means knowingly passing forged documents (checks, deeds, etc.) with intent to defraud or cheat. Since the same document uses the "x3" for a few other charges (and x2 and x4 elsewhere), it's probably the obvious -- three charges of U&P. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That leaves "f/w". "Federal warrant" would make sense, if the charge had an inter-state element of some kind, but I'm just guessing on this. --Anonymous, 05:52 UTC, January 10, 2008.

Wally dugs

I'm trying to find out about the history and significance of wally dugs. Wally dugs are pairs of china dogs that sit on the mantlepiece. This is a common practice in Scotland (according to my dictionary, from the 20th century onwards), and is sometimes said to bring good luck. The name comes from the Scots for "china dogs". A couple of pictures: [12][13] Bovlb (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I've always seen it written wally dogs. The online Dictionary of the Scots Language doesn't seem to have any relevant definition of wally. Similar dogs were made in Staffordshire and elsewhere in England [14] [15], so I don't think the wally dog (and cats were common too) is something specifically Scottish. As to the significance, I'm not sure it had any. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. DSL does mention both "wally dogs" and "wally dugs" but it is vague on the meaning.[16] I've mostly encountered "wally" in the sense of dentures or false teeth, but I've always understood that to be derived from the china/porcelain sense. My dictionary, BTW, is The Concise Scots Dictionary, Aberdeen University Press. Bovlb (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This source suggests "wally" comes from "wallow", meaning faded. Rockpocket 18:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The same source, however, suggests that the current meaning of "wally" is "made of china" (and lists "wally dug" under that sense). Bovlb (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The oldest map

Hi. Does someone know when did the first map make and where the map is located nowadays? I have heard that it is located in one museum in Dubai, is that correct? I tried Google, but I founded map which is made 2300 BC but it is propably located in London. 213.186.255.115 (talk) 19:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The History of cartography page might be useful. It appears there may not be a definitive "oldest map". Pfly (talk) 20:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Most of the really old maps (pre-1000 B.C.) seem to have been either small-scale agricultural field surveys or city plans, or else abstract cosomological diagrams... AnonMoos (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"Gay" vandalism

As an admin, I revert quite a number of "... is gay" vandalism every day. I couldn't help but wonder: why are those kids so fascinated with gay stuff? Is it just because that it's the simplest way to insult others, or is there something more than that? It is an interesting phenomenon in cultural perspectives, I think. I live in Asia and it is uncommon for kids here to resort to homosexual stuff when they need derogatory names. --BorgQueen (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it has much to do with sexuality, but more to do with a way of referring to someone whose actions are different in some way from the perceived norms of the relevant peer group. The people who are prone to doing this type of vandalism are the very people who are strongly attached to conforming to peer group pressure, usually as a way of demonstrating their independence from their parents, who are usually perceived as tyrannical. In all their rampant teenage rebelliousness and truculent Declarations of Personal Independence, all they generally succeed in doing is swapping one source of tyranny for another, because that's all they've ever known. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think for many American kids saying that someone is gay is just derogatory. They are probably finding fun in including sexual connotations into articles as well. When I'm patrolling new pages, I occasionally find such vandalisms, too (although adding Mario or names of male/female organs isn't unusual either) Pundit|utter 20:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's interesting from a cultural perspective, and I think it's related to the social taboo on homosexuality. I live in Amsterdam, Netherlands, probably the most LGBT liberal place in the world, and the use of "gay" (well, the Dutch translation) as an insult is very common here. Perhaps the words associated with homosexuality retain the negative connotations they had before, when actually being homosexual or talking about it is no longer a taboo? This would mean that you have A) a word that means what you want to say (supposing you want to insult someone), and B) you aren't immediately taken to the inquisition or embarrassed when uttering it. This may just be the reason why people thought up "LGBT" in the first place. The previous is all speculation though. User:Krator (t c) 20:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The derogatory use reveals an underlying homophobic cultural background. See also Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles.  --Lambiam 22:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

What did they used to say? "He's a square!"? Wrad (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I find this trend to be both annoying and troubling. It used to be that people would use "gay" to describe things that were particularly effeminate, gaudy, or corny. Not particularly nice, but possibly humorous in a "South Park" kind of way. Now it's an all-purpose insult. I was talking to this guy the other day and he said, "Oh, that's so gay -- g-h-a-y." Apparently the "h" is supposed to make it acceptable. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It's probably not the easiest journal article to track down a copy of, but "That's So Gay: A Contemporary Use of Gay in Australian English"[17] is an interesting read, and also seems to be the only result on a Google Scholar search for the term that isn't directly about homosexuality and/or homophobia. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 04:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Related to this, the word "gay" as an all-purpose insult has been partially endorsed by the BBC, in that their governors did not uphold the complaints made against star DJ Chris Moyles when he described a ringtone that he disliked as gay. See here. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

lovesickness

If you are suffering from lovesickness and abstain for sex for a period of time - like in 40_Days_and_40_Nights, can you cure it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.168.3.246 (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As love sickness is commonly understood, no. A "cure" has nothing to do with intercourse, and you can't make any meaningful comparison between this and, for example, taking aspirin to relieve pain. That said, in someone's specific case, it might act as a mental focus and be successful -- but not for any underlying medical reason. — Lomn 20:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Whilst not directly related to the answer you may be interested by Helen Fisher's TedTalk (http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/16). She is an anthropologist and discusses love/love-sickness and the chemical things that are happening. Whilst it won't show you how to 'cure' it, it does discuss the effects, her interpretation/findings on its purpose etc. ny156uk (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yates

Are Peter Yates and David Yates related? zafiroblue05 | Talk 20:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Neither of their IMDB entries mention it in the 'trivia' section and I would suspect this would be mentioned if they were related in any meaningful manner. I suspect that they therefore are not related (though that's hardly the deepest 'research'!). ny156uk (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Gnashing of teeth: some questions

1. Tooth-gnashing seems to be one of the most important expressions of grief and distress in the Bible--second only to weeping/wailing and more significant than breast-beating or garment-rending or hair-pulling. I have seen very upset people strike themselves, tear their clothes, and pull out their hair, but have never even heard of such a person actually gnashing her teeth. How can this be?
2. Putting aside the abundance of information on bruxism (since bruxism seems to be practiced unconsciously)--can anyone point me to contemporary writing about tooth-gnashing as it pertains to grief or distress?
3. Is there something I should know about "gnashing" in biblical translation? Could the greek or hebrew mean something slightly different, for example by referring to a figure of speech not present in english?
4. Does anyone know of strictly historical (as opposed to biblical or literary) instances of tooth-gnashing?

Thanks, Cyrusc (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was done in anger, not in grief. Our ENT guys see many people with tooth and jaw problems due to grinding their teeth during perpetual road rage. -- kainaw™ 23:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

My dictionary only gives "gnashing" as translation for βρυχω (accents are a pain in Unicode, sorry). Most likely because this is the most commonly used translation for that specific use in the Bible, so that doesn't reflect much of any original figure of speech you're looking for. If it helps, it is suggested to be related to βρυκω, meaning "to devour", "to crush with one's teeth" and " to consume". Random web links such as [18] note a meaning related more to anger than anything else, suggesting a connection with the contemporary sayings to "show one's teeth" and "gritting teeth". This may be as close to contemporary usage as you can get. Googling around gives [19] among others, which may contain the answer to your question. User:Krator (t c) 23:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

To me, gnashing your teeth means roughly what was said above: showing your teeth. I picture it as someone who is grieving deeply wailing loudly, and baring their teeth in frustration and anger at themselves, at the world, at God... take your pick. I believe this happens every day. I also think that many of us have done it ourselves, if we think about it, though maybe not to the extreme the bible communicates. Wrad (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. This is very helpful, although I don't feel that "show one's teeth" is an acceptable gloss, and I don't think that gritting one's teeth, as in road rage, is so much an expression or a gesture as it is a private and mostly invisible response. To see gnashing as angry rather than mournful really helps me understand it better, though. Cyrusc (talk) 00:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There was a short story I read from a Victorian periodical where a ghost suffering in hell visits a Pastor to warn him of his wicked ways (I know, sounds like A Christmas Carol). Anyway, there is a moment where this ghost, who is obviously unhappy and very creepy pulls back her lips very far, so far that the pastor can hardly believe it, to gnash her teeth at him. That's about when he realizes she's from hell. I agree, "showing your teeth" isn't quite as extreme as the Bible means. I almost associate it with a kind of hissing, personally, like when a cat gets mad. Wrad (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I read this with some interest. I had always assumed "gnashing" involved some noise, like suddenly biting or snapping one's teeth -- perhaps it was the association with "wailing", a very noisy pursuit. But what you have turned up above reminds me of the Maori haka, not only a war dance, but a historical and contemporary performance artform that can involve a lot of facial contortions, including sticking out the tongue and showing the teeth. It can be used to express strong emotion, as with wailing and gnashing. A cross-cultural parallel? BrainyBabe (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think that most of us coddled modern folks have ever come close to experiencing the sort of anguish that would drive a person to tooth-gnashing. This was supposed to happen upon being cast into Hell, mind you. I'll bet that if any of us was dipped in molten sulfur we'd gnash like nobody's business. I'll also bet that emergency-room doctors have seen it. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Tangentially related, in the Old Testament at least the expression "his nose turned red" is used to be "he was angry". It's often translated as "his anger was kindled". An example is in Numbers 11:1. Daniel (‽) 20:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

January 10

Mistakes in the Qu'ran?

I've heard that there are mistakes in the Qu'ran. See the sections Mistakes in the Quran, number 18 in page 11, and Major Mistakes in the Quran, number 19 in page 12, in Islam - A Case Of Mistaken Identity in the Answers Book. But is that true?

Islam is just one of the many different religions in the world today. There are so many different religions in the world today. Many of them have so many believers, millions and millions of them around the world. Many of them have existed for such a long time, for hundreds and thousands of years throughout history in the past to today. Religions have had such a big impact on the world’s history, art, music, societies, culture, recreation, holidays, people, philosophy, politics, government, and countries.

So I don’t understand. Is that it? Is it that simple? Can religions be disproved, proven wrong and false, and proven not to be the one true religion just by finding, looking for, and searching for mistakes and errors in its holy religious book or books?Can religions really be proven false so simply, easily, and quickly? Bowei Huang (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly generally impossible to "disprove" religions in their own terms, based on their own source materials, to faithful believers.

Whether the Qur'an contains "mistakes" as such is a somewhat polemical question, but it's certainly true that Muhammad was illiterate in all languages other than Arabic (whether he was illiterate in Arabic itself is a much-disputed question), and that no written translations of the Christian or Jewish Bible were accessible to him. That's why he seems to have gotten all his early information about Judaism and Christianity purely orally from random Jews and Christians who happened to come through the Hejaz (and who were by no means always particularly knowledgeable or doctrinally-orthododox in their own religion). This means that Muhammad did not always have realiable information, and did not distinguish between the Bible itself and non-Biblical popular traditions. So there are such anomalies in the Qur'an as Haman from the book of Esther working with Pharoah from the book of Exodus to build what seems to be the Tower of Babel from the book of Genesis. Or an accusation that Jews worship Ezra as the son of God. Or giving late Jewish folktales (such as a midrash about the visit of Queen of Sheba to Solomon, which never had scriptural status in Judaism) scriptural status in the Qur'an. Or changing the name of Saul, king of Israel, to "Talut" in order to make it rhyme with "Jalut" (the Arabic version of the name of Goliath). Muhammad also seems to incorporate stories from the Alexander Romance (a very fanciful account of Alexander the Great's life, embroidered with apocryphal legends) into the Qur'an.

When some Jews and Christians look in the Qur'an, and discover (for example) that where the Bible describes Solomon's reign with multiple names of people and places, and detailed narratives of events, while the Qur'an largely reduces Solomon to a figure in a history-free folkloric-occultistic legend about conversing with ants, or that the Qur'an portrays a Jesus that never died on the cross and is reported as denying traditional mainstream Christian doctrines, then overall they're less than impressed... AnonMoos (talk) 00:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Though the proper one word answer would be "Depends.", it is better to write "No." Religions cannot be proven false so simply, because religions are not set in stone. We do not have thousands of years of theology for nothing. Usually, when errors (or more commonly, anachronisms) are found, the religion itself changes, and is not "proven false". A good article on the subject is Exegesis. One could, for example, interpret certain things liberally as a "product of its time". This is relatively popular when analysing the morals in a holy book from a secular point of view. More orthodox interpretations that rely on a holy book to be the true "word of god(s)" sometimes attribute statements that seem false or anachronous to figures of speech. Read some of the articles linked here for more information. User:Krator (t c) 01:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Bowei asked something similar before. I would say simply that any website claiming to prove any religion false is a load of crap and should be ignored. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There are three monotheism divine books :Torah ,evangel and koran. the same Abrahamic religions.But actually the God's religion is one :

“ And they say: Be Jews or Christians, you will be rightly guided. Say: Nay! the religion of Abraham the True, and he was not one of the polytheists.(Koran, sura 2,sign 135) ”

and

“ Abraham was not a Jew, nor yet a Christian; but he was a true man and muslim, and he was not of the polytheists.(Koran, sura 3,sign 67) ”

The true Evangel and Torah are accepted by Koran, but they have been corrupted.

“ Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from Allah," so that they may purchase a small gain therewith ...(Koran, sura 2,sign 79) ”

So they can't rule out anything ,actually not credible. Koran is the God's words book, and is protected by him from being corrupted, as he says:

“ Surely we have descended the Koran, and we assuredly it's guardian.(Koran, sura 15,sign 9) ”

So if we say it has mistakes, so we'll mean the God has mistakes (mark well)... . .Flakture (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

How dare you ask like about our holy book of our religion.

Death watch beetle and nativity song

In the article about the death watch beetle, the author states: "The death watch beetle appears in a nativity song in which the innkeeper complains repeatedly that "there's death watch beetle in the roof."" I have done my best to comb through lots of sources and have plugged many many search terms into the google box, but have come up empty-handed. I would love the source for this Nativity song and its text and/or history if possible. I wonder if the author might comment on his/her source?

Betsyme (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Betsy

That appears to have been in the article since it was created by User:Goodgerster. No source is given; you might perhaps leave a request at his talk page for further information. - Nunh-huh 03:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Imperialism

I have some questions about Imperialism.

What is Darwin's theory on natural selection?

Does Darwin's theory promote imperialism?

What is social Darwinism?

How does Darwin's theory influence the thought of Herbert Spencer?

How does Rudyard Kipling justify imperialism in his famous poem "The White Man's Burden"?

What arguments does Jules Ferry advance to justify imperialism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 02:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You need to look these up and read them. Here are some links: natural selection, imperialism, social Darwinism, Herbert Spencer, Rudyard Kipling, The White Man's Burden, Jules Ferry. If anything is unclear, come back and ask. - Nunh-huh 03:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd also suggest the page Darwinism - it seems like enough a nice starting point for the answers you seek. Random Nonsense (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

How do I lead a double life?

Can someone point me to a howto for leading a double life?

I'm thinking, for example, that I should find work that's only 3-4 hours but pretend to work 8 hours, in the remaining time living my double life.

Any other pointers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Q. Doe Jr. (talk • contribs) 14:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You might want to start by working out why you want to lead a double life. What needs do you have that cannot be satisfied by a single life? Why would it not be better to make significant lifestyle changes in a single life instead? Leading a double life usually entails some element of deceit, whether of family, colleagues or government. Who would know what? What would be the consequences of being found out? (Note that we cannot answer legal questions.) Bovlb (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Some people satisfy such an urge by becoming an actor, impersonator, or drag queen. It really all depends on what else (or who else) you want to be.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You'll need loads of money, because having two houses, two cars, two phone/gas/water bills and two anniversary presents to buy, won't be cheap.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 17:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

All of the above has been very helpful! However, you all are assuming too much. I just want to be socially integrated. As opposed to the full two thirds of MIT graduate students who have never had sex. Any concrete ideas? (Other than sshing into a server rather than keeping one in my home, obviously) —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Q. Doe Jr. (talk • contribs) 19:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Is the lack of free time really the problem? —Tamfang (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

NON PROFIT FOUNDATION

Hello, I would like to start a non profit foundation,How would I start? Thanks [email removed] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.86.15.15 (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Depends. To which nation state do you owe fealty? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skomorokh (talk • contribs) 18:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There's some useful information at Wikipedia's article on Non-profit organization.Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 18:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Killing in the name of...

Which religion has killed more of its enemies in the name of their god? Has this ever been calculated? Could it be calculated? Should I be banned from Wikipedia for life for asking such a naive question? Thank you. Beekone (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you culd calculate such a thing. But I also think you shouldn't be banned :) . What do you mean by religion? Lutherans, Catholics, and Russian Orthodox, or broader, like Christians, Muslims, and Jews? Wrad (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

for the sake of even just ball parking the figures they would have to be put into broad terms. Nazis, KKK, the Crusades all being Christian, for example. You got to admit it would be interesting to see, right? Beekone (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'd like to retract my Nazi example if it's shown that there was a stronger influence than religion in the persuasion of German citizens to commit atrocities. WWII buff I am not. Beekone (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

...and by participating German citizens I mean the willing ones of course. Beekone (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Capitalism. Followed closely by Communism. Just kidding. or am I? Jossy's Giant (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

that's a really interesting point. There's definitely something to be said for the worship of money. Beekone (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There are similarities between both ideologies and religion, particularly in the case of communism. And each ideology has led to the deaths of more people than have been killed in all of history's religious wars put together. Oh and I forgot to mention the State, which like God is an abstract concept based on mythology, which is worshiped. With killers like these religions would be hard pressed to keep up. Jossy's Giant (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Just for the sake of argument then, between the major contendors, Christianity, Islam and any Eastern religions (defined by praise and direct credit given to a non-existant being) what does the scoreboard look like? Beekone (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, start naming some wars... Wrad (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The big ones that come to mind are the Crusades (obviously the numbers would be staggering for both sides, but probably more for christians when accounting the pre-war slaughter of Jewish communities in Europe), WWII, Iraq and all related and unrelated terrorist/insurgent killings (not counting the US's since their numbers aren't attributed to whether or not they get into Heaven), and probably a lot of the Manifest Destiny type activities where Native Americans were killed in the name of cleansing the land of heathens. I'm sure there are a lot more, that's why I'm hoping someone's already done this whole thing. Beekone (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Check Religious war and Religious violence, and Category:Religion and violence. Also see List of wars and disasters by death toll, picking out the wars that were mostly religious. The thing is many 'religious wars' are to some extent also to do with other things like money, power, resources, empire, nationalism, politics etc. Jossy's Giant (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Historical comparison of death tolls is generally awful because the world population increased a lot over the past millennia. User:Krator (t c) 20:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Christian or Jewish name

As part of a genealogy search on family, the name Balthassa has tured up. He was from Germany, born about 1820. Would that name have been given to a Christian, a Jew or possible both.scutchie 17:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• It's the first time i have heard about the name Balthassa, but i have heard numerous times about Balthazar. It seems to be a Christian name, but a secularized Jewish families sometimes have given their children Christian names. Mieciu K (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

About Panchatantra

Panchatantra was influenced on who?T3hStoner (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Bara bröst

The Swedish feminist movement "bara bröst" has been noticed in the Finnish press. Feminists in Sundvall want women to be able to go topless in public swimming pools. Their reasoning is, if men see enough women topless, they will accept them as commonplace and stop lusting after them so much. I can certainly understand that. There have come three arguments against this:

• Protecting the children. This creates a chicken-and-egg problem. Children (boys?) can't see topless women until they've accepted them as commonplace. But they won't do so unless they've seen them often enough. Adult men have no such problem because they can see topless women anyway, just by going to the nearest strip club.
• If men accept topless women as commonplace, they will no longer get excited by them. This creates a problem when a woman wants a man to get excited.
• It is (I hear) more difficult for a woman to swim topless than when her breasts are bound against her body.

I can only answer the second question myself. As much as I like women's breasts, I am (lesserly) excited by their bared arms and legs too. If they have no problem showing them, why shouldn't this be extended to the breasts? What are your thoughts about this? JIP | Talk 20:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Children have better things to do than hang around pools all day and look at women (what? I don't know, but they don't do it now to see women in bikinis or thongs or whatever). As for swimming, I don't think a woman swimming topless is going to be going for any lap records or anything. Presumably, it would be a comfort issue, in which case she can wear a swimsuit if she's more comfortable that way. Recury (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh, folks, this is not supposed to be a debate forum, remember? --Anon, 21:34 UTC, January 10.