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

December 4

Names of wars in the USA

While working with images I photographed yesterday of some war memorials, it occurred to me that we Americans generally speak of "The Mexican War" and "The Spanish-American War". I've never heard "Mexican-American War" except in contexts like Wikipedia, which obviously need to be more international, but "Spanish War" is something I've never heard except in archaic contexts. If you look at our articles on the subject, you'll see that "Mexican War" is given prominently in its intro, but "Spanish War" only appears in the name of an organization, the name of a military decoration, and the title of a book. Why the discrepancy? Nyttend (talk) 00:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Wars seems to get rather random names. It often comes down to whichever newspaper report happens to give it a name that catches on. Or perhaps now they are named in a Tweet. StuRat (talk) 01:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The second is also known as the "War of 1898" (matching the "War of 1812")... AnonMoos (talk) 04:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I've only ever heard of them as the "Mexican-American" and "Spanish-American" wars. But it would sort of make sense to name the war after who you're fighting (ie French and Indian War). Hot Stop talk-contribs 04:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

'The Spanish War' in particular just wouldn't work, there have been so many. Anglo-Spanish War alone gives quite an impressive list. 148.197.81.179 (talk) 09:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The George M. Cohan song Yankee Doodle Boy mentions "the Spanish War" in one of its verses. It being 1904, the Spanish-American War of 1898 would have been the obvious reference. Not so obvious a century later. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Yea, wars typically have multiple names early on, but then settle down to just one or two names that stick. StuRat (talk) 20:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Buongiorno ?

Well, buonasera I guess ;) I was watching the funny Apple commercials in French (don't ask) and I came across this one - at 6:28 le bon monsieur PC says "buon giorno" in an attempt to communicate with the Japanese girl. I thought that was pretty funny and I assumed it was liberally adapted from the English original, which I assumed had Spanish (since after English Italian is the most-studied language in France). But the English commercial also has Italian, which I thought was strange, since in the US the most popular foreign languages are French and Spanish; italian occupies a very small share. Why did they have him say "Buongiorno" instead of "Hola" or "Bonjour"? Thanks. 24.92.85.35 (talk) 06:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Didn't view any of the videos, but a few Italian words or phrases ("buon giorno", "arrivederci", "ciao", "capisci" [as "kapeesh"], "dolce vita", "che sarà sarà" [as "que sera sera"]) are fairly widely known in the United States. Italian is not a widely-taught classroom language, but in past decades there were many 1st or 2nd generation Italian immigrants. The movie Breaking Away has a famous fictionalized account of an American Italianophiliac... AnonMoos (talk) 08:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure that Italian is the second most studied language in France? --Cerlomin (talk) 14:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

It sounds more romantic, at least from the perspective of this English speaker. For a Frenchman, it might sound slightly more exotic than a standard "bonjour"? Clarityfiend (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Italian is more commonly studied than Spanish in a lot of other English-speaking countries. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for that, PalaceGuard? If by "English-speaking countries" you mean what Braj Kachru calls the inner circle, then we have "the traditional bases of English: the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, anglophone Canada and South Africa, and some of the Caribbean territories". In which of these countries is Italian studied by more people than Spanish? Or are you thinking of the outer circle? That would be "countries where English is not the native tongue, but is important for historical reasons and plays a part in the nation's institutions, either as an official language or otherwise.... India, Nigeria, the Philippines, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Malaysia, Tanzania, Kenya, non-Anglophone South Africa and Canada, etc." Do you have information on study patterns for these countries? Given that the worldwide population of people who speak Spanish is several times greater than that of Italian-speakers, I would have assumed that more people study Spanish. But, of course, that is just my assumption; I'd love to have some solid data. (As a side note, this question should have been moved to the Language Desk at birth.) BrainyBabe (talk) 17:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Follow-up: our article List of languages by number of native speakers, while acknowledging the inherent imprecision of its figures, gives 329-500 million Spanish speakers, pointing out that the language is one of the six official ones used at the United Nations; it gives Italian only 62 million. BrainyBabe (talk) 13:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

PalaceGuard008 posted this to my talkpage. I'll post this here, because it provides a good reference:

I was primarily speaking from anecdotal experience, but the phenomenon is well documented in academia. For one set of illustrative statistics for Australia as an example, see page 49 of this paper. As you can see, the difference between Italian and Spanish is by a factor of 10 or more throughout secondary school. My anecdotal experience, is that I have not even heard of Spanish being offered as a choice in a secondary school in Australia - the most common options are Japanese and French, with less common offerings being Italian, German and (increasingly) Chinese.

As I understand it, the popularity of Spanish in the United States can be largely attributed to its proximity to the large Spanish-speaking population of Latin America, and consequently the large number of Spanish-speaking people in the United States. I'm not sure what the situation is in the United Kingdom. However, in the Antipodes at least, Italian predominates (over Spanish) by a large margin as a foreign language in education - some explanations might be the large (or larger?) numbers of Italian migrants compared to Spanish, the cultural prominence of Italian in various fields (opera is one example that springs to mind), and perhaps some connection to the traditional place of Latin in school curriculums.

I am not an expert in this area, so please let me know if you have a contrary viewpoint.--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

And I'll post a new question to the Language Ref Desk, to follow this up with more expert eyes. BrainyBabe (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Le bon monsieur PC doesn't say "buon giorno", but bons journaux, a "typicaly" French manner to say "hello" in Italian. The funny part is that he isn't able to speak any foreign language. You can't get the same effect with "Hola" (Spanish) that is too close to holà (French). — AldoSyrt (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Why do so many Europeans hate Gypsies so much?

Why is it that no matter what country you go to in Europe, there is a universal dislike of Gypsies? --98.207.213.158 (talk) 07:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

See Antiziganism. The short answer is: Because they're different. — Sebastian 08:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I really don't know that it's "universal", but think of a group traditionally somewhat socially isolated -- like Jews were in 19th-century Europe -- but with a lot less education, and it shouldn't be too hard to envision some of the reasons... AnonMoos (talk) 08:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but nowadays antisemitism is a major taboo in Europe, yet Gypsies are openly universally reviled. Is what they say about their culture (that they teach it's okay to steal/swindle/lie/disrespect non-gypsies) true?--98.207.213.158 (talk) 08:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, what about all the stories of gypsies destroying government housing?--98.207.213.158 (talk) 08:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Gypsies are not "openly universally reviled" in "Europe". Indeed, there is a romantic admiration for their lifestyle in much of western Europe. However, as all outsiders, they can be the target of prejudice and discrimination. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

In fact many English celebrities such as Bob Hoskins and Adam Ant have proudly boasted of their gypsy ancestry in various interviews. In Italy (where I live) there is admittedly a lot of prejudice against gypsies whom they refer to as Rom, even though zingari is the correct Italian name for gypsies.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

But isn't "zingari" (and "tzigane" in French) a derogatory term? Rom is their proper name. In any case, I assume there is so much prejudice because the most visible ones are dirty and smelly and begging or stealing from you...or so it seems to tourists and non-Europeans, at least. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes you are correct. Rom is the politically-correct term whereas zingaro has now been deprecated as offensive. Nevertheless, the prejudice remains.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

You're contradicting yourself there. If zingaro is now deprecated as offensive, it can't be the "correct Italian name". --Viennese Waltz 08:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not contadicting myself. Check out an English-Italian dictionary. The Italian word for gypsy (male) is zingaro, whereas the Italian translation of a gypsy when it applies to a female is zingara. Rom is a very recent PC term. When I first arrived on sunny Italian shores, zingaro/ra was the only term in use. In point of fact there is a popular song which dates from 1969 entitled Zingara.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

What I am saying is that language is historically constructed. Take the word negro, for example. Our article states: "From the 18th century to the late 1960s, "negro" (later capitalized) was considered to be the proper English-language term for certain people of sub-Saharan African origin. The word "Negro" fell out of favor by the early 1970s in the United States after the Civil Rights movement." What the dictionary says is neither here nor there; what matters is currently acceptable usage. --Viennese Waltz 09:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Well most Italians use the word zingar0/ra apart from journalists and politicians, who have decided the term is offensive. My daughter's dictionary uses zingaro, and finally can we please end this non-productive and futile discourse as it's really leading nowhere? Thanks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

While I agree that dictionaries are only history books, I'm not sure where finds a good source for currently acceptable usage. — John Harvey, Wizened Web Wizard Wannabe, ^{Talk to me!} 15:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The reason is that in Western Europe a significant minority of them engage in petty crime and people are too lazy —or too stupid may I add— to avoid generalizing. --Cerlomin (talk) 14:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Stupid, I grant you. But far from laziness, it seems to me it takes a certain amount of mental energy to make the leap from "I was robbed (by a person who happened to be a gypsy)" to "All gypsies are robbers". If it had been a non-gypsy, there would not be any such thought as "All non-gypsies are robbers". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 04:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

No, Jack, I think that's not so much our mental capacity, but rather our animal instincts. A friend of mine had a rescued dog who had been mistreated by men from a certain ethnicity. He was uncomfortable with men, and hostile towards men from that ethnicity. — Sebastian 06:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Is it "animal instincts" that connect the ethnicity of a perpetrator with their actions? No animal would or could ever do that. Nor would or could an animal bring in any other irrelevant attributes such as marital status, educational attainment, sexual orientation, handedness, visual acuity, number of children, linguistic ability, musical tastes, financial status, sporting abilities, blood type, or how much sleep they usually need. How absurd it would be to eternally hate all single women with doctorates who are destitute right-handed polyglots and have blood group AB negative, because such a person once attacked you. No less absurd is to blame an entire race of people for the actions of one of them. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 07:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• It should be noted that the term "gypsy" is somewhat confusingly overapplied, or at least, applied to multiple groups which do not share a cultural or linguisitc heritage. For example, in the UK both the Romanichal (UK-born Romani communities) and the Irish travellers are both named "Gypsies". The commonality between the two groups is that they are nomadic and insular, i.e. they move around a lot and keep to themselves, which may account for why a) they are confused and both called "Gypsy" and b) why they are so reviled among the wealthier and more settled elements of society. --Jayron32 06:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Generally speaking these prejudices are called Stigmata. They (and their linguistic formation) have been studied, among others, by Judith Butler. Two pieces of Literature pertaining to your topic might be these: Awosusi, Anita (Hg.) (1998): Stichwort: Zigeuner. Zur Stigmatisierung von Sinti und Roma in Lexika und Enzyklopädien or Fitzpatrick, Sheila; Gellately, Robert (1996): Introduktion to the practices of denunciation in modern European history. As for the IPs questions pertaining to stealing and destruction of government property: These are precisely what is meant by the word Stigma. You are speaking of a collective them in opposition to a righteous us. Of their (presupposed) culture or thievery. And as the Commitee of German Sinti and Roma state in their short discussion of History: "[...] The reality of Sinti and Roma lives must be sharply distinguished from Antiziganistic cliche [...]" --Abracus (talk) 12:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

At least in England and Wales, there is a distinction at the government level between 'gypsies' and 'travellers', both of which are defined as ethnicities for the purposes of hate crime legislation, and both groups are lumped together for the purposes of legislation such as the local requirement to provide sites and housing. To call all 'gypsies' Romani would be like calling all 'eskimo' Inuit, although obviously one should be sensitive to the connotations of words used. British Gypsies got quite cross (rightly, in my opinion) about the programme My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding, but one of their complaints was that it talked about Gypsies when showing Irish Travellers, and didn't clearly distinguish between the two. (I don't recall if a representative for any Irish Travellers got media coverage complaining) 'Gypsy' is not usually taken to refer to Irish Travellers unless the speaker doesn't know that Irish Travellers exist. 86.164.79.174 (talk) 11:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

GK question -- Business , Brands, companies

What are the terms hot, white, black and grey associated with? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.244.183 (talk) 17:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Without the context I can't be sure, but here are some guesses:

"Hot" has two slang meanings, a product that's popular and an individual item which was stolen and is now being resold.

"Black market" items are those which are illegal to sell. This includes illegal products, like drugs, and those which would be legal, if the seller was licensed to sell them.

"White market" items are legal and sold by retailers who are properly licensed to sell them.

"Grey market" is somewhere in-between. This might include items which are technically illegal but where the law isn't enforced. An unlicensed kids' lemonade stand might fall into this category. There might also be items which are legal under the letter of the law, but not the spirit. For example, drugs can be modified to no longer be illegal, then the law is changed to include those, then the drugs are changed again, etc. StuRat (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

In my experience, gray more refers to things like re-imports - products that are (usually) safe and legal, but obtained circumventing the normal market strategy of the maker, and hence potentially with limited warranty or service. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah my experience is the same as StS and Grey market says more or less the same thing Nil Einne (talk) 04:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

List of 1996 Supreme Court of Canada decisions in Wikipedia

I went looking for the full citations of three cases and was delighted, though not surprised, to find them in a list of decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada from 1996. However, I was surprised to find that following the name, e.g., R. v. Jones there occurs, in each citation both a comma and a semi-colon, one after the other. I was double checking a popular term for three particular cases, "the Van der Peet trilogy" while editing a Master's thesis for a law school. I read a good number of cases from the SCC and even took a short course at the start of my program on proper legal forms. I have never come across this usage before. Can someone explain it to me? Keep up the good work. Michael Posluns, Ph.D., mposluns@accglobal.net

I looks like the 1996 reasons of the Supreme Court of Canada article is something of a work-in-progress. Other lists in the same series, such as 2006 reasons of the Supreme Court of Canada, have had more effort spent on them, producing a more polished format. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 18:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Specifically, it looks as if the particular Wikipedia editor who contributed a lot of the Canadian Supreme Court lists (named PullUpYourSocks) has mostly retired from editing Wikipedia. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 18:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Monotheism & Old Testament

Does the Old Testament ever say explicitly that other gods exist? I don't remember God saying anything like "I'm going to kill this other god to make sure he does nothing stupid", but the wording seems to heavily suggest that other gods exist. God usually says "you will worship no other gods before me", not "there are no other gods before me"; he also says "I am a jealous god" (with respect to worship), not "I am the only god". --140.180.15.97 (talk) 19:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The Bible discusses idolatry in many places. (See http://mlbible.com/psalms/115-4.htm; http://mlbible.com/psalms/115-5.htm; http://mlbible.com/psalms/115-6.htm; http://mlbible.com/psalms/115-7.htm; http://mlbible.com/psalms/115-8.htm.)

—Wavelength (talk) 19:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

When Moses comes down the mountain, the first commandment is not to put "other gods" before Yahweh. At that time the Jews practiced henotheism. This is to say that the Jews worshiped Yahweh because he was their god, even if other people worshiped other gods. They didn't deny the existence of other gods, they just believed that Yahweh was their god. Greg Bard (talk) 20:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

<edit conflict>Not everyone agrees with that point about henotheism. A command to have no other gods is consistent with believing that the other gods are false ones and have no power. The Bible mentions many gods, Astarte, Molech, Baal, the Nile, the lamb in Egypt, Baal Peor etc. They exist and other nations worship them. Sometimes the Israelites do too. The Bible does not state whether those deities have any kind of power at all. --Dweller (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

There's also the case where Moses meets the Egyptian high priest, who changes his staff into snakes, then Moses changes his into a bigger snake that eats the others. This seems designed to show that the god of Moses is more powerful than the gods of the Egyptians, which carries with it the implicit acknowledgment that the gods of Egypt do exist. The other possible interpretation is that the Egyptian priests just pulled a magic trick, but, of course, this would bring suspicion on Moses for having done the same, since he was raised among them and might well know their secrets. StuRat (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily. That's OR. The Bible calls the Egyptians "magicians", not priests. They can be seen to demonstrate that magic is not a proof of divinity. --Dweller (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

See http://mlbible.com/1_kings/18-21.htm to verse 40.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Other gods aside, nobody even mentions Satan in Christianity and Islam? Or the angels even. Just because he's the supposed enemy doesn't make him any less a deity. He's supposed to battle with God in the end times... the fact that he can even challenge God makes the claim of omnipotence and omniscience a bit questionable. If he's not that powerful and is that much of a nuisance, he should've been squashed a long time ago - no original sin, no lakes of brimstone. The funny thing is, he has to exist for someone to get the blame. Otherwise, if there's nobody else but God, that makes God responsible for all the evil things as well as the good.

In Rabbinic Judaism this is actually the case. With Satan being an agent of God meant to test people's faith, an actual devil's advocate, in Catholic terms. But then again, there is no literal hell in Judaism.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 22:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Is Satan a well-defined figure in the Old Testament (or even in the New)? It seems to me that the OT refers to many different adversaries of God--a snake, a dragon, the accuser of Job (though he was actually working for god), humans, etc, with no indication of any link between them. It's Christian tradition that lumps all of them together into one being with no Biblical basis.

Also, is the God of the OT really omnipotent and omniscient? He seems much more human than the popular conception of Christianity would have it. He gets angry, regrets his actions, changes his mind, can be bargained with, and he doesn't know a lot of things, like whether Job would be faithful if his possessions were taken away, or what Adam was up to in Eden. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 23:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

See http://www.watchtower.org/e/bh/article_11.htm.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

[The website http://www.watchtower.org/ is obsolete, but Wayback Machine has archives of "Why Does God Allow Suffering?" indexed at https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.watchtower.org/e/bh/article_11.htm. Today the official website of Jehovah's Witnesses is http://www.jw.org, and that chapter of the book What Does the Bible Really Teach? is at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102005141.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)]

"The Bible clearly states: “The whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.” (1 John 5:19) When you think about it, does that not make sense? This world reflects the personality of the invisible spirit creature who is “misleading the entire inhabited earth.” (Revelation 12:9) Satan is hateful, deceptive, and cruel. So the world, under his influence, is full of hatred, deceit, and cruelty. That is one reason why there is so much suffering."

Isn't that exactly what I was making an observation on? That entire page basically blames all suffering on Satan alone, in essence giving him a power near equal that of God.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 23:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

You said "he should've been squashed a long time ago", but that page says why he was not. Paragraph 19 says "humans were created with free will", so it does not blame all suffering on Satan alone.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

LOL. Of course he was not. That was the whole point of the word "should". As in, God could have if he really wanted to, but he didn't. The question is why - either he didn't really care, he gave angels free will as well, or (the answer pertinent to the question of the OP) that Satan himself was also powerful enough not to be silenced so quickly by an omnipotent being. i.e. Satan was the second god in the Abrahamic religions. In fact the entire thing is amazingly anthropomorphic in how it's about a power struggle between two divine entities.

As for the blaming thing. It does really. That whole rather apologist page blathers on about how suffering is caused by acceding to Satan. Thereby washing God of the burden, and furthermore actually accusing you as being the cause for your own sufferings. Like a customer service rep cheerily telling you that the product description explicitly states that they aren't responsible for any injuries or deaths resulting from your improper use of their products and that they're sorry about your loss.

This reminds me of Job who lost everything on a bet between Satan and God. And his most redeeming quality was apparently that he was enough of an unfeeling callous monster that he was completely unfazed at having all his children being used for target practice. Tell that to an actual father of a child killed by a freak accident and chances are he'll go into a guilt trip so deep he'll end up being convinced he did something incredibly horrible to deserve such a thing (perhaps that last week when he ran a red light? That time in junior high that he had premarital sex?). Frankly, I like the "He moves in mysterious ways" explanation more. At least it doesn't apologize for anything.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 01:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

But again, does it ever say in the OT that God is omnipotent? I'm wondering if this trait has any Biblical basis, or if it's an invention of Christian tradition. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 01:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

No. At least not explicitly. There is the claim that El Shaddai means "God Almighty" but it does not hold up to scholarly scrutiny. The following illustrates the complete disparity of the Gods of the OT and NT more strikingly (aside from the obvious - bloodthirstiness becoming benevolent noninterference, local tribal God becoming universal):

"And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." - Judges 1:19

"Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do; and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. " - Genesis 11:6

"And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?" - Genesis 3:9

So... iron chariots are exceptions to omnipotence, God is afraid of humans united for a common cause, and he couldn't find Adam. Not exactly omnipotent and omniscient yet.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 02:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The question "Why did Jehovah not destroy Satan immediately?" is answered in paragraph 10 and the following paragraphs. Paragraph 10 says "Even Satan knows that there is no limit to Jehovah’s power." The issue is not about power, but about the right to rule. Job was very disturbed by his calamities, but he endured faithfully. (http://mlbible.com/job/3-3.htm; http://mlbible.com/job/14-13.htm; http://mlbible.com/job/42-12.htm; http://mlbible.com/james/5-11.htm).

—Wavelength (talk) 02:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC) and 02:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

But that's just the author's opinion, and has no Biblical basis. Where in the Bible does it say that "even Satan knows that there is no limit to Jehovah's power"? The author assumes that the serpent is Satan, which is dubious at best, considering that "Satan" doesn't even exist as a single well-defined figure in the Bible (especially not in OT). --140.180.15.97 (talk) 08:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

So um... what's the difference between a power struggle and a struggle for the right to rule exactly?

And is Satan (whoever he or it may be) then beyond God's power? If he isn't, why is he still allowed to exist? The explanation of "free will" is very weak indeed considering that in Christianity and Islam the consequences of listening to Satan means eternal torture. God is basically committing a great cruelty by nonaction. Kind of like cops releasing a serial killer into the general public, and then not only ignoring the crimes that follow but actually jailing the surviving victims for being stupid enough to become victims. The point is even more salient for Job. Whether or not Job endured faithfully matters little - what matters is the fact that it was the sadistic infliction of great suffering on an innocent man fully condoned by the God of mercy. If Job, even for a teeny tiny bit, actually broke down and started questioning God (as any normal human being would do in light of the tragedies that happened to him), I'm guessing he would have been unceremoniously hauled off to hell. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 09:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Obsidian Soul, your comments and questions are addressed at http://www.watchtower.org/e/bh/article_11.htm (mentioned earlier), and in my earlier comments and linked Bible passages.

For information about the identity of Satan the Devil, see http://www.watchtower.org/e/20010901/article_02.htm.

For information about whether God cares about us humans, see http://www.watchtower.org/e/20040701/article_01.htm and http://www.watchtower.org/e/dg/article_01.htm.

For information about Sheol and Hades, see http://www.watchtower.org/e/bh/appendix_08.htm.

I have chosen not to spend additional time in formulating my own comments for this section.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Many moons ago I studied the Genesis creation stories as part of my A level Religious Studies, and I remember learning that the phrase "Lord God" is how we translate the Hebrew phrase "Jehovah Elohim". Now the "Elohim" part is plural. The creation of man is also preceded by the phrase which the King James Version translates as "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness", which means that at this point there was more than one person in the Godhead. Whether all this has been superseded in the past 35 years I have no idea, though. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The apologists say that the "we" is the Trinity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Or, more simply, it's just a "royal we". Adam Bishop (talk) 02:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Aha, there's the answer: God created man to curb His habit of talking to Himself. We are, in effect, His therapists. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Was there any attempt to link Constantinople to the myth of Rome's Trojan origins?

Was there any attempt to link Constantinople to the myth of Rome's Trojan origins? Both Constantinople and Troy were located in Asia minor, and Rome was supposedly the heir to the Trojan Empire. As put forward in Virgil's Aeneid. Was there ever an attempt to justify the move to the East with Rome's Trojan founder? Did the Byzantine Empire identify with Troy? --Gary123 (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Not really. According to Sozomen, Constantine did intend to build his new capital on the site of Troy, but God told him to rebuild Byzantium instead. Since Constantine was already Christian by then, and the empire was well on the way to becoming officially Christian, I don't think they identified with the pre-Christian religion/myths as much as they had previously. When the eastern empire became completely Hellenized, they identified with historical Greeks like Alexander, and mythical heroes like Achilles, rather than the Trojans. There are a couple of Byzantine epics from the Trojan perspective, but they're the exception. We have an article on Byzantine literature that talks about this a bit, but it seems to be from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, so I wouldn't put too much faith in it. The sources at the bottom of that article point to more up-to-date works. Also, I should add that it was more common for western Europeans to use the imagery of the Aeneid to depict themselves as the Trojans and the Byzantines as the untrustworthy Greeks. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Also note that Constantinople was not "located in Asia minor" but was located on the European side of the Bosporus. Deor (talk) 12:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Why academics don't contribute to Wikipedia

Hello all, I'm looking for a good summary of why editing Wikipedia is not an attractive proposition to academics. I remember reading one not too long ago but can't find anything very good from searching. It should cover points like:

• No special status on Wikipedia/WP:RANDY
• Have to learn complicated editing systems and policies
• Doesn't advance career (i.e. tenure/publication record)
• Time rich endeavour, while academics are time-poor
• What is there is so bad it's not worth trying to improve in small doses

To be clear, I'm not asking for you to add to this list or start a debate, but for links to where this is well-covered already. Thanks in advance! Skomorokh 21:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I question your premise. It seems to me that, while you might well be right in the social sciences, that we have entirely too many academics who edit our math and science articles, resulting in articles only readable by others in academia. StuRat (talk)

Why some academics do contribute.

1. Bossy know-alls.
2. Addictive.
3. Get to read about new areas of knowledge. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Guys, thanks, but this is a reference desk, I'm looking for a reference to the arguments, not to engage in them here. Skomorokh 21:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The best place to go to would be here: Wikipedia:Expert retention.AerobicFox (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

It takes a long time for a academic (?) to write good prose and find good references, only to find a few dozen fly-by-editors can reduce their work to gobbledegook. The word has now spread around learned would-be-editors, that WP is not worth the effort. Here is a resent discussion about 'article rot'. Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#A_heretical_idea:_.22closing_articles.22 Also, its the fly-by-editors in main, that I consider, can't be bothered to learn complicated editing systems and policies!

--Aspro (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

It is rather simple. Academics tend to be people who have dedicated their life to studying a specific area of knowledge and, as a result, know a lot about the area of knowledge. They come to Wikipedia and some random guy on the Internet who only knows a few tidbits of info from some magazine, a television show, and a couple Wikipedia articles is considered equal. If the random guy has a cool username instead of an IP address, he will be considered more informed than the academic. So, Wikipedia is seen as a place that rewards those who are simply willing to argue more than those are willing to study. How could that be attractive to academics? For an anecdote, I spend much of my time reviewing papers written by people (or groups of people) who have a PhD in Computer Science - or at least are nearly finished getting a PhD. I have to argue fine points about various topics from hardware to software and even some algorithm theory. I have to back my arguments with plenty of good resources and proofs. Then, I come to Wikipedia and some guy says that PHP is not a programming language. Why is he an expert? Because he claims to know Ruby. Joining this argument means that I must lower myself into an unreasonable argument with a person who is basing his side of the argument on ridiculous statements that have no basis in reality. What's my benefit? -- kainaw™ 21:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the "No special status" bit is overblown honestly. That's implying that academics are arrogant elitist twats in the first place. If an academic is anywhere near competent he could easily quash an upstart non-specialist (like yours truly) if a question arises on a topic - by providing reliable sources, very much the same thing we humble earthlings already do. After all, no one really expects them to do OR and actually publish articles on Wikipedia as they do on journals.

And like StuRat said, we do have quite a lot of academics in the hard sciences. Some more than others. Not enough, but hey, we never have enough contributors, academic or not, anyway. I think it's more because they don't really have the time to write, know the policies, and (especially) learn the conventions, coding, and formats.

You can't really expect a leading paleontologist (for example) to drop his work to do the work we volunteer for. They don't get credit for it, and there's so much more they should be doing.

Then there's also the problem with the mistaken comparison of Wikipedia with peer-reviewed sources. Wikipedia will never be a peer-reviewed source. Like paper encyclopedias, it's a tertiary source, which are not peer-reviewed and are not citable. That's like telling your students not to read the Encyclopedia Britannica because it's not a peer-reviewed source...

I also venture that the more hostile academics are in the soft sciences - particularly the more controversial ones like sociology, history, philosophy, economics, etc. which have academics that hold quite strong opinions and pet theories that are more often than not exactly the opposite of another in the same field. They're already POV warriors by default.

Wikipedia, however, is certainly viewed positively and used frequently by most of the academia and recommended to their students.

And P.S. A little googling for Wikipedia and Academics gives a lot of results already. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 23:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• I don't "author" because there are pressing needs for original research in my field, and "authoring" on wikipedia directly competes with this. I review articles because this is a time efficient contribution for me, works a different part of my mind, and "has the back" of quality article writers. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, was it you who recently recommended a guidance essay for academics on the do's and don't's of editing WP? That might be what the OP is looking for. An unrelated point is that, depending on your field, it can be a helpful intellectual challenge to be forced to respond to random left-field queries from Randy in Boise. If you can't convince Randy, how are you going to convince the new bunch of undergraduates? Itsmejudith (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The difference is that undergraduates tend to be people who are paying to learn something while Randy could easily be some guy who gets off on seeing how long he can maintain stupid arguments. -- kainaw™ 22:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember pointing to such an essay, but I do remember having read it recently. WP:EXPERT leads to a series of essays in the further reading, some quite extensive and field (natural science?) specific. You get undergraduates for 10+ weeks, and can provide a structured programme to inculcate knowledge and method. You get Randy for 10+ seconds, and Randy don't understand the least bit of method. It is certainly fun trying to explain the "Value" centric marxian analysis of capital from first principles, four times a week, when trying to write about a specific class's formation. Or, in other news, trying to explain to highly competent editors who aren't academic that discussion of evidence does not indicate presence of a theoretical construct (an encyclopaedic "subject") covering that evidence, unless the construct is specifically uncovered, explained and discussed. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

One swallow maketh not a summer, nor doth one exception shoot down a rule, but I know that at least one of the regular and frequent editors about the history of the American left is an academic historian. But in general, we're quoting academics rather than including them as editors, perhaps partly because of the rule against WP:Original research (including WP:Original synthesis), which is the one thing that a self-respecting scholar would take most pride in doing, or else be ashamed of doing insufficiently. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I would be reluctant to draw that conclusion or make that generalization about the average academic. Any time an academic publishes a paper, they must write an introduction which is a well-referenced and concise summary of the state of knowledge relating to the paper's topic. Peer reviewers tend to get quite testy if an author fails to properly acknowledge and credit prior work. Many academics will also write (or even be invited to write) review articles, which are properly considered secondary sources and don't incorporate any 'original research' at all. These articles strive to comprehensively survey the relevant literature in an area, and to organize it in a clear and accessible manner.

While review articles in an academic journal will typically assume a higher level of background knowledge on the part of their reader, their purpose isn't far from what we ought to strive for in the construction of our encyclopedia articles. Most academics, in my experience, quite enjoy sharing their knowledge and talking about their fields, and many take quite a bit of (generally quiet) pride in writing a well-constructed review article. The major problem is – as Kainaw observes – in dealing with the small but loud and obnoxious minority of editors who have great stubbornness but limited competence. We have to deal with fringe advocates who like to match up blog postings with peer-reviewed scientific research, and who feel that Google hits are a measure of scientific accuracy. I've vented a bit about this problem on my user page: User:TenOfAllTrades#On competence. Skilled academics have outlets for their writing that don't make them put up with this constant low-level irritation from WP:RANDY, so many of them just decide not to bother with Wikipedia's shit. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

In case it isn't clear above, ToaT is mentioning two very common types of papers/articles that academics write. One is a survey. No original research. It is just a survey of everyone else's work. The other is the standard research paper. That is mostly original research. It should contain, in an introduction at least, a survey that supports the original research. I think that most people think academics only write original research, but there are many survey papers also. -- kainaw™ 02:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say academics do not contribute. Where do you get this information from? WK is known as the unemployed PhD death match, just see the talk page of some science articles, and you'll realize how anal people can get about some proper terminology. Obviously, on the top of that, it's irrelevant who contributed to the Britney Spears article, but I'd say science articles are mostly written by people with some formal education in science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.8.70.171 (talk) 14:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

{ec}Some academics start contributing here because their students make use of Wikipedia and they feel that at least the articles that they use should have a reasonable level of content. It's kind of why I got involved (although I've not been an academic for almost 23 years), because so much was so bad (back in 2006) in the Earth Sciences generally. In the geology/geophysics area at the moment we have a pretty good set of active or onetime academics contributing, although a few have left after difficult encounters with established editors. One world-renowned seismologist started by producing a well-written and comprehensive (but at the time unsourced) draft of a new article on one his user sub-pages only to have someone nominate it for deletion almost immediately as OR. Eventually it was kept and properly referenced and is now in article space. Also he uploaded a series of images to illustrate the article and had most of them deleted, because he intially had great difficulty in understanding what license he should be using. He did persevere for a while, but has not been active for several months. I'm not entirely surprised after being hit with multiple templates on his user page, although I very much hope that he will be back. Mikenorton (talk) 15:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Were Monaco or part of Switzerland ever part of an Arab caliphate?

In the comments to a Sporcle quiz about modern countries occupying the territory of former Arab Caliphates, the question came up of whether Monaco or (at least part of) Switzerland occupies such territory. The evidence I could glean from Google references, Wikipedia and other general sources was maddeningly inconclusive, especially about Monaco, never definitively saying that the Saracens had occupied Monaco at the same time they suggested that they had been expelled by the first of the Grimaldi family that has reigned over Monaco for the last six centuries.

Here is the discussion we had at Sporcle:

¶ carbon_rod: Nov 25th, 2011 at 18:29 GMT

Wasn't Monaco also held for a time by the Arabs?
¶ shakescene: Nov 27th, 2011 at 05:01 GMT A cursory Google search is maddeningly elusive about whether and when the Saracens held Monaco, with some public domain sources hidden in tiny incomplete snippets. Wikipedia's articles on the History of Monaco, the Saracens and the history of Islam in Southern Italy are similarly indirect (e.g. the Saracens "were finally expelled" around A.D. 975 without specifying in particular how, whether or when they arrived in the first place.) The Saracens (from al-Andalus) certainly surrounded Monaco, and it seems extremely likely to me that they occupied Monaco, too, but it's just not very clear from the sources I could dig up. The clearest one, quite hostile to the Saracens (perhaps justifiably, I don't know) is The History of Monaco, Past and Present, by H. Pemberton (1867), which you can view, search and download in full for free from Google Books. That one seems pretty definite that the Saracens controlled Monaco (in fact the coast from Monaco to St. Tropez from their fortress at Fraxinet) until driven out of Provence by the Grimaldis (Prince Rainier's ancestors). My guess is that you should include Monaco as a full answer, rather than a bonus, but the whole question is a little fuzzy, as I'm sure many of the other countries are.
¶ shakescene: Nov 27th, 2011 at 05:05 GMT For a less hostile view of "The Saracens of St. Tropez" see this article from Saudi Aramco World: http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/200905/the.saracens.of.st.tropez.htm
¶ shakescene: Nov 27th, 2011 at 08:10 GMT After reading the story about the Saracens of the Provençal coast, I see that they reached the Alpine passes (including what was later called St. Bernard's pass, after one of the men who expelled them) and might possibly have occupied part of what is now Switzerland. So further investigation might indicate, if such an occupation was more than fleeting or transitory, adding Switzerland to the Ummayad Caliphate of Córdoba.
¶ zeppelinoid [the quiz's creator] : Dec 3rd, 2011 at 17:41 GMT

@carbon_rod & shakescene: I am unable to locate any source suggesting that Monaco was ever part of the Caliphate. It would appear that the south west part of the Franch Mediterranean coast was part of the Ummayyad and Abbasid Caliphates and that throughout this period there were incursions along the whole of the south coast by both land and sea. It is also reasonable to assume that there were permanent settlements as far East as the Alps but this is not tantamount to providing proof that the territory of modern Monaco was ever under the permanent or even temporary control of the Caliphate. Accordingly, I have decided to add Monaco and Switzerland as bonus answers only.

Is there any clarification that other Wikipedians can offer on this point? Would it be worth asking at French-language Wikipédie, or (more likely) asking someone who writes better French and is more familiar with fr:Wikipedia's slightly-different structure? —— Shakescene (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

History of Monaco says that the area was under constant conflict between the Lombards and the Franks during the early middle ages, and says that "the Saracens were expelled in 975", implying that yes, at least for Monaco, it was under nominal Muslim control, at least briefly. I don't know what level of control this was, or if this counts as "under the control of the Caliphate". I would have thought that, after the Battle of Tours that all Muslims had been expelled from the area occupied by Modern France, but clearly they still held parts of the Mediterranean coast for some centuries after that, at least sporadically. History of Switzerland mentions numerous peoples during the Middle Ages, when there had been Muslims in Western Europe, but does not mention any Muslim settlers. --Jayron32 00:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Fraxinetum between Marseilles and Monaco

Monaco didn't even exist at the period Shakescene was referencing. The only Caliphate holding in the area was the small naval fortress, Fraxinetum, founded by Andalusi sailors, pirates, and merchants. It was a little bit south of Monaco as well, in modern Provence. And yeah, all sources I could find make it clear that their forays into the Alps were simply that - raids, not the establishment of permanent settlements. Their forces were too small, and while they were technically under the jurisdiction of Cordoba, they were more or less independent from the Caliphate. One of the "republics" that were established in the same way (and not officially by Caliphate action).

It seemed that the King of Italy, Hugh of Provence, was the one who tolerated their forays into the Alps and Switzerland (Swabia) for strategic reasons. It was only when a monk was captured and ransomed from the Alpine passes that the Count of Provence, William I of Provence, and various other counts in the area finally got together to attacked Fraxinetum in the Battle of Tourtour. The latter implies that apart from Fraxinetum, Christian forces did indeed hold sovereignty for the surrounding areas.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 00:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Hm... on the other hand, History of Provence#The Expulsion of the Saracens from Provence states that "William became known as the "William the Liberator." He distributed the lands taken from the Saracens between Toulon and Nice to his entourage." The area between Toulon and Nice is far south where Monaco is. However the Embassy of Monaco website in Washington has an account of the lands north. It says "Monaco was ravaged by Saracens and barbarian tribes. After the Saracens were expelled in 975, the depopulated area was reclaimed by the Ligurians.". And this says that Menton, north of Monaco and Fraxinetum, remained uninhabited after the Saracen expulsion until the 11th century, and then it was resettled by the Count of Ventimiglia. So hmm... yes, I think the area where Monaco is today (including Menton), was settled (or at least emptied of its original inhabitants) by Saracens.

But again Faxinetum itself was a city-state republic, not unlike neighboring Christian cities at the time. It was supported but not controlled by the Umayyad Caliph of Cordoba.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 09:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

December 5

Last woman hanged in thew UK?

Reference Wikipedia page:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_Kingdom

1. I was taught growing up the Ruth Ellis was the last woman hanged in the UK. This happened when she was hanged in Holloway Prison on 13th July 1955. Wikipedia's link above states this as fact.

2. The same Wikipedia article goes on to say that Gwynne Owens Evans was hanged in Strangeways prison on 13th October 1964.

3. Would you please clarify this information and let me know who should be known as the last woman hanged in the UK. Thankyou. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipswich1978 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Gwynne Owens Evans was a man. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 02:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

[Nitpick alert] His middle name was Owen. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The statement that Ruth Ellis was the last woman hanged in the UK (on 13 July 1955) is therefore correct. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, most "babies names" sites on the web show Gwynne as a Welsh girl's name.[1]. The male variant is usually Gwyn or Gwynn.[2] Alansplodge (talk) 13:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

There is an unattributed assertion on the Discussion page of the relevant article Murder of John Alan West to the effect that "Gwynne Owen Evans" was a pseudonym and that the individual was not actually even Welsh, which might explain a mis-spelling. I am dubious that he would have been tried and hanged under a pseudonym, however. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.94 (talk) 14:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

That story is repeated on these sites: Stephen's Study Room: British Military & Criminal History in the period 1900 to 1999 and Capital Punishment U.K.. The latter is compiled by one Richard Clark who has published two books on the subject.[3] Apparently Evans's real name was John Robson Welby, but he went under the name of "Ginger" Evans. Perhaps he had changed his name legally. Alansplodge (talk) 16:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

'Gwyn' is short for 'Gwynfor' which is a Welsh male name, as well as 'Gwyneth' which is a female name. Incidentally Gwynne Owen Evans went to the gallows on 13 August 1964, not October. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Budget cuts and "creating efficiencies"

Hi. In budgets, total services are often limited by external debt or internal spending, meaning that non-essential (and sometimes partly-essential) services will have to be cut or taxes raised to allow the budget to fit everything. Some policymakers strive to create efficiencies in the system, usually by eliminating all non-essential services. However, I still don't understand why this is necessary. What would be the problem in, say, making an existing service much more efficient as to reduce its total cost-load? Or implementing a service or program that generates value, for example a public arts program or green energy infrastructure, either in the short-term or longer-term. Another idea could be trying to increase tourism. Obviously TANSTAAFL, but there seems to be no reason behind exponentially-growing debt concerns and increased austerity measures, that in the longer-term actually cost more because money is spent on the police force to hold back protesters. Why are there no (or few) forums for public input on how to create efficiency in the existing system to minimize the need to cut services? Please describe the feasibility of anything I mentioned. Thanks. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 02:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

"efficiency" in labour often involves forced wage reductions, forced condition reductions, or attempts to force higher productivity without meeting the productivity/payment curve of labour in society. These are strongly resisted by unionised workers, and resisted in varying fashions involving very very traditional tactics by ununionised workers. Attempts to force efficiency by "rationalising" production without consultation results in labour process change and back to the power of labour versus a capitalist (even if the state is the capitalist). This is especially true if the attempt to increase efficiency involves an attempt to increase productivity beyond the social average (ie: super-"profits" from super-exploitation). Efficiencies in non-people costs, if the state is non-corrupt, means the state is forcing productivity out of the non-state sector, which leads to worker and capitalist resistance. About the only place efficiencies can reasonably come from is sectors of the state that are far below the average rate of capitalisation or labour productivity. Given that the state tends to offer services... it tends to be labour productivity. While there are some attempts to capitalise service sector work; the primary means since the 1970s of enforcing labour discipline has been outsourcing to private capitalists who have no compunction against hardcore labour conflicts, and using the threat of outsourcing to keep bureaucrats and government workers inline. Given that states have accepted the "firm" style neo-liberal model of management, while not having access to the brutalisation, cheating and profiteering of private capitalists; government supplied services are behind the eightball and further, outsourcing tends to be deeply corrupt. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what governance system currently applies where you are at the moment, but that system is a significant influence on how decisions are made around state spending. There is the politically doctrinal argument, and then there is how government works in the real world.

In the UK there is cultural resistance to many of the techniques that the state could use to drive down costs whilst maintaining service to the citizen, in part because the size of ones fiefdom is a measure of ones success in the public sector but also because the mechanisms to allow different public sector bodies to work effectively together aren't particularly strong themselves.

That said there is a finite limit to how much one can reduce the costs of the "back office" without significant structural changes to the public sector, and those structural changes would need a cash injection. There is little political appetite to engage in the changes required, and in any case it would be very disruptive to delivery of service to the citizen. There is also the inevitable resistance to the headcount reductions needed to make any significant change to the cost of the public sector, without the ability to get rid of swathes of unproductive individuals all one does is move the deckchairs around, to butcher a metaphor.

There is a political drive to make public sector bodies, where appropriate, revenue generating as a method of reducing the need to remove services. There is a degree of cultural resistance to generating a surplus in many public sector bodies, and in any case they're frequently not competitive when actually compared against private sector peers.

ALR (talk) 11:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

One problem with revenue generating governments is that they tend to compete with private industry and governments either lose, or use the law to win, in which case the private companies lose and lay off their workers. Some areas where govs have done this are liquor distribution/warehousing and running lotteries. Lotteries also have the effect of taking money from the poorest segment of the population, thus increasing demand for social services there. (Liquor also disproportionately impacts the poor, both in money spent and the negative effects, but prohibition of alcohol doesn't work, so it's a moot point.) StuRat (talk) 18:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems in the US that every politician running for office claims they will solve the current budgetary woes by making current services more efficient, and by trimming wasteful spending. Trouble is, all the low-hanging fruit of this type was plucked long ago, and a real attack on waste would (a) involve cutting big defense projects that are zealously guarded by many interests, and (b) not save 100% of the money being spent on the big defense project, because some large percentage of the project is being paid in salaries to Americans, who turn around and buy lunches and rent and TVs with the money. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It would save 100% of the amount cut, but then tax revenues would also go down, so the net effect on the deficit would be less than the cuts. StuRat (talk) 23:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The whole debate about whether state spending is value generating is one that will go on and on. Whilst it doesn't in itself increase the size of the economy it does generate financial activity so here is a second and third order effects on the private sector. Unfortunately that's predicated on the size of the public sector spend being high enough to have an impact and I've never seen a credible comparison with the opportunity costs.

Politicians stick with simplistic arguments around trimming waste because they're nice and easy, and are rarely challenged during the electoral competition. When they try to put their grand words into practice the realities hit home. Everything in the public sector is defended by vested interests; unions, employers, direct beneficiaries of etc.

One approach that has had some success at the local authority level here in the UK is a form of direct democracy around budgeting. Putting tools online that allow people to express an opinion about the share of public expenditure on various services. As part of that it demonstrates some of the flow through costs of their decisions, so in principle they reach a more informed view of the impact. As an example reducing funding on roads preventive maintenance increases the need for corrective maintenance on a seasonal basis, impacts on the cost of delivering other services and has an impact on local business activity.

The usefulness is limited to local, once the area starts getting to big the "impacts" can be rationalised away. The biggest problem is that those that express an opinion are a self selecting segment of already politically engaged individuals. The consultations are not always representative and can end up biased towards extremes; either left or right wing nutters. The other thing they don't do is alter the total pot of money available.

In essence politicians of all stripes avoid subtlety in their arguments as the majority of the electorate aren't engaged enough for it to matter. It's not worth spending money oin that segment who might change their mind it's more about spending money getting those who have made up their minds out to vote rather than staying at home.

ALR (talk) 10:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

plush version

I'm currently trying to find a plush Kwanzaa set. The kinara, the candles, and the cup must be plush. (I feel plush candles are much safer for young children.) Where's a good place to start? Anyone know?24.90.204.234 (talk) 06:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't mean to side track the question but could someone educate me (and possibly others) on what a plush candle is? A Google search isn't turning out to be very helpful considering I keep getting too much noise related to plush stuffed animals which are sold alongside other gifts such as candles. So far, the only picture that I've seen of a product described as a plush candle is a candle in a jar but I don't see how being in a jar makes anything "plush". Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 07:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, at one point Abbey Press sold plush Advent wreaths. (The accompanying candles were also plush.) Those types of things made a safer alternative to regular Advent wreaths, especially for young children.24.90.204.234 (talk) 08:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any plush sets, but this google search has some interesting "make your own kinara" activities which may be fun for kids and provide an alternative. --Jayron32 14:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

One caution, toddlers who figure out how to use a lighter might try to light the wick on the plush candle, causing a fire. Obviously, lighters should be kept away from toddlers, but one left in a purse might be discovered by sticky little fingers. StuRat (talk) 18:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Not if mothers store purses in a safe place out of children's reach.24.90.204.234 (talk) 06:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Easier said than done. The mother who comes home with a baby that needs changing and grocery bags in her arms and is trying to answer the ringing phone won't always fully secure her purse. StuRat (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the lighter would be stored in a secure cabinet instead of the mother's purse.24.90.204.234 (talk) 06:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Yugoslav navy

What is the current fate of the Yugoslav Navy ships, shore fishing and other things? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.106.171.3 (talk) 13:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It appears, from the article Yugoslav Navy, that the personel and materiel were divied up among the former member states of Yugoslavia. Several of the successor states have no coastline, and thus no use for ocean-going vessels. It looks like any of the ships which are still in service are mostly parts of either the Croatian Navy or the Montenegrin Navy. --Jayron32 14:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

In particular, one of their vessels, the Yugoslav yacht Galeb, was transferred to the Montenegrin Navy after breakup. The yacht was formerly the property of Tito, who used to hold lavish parties there, with invitees including Elizabeth Taylor. The BBC program "Three Men go to Venice" included a section where the presenters visited the yacht in its new base at Rijeka, having been purchased by the city for use as a museum a few years ago. Clips can be found on teh internetz, which show some of the rather extraordinary features of the boat, such as the somewhat OTT cocktail cabinet. Cucumber Mike (talk) 16:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Bosnia and Herzegovina have one coastal town, Neum. Apparently it isn't enough to warrant having a navy though... Pfly (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Rather amusingly, the pride of the Serbian Navy, the ex-Yugoslav command ship RPB-30 Kozara is a veteran of World War II, in which she did sterling service as a floating brothel for officers (but not gentlemen) of the German Army. [4]. Alansplodge (talk) 14:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it's part of the general hypocrisy of mankind that whatever officers do to or with people not of the same social caste does not affect yourhis status as a gentleman. It's a bigger violation of etiquette to call Miss Catherine Rotheringham's behind "a fat ass" in polite society than to throw a hand grenade into a schoolyard full of children with a slightly different skin colour. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Whatever you say, in my country, a gentleman does not consort with prostitutes. Or be rude to ladies, or throw hand grenades at children. But we're getting off topic here. Alansplodge (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Good one! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Christmas tree

WHAT IS THE TRUE STORY OF THE CHRITMAS TREE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.178.245 (talk) 23:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "true story", but they were uncommon in most areas of the English-speaking world before the mid 19th-century, and were introduced mainly under German influence... AnonMoos (talk) 00:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Originally, the christmas tree was a spruce. Also called the Yule tree, it started in acient times as an offering to the germanic sun god, Sōwilō, to encourage his return the following year. The spruce tree was a symbol of vitality, as were many other evergreens according to dendrolatry - the pagan worship of trees. With the introduction of Christianity into germanic regions, this solstice tradition died out. However it was revived in the 15th century under ambitions, and was almost imediately catholisised. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

See http://www.christmastreehistory.net/ and Christmas tree#Origin.

The Bible forbids the adoption of religious customs from other religions (http://mlbible.com/2_corinthians/6-14.htm). When the Israelites made a golden calf, they pretended that it was acceptable for their worship (http://mlbible.com/exodus/32-4.htm), but God had a different view of the situation (http://mlbible.com/exodus/32-8.htm).

—Wavelength (talk) 02:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Not to be rude, but the OP di not question the catholisation of non-Christian religious traditions. That is a totally different discussion which could very well take over this present dicussion. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

For instance, christmas itself is the catholisation of a collection of pagan winter solstice festivals. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "catholisation" is not really a word. The proper spelling would be "Catholicization" (or "Catholicisation" in non-Oxford British spelling). However, the word doesn't seem to make all that much sense in context above, and in any case, the Christmas tree seems to have been introduced into the English-speaking world as much or more from Protestant regions of Germany as Catholic (certainly Albert the husband of Victoria was a Protestant). AnonMoos (talk) 05:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Wavelength -- the group that you're referring to objects to a rather peculiar eclectic assortment of diverse odds and ends (from Christmas to the pledge of allegiance to blood transfusions), and I'm not sure whether most people outside that group really care too much about the eccentricities of its taboos. AnonMoos (talk) 05:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

One little bit of history — if I remember rightly, Zion Lutheran Church introduced the Christmas tree to the US city of Cleveland, Ohio, and got quite a bit of difficulty in the press as a result. Nyttend (talk) 06:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I had always understood that the Christmas tree originated in Alsace.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

"By the early 18th century, the custom had become common in towns of the upper Rhineland, but it had not yet spread to rural areas." We have a perfectly serviceable article - the OP should read that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos, I have a comment and a question. (1) I referred to the Israelites. (2) Do you want me to deprive interested people of what the Bible says? (Genesis 18:22–33)

—Wavelength (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll take two. (Deep Cover 1992: 107 min) -- Obsidi♠n Soul 17:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

In any case, as I've said before, those who originally set the date of Christmas very probably thought that they were aggressively taking dies natalis solis invicti away from the pagans and appropriating it for the greater glory of Christ and the benefit of Christians -- not that they were being "influenced by paganism"... AnonMoos (talk) 01:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Be that as it may, it is not uncommon for protestant groups to have retained or incorporated catholic ideas in the past. An example is infantile baptism, which was introduced by the catholic system, which was retained by the protestant movement. It shouldn't be odd that protestants accepted the christmass tree if it accepted christmas and other catholic traditions. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia Christmas tree article, through the 16th to 19th centuries the Christmas tree seems to have been promulgated by Protestants more than Catholics... AnonMoos (talk) 15:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Who said anything about the Bible? Jesus Chrits was a completely unrelated Norse lumberjack who only really felt comfortable in the great outdoors. In order to be able to sleep soundly at night, he brings the forest into his own home.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 13:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It is besides the point, who promulgated it most, it was initiated by catholics, namely the Blackheads. Plasmic Physics (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

December 6

World War Three

Assume that a war of Iran vs. USA starts next year. What are the chances that China and North Korea will ally with Iran, and take advantage of the situation and attempt the reaquisition of Taiwan and South Korea, stating WWIII? Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

We have zero way of predicting the future on here. But North Korea is a poverty state at this point. China will probably get Taiwan back from just sitting around long enough. Neither really has any incentive to start a proxy war with the US. China is unlikely to risk the crippling sanctions that would follow if they took Taiwan by force. If either had wanted to take advantage of the US being militarily overdrawn, they could have done it anytime during the last decade. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I do sincerely hope you're wrong about your third sentence. Unless, of course, sitting around long enough, they'll become a liberal country; then that would be fine. --Trovatore (talk) 03:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Probably not, but I suspect it would look something like the situation in Hong Kong (see One country, two systems), which isn't so bad. But I'm not a Sinologist. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It isn't so bad for now. That deal is only good for fifty years, of which what, eleven or twelve are already gone? I very much hope that, long before that time expires, China will be a very different place — but if I were Taiwanese and had kids, I wouldn't want to bet on it. --Trovatore (talk) 02:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

If I were an American (which technically I am) and I had kids (I don't and won't), I wouldn't bet on it being a great place to live in 50 years, either. Just an observation. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, there are lots of ways the whole world could get less pleasant, but that's kind of orthogonal to the point. I'm much more confident that America will have a liberal political system fifty years from now than I am that China will. --Trovatore (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

China: 0.000000000. Losing its second biggest export market, presumably followed soon after by its largest (European Union), would wreck its economy and destabilize the regime. Besides, even if China were nutty enough to try it, the U.S. Navy wouldn't have a whole lot to do, so it would still be a bit of a bother getting across the Taiwan Strait in one piece. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Look at Europe! I think the next World War will be ignited where all major wars seem to start, in Europe. And it will start because of the "peace and prosperity bringing" Euro. I'd rather have a "great and benevolent leader" than this dictatorship in disguise. This will be ridiculed a lot in history books, because it was released just months before the world really understood what the consequences of a forced idealized world invented by politicians could be. Joepnl (talk) 03:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe a WWIII could otherwise be started thus: Israel launches a preemptive strike against Iran. Russia has good relations with Iran, so it joins Iran in retaliation. USA and UK which is an ally of Israel, joins the conflict and goes to war with Russia. China and North Korea are inturn allies with Russia, they see opportunity for territorial expansion, North Korea with the help of Russia invades South Korea. Enter the other nations. Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

BTW there's no alliance between the UK and Israel. Alansplodge (talk) 13:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It could also be started by mermaids invading Japan and tricking them into attacking China, then space aliens step in and get China to attack Hawaii. Finally, the hedgehogs turn out to be super-intelligent and figure out how to down all the military spy satellites, causing everyone to point fingers at one another - oh, and the worms have machine guns. Why not? We're not discussing something that is referenced on a reference desk. We're just making childish banter about make believe. -- kainaw™ 04:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? My speculation is based on existing political relations and attitudes. Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

You are speculating. That belongs on a message board, not on a reference desk. In case it isn't obvious, this is a reference desk. -- kainaw™ 04:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I did say that I was speculating, I was just pointing out that China's involvement isn't key in initiating a world war. Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Russia is never ever going to risk World War III for Iran. Kainaw's scenario is just as likely. Hedgehogs ... and gophers. Yeah, that's it. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Otters. 20.137.18.53 (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Why then did Russia's foreign minister just give a warning that an attack by Israel on Iran would be a "serious mistake" with "unpredictable consequences"? What are their intentions then? Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this almost how WWI started? Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

This is the story you're referring to and it's clear that Lavrov was not saying that Russia would retaliate against Israel. As Clarityfiend says, that is never going to happen. --Viennese Waltz 10:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The scenario under discussion was, I believe, Israel taking unilateral action against Iran without the support of its allies. If that happened, and you ended up with a war between just Iran and Israel (with everyone else staying back for fear of escalating the conflict), then the consequences would be unpredicatable. Israel could only guarantee victory with US help, and it's hard to say whether the US would get involved or not - it has relations with Russia and China to think about (they wouldn't go to outright war with the US over it, of course, but have other ways to influence US policy). --Tango (talk) 12:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, but I don't understand why you seem so sure of yourself that Russia won't enter the conflict. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Because why would they? Why would they risk international condemnation by getting involved in a protracted and expensive military conflict? What would they get out of it? --Viennese Waltz 11:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

To put in another way... This is a REFERENCE DESK. Instead of asking "Would Russia enter some imaginary conflict in the future?", you should ask "Has Russia demonstrated that it would enter a conflict under some specific set of events?" Then, we can reiterate that Russia has not demonstrated anything like that and the discussion is over. -- kainaw™ 15:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Also note that while Russia may have good relations with Iran, that doesn't mean they want a new nuclear power that close to their southern border, especially since all of Iran's neighbors would then start their own nuclear programs, so they could defend themselves. The net result of a nuclear Iran is a far more dangerous situation for Russia. StuRat (talk) 16:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The advantage to Russia for a nuclear or quasi-nuclear Iran is that it ties up the United States and may complicate the Middle East (which raises the oil prices that the Russian economy is rather dependent on). I'm not sure Moscow perceives Iran as being terribly close to its borders. I'm not sure it's that worried about blowback from a regional Middle Eastern war. I suspect its worst fears of such an eventuality come from the possibility of loose nukes getting to Chechnya, but that's not a guaranteed or necessarily likely thing. I don't know. If I were Russia I wouldn't mind a nuclear Iran. If I believed in deterrence at all I wouldn't necessarily believe it increases Russian risk very much. It's a long way from Tehran to Moscow. The idea that nuclear weapons necessarily make things difficult for everybody is primarily held in the United States, because the United States enjoys the greatest freedom of action around the world. For other countries, though, a hampered United States is actually a boon, because it grants them greater latitude in their respective regions. A US involved in the Middle East is a US that is reasonably pliable with regards to Russia, especially if Pakistan can't keep a lid on its own troubles, which gives Russia an opportunity to be Very Good Friend to US. But this is just blue skying of things (though you can see pretty similar sentiments in the NY Times editorial pages the last few weeks). I just wanted to point out that there are a lot of different ways to analyze the strategic situation of a nuclear Iran other than "everybody would be unhappy." --Mr.98 (talk) 22:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe Russia is closer to Iran than Israel is, and within range of missiles which Iran possesses. I'd think of it like how the US would view a nuclear Mexico (or Guatemala, if you prefer). We have no reason to fear a nuclear attack anytime soon, but who knows what governments those nations might have in the future. Iran could very well be the next in line for the wave of revolutions in the Muslim world, and a pro-US nation might emerge. And, if not, don't forget that Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and even Afghanistan might well feel threatened enough by Iran's nukes to get their own, either by developing their own or by having US nukes stationed there as a credible deterrent. StuRat (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Russia cities and industrial centers (and nuclear facilities) are spread over a wide geographic area that is quite far from Iran. It's not comparable with Israel. Neither is the state of the Russian deterrent. There's no way in hell that it would ever be in Iran's interest to get into a shooting war with Russia. I think a Russian strategist could see this as a very unlikely outcome. I don't think a nuclear Iran would particularly worry Moscow. I'm not sure a nuclear Saudi Arabia would either — this is a regional nuclear arms race, not one with much threat of expanding to be much more international. Iraq is unlikely to get into the WMD business anytime soon; Afghanistan utterly lacks the infrastructure and expertise, much less the motivation (a nuclear Iran would not change their security situation, except making them even more important for Americans; the US does not need to put nukes in Afghanistan to have a credible deterrent, it's one of the pluses of having ICBMs, SLBMs, cruise missiles, and B-2s). Comparing Russian attitudes with American ones is misleading — Russia has lived with nuclear states on their borders for decades, and there is really no possibility that they will ever live in any other state of things, as long as there are nukes. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

(Lest you suspect that it is too outrageous for an existing nuclear state to think that regional nuclear acquisition could work in their interest, note that this is exactly the reason that France helped Israel get the bomb in the 1960s — to tie up the Egyptians so they couldn't interfere with French interests in Northern Africa — and exactly the reason that China helped Pakistan get the bomb in the 1980s — to tie up India and the United States. It's not far-fetched for regional nuclear development to be strategically advantageous for other nuclear powers. The only country that never benefits from such an outcome is the USA, because the USA is the one who always stands to lose freedom of action, because they're the only country, these days, who tries to have the ability to project power everywhere.) --Mr.98 (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

US nukes aren't a credible deterrent because nobody believes they would be used against a nation with nukes of it's own, unless the US was nuked first. As far as Afghanistan goes, if it returns to being controlled by Pakistan via their Inter-Services Intelligence agency and the Taliban, then Pakistan may very well arm them to prevent an Iranian takeover. And just as the Taliban felt it was bad manners to refuse hospitality to al Queada, they would also not want to be rude in refusing to sell nukes to Chechen rebels. StuRat (talk) 04:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you know what "deterrent" means? Your first sentence suggests not. And the idea that Pakistan would give Afghanistan a nuclear program is just silly. They like to play with fire but they aren't stupid. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes I know what a deterrent is, and if everybody knows the US won't use it's weapons, then they cease to work as a deterrent, say if Iran chose to nuke Iraq in a repeat of the Iran-Iraq war. The problem with Pakistan is that nobody appears to be in charge, and the ISI, in particular, does whatever it damn well pleases with no apparent accounting to anyone. I don't know if they have access to nukes, but it's not out of the question. If the ISI saw Afghanistan about to fall to Iran, you bet they would do anything in their power to stop it. StuRat (talk) 14:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

...Why? Presumably Iran would be as ineffective at taking over Afghanistan as everyone else who has ever tried to do that. And why would Iran want to take over Afghanistan in the first place? This whole thread makes absolutely no sense. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

If people believe that the US will use its nuclear weapons in the event of a nuclear attack, and thus decline to nuke the US, then it makes the US in possession of a credible deterrent. I think you're getting mixed up on that point. The fact that the US (probably) won't use the weapons first doesn't get rid of the fact that they are a credible deterrent. If you mean that they will not deter all forms of attack, that's clear, but that's not what deterrence is really about. Now if you mean that the US nukes are not a deterrent against Iran nuking other countries — it depends. In the past the US has expanded its "nuclear umbrella" to include various other nations it considers important enough to risk nuclear war. (What would actually occur is of course unknown. I suspect, as did many Europeans in the 1980s, that the US would be willing to lose quite a lot of good friends if it avoided a real nuclear exchange in the process. Fortunately we never had to find out. The uncertainty in such a proposition, though, probably does have a deterrent effect.) I don't know whether it would do so in the case of Iraq; probably not. But I don't see why it would move missiles to Afghanistan as a result of that — it wouldn't be changing the strategic calculus at all. (The US would certainly not give nukes to Afghanistan.) The ISI is indeed a pretty rogue group but they are still not a stupid group. Everything they do is pretty calculated. I don't see them ever coming to the conclusion that a nuclear Afghanistan is in their interests — the country is just too unstable. I also don't see the ISI and Iran as being necessarily opposed to one another — they have a lot of shared interests. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

You're finally starting to understand, I think, that US nuclear weapons are no deterrent against Iran nuking it's neighbors, unless they are placed in those nations. As for Afghanistan being terribly unstable, well, so is Pakistan, but it didn't stop them. And Iran seems very interested in controlling it's neighbors, and has for decades now. StuRat (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The US would still control said nuclear weapons, so there's no difference in basing them closer or not. It would still be the US using them. The US would not (and has never done so) give another country nuclear weapons under their own control. And there's a world of difference between Pakistan developing its own nuclear weapons and Pakistan giving them to another country. And Iran is of course interested in controlling (certain) actions of its neighbors, as is Israel, Saudi Arabia, the United States, the United Kingdom, and any other nation that has enough organization for an active foreign policy. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

From a strategic standpoint, I don't see any advantage for Russia in going to actual war with Israel over Iran. Warning Israel that preliminary attacks would have unpredictable consequences is not exactly limited to Russia (frankly it is kind of obvious). I don't think Russia wants (more) actual war in the region, but I don't see them as a participant. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Awesome answer 98, that is exactly the kind of answer that I'm looking for. Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Been there, didn’t do that. Let’s say, just for argument’s sake, that the United States launches an unprovoked war of aggression against Iraq. I mean, Iran. Wouldn’t China take advantage of this elective war to launch its own? Well, they didn’t so we can probably concluded that they won’t. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Stalin speaking Georgian

Is there any recording of Stalin speaking Georgian? LANTZY^TALK 06:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

According to this site, "it is reported that in his last years his ability to speak Russian deteriorated, and he spoke only in Georgian". They don't seem to give a reference for this, though. 130.88.99.217 (talk) 11:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The second chapter of the book Stalin: A New History says that Stalin "never became a Georgian nationalist, although he was Georgian by birth, language, and the formative culture of his childhood." Gabbe (talk) 12:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought it just barely possible that he had made a radio address or something in his native language. LANTZY^TALK 21:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I need to find the cheapest community college in Kansas.

Unfortunately, Google doesn't do a price-search on community colleges, and there's no known interface like autotrader.com where we can sort colleges in a given state, by price.

Therefore, what community college offers the lowest cost per credit-hour (and fees, perhaps, so maybe overall as well)?

(If you'd like, you can list the cheapest 5 or 10 community colleges in Kansas.) Thanks. --70.179.174.101 (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

First off, are you sure that prices vary at all ? Since community colleges often receive state grants, it wouldn't surprise me if they insisted on regulating the price per credit hour in return. StuRat (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The prices apparently do vary. Visiting the websites for Allen County and Barton, I discovered that for Kansas residents, the former costs $75 per credit hour, the latter $84. Repeating the process for the remaining 17 Kansas CCs would yield the least expensive. Not the most elegant approach, I realize. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me influence my future choices. They're a possibility, but probably won't be within 1 1/4 hours of Lindsborg. (In this case, what cheapest colleges would be? Thanks.) --70.179.174.101 (talk) 05:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

If Kansas is similar to Pennsylvania, its community colleges will have three levels of tuition:

• Lowest, for in-county or in-region residents
• Middle, for residents of other Kansas counties or regions
• Highest, for non-residents of Kansas.

If I'm correct, the cheapest one for you will likely be the one closest to you. Nyttend (talk) 01:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

While not apparently equal to some other states, the Kansas Lottery appears to have funding specifically for community colleges. That should be taken into account as it is not a loan so it is clearly a reduction in fees paid. -- kainaw™ 02:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

This page by the Kansas State Dept. of Education lists all CCs in the state, and has a map indicating where each is located. It provides links to each college. By visiting the website of the community colleges closest to Lindsborg and entering the word tuition in the search box on the front page, you can determine which is the cheapest per credit hour. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 13:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Josef Bühler's foot

In his (post mortem) appearance in the alternate-history novel Fatherland, Josef Bühler has a porcelain prosthetic foot. Did the real Bühler have one? I can't find any source that says he did, suggesting the foot is alternate not history. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 17:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Other name on the second term's ballot

When, if ever, has a two-term US President run with another vice president running mate on the ballot for the second term? 20.137.18.53 (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks like FDR had a different running mate on the ballot for each of his three terms, but I asked for two-termers that had different running mates on the ballot the second time around. 20.137.18.53 (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Abe Lincoln had Hannibal Hamlin for his first term and Andrew Johnson for his second. Johnson acceded to the presidency; Hamlin missed out. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I wonder what happened to Hannibal Hamlin ? Was he busy driving elephants across a mountain range or employed to lure rats out of town, only to feast on them with chianti and fava beans ? StuRat (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

FDR was elected four times, not three. He had the same running mate, John Nance Garner in 1932 and 1936, Henry Wallace in 1940, and Truman in 1944. Thomas Jefferson had Aaron Burr for his first term and George Clinton for his second. James Madison had George Clinton for his first term and Elbridge Gerry for his second, but Clinton had died, so Madison couldn't keep the same running mate. Andrew Jackson had John C. Calhoun for his first term and Martin van Buren for his second. Ulysses S. Grant had Schuyler Colfax for his first term and Henry Wilson for his second. McKinley had Garrett A. Hobart for his first term and Teddy Roosevelt for his second, but again, Hobart had died. Pais (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

(EC) William McKinley - his first VP died in 1899 before the 1900 election. (Then McKinley was killed in 1901.) Rmhermen (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I see Grover Cleveland had Thomas Hendricks his first time and Adlai E. Stevenson his second. 20.137.18.53 (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

He wasn't elected the second time, but Theodore Roosevelt had a different running mate, Hiram Johnson, when he ran in 1912 than he had for vice president from 1905-1909, Charles W. Fairbanks. --Jayron32 20:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

¶ This one happens to be right up my alley, since I've gone over it in a completely amateur way so many times (and the tickets that stuck together is one of the only two Sporcle quizzes I ever created, although one that only a hundred people have tried.) An asterisk (*) and strikeout type indicates a lost bid for re-election.

1. John Adams 1796 Thomas Pinckney (Federalist); 1800* Charles Cotesworth Pinckney (Fed.)
2. Thomas Jefferson 1800 Aaron Burr (Democratic-Republican); 1804 George Clinton (D-R)
3. James Madison 1808 Geo. Clinton (D-R) (died April 1812); 1812 Elbridge Gerry (D-R) (died Nov. 1814)
4. John Quincy Adams 1824 (D-R) John C. Calhoun (D-R); 1828* (National Republican) Richard Rush (N-R)
5. Andrew Jackson 1828 John C. Calhoun (Democratic) (resigned Dec. 1832); 1832 Martin Van Buren (D)
6. Abraham Lincoln 1860 (Republican) Hannibal Hamlin (R); 1864 (Union Republican) Andrew Johnson (Union Democratic)
7. Ulysses S. Grant 1868 Schuyler Colfax (R); 1872 Henry Wilson (R) (died Nov. 1875)
8. Grover Cleveland 1884 Thomas Hendricks (D) (died Nov. 1885); 1888* Allen G. Thurman (D); 1892 Adlai Stevenson (D)
9. Benjamin Harrison 1888 Levi P. Morton (R); 1892* Whitelaw Reid (R)
10. William McKinley 1896 Garret Hobart (R) (died Nov. 1899); 1900 Theodore Roosevelt (R)
11. Theodore Roosevelt 1904 (R) Charles W. Fairbanks (R); 1912* (Progressive) Hiram Johnson (Prog.)
12. William Howard Taft 1908 (R) James S. Sherman (R); 1912* James Sherman (R) (died Oct. 30, 1912), then Nicholas Murray Butler (R)
13. Franklin D. Roosevelt 1932 & 1936 John Nance Garner (D); 1940 Henry A. Wallace (D); 1944 Harry Truman (D)

The inevitable notes: (1) As the runner-up in Electoral Votes (before they were divided into Presidential and Vice Presidential ballots), Thomas Jefferson (D-R) was John Adams' Vice President, although he ran for President against Adams in both 1796 and 1800; (2) John C. Calhoun was unopposed for Vice President in 1824, so all four candidates, including J.Q. Adams and Andrew Jackson, could be classified as his running-mate; (3) Martin Van Buren ran with Richard M. Johnson in both 1836 (successfully) and 1840 (unsuccessfully); in 1848 Van Buren ran as the Presidential candidate of the Free Soil Party with Charles Francis Adams, Sr. as his running mate; (4) James Sherman was renominated for V-P at the 1912 Republican convention, but died on October 30, days before the general election on November 5; the Republican National Committee named Nicholas Murray Butler as the GOP Vice-Presidential candidate after many ballots had already been printed; (5) Had Lyndon Johnson sought and won renomination in 1968, his vice-presidential nominee would most likely have been sitting Vice President Hubert Humphrey; however when Harry Truman first sought renomination in 1952, he was running against his own Vice President, Alben Barkley; (6) Nelson Rockefeller was Gerald Ford's appointed Vice President (although neither had run in a general presidential election), but Ford chose Robert Dole to be his running-mate in 1976.

If the thrust of your question, however, is how unusual would it be for Barack Obama to run next year with a Vice Presidential candidate other than the incumbent Joe Biden (for example, Hillary Clinton), then the answer is it would be very unusual for the 20th and 21st centuries; the main exceptions (besides 1912) are the quite unusual circumstances of 1940 (when FDR's indecision on seeking a third term prompted John N. Garner to seek the Presidency for himself) and 1976 when neither Gerald Ford nor Nelson Rockefeller had ever been elected to national office.

1. [1789 & 1792 George Washington–John Adams (no party or Federalist)]
2. 1816 & 1820 James Monroe–Daniel D. Tompkins (D-R)
3. 1836 & 1840* Van Buren–Richard M. Johnson (D)
4. 1908 & 1912* Taft–Sherman (R) [then Taft–Butler (R)]
5. 1912 & 1916 Woodrow Wilson–Thomas R. Marshall (D)
6. 1928 & 1932* Herbert Hoover–Charles Curtis (R)
7. 1932 & 1936 FDR–John N. Garner (D) [then 1940 FDR–Wallace (D) and 1944 FDR–Truman (D)]
8. 1952 & 1956 Dwight D. Eisenhower–Richard Nixon (R)
9. 1968 & 1972 Nixon–Spiro Agnew (R) [Nixon had lost in 1960 with Henry Cabot Lodge as his running-mate]
10. 1976 & 1980* Jimmy Carter–Walter Mondale (D)
11. 1980 & 1984 Ronald Reagan–George Herbert Walker Bush (R)
12. 1988 & 1992* George H.W. Bush–Dan Quayle (R)
13. 1992 & 1996 Bill Clinton–Albert A. Gore, Jr. (D)
14. 2000 & 2004 George Walker Bush–Richard Cheney (R)

Note: Washington was unopposed in 1789 and 1792, running with no particular Vice-Presidential candidate.

—— Shakescene (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It's unusual for a party to renominate a losing candidate, but when that happens, it's usually with a different vice-presidential candidate. Here are some selected, hurried major-party examples:

1. Jefferson 1796* & 1800 Aaron Burr (D-R); 1804 George Clinton (D-R)
2. Andrew Jackson 1824* (D-R) Calhoun [but see note above] (D-R); 1828 (D) Calhoun (D); 1832 (D) Van Buren (D)
3. Henry Clay 1824* (D-R) Calhoun [but see note above] (D-R); 1832* (N-R) John Sergeant (N-R); 1844* (Whig) Theodore Frelinghuysen (Whig)
4. William Henry Harrison 1836* Francis Granger (Whig); 1840 John Tyler (Whig, ex-D)
5. William Jennings Bryan 1896* (D & People's Party) Arthur Sewall (D) and Thomas E. Watson (People's); 1900* (D) Adlai Stevenson (D); 1908* (D) John W. Kern (D)
6. Thomas E. Dewey 1944* John W. Bricker (R); 1948* Earl Warren (R)
7. Adlai Stevenson, Jr. 1952* John Sparkman (D); 1956* Estes Kefauver (D)
8. Richard Nixon 1960* Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. (R); 1968 & 1972 Spiro Agnew (R)

Note: Jefferson and Burr each received 73 electoral votes (undifferentiated between President and Vice President) in 1800, so the U.S. House of Representatives decided between them and gave the Presidency to Jefferson. The 12th Amendment, ratified in 1804, gave one presidential and one vice-presidential ballot to each Elector.
—— Shakescene (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Yah. One cannot properly talk about "running mates" until after 1804. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

To be pedantic, one cannot properly talk of "running mates" before 1804, but one can speak of them in 1804 and subsequent elections. The 12th Amendment was ratified in June 1804, early enough to allow separate votes for President and Vice President in the Electoral College of 1804. Perhaps the closest metaphor to at least the formal situation before 1804 would not be equine or canine running mates pulling the same sleigh or wagon, but a nation's human runners in an Olympic event: they compete against each other for gold and silver at the same time they compete together against every other nation's runners. Similarly, Democratic-Republicans were campaigning in 1800 for both Burr and Jefferson to receive the most Electoral Votes. ¶ Of course, the framers of the Constitution in 1787 wrote Article II on the assumption (or feigned assumption) that political parties, or "factions", would not be a factor, certainly not one to be encouraged (see The The Federalist Numbers 9 and 10) while the Electors would exercise some degree of independent judgement based on acquaintance with the candidates, their records and their reputations. The one who received the second-highest number of Electoral votes seemed be most likely be the best fit for Vice President.—— Shakescene (talk) 03:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

December 7

Gay stereotypes

To what extent are gay stereotypes true? The one I'm most familiar with is that gays are effeminate. In China's underground youth culture, there's a surprisingly positive stereotype of gays as smart and handsome. How accurate are these, and if they're not accurate, why did they appear in the first place? --140.180.15.97 (talk) 04:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, the effeminate stereotype is because effeminate men stick out like sore thumbs, while you never notice masculine gay men. I think the stereotypes of gay men being more into the arts and more affluent might have some truth to them. The additional affluence might just be the result of a gay couple with two working men and no children ending up wealthier because they have two incomes, at the higher incomes of men, and fewer expenses. StuRat (talk) 04:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

That particular way that gay men seem to talk in the movies isn't true to life, for one. Nor are many of the classic "quirks" that they're given in the movies, or particular artists a gay person is supposed to like, etc. I've heard people say gay men are usually shy, and others that they are flamboyant, so clearly neither can be too true since they're contradictory! Stereotypes are an interesting thing. They stem from "many of the [x] I've met are like this", and become viewed as the norm. At this point it's possible for them to work in reverse, for a gay man to become more effeminate because it's expected of him. Anecdotally, I often got a "but you can't be lesbian because you have long hair/ you're wearing a dress". (I'm bi, but the same people who stereotype "lesbian= short hair" are the ones who class "attracted to women = lesbian"). Recently, I decided I wanted a new look, and cut my hair and modified my dress style slightly. Not only have the questions stopped, but I've had a lot more girls approach me since, showing stereotypes even have an impact on those within the group itself. sonia♫ 05:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

In short: every group of people is far more diverse than you think. In every group, some people conform closely to stereotypes about that group (see Camp Gay on TV Tropes) sometimes leading others to say Stop Being Stereotypical, some defy it entirely (in many different ways; see Straight Gay), and many are in the middle. Some people who conform to the stereotypes are not members of the group (see CampStraight). Some stereotypes are statistically more frequent than others in the population (I'm not aware of any studies on this), but there is usually great variation in these statistics between locations and subgroups. In fact, some men frequently have sex with men and still are not gay! See men who have sex with men, Down-low (sexual slang). And many gay men have had sex with women. There is almost nothing about a person's behavior that will completely reliably tell you what their sexuality is. Dcoetzee 06:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

To the OP: Get out of your cave and meet some, and make your own mind about them. Seriously, they won't hurt you. --Lgriot (talk) 09:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I have plenty of gay friends, thank you very much. However, if I make judgments about a whole group of people based on the relatively few people I know, I'd be just as guilty of confirmation bias as the creators and propagators of harmful stereotypes. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 07:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

And you think anonymous people on the internet don't have any bias ? --85.119.27.27 (talk) 09:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

At least, not unless you're into that and ask them to! ;) In my experience, there's something of a bell curve among gay men along the butch<->femme spectrum. A few gay men are so "butch" even the most finely tuned gaydar would never guess they weren't straight, and a few gay men are such flaming queens you can burn your retinas just looking at them, but most of us fall in between: "gay-acting" enough that you can tell they're gay, but still basically "guy-ish". The trouble is that TV and movies have trouble finding that happy medium where most of us live, and portray us as being on the extremes of the spectrum instead (basically, either Will or Jack). Pais (talk) 10:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you mentioned gaydar, Pais. This is not just some latter-day Hollywood-created myth, but a real feature of human communication, which same-sex attracted people have been using for millennia to help identify possible sexual partners, long before it ever had a name. I agree with Dcoetzee's "There is almost nothing about a person's behavior that will completely reliably tell you what their sexuality is" (my highlighting), but gaydar is very often the next best thing. Sometimes the cues and clues are extremely subtle, but a well-tuned gaydar will still pick up on them. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

If I'm reading your comments correctly, someone who is "obviously gay" will be obvious to pretty much everyone. Carson Kressley comes to mind - he seems more girlish than the average girl. Those who are much less flamboyant, or not flamboyant at all, might well be overlooked by straight folks. Some of Kressley's colleagues on Queer Eye for the Straight Guy come to mind. And Rock Hudson. However, if I read you correctly, other gays would likely be able to identify all 5 of the Queer Eye regulars as such. (And Rock Hudson). Is that correct? Also, someone mentioned Will and Jack. As I recall, even Jack's character was much more subtle than the Hollywood stereotype is. It was his dialogue that "gave him away." Some of his pals were closer to the stereotype. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It's hard with actors because mostly our experience of them is when they're on screen, playing a role, and not being themselves. I'd like to have met Rock Hudson when he wasn't "on". I only ever saw Queer Eye once or twice so I can't comment. Carson Kressley took on a life of his own, though. He even became an essential element of the hype around the Melbourne Cup for about 5 years in a row - no idea exactly why he was needed so badly for that event. Jack (Sean Hayes) of Will and Grace was closer to the other end of the flamboyance spectrum, but there are still lots of cues with him. He has a sort of understated flamboyance which he can't really hide, and in that role he's not required to. Will (Eric McCormack), on the other hand, tries valiantly to portray a gay character but fails because it's all an act, there's nothing real about it. It was not a surprise to me when I first looked him up and read he was happily married to a woman. Gale Harold (Brian Kinney on Queer as Folk (2000 TV series)) was another whose on-screen behaviour and personal sexuality don't seem to line up. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The only other characteristic that gay people used to have (thinking about the older generation) was that the ones who were "out" were more likely to have been persecuted by others, and/or stressed for a long period. This might be noticeable. Polypipe Wrangler (talk) 12:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

A gay stereotype can only exist in a cultural representation of a gay person. "Stereotype" does not apply except in that artificial presentation. There is something called "artistic license" which allows for wide variability in the representation of gay people as well as in the representation of anything else. Styles in artistic representation evolve with time, so whatever stereotype would apply today would unlikely apply tomorrow or in the past. Bus stop (talk) 14:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Royal republicanism

Are there any members of royal families (or extant lines of pretenders, such as Charles Napoleon) who espouse republicanism? --130.216.172.44 (talk) 05:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha? (At least officially, while Prime Minister of Bulgaria.) Adam Bishop (talk) 07:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Michael Abney-Hastings? 130.88.99.217 (talk) 11:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Do they have to be alive today? I hope Charles Joseph Bonaparte was a republican. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

1990 Canterbury vs Wellington

Some time in 1990, Canterbury hosted Wellington in a Shell Trophy match at Lancaster Park. My brother in law was there, as he told us at the time, but not able to ask him about it, as I have no way to contact him easily, I understand there was some controversy about the game which gained world notoriety and criticism, but after all these years I cannot recall the exact details.

All I recall is that some of the Wellington bowlers were instructed to deliberately bowl no balls at our heroic Canterbury batsmen, but I cannot get why. I also understand that the scorers could not keep up, as the Cantabs were smacking these badly bowled balls all over the park.

Now I also understand that due to this the scoreboard at the ground - the old one they used to have at the southern end before we got the electronic one, could not keep up with the exact score in real time, and it turns out the last ball was bowled when time ran out, that is, the required number of overs, and this last ball was just fended off.

Later it turned out, that if it had been hit for four, Canterbury would have won the Shell Trophy for that year, since those four runs, after all the no balls and runs hit were finally added up, would have given us victory, but when Wellington went on the next week to get enough points against Central Districts, they won the competition instead. It seems for want of only four runs is what Canterbury Cricket had in common with Don Bradman.

If anyone can give me the exact reasons for why this game was so strange, and or also a link to see if there is any site for Cricket controversies, this would be good. Thank You. Chris the Russian Christopher Lilly 05:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It might have been helpful if you had mentioned that you were talking about New Zealand, and mentioned that you were talking about cricket. Yes, we can easily work it out, but you are the one asking for help! --ColinFine (talk) 08:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I know practically nothing about cricket, but here's an article about the match. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't see anything at Category:Cricket controversies, but if there's enough coverage, it may be worthwhile to write an article at Wikipedia about it. --Jayron32 06:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It's an odd example of what (these days) commonly takes place earlier in a match - known as declaration bowling (I'll address that redlink asap). Odd because this wasn't trying to prompt a side to declare, but to make them try to win a match they could previously only lose or draw - and thefore make them less conservative... and in turn more likely to lose. A bit Byzantine, perhaps. --Dweller (talk) 10:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I had exactly the same thought. The linked article says that Wellington won the championship in the end not through the result of this match but because of "a couple of other very fortuitous results". With two overs to go and eight wickets down, most fielding captains would just go for the most aggressive bowling and fielding possible – and they could reasonably expect to win from that position. In this case, though, it sounds like the batsmen were pretty well entrenched. A complete gamble, though – and very hard to decide when to stop chucking runs at the batsmen and when they would feel that they were sufficiently close to a victory to start becoming wayward. Also, the article doesn't address this point, but presumably Canterbury had nothing to gain by winning, so they might have just not risen to the bait. (EDIT: Oh sorry, I've just re-read the OP's post which says that Canterbury would have won the title as well if they'd won the match. The article doesn't mention that aspect, though, so I'm not 100% convinced it's the case.) --Viennese Waltz 11:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

When is consent given to be governed?

For a person in the United States, at what point in time is consent to be governed considered given? Is it when that person is born, when that person is issued a social security number, or is it when that person becomes of the age of majority? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.226.153.142 (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Is it ever given? The discussion on "types of consent" in Consent of the governed may make things a little clearer, though it's not a comprehensive article. The answer certainly depends on your definition of consent, which is a nebulous concept (e.g. the distinction between overt or tacit consent; and it's not clear whether voting is equal to consent). It's not clear whether adult Americans actually give consent to be ruled, and most Americans don't believe the government has the people's consent[5][6]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It is considered implicit in the sense that freedom of travel is granted (if you don't like it, go somewhere else) and the ability to change the form of government (through the tortuous locutions of representative democracy) is granted. But other than those there is no formal consent, and there is no way to decline to be governed other than going somewhere else (and in most cases, being governed by someone else). If you explicitly refuse to be governed, without leaving, you'll run into difficulties very quickly (and the ultimately coercive nature of all government will become pretty clear). --Mr.98 (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I suppose you could live in a self-sufficient way, isolated from the rest of society and won´t be payint taxes or serving the army (if you are in the US). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.34 (talk) 17:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The statement "if you don't like it, go somewhere else" doesn't really apply to United States though, since IRS will collect taxes from you even if you leave the country. In fact if you disavow your citizenship IRS will still collect taxes from you for another 10 years. "if you don't like it, go somewhere else" applies to around 192 countries in the world, just not the US. 99.245.35.136 (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The IRS does impose a filing requirement for citizens living abroad, but the US "expatriation tax" upon renunciation of citizenship is only imposed under certain circumstances.[7] Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Um, if I renounce my US citizenship, and move to Canada, how would the US government have any ability whatsoever to enforce what I do outside of the US? If I'm not a citizen, and I am not within a country, that country has no right to enforce anything against me (other than International Crimes, I guess). Why would I, after having declared that I have cut off all ties with the US, even bother even opening a letter that the IRS sends me? Falconus^{p t c} 21:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

If you move to Canada then the US collection agency will transfer your debt to their Canadian counterpart, and the Canadian collection agency will sue for wage garnishments. If you are within Canada then Canadian laws apply to you, regardless of your citizenship status. Canadian laws allows for wage garnishments. 99.245.35.136 (talk) 22:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's always extradition, the feasibility of which in tax cases is discussed extensively here. Past that, it is more about the matter hanging over your head should you ever wish to return to the US (even to visit), or to receive income from a US entity, etc. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The are some issues with the presumptions in your question. "The governed" consists of every American from the founding to today. So we aren't talking about a census-like activity of getting people's consent individually. In principle, the consent of the governed occurs with a 50%+1 vote to authorize a committee or officer to do something. If that committee or officer appoints other officers or committees, THOSE committees and officers are considered to be duly authorized with the consent of the governed. AND IF THOSE committees or officers appoint....etcetera. The exact phrase from the Rights of Man is "DERIVED from the consent of the governed." So what matters is that a genealogy (of sorts) can be traced back to some event where the people gave their consent.Greg Bard (talk) 21:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It might be noted that if you are really trying to trace the consent back that far, universal suffrage has only been possible in the U.S. since the early 20th century, and even then it was not uniformly enforced/guaranteed until the late 20th century. It's not a minor point that for the majority of US history, far less than 50% of all American citizens were able to participate in political life. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. There are all kinds of holes to be poked into the theory that the US government has the consent of the governed. Even today, the voter turnout is pathetic, but we interpret the election as an opportunity to give consent, which was passed on --therefore consent is given. There are all kinds of interpretations of things. The members of congress presently were elected, and therefore their authority is derived from the consent of the governed --even if that genealogy I mentioned is somehow invalidated by something in history long ago. The members of congress could always introduce legislation to change the form of government if they thought that it wasn't derived from the consent of the governed. (It appears that they will stick with it, however.)Greg Bard (talk) 23:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The key thorn is all of this is that of course it is the currently elected who make the rules and system for all future elections, and are often pretty structurally required to perpetuate whatever the existing system is, however unrepresentative it might be. (Campaign finance reform comes to mind.) There is no "none of the above" option, there is no even viable third party option. When the choices are just apples and oranges, it's impossible to tell if people actually would prefer strawberries. I think there are probably quite a lot of people at the moment — heck, I know there are, of all different political stripes, for different reasons — who doubt the legitimacy of the current American government and doubt the ability of the elections to actually establish true consent. (And voter turnout rates are significant. If far less than a majority of eligible voters can be stirred to actually participate in elections, how legitimate are the elections as sign of popular will?) Anyway as you can tell I find it to be quite a flimsy idea. I would perhaps qualify it as enough consent of the governed that they don't chop your head off in frustration but that's a low bar. ;-) --Mr.98 (talk) 01:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding if you think there's universal suffrage today amongst the governed. Do children and teenagers get to vote? How about permanent residents of the United States? How about criminals? In what ways are these groups of people not "governed" by the United States, and in what ways have they consented to a government that they had no role in creating? --140.180.15.97 (talk) 02:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The hidden question no one is asking is whether universal, permanent, and irrevocable consent to be governed is a good thing. What I mean by that is whether it would be good for society if every person was allowed complete and total freedom to do whatever they want, without bounds, from birth to death. Does that mean I have the freedom to kill another person without cause and without reprocussions? If I kill another person, and if that person didn't consent to being killed, am I not taking from them the very freedom I claim I have a right to? If am not allowed to kill you, then my freedom is not total. If I am allowed to kill you, then your freedom is not total. So what decision do we make as a society in allowing consent to be governed? Freedom is a good, but is it a complete and universal good? How much of a good thing is too much? Jean-Jacques Rousseau had a lot to say on this topic, see social contract. --Jayron32 03:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

None of this have anything to do with universal suffrage. How is allowing everyone to vote the same as allowing "complete and total freedom to do whatever they want"? --140.180.15.97 (talk) 07:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Teenagers can vote, provided they've reached the age of 18. Those under 18 cannot vote. But that's a decision made by consent of the governed, not by a dictator. Currently the US is engaged in a protracted discussion to determine our next leader. That leader will be chosen by consent. Compare that with a place like Libya or Syria, where the only way to get "consent" is by violent overthrow of the current leader. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

No, that's a decision made by the consent of some of the governed, excluding those under 18. In the same way, blacks and women were excluded from the vote by the consent of some of the governed, namely white males, often using the same reasons that justify excluding teens: namely, irrationality/immaturity of blacks/women/teens. It's amazing how, the moment people start declaring "universal rights", they start making exceptions--a process that continues to this day. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

True about the minorities, but it's not a fair comparison. Those who are under 18 are normally considered legally incompetent for lots of things, only one of which is voting. Maybe the voting age will be lowered again someday (it used to be 21), for example maybe to 17 or 16, but that's not a decision to be made lightly. Parents are responsible for their children's behavior, which is why typically juvenile criminals are treated less harshly than if they were adults. It's a two-edged sword. For example, if you lowered the voting age to 12, you would also require sending a 12 year old to prison for shoplifting, as one example. With rights come responsibilities. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Just wondering. If a child breaks a window, his parents are responsible. Wouldn't it be logical that if a child has "grown up" responsibilities, even though his parents are the ones who will have to pay for the window, that a child also gets the "grown up" rights, where the parents get to vote extra on their behalf? (Not that I would like such a thing to be implemented, I happen to dislike democracy already and it would get even worse) Joepnl (talk) 02:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I've always assumed that consent was implicitly granted through not rioting or revolting (or, I suppose, engaging in more minor forms of civil disobedience). If the governed (as a whole - it's not an individual thing) withdraw their consent to being governed by a particular government, then they simply stop doing what that government tells them to do (and either don't do what anyone tells them, which is a riot, or start doing what someone else tells them, which is a revolution). The concept that a government can only govern with the consent of the governed arises because there is no way to force an entire population to do what you want if they object strongly enough to it (as several dictators have recently learned the hard way). --Tango (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It is through elections (and through employing the bill of rights) that we express our consent. We Americans have a peaceful "revolution" every couple of years in November, and we express our displeasure in the interim, if necessary. The people of Libya and Syria have had no such option. There choice was "obey or die". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

How does there being an election indicate that people give consent? I don't see the connection. --Tango (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Tango. Let's assume Facebook, having a population slighty bigger than Europe and more than twice the US, would let people vote on one of their four brand new, easy and cheap pay-per-like plans. They even didn't lie before the elections and implemented the new payment policy exactly according to the outcome. There would be no consent at all by people who didn't vote, even if they knew they had the right to vote. Even the users voting for the least evil option of the four provided by Facebook could have done so because the other three were even worse (and getting all friends to switch to MySpace wasn't really an option). IANAL, but I guess that by law, the questionnaire should have the option "Forget about me and my creditcard details immediately" and that all non-voters should be counted as having chosen that option. Every organisation has to let people opt-in, not opt-out if they don't want to do business with them. Organisations that don't even have an immediate opt-out option are usually considered mafia. The only reason Facebook has to abide by these rules is that they don't have the police force the US has. If Facebook had that, everyone would be "consenting" every four years to having Facebook phasing out incandescent light bulbs. Joepnl (talk) 03:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you need faith to live?

I don't mean, religious faith in some after life or divinity, but faith that things work in a certain predictable way. In the most extreme case, you need faith in the sun going up and down, in nobody starting a nuclear war, and no terrorist bombing you, and so on. You could also claim that from previous experience, these things are non-existent or extreme uncommon. But then we come to the reign of the faith that common tragedies won't happen to us. Your partner could have a STD and have lied, she could be a gold-digger, your bank could go bankrupt and you could lose your job. Wouldn´t we, without faith in some kind of order, get nuts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.34 (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The most important thing you need to have faith in is your own senses and your own perceptions. There is no way to ultimately prove to yourself that your entire experience is not an elaborate hallucination, or that your perceptions match reality. You need to operate under the assumption that they do, because it isn't possible to operate in the world without first proving that the world exists to yourself. That requires faith, perhaps the biggest leap of faith of all. For people who have that faith, but whose life really is an elaborate hallucination, they've got scizophrenia. In many ways, that level of faith, which operates at such a base level, is the most important thing you have. --Jayron32 18:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

"But then we come to the reign of the faith that common tragedies won't happen to us."

This is precisely the type of faith that prevents people from preparing adequately for common tragedies. If you didn't have faith that you're somehow immune from tragedy, you would use protection when having sex, examine your partner's personality before committing to a relationship, get deposit insurance, and get employment insurance, respectively, to protect against the tragedies you mentioned. --128.112.203.94 (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

How about using knowledge, logic and rational thought instead of faith? The first three tell me that the chances of nuclear war or terrorist bombing where I live are very low. It would tell me that I can take inexpensive precautions in relationships. It tells me that the sun will come up tomorrow. No faith is required. HiLo48 (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

How do you know, for certain, that you are typing stuff in Wikipedia right now, and not in a hospital bed, drooling on yourself, and just imagining that you are? Logic and reason are absolutely necessary to operate constructively in the world, but what good is logic to a hallucination? At some point, you have to accept that your very knowledge of the world rests on your brain's interpretation of it, and you have to have faith that your brain works right. You don't experience reality, ever. You experience a perception of reality, and you can only take on faith that your perception matches reality well enough to allow you to interact reliably with that reality. --Jayron32 19:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Problem of induction may be relevant in this context. 128.232.241.211 (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

HiLo, I contend that faith absolutely is required, even for mundane (or solane) things like the Sun rising every morning. Sure, it's risen a billion times before, but does that mean it will necessarily rise again tomorrow with 100% certainty, no possible shadow of doubt? No, it doesn't. It is possible that it won't rise tomorrow. No scientist worthy of the name could ever dispute that. (Likely? That's a different question entirely.) Hence, for you to operate in the belief that it will rise tomorrow, you need faith. We all exercise faith a thousand times a day without ever giving it any conscious thought. Every time you sit in a chair, you have faith that it will support you and not have you sprawling all over the floor. Every time you turn on a tap, you have faith that water will come out. And so on ad nauseam. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Moreover, one puts faith in people daily - who are not bound by the laws of physics in a relevant sense. Faith not to have poisoned your lunch, faith to stop at the crossing. Sure, those things might be unlikely, but people do not think - oh, it's probably not poisoned - they do not consider the possibility. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

"Faith" is a problematic term. If you mean that humans must make a number of inductive and deductive conclusions based on sparse evidence and the testimony of others, then yes, that's the case. Neither form of inferences are perfect, but they're not the same thing as "blind faith." --Mr.98 (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

When I fly, I have faith that the mechanics and the flight crew know what they're doing and will get the plane to its destination safely. My faith could be misplaced, but it does serve the purpose of my not worrying, i.e. of not being afraid to fly. Faith is also based on experience. The more things happen routinely, the greater faith you will have that they will continue to happen routinely. When they don't, of course, that's where "news" can come from. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Faith - 1) Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

When you get on a commercial flight, you don't "have faith" in the pilot, you "trust" the pilot, the flight crew, and the airline company based on how many times it has flown safely in the past. When you go out every morning to watch the sunrise, that is trust based on the number of times the sun has rose in the past at that specific time, the fact that the Earth rotates, and that it orbits the Sun.

When you get on a rickety plane that has not flown for 50 years with your 90-year old grandmother on the cockpit (whose only vehicle-related experience is with a bike), that is having faith. When you go out in the middle of the night to watch a sunrise because your neighborhood witch-doctor told you there would be one at 12:00 AM, that is having faith on the witch-doctor.

Trust is earned, faith is given.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 00:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The difference between trust and faith is just semantic. Both cannot be reached from axioms + deductions + induction, so, both are somehow irrational (in the sense of not rational, not in the sense of crazy). 88.8.76.138 (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

"Faith" doesn't seem to be the right word to describe my feelings about the sun rising tomorrow, or water coming out of a tap. Rather, I just "assume" it will, based on experience plus knowledge plus logic plus..... Its a linguistic thing, I guess. (Maybe this thread should be at the Language Ref Desk.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

In the most extreme cases, HiLo48, you can discard doubt, but there are thousands of cases of trust/faith/whatever, even by people who define themselves as rational. 88.8.76.138 (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

And not a single reference was provided! --Cerlomin (talk) 00:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

In the most extreme cases, HiLo48, you can discard doubt, but there are thousands of cases of trust/faith/whatever, even by people who define themselves as rational. 88.8.76.138 (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes their meanings overlap in colloquial usage and faith is technically a kind of trust. But it's a kind of trust that does not require prior evidence in its most predominant use. As we grow up, we learn that the world works in certain ways, it follows logical patterns barring unforeseen events, and that there are some things we can expect based on certain precursors. You don't go around trying to hug lions for instance. Bertrand Russell from our article on faith: ""Where there is evidence, no one speaks of 'faith'. We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence."

The only way you can live entirely on faith is when you stop making decisions altogether. Everytime you come across a choice, you pick one at random or from a predetermined approach without considering the current circumstances (e.g. always pick the left path, always choose the red one). I don't exactly call that living.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 00:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

And @ Cerlomin, oh ye of little faith. :P A few of us have linked articles, which have references. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 00:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The question is not living with faith alone, but with living without faith at all, in a pure rational way. Apparently, you'll always have a weak point in your system, when being rational it's too much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.8.76.138 (talk) 00:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Then yes. Every now and then you do make a "leap of faith", I guess. But certainly not in the examples others have given above. I will never board a plane based on faith alone.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 00:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The difference between the sunrise and the plane flight is that the sun always rises in the east, whereas planes do crash sometimes. When I board a plane, I have faith that it won't crash this time. There is an element of fact involved, i.e. that crashes are rare, especially in large commercial aircraft. But unlike with driving a car (where the probability of an accident is higher), I have no control over the mechanics and the flight crew. I have put my faith (or trust, or belief, or whatever) in their hands. By doing so, I have no fear of flying. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

See http://mlbible.com/hebrews/11-1.htm.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

have anyone checked the credentials of a doctor before an operation? Or of the pilot? Sometimes if things go wrong it's too late to learn, so why trust/faith/whatever? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.8.76.138 (talk) 00:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

You're mistaking direct proof for proof. How many times have you flown with an unlicensed pilot in a commercial airline? How many times have you been treated by an unlicensed doctor in a respectable hospital?-- Obsidi♠n Soul 00:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know because I don't check such things. I have faith that it won't happen to me, LOL. On the other hand, I'm sure that some taxi driver was drunk as he drove me around, however. Anyway, your argument still does not excludes Jayron's scenario: what if everything is just an illusion? What if I'm just still connected to the matrix? 88.8.76.138 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC).

Nobody can deny the possibility that everything is just an illusion. It's irrational to believe, with 100% certainty, that the world is not an illusion, and certainly irrational to have "faith" in that belief.

Also, the number of times that passengers failed to take basic precautions because they had faith that their car/plane won't crash, and paid for that mistake with their lives, is hard to count. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 02:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

A race car driver pushing the limits of man and machine does not have faith per se, I don't think, unless we are going to call faith in self a form of faith for the purposes of addressing the topic here. A race car driver doesn't have the time or the leisure to have faith because he is in control of a situation that could spin out of control at any minute. Faith, in such a scenario, is replaced by caution, judgement, and the will to perform at a high level. So, the answer to the section heading for this thread ("Do you need faith to live?") is: yes, sometimes you need faith to live, or sometimes you can and probably will employ faith in the course of daily living, but no, you do not always need or employ faith in life. Bus stop (talk) 01:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

To address an earlier distinction: trust can, and usually is, be based on induction. The problem is that induction is itself limited. I trust my morning cereal won't kill me because it hasn't in the past, not because I believe it is infallible. Of course, I might get the bad batch tomorrow — past experience does not guarantee future outcomes. That's the problem of induction in a nutshell. It's not the same thing as blind faith, faith in the absence of evidence. I would suggest that most of our experiences as described above are less cases of faith than they are induction — they are based on experience (and perception of experience), not belief. There's an important difference there. Nobody is saying that this is entirely logical — it's not, and there is plenty of room for logical fallacy (induction is itself a form of logical fallacy, but a useful one) and errors in perception. But it's not the same thing as faith. One doesn't have complete trust in any of these things outside of experience, and when experience (or, again, perception) argues against it, people stop trusting pretty quickly. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I think "blind faith" is really what the OP is asking about. And it's not exactly the same as how we colloquially define trust or faith.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 03:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

In some respects, people who suffer from 'proper' OCD (not someone who likes to keep their CDs in alphabetical order, but someone with the real condition that can devastate lives) suffer from a lack of faith. The regular population enjoys many faiths that OCD sufferers may not: faith in oneself, faith that disease and contamination isn't rampant, faith that others will behave predictably, faith that terrible accidents don't occur without certain knowledge, and, a metaphorical phrase I once heard, faith that there's no monster living under the stairs (because you can't prove there isn't one). Without these faiths, life can be anything from difficult to tragically intolerable. --Dweller (talk) 10:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Presumably, a symptom of OCD could be frequent hand-washing. In such a case, the person has to have faith that the water and the soap are not contaminated. Right? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes - but many (almost all?) OCD sufferers have an unwarranted faith in some ritual to help. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Handwashers don't necessarily have faith in handwashing - it's typical that they'll continue washing for a very long time and/or repeat the ritual within moments because they lack faith that it's done the job. --Dweller (talk) 10:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

So, summarizing: we have the induction problem (pointed by Mr.98) related to trust and the 'is everything an illusion' of Jayron? But is there any additional problem to have a world view entirely based on logic, reason and hard facts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.39.16.11 (talk) 13:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

You can't have a "world view entirely based on logic, reason and hard facts". Are there not explorers in this world? People try to do things in which they are anything but assured of success. We are adventurers on some level or another. In the midst of an "adventure", can you pause to recalculate all metrics that might be applicable? If you define your "world view" narrowly, this might be possible. Bus stop (talk) 14:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Logic, reason, and facts are all part of an inductive approach to the world. They aren't incompatible. The problem it that there is always a loophole of the unknown, and the fact that prior experience doesn't guarantee future experience. But for practical purposes an inductive worldview works pretty well if it is truly always taking in new information, trying to process it, and aware of its own biases. There's always going to be problem that you're not omniscient, so having an air-tight understanding of the world is never going to be possible. It's not necessarily even desirable. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Is it faith we use to get by? Or is it rough-and-ready risk assessment? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

If by "rough-and-ready risk assessment" you mean, "inductive logic" (that is, judgments about the present and future based on experience with the past), that's what I've been arguing. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you, and moreover I think people use the key questions of formal risk assessment: how likely is it to happen, how bad would it be if it did happen. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. To use one of the OP's examples, I don't have faith that no-one will start a nuclear war tomorrow. I have concluded, based on evidence and reason, that the probability of someone starting a nuclear war tomorrow is sufficiently low and the harm from me making plans to have lunch tomorrow rather than planning to build a bunker sufficiently low (particularly given that really, whatever preparations I make, if a nuclear war does kick off I'm screwed anyway) that I don't need to take it into account when planning my day. "Faith" doesn't come into it, it's just a standard risk assessment of the type everyone makes all the time (I crossed a road in order to get to work this morning - I concluded, based on evidence and reason, that the chance of me getting hit by a car was sufficiently low that the harm from missing work outweighed the possible harm from getting run over). --Tango (talk) 12:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

December 8

Languages of Belgium, Luxembourg and Switzerland

I am confused. Which language is the first official language of Belgium-French or Dutch? Which language is the first official language of Luxembourg-French or German? and which language is the first official language of Switzerland-German, French or Italian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.17.243 (talk) 04:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

There are explanations at Languages of Belgium, Languages of Luxembourg (and Multilingualism in Luxembourg), and Languages of Switzerland. Why do you think that any of them would have a "first official language"? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Whereas, as you may imagine, individual speakers have their own preferences, for example the creator of en:Multilingualism in Luxembourg translated from the Luxembourgish Wikipedia, but rearranged the order of languages at will. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 09:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Luxembourg is confusing, as Languages of Luxembourg explains - French and German are "official languages" and Luxembourgish is the "national language". Most people speak Luxembourgish as their native language, so Luxembourgish is first in that sense; but it's also the last to be recognised officially, so it's last in that other sense.

If by "first" you mean "most popular", then it's Dutch in Belgium, German in Switzerland, and in Luxembourg either Luxembourgish (counting only native speakers) or French (counting native and second-language). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

On official documents from the Belgian government, which are written in three languages, the order is French, then Flemish (Dutch), then German. Alansplodge (talk) 11:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

In Switzerland, for example, the languages should have equal standing from a national standpoint - even to the extent that the Latin "Confoederatio Helvetica" (Swiss Confederation) is sometimes used to avoid having to favor one language over another. The paper money is printed in all four (yes, there is Romansch, a fourth, but very minority, official language, which in fact does not have an equal standing in the government), but the text on the coins is only the Latin "Confoederatio Helvetica". Where you will find that one language is clearly favored over another is in the Cantons and towns; while there are some that are officially bilingual (Canton of Fribourg, Fribourg, Murten, for example), in probably the majority of places, people and signage, generally operate in one language or another. That being said, one can still often find things pretty much anywhere in Switzerland that have French, German, Italian, and sometimes Romansch translations. Falconus^{p t c} 13:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit: I thought that Murten was officially bilingual, but now I'm not sure. It definitely is bilingual, but I don't know what the official status is. Falconus^{p t c} 13:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand that the former Biel District is officially bilingual, whereas in mostly German-speaking Murten there are some activists in favor of a bilingual statute. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for answering my questions because Belgium is very confusing. I thought that it was a Francophone nation and the I thought the majority of the Belgians were Francophones. I thought Luxembourg is a 99% Francophone nation like Belgium. Switzerland now I understand is a German-speaking nation. 70.31.17.243 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.35.16 (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Belgium makes more sense if you consider that it is, in fact, two nations brought together artificially - Flanders and Wallonia. There's a German-speaking enclave in the south-east of the country. Brussels, although it is in Flanders, has more French speakers, but its historical language was Bruxellois, which is the language used by the Toone Puppet Theatre still. However, wherever you go (and this is definitely OR), if you speak English you will be welcomed. (If you speak German you will be ignored - at least in Flanders and Wallonia!) --TammyMoet (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Let me put this in doubt. Flanders and Wallonia share a long common history. They can separate, or remain together, who knows. In Brussels they spoke Marols and German is not ignored in Flanders. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Belgium is the remnant or "rump" of the Burgundian/Hapsburg/Spanish Low Countries. During decades of fighting during the second half of the 16th century, those who embraced Protestantism or were unwilling to be ruled by Spain usually ended up in the northern 2/3rds of the Low Countries (modern Netherlands), while those who remained Catholic ended up in the southern third (modern Belgium). It's not as if two pre-existing nations were artificially stitched together -- rather, Belgium was defined as a territorial unit before 19th century style concepts of linguistically-based "Romantic" nationalism became important (as was also the case for Switzerland). It was something of a historical accident that Belgium ended up with somewhat equal numbers of French and non-French speakers (determined by the military balance of power between Spanish armies and Dutch rebels 500 years ago, more than anything)... AnonMoos (talk) 10:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The modern state of Belgium dates only from 1830, when Romantic nationalism was very important. It's correct that the wars between the Hapsburg rulers and Dutch Protestants had a major effect on which parts of the Low Countries were predominantly Protestant and which parts were predominantly Catholic, but there were a variety of states and political arrangements between then and the 19th Century, some of which included most of the Low Countries in a single state, others where it was split into several states. Template:History_of_the_Low_Countries is a handy summary. The modern Netherlands includes some areas - notably Dutch Limburg - which are predominantly Catholic and were never really part of the Dutch Republic set up by the Protestant rebels. Valiantis (talk) 14:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Partial globe

Imagine that one has an oversized globe that is too large to fit in a room, say two meters in diameter. And imagine that one removes from its surface a small circle encompassing only Europe. The resulting lens-shaped object is flat enough to hang on a wall, but it is free of the distortions of a map projection. Has this cartographic method ever seen use, in lieu of globes or flat maps? Is there a term for it, other than "partial globe", "global section", etc? LANTZY^TALK 04:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

How is it free of distortions? It is still a segment of a sphere. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

That's why there are no distortions. I'm talking about something curved, like a giant contact lens. It's not flattened or projected onto a flat surface, so there are no distortions. LANTZY^TALK 06:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

You mean a spherical cap, correct? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. That's what I mean. LANTZY^TALK 09:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

There is map projection. But I don't know if it covers them all, or indeed if it covers the exact projection you are looking for (there is a lot of them). --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

What Lantzy is suggesting is not a projection (which necessarily requires some distortion), it is a model. I have found no information that such a model has ever been produced, at least not commercially. Perhaps you could patent it? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

There's "gore" (probably not exactly what you're asking). AnonMoos (talk) 08:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if it has been used or even if it has a name. However, if ever made, such an object derived from a 5,500 km diameter circle around Europe (approximately the distance from Portugal to the Urals), would be approximately 85 cm in diameter and would (if hung on a wall) project about 10 cm from the wall. Such a map would have a scale of 1 cm = 64 km. Astronaut (talk) 13:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like something that might have been useful in the past. However, now, with computers, you can have a virtual sphere on the screen and zoom in or out as much as needed, and take exact measurements, without distortion. StuRat (talk) 17:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It may not have a practical 21^st century use, but I can visualize it as an interesting art object. — Michael J 18:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

While it's not being projected in order to go on your wall, it is still being projected in order to form an image on your 2D retina, so the distortions are still there. The benefit is that you can minimise the distortions to the bit you are interested in at the time by changing the angle at which you view the cap. You get to chose what projection you use at any given time (in the same way you can with a computerised virtual sphere of the type StuRat mentions). --Tango (talk) 12:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The retina is not flat like a table top, and how we see things in the brain is hardly merely a raw unprocessed map of how light falls on the retina (otherwise we would see everything upside down!). You also seem to be overlooking stereoscopic vision... AnonMoos (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Syria vs France

I understand the terrible relationship between France and Algeria because of the Algerian war of Independence but what about Syria? Why Syria don't like to keep relationship with France in terms of Syrian immigrants to France and Syria not being the member of La Francophonie? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.17.243 (talk) 04:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't know that there's a "terrible relationship", but some Syrian nationalists consider that the Sykes-Picot agreement was a kind of underhanded stab in the back, and that France thwarted Greater Syrian aspirations, by splitting off Lebanon (an area much larger than the traditional 19th-century definition of Lebanon) and giving Alexandretta away to the Turks, etc. Some people think that both Lebanon and Syria probably would have been better off in the long term if Lebanon had not been extended beyond its traditional Maronite-Druze core to include so many predominantly Shi'ite and Sunni areas (not to mention a direct border with future Israel)... AnonMoos (talk) 07:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the French presence in Syria was much shorter than in Algeria - only a couple of decades between the end of World War I and the beginning of World War II. There was also no policy of encouraging the settlement of French citizens in Syria as there was in Algeria. It took much less traumatic events to break the link with France than was needed in Algeria. Since Syria's independence, it has been largely governed by leaders with a pan-Arabic ideology, who consider the period of French rule as a time of national humiliation (and one during which the national territory was carved up, as pointed out above). As a result, there has been little interest in being part of la Francophonie, even though some segments of society are still quite Francophile. That may or may not change depending on what type of government emerges from the current chaos. --Xuxl (talk) 09:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Ottoman Sudan?

Up to the Ottoman entry into World War I, was the future Anglo-Egyptian Sudan officially Ottoman? I'm quite confused by Khedivate of Egypt and by various websites that I found through Google: obviously Egypt was officially Ottoman, but judging by the significant autonomy enjoyed by Egypt (it's quite the rare province that attempts to conquer other provinces of the same empire, and when beaten isn't squished out of existence) I'm wondering if the actual situation were otherwise for the Sudan. Was it perhaps somewhat like the Duchy of Prussia, which was ruled by a suzerein of the Holy Roman Emperor but wasn't part of the HRE, or England during early Norman times, which wasn't part of France even though it had been conquered by one of the French king's dukes? FYI, my Google search is primarily giving me websites that are attempting to sell me furniture, perhaps made with Egyptian cotton. Nyttend (talk) 05:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

This book appears to address the subject. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Demographics South Africa

Hi, the article has a graph that indicates the population of South Africa which, I am sure, is not accurate. In 1959 whilst I was at school in form 1 the population of the country was posted in the media as 12 000 000. This was compared to the population of London, also 12 000 000. This may seem insignificant but in the context of population growth, and an ANC in exile resistance to a Nationalist Party family planning initiative at that time, we have a situation where the natural resources of the country are not sufficient to sustain the present population. In this light the population figure becomes extremely relevant to those seeking such reference for research purposes. Cfjiwi (talk) 07:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

What's your question? Nyttend (talk) 07:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Cfjiwi: If you believe an article is inaccurate, the appropriate place to discuss that is the "discussion" page for that article. This is a reference desk. Gabbe (talk) 08:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Demographics of South Africa has a graph that shows the population in 1961 as being around 17,500,000 (it doesn't go back any further). South_Africa#Demographics has a table that puts the population in 1960 as 16,385,000. The data in the graph matches the figures from UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO)[8] so it's almost certainly a reliable estimate. The figures you were told at school may have been out of date or incorrect at the time, or you may have misremembered them after more than 50 years. That's why Wikipedia publishes facts from reputable and verifiable sources.--Colapeninsula (talk) 11:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The population of Greater London has never been as high as 12 million, either, although there may have been figures based on a wider geographical area circulating 50 years ago. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Very likely as Greater London wasn't defined until 1965. Alansplodge (talk) 11:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

... as an administrative area, although the term "Greater London Planning Region" was in use well before then, covering a much wider area than the GLC, and in 1961 had a population approaching 11 million - [9] Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

¶ A Google search for "South Africa census 1951" and "South Africa population 1951" is remarkably fruitless for someone who isn't plugged into JSTOR; the Google Book snippets cut out anything useful. However, going through the old reference books I've hung onto much longer than most people would consider rational yields me this. Be warned that the usual Reliable Sources are not necessarily so: Leonard Thompson's A History of South Africa (Yale 1995) cautions that "South African statistics are particularly poor before World War II and at all times suspect concerning Africans." ["Appendix: Statistics", page 278] Here are some numbers going into 1970 to supplement the series mentioned above.

year	Total South Africa	White (European)	Total Non-White	Asian (Indian)	[Cape] Coloured	African	source
1904	5,174,827	1,117,234	4,057,593	122,734	445,228	3,491,056	Smuts, SYB
1911	5,972,757	1,276,319	4,696,438	200,000	500,000	4,000,000	SYB, HSA
1921	6,927,403	1,521,343	5,406,060				SYB
1936	9,619,000	2,009,000	7,610,000	221,000	772,000	6,617,000	EYB
1946	11,449,000	2,380,000	9,068,000	286,000	931,000	7,851,000	EYB
1951	12,716,000	2,647,000	10,068,000	368,000	1,108,000	8,594,000	EYB
est 1956	13,915,000	2,907,000	ca. 11,000,000	421,000		9,306,000	WA
1960	16,002,797	3,088,492	12,914,305	477,125	1,501,000	10,880,000	EYB; SYB
est 1964	17,457,000	3,323,000	14,134,000	520,000	1,699,000	11,915,000	EYB
est 1966	18,298,000	3,481,000	14,817,000	547,000	1,805,000	12,465,000	EYB; SYB
1970	21,402,470	3,726,540	17,675,930	618,140	2,021,430	15,036,360	SYB (1977-78)
Sources: EYB = The Europa Year Book 1969, vol. 2, p. 1286; HSA = A History of South Africa by Leonard Thompson (Yale 1995), p. 278; SYB = The Statesman's Year Book 1967-68, p. 1405 and 1977-78, p. 1296; WA = The World Almanac & Book of Facts 1957, p. 389 Smuts = Smuts I: The Sanguine Years 1870–1919 by W.K. Hancock (Cambridge 1962), p. 219

I have left the precision or rounding as in the original sources. I actually have some sympathy for the original enquirer, as I was avidly collecting stamps and studying foreign countries' capitals, flags and populations for myself in London in 1959 (when I was in classes 5 and 6 of primary school), so it's sometimes hard for me to remember (though well I know it) that Malaya's population isn't 10 million or Mexico's 30 million any more.
¶ As for London's population's perhaps the media were comparing the population of the Home Counties, whose definition varies. If you take the 1951 or 1961 populations (from p. 69 of the 1967-68 Statesman's Year Book) of the County of London, Middlesex, and the counties which abutted them in 1961 (Surrey, Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire, Essex and Kent), you get just about 12 million; add Berkshire and you're comfortably over 12 million, and add Oxfordshire and/or Bedfordshire, you're well over 12 million.

county (1950's)	1951	1961
County of London	3,347,956	3,200,484
Middlesex	2,269,315	2,234,543
Surrey	1,602,509	1,731,042
Buckinghamshire	386,291	488,233
Hertfordshire	609,775	832,901
Essex	2,044,964	2,288,058
Kent	1,564,324	1,701,851
subtotal	11,825,134	12,477,112
Berkshire	403,141	504,154
subtotal	12,228,275	12,981,266
Bedfordshire	311,937	380,837
Oxfordshire	275,808	309,452
total	12,816,020	13,671,555

—— Shakescene (talk) 07:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Difference between generic and brand-name guidelines for biologics

I've read that in the US, Congress has been dragging its feet since about 2001 regarding the codifying of guidelines for generic production of insulin. Granted, the point is presently moot as the patents for Novolog, for instance, aren't set to expire until 2014, but that day is getting closer and closer. So from what I've read, even if the patents expired today, generics would still be unable to start selling affordable medication to actually help human beings because of this. Well, my question is, by what certification is Novo Nordisk actually doing it now?? I assume that in this day and age where we have regulations up the wazoo for every single thing, they must have some already-codified set of standards by which they showed the government that their manufacturing process produced safe product, so why couldn't generics use that as a standard? Standards are not the intellectual property of drug companies, I hope. Otherwise they'd have incentive to lower standards so they can start selling their products. So what certification did the manufacturing process of Novolog go through, and why can't that be the hoop for generics to use when the patent expires in 2014? 20.137.18.53 (talk) 13:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Novo Nordisk has FDA approval to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus[10]. Generic versions of drugs also require FDA approval, although it's less stringent than for new drugs - see Generic drug#U.S. generics approval process. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

One kink in the legal labyrinth that no doubt many a player uses to their advantage is that there is a legal difference between "drug" and "biologic" in the US legal system. Man-made insulin is categorized as a biologic. 20.137.18.53 (talk) 15:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Standards can be the intellectual property of drug companies. Of importance is what is proper patentable subject matter? As federal law states, "Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title." (35 USC 101, emphasis added). Drug manufacturers do create standards and methods, but it is national standards associations which set them. I don't know the process incredibly well as that facet isn't in my practice area. I'm more concerned with what the standard is and its use in establishing a standard of care in negligence suits. I attended an hour long student seminar taught by a medical doctor who was a law student about the FDA process for approval of a new drug and generic drug. It was highly complicated. I would recommend a book on the subject as even a rudimentary explination of what is involved took an hour to explain in a confusing manner. If you do a search for the terms "fda drug approval process" you will find a bunch of books with a couple hundred pages. Your local library should have one for free. Finally, if there is a patent for the development of the drug, it makes manufacturing easier for the generic, because this process will be disclosed with particularity in the patent. You can patent a process for development of a biologic under US law. Gx872op (talk) 15:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Both drugs and biologics are handled in the US by the FDA. Within the FDA, drugs are controlled by CDER and biologics by CBER. The main difference is that CBER wants to ensure that no harm comes to those who receive or those who help produce the biologics. Drugs are chemically produced, so CDER doesn't worry about things like homeless people donating blood plasma three times a week. Also, you have implied that Novolog is not doing anything at all to "actually help human beings". Really? -- kainaw™ 15:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that Novolog didn't help. Barring generic companies from entering the market once the patents are up because the standard by which to measure the safety of their manufacturing process has not been stated, is what is not helpful. 20.137.18.53 (talk) 15:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason to believe that generics will not be on the market immediately, but I am very jaded in this area because I work with medication data all day and I see what is available, what is being prescribed, what is being purchased, and how much is being paid for it. What I see rarely lines up with what the press reports. Also, the initial generics are often available right away and identical to the namebrand because the same company produces both. Then, to cut costs, the generic goes off on a cheaper production path. Do you have a source that is stating there will be a delay in generics in this case? -- kainaw™ 15:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't find a single generic version of Humulin insulin, whose patents went out in 2001 and 2002 (source) see the section entitled "What about Generic Insulin?" The next section "Insulin is a Biologic, so the rules are different" includes the following statement: "According to Karen Riley of the Food and Drug Administration, insulin is a biologic drug, and that manufacturing process is different than other drugs. Therefore, insulin is not afforded the same privileges as other generics under the Hatch-Waxman Act." The next paragraph includes "In an interview with dLife, Andrea Hofelich, a spokesperson for the Generic Pharmaceutical Association (GPhA), says the FDA has yet to put forth a guidance for the approval of generic insulin." The FDA has yet to put forth guidance for approval of generic insulin, but there exists guidance to approve brand-name insulin? Nice. For brand-name companies, at least.20.137.18.53 (talk) 15:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I will read that now and I think I have a meeting with the FDA soon so I can ask about anything that seems a bit fishy. -- kainaw™ 15:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Before I got to read much, I already got replies from questions I sent to others. There is a lot of finger-pointing going on. FDA is pointing at Congress because FDA is bound by the laws of Congress. Congress is pointing at FDA because the FDA is obeying the laws instead of doing what the people want them to do. The brandname companies are pointing at the generic companies and claiming that they want to produce untested insulin that could be harmful. The generic companies are pointing at the brandname companies and claiming that they are paying off Congress to keep the FDA from allowing them to put drugs on the market without a complete FDA testing process. Note: It is normal for generics to have an abbreviated (not complete) testing process because they are copies of already tested medications. Biologics are different because a very tiny difference between two biologics could have severely bad outcomes. What I get from all of that is that if Congress really wants this to go through, they just need to subsidize the FDA testing process for the generic companies. Of course, try and sell that to the public - it will come off as a bailout for already rich drug companies. -- kainaw™ 16:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

That's sad because if diabetics are left with no choice but to pay higher prices, not doing anything kind of already is a bailout of sorts for rich drug companies. But of course the public wouldn't care that the per-taxpayer cost of the testing process (which for the most part is a one-time-thing, not very recurring, at least as recurrent as buying insulin is, right?) would be less than the per-diabetic difference a diabetic's cost is for brand name insulin over what generic could be. 20.137.18.53 (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that, with name-brands, the FDA just decides on a "case-by-case" basis whether each drug is produced safely, without having a predefined standard for what is acceptable. The realty, though, is that the big pharma companies have enough clout (bought by political contributions) with Congress to pressure the FDA to approve anything not obviously dangerous. Generic drug companies, though, don't have the same clout, so might find the FDA rejects their application and they lose their investment. Therefore, they don't want to invest in producing a generic product until there's a set standard, so they can then prove that they've met the standard and deny the FDA any wiggle room to reject products from companies that haven't paid them (or the Congressmen who control them) bribes (political contributions). StuRat (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

An apparently effective way of keeping an unwanted out. "Sorry, you don't meet the qualification standards that we haven't even made or that if we had made have an exam fee of more than you have." 20.137.18.53 (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Afghanistan time

How many hours different between New York and the time in Afghanistan?
Noon (12 P.M.) in New York is what time in Afghanistan? --Doug Coldwell ^talk 16:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

You can figure out the answer using List of time zones by UTC offset. Afghanistan is UTC+4:30; New York is UTC-5:00. So the difference is nine and a half hours (leaving out Daylight Savings Time, which is not currently active). Looie496 (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems that Afghanistan does not observe daylight savings time, while New York does. So, that means the time difference will sometimes be an hour more than at other times. This means Afghanistan is only ahead by 8.5 hours in the summer. StuRat (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

See also this map, which takes into account which areas observe the daylight saving time and which don't. The figures make it very convenient to calculate the offset between any two given points in any time of the year. --Theurgist (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Current times are given for, for instance, New York City and Kabul, Afghanistan, here. Bus stop (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec)You don't have to figure out. It's 09:30 PM. See this site. Oda Mari (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It's no longer 09:30 PM because the Earth has rotated on its axis. In fact it is now 10:55 PM. Bus stop (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Rubbish, Mr Stop. The question is: "Noon (12 P.M.) in New York is what time in Afghanistan?" - the answer is 9:30 PM. It has nothing to do with whatever time it may happen to be when someone is answering the question. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

My mistake. I stand corrected. Bus stop (talk) 05:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

There is, however, no such thing as 12 P.M. --Trovatore (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

And yet everyone knows what it means. So while technically true, it doesn't matter. Mingmingla (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, not true. Yes, there is a fairly large preponderance of 12 PM == noon, 12 AM == midnight, but the opposite convention is also attested, and has some logic behind it. --20:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

My long case clock would disagree that there is no such thing as 12:00 noon. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see where anyone said that there was no 12:00 noon, just that there is no 12:00 PM. And technically, I agree. PM after all stands for post meridian. And exactly 12:00 is neither post nor ante meridian. It is the meridian. Dismas|^(talk) 14:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

At the meridian my clock strikes 12. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

But, by the time you hear the clock strike, is post meridian. -- kainaw™ 14:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

You can ask Google by typing in "What time is it in" followed by whatever location you want. Dismas|^(talk) 04:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

December 9

Germanic people nations Roman Catholic and Protestant

I understand that United Kingdom except Northern Ireland is a Protestant nation and same thing with Sweden, Denmark, Iceland and Norway. Germany and Netherlands are half Protestants and Roman Catholics. But what about Germans in Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Switzerland and Austria? Are they all Roman Catholics or some of them are Protestants? What about Dutch people in Belgium? Are they Roman Catholic? Also, I want to know that are Luxembourg, Switzerland, Austria, Liechtenstein, and Belgium 100% Roman Catholic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.107.103 (talk) 03:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

There are many Catholics and Protestants among Swiss German-speakers. Austria and Belgium are predominantly Catholic due to their Habsburg heritage. Luxembourg and Liechtenstein are also predominantly Catholic. No nation is 100% Catholic. Every country has minority religions. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Except perhaps Vatican City. LANTZY^TALK 04:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Vatican City might be a state, but I hardly think it's a nation. Not that I really buy the concept of "nation", but if I did, I wouldn't count the Holy See. --Trovatore (talk) 06:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The Holy See and the Vatican City are different things. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 06:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I wouldn't count Vatican City, then. --Trovatore (talk) 08:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The Catholic/Protestant divide among German-speaking peoples is one of the things that got in the way of uniting Austria with the rest of Germany. There were some efforts to unite them early on (see German Confederation), but ultimately the eventual United Germany excluded the mostly-Catholic Austria (see German question and Unification of Germany). --Jayron32 06:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Here ist the distribution of denominations in 1986. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 09:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

you can simply look up each country, they all have a section on their populations' religion, called "religion" under "Demographics"!!. It is really not that hard to search before you ask, as the top of this reference desk page recommends. Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Lichtenstein Luxembourg. --Lgriot (talk) 09:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you have slightly oversimplified the issue of religion in the nations you mentioned - all of these countries have significant religious minorities, and religion isn't taken particularly seriously in much of Northern Europe - for example, according to Religion in Sweden, while 70% of Swedes are members of the (Lutheran) Church of Sweden, only 17% of the population see religion as an important part of their everyday life, and only 2% regularly attend church. The UK is a particularly complicated case, as the largest religious group is Anglicanism, which is frequently not considered to be Protestant (as far as I can tell, there isn't really any consensus among its members). If you don't consider the Church of England to be Protestant, then Northern Ireland has more protestants (relative to its population) than England. Of course, most of these countries have a 'Religion in X' article, if you want more detailed information. 130.88.99.217 (talk) 11:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that there is an oversimplification here...while some European nations have Established denominations, that does not mean that everyone in that nation must be an adherent of that established religion or denomination. In fact, it doesn't even guarantee that a majority of citizens are adherents of the established religion or denomination. It is quite possible for a nation to have one denomination as its Established Religion, and yet have a majority of its citizens adhere to a completely different denomination... or to no denomination at all. Blueboar (talk) 13:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

How to write well

How can I get good at writing? --108.225.117.205 (talk) 03:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Write. The more you write, the better you get. You will also want others to read what you write and tell you everything they find wrong with it. That doesn't mean that you will blindly accept all criticism. But, it allows you to form your own opinions about your writing. (Example: Imagine if Douglas Adams accepted complaints that he tends to go off tangents easily and decided to avoid doing so - he would have become a terrible writer). -- kainaw™ 03:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

But I can't write at all. The most I've ever gotten is a paragraph before I realize it's all garbage and delete it. --108.225.117.205 (talk) 03:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

You left this paragraph which is quite comprehensible, and you even know how to manage Wikipedia templates. If that's not good writing I wouldn't know what is! Joepnl (talk) 03:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I have an unconventional view regarding this: I believe it is impossible to write well without having something to say. Do you have anything to say? Looie496 (talk) 04:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The best way to learn to write well is to read as much as you can. Books and periodicals, I mean. And not Maxim magazine. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree—reading is very important to learning how to write well (not that I write well). Looie496 also makes a good point—that one has to have something to say. Apropos this, though, I think writing can help us figure out what we want to say. Bus stop (talk) 05:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Reading is essential; but, like anything, practice makes perfect. No painter/composer/writer/film maker/chef ever created a masterpiece before first creating lots of non-masterpieces. Fail your way to success. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 06:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

You might find it helpful to read/join one or more of the several websites run by and devoted to aspiring writers, such as Absolute Write: note I am not personally endorsing that particular one, I merely happen to know that it is well regarded by some professional writers and editors. A frequent aphorism quoted in such circles is that (in the case of fiction) one typically needs to have written about a million words of "rubbish" before one can expect to attain a consistent publishable standard. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.243 (talk) 09:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is actually quite a good place to learn to write. Find a topic you're interested in. Find a reliable source that mentions it in a way we don't currently cover and add the information in your own words, adding the source of course. Others may come along and 'improve' what you wrote - keep an eye on what they do and try to weigh up whether the changes improved the text or not, and if they did, try to remember what they did, and ape it. However, your writing style seems to be very colloquial, ie you seem to write as if you're speaking. This is a writing style that suits some projects - some novels, for instance, are written in this manner, but for an encyclopedia, you'll need to try to write more formally. You have three great things going for you - your spelling looks pretty good, you can punctuate and you have a desire to write. Good luck! --Dweller (talk) 10:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I can attest to that, I recently passed my millionth word of rubbish and think my writing ability has noticably improved over that time. Meanwhile, The idea is to write rubbish, then go back and make it better rather than just starting again. And plan what you want to write, have a sort of rough outline of where you want to go, and follow it, until you find that moving away from that is even better (that is when you start writing well, when the words carry you along rather than the other way around). And yes, read, but also, look at what you are reading, understand how they did what they did, what you like and dislike about it, all that boring stuff they tell you to do at school, apparently it does actually help. HS7 (talk) 10:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Is the question about writing fiction or non-fiction (or both)? There is a world of difference between the two, and being good at one does not imply doing well at the other. Wikipedia is a good place to practise some non-fiction (but not all) writing, but it is not a good place for fiction! Mitch Ames (talk) 14:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

TRADOCtrine

Is TRADOC the only major center in the world that has focouced on doctrines or there are another places? if so, where?(does doctrine here means that should make someone believe dogmatically in it?) Flakture (talk) 10:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Most military have some form of doctrinal development of one kind or another. In the UK we have the Joint Doctrine and Concepts Centre, the Aussies have something similar. The entire staff model used by NATO forces is derived from German staff doctrine.

TRADOC is an interesting example as it combines both doctrine and training, although that reflects US Army culture. What we see is that, at least in NATO, there is quite a high level of shared development.

The level of dogmatism around doctrine does to an extent itself depend on the doctrinal approach to the use of doctrine. There are risks that it stifles innovation at the practitioner level and that's something that's taught in the UK, and elsewhere. Doctrine is a guide, rather than a direction to the lower level. Others teach it as somewhat more binding.

Personaly I'm a fan of the doctrine of Mission Command, in that one passes down the food chain what one wants achieved and allows subordinates to get on with it in a manner they see fit.

ALR (talk) 13:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks ALR, your examples are just army ones (more examples are still appretiated) but TRADOC itself seems to have more than army doctrines, is it still non-unique in this way? Flakture (talk) 15:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)