I read in a scientific article that when the CIA was created had the special privileges over other agencies in the particular did not need to inform the public or others about their activities. After several scandals that came to public knowing they had to also include not assassinate foreign leaders, had to report their activities to the state etc. They, however, were later removed several of these restiktioner after 9/11. My, question is what restrictions were removed and the extra privileges CIA was after 9/11? --89.249.2.53 (talk) 09:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In what science journal did you read such an article? Doesn't sound like science to me. --Jayron32 13:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This ACLU site discusses your question in the context of the USA-PATRIOT Act. Also Patriot Act#Title IX: Improved Intelligence and Patriot Act, Title IX may be of interest. Oddly, our article CIA seems to contain nothing about restrictions Duoduoduo (talk) 13:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Central Intelligence Agency#Abuses of CIA authority, 1970s–1990s for an account of some restrictions that were put in place, including a prohibition on assassinating foreign leaders. Looie496 (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One issue that comes up before Congress is their funding bills. A normal funding bill lists how much is spent on each project, in extraordinary detail. This reveals what they are doing. The CIA, and other secret agencies, tend not to give this level of detail when they send funding requests. This is problematic, as this lack of oversight can lead to embezzlement, as well as programs the Congress would not fund, if they knew they existed, like the Iran-Contra affair or CIA drug trafficking. StuRat (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I read it in history, a sub magazine by the publishers behind Science Illustrated. Is it serious enough for you Duo? I actually asked here because I figured I could get an answer without being generalized as paranoid just because I generally critical of governments. What you have just disproved. But, thank you because StuRat and Looie bothered to reply. --109.232.72.49 (talk) 20:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've got me confused with someone else. Read the signature of the person whose comment you're objecting to. I used up a lot of my time tracking down the references that I gave you. You're welcome. Duoduoduo (talk) 23:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Im, really sory bro. I was self a little bit confused --89.249.2.53 (talk) 09:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have found the answer to my own question, sorry if anyone was inconvenienced. Richard Avery (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to list the Q, the answer you found, and mark the Q resolved. This allows anyone who read the Q and was researching it to know the answer too, or, if the answer they found conflicts with yours, they can bring this to your attention. StuRat (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good point. My question was why was so much evidence being made available through witnesses and the accused at such an early stage. It seems that South Africa has more open rules than the UK with regard to court access. More importantly verdicts are reached by judges because they have no juries in their courts and thus no decision-making members of the public will be influenced by the welter of information. This is explained on the BBC website which I initially consulted but didn't dig deep enough. Richard Avery (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. StuRat (talk) 06:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

I am trying to improve my understanding of "GDP" by thinking about what kinds of activity get counted towards it. For instance in the following three scenarios:

• construction of new house
• purchase of existing house
• renovation of old house

I believe that in the construction case, the money I spend on materials, construction contractors (and architects, legal fees for planning etc) will all count towards GDP. However the total value of the new house, which with luck/judgement should be higher than my outlay, does not count. When I purchase an existing house, I believe that the money I spend on the house doesn't count towards GDP, but legal fees and real-estate agent fees will count. (And in general a buoyant property market might support GDP in other ways e.g. if the guy I pay all the money to, then goes and uses the money for consumption.)

In the case of renovation I guess that the expenditure on materials, designers, contractors etc counts towards GDP, but the total increase in value of the house (hopefully higher than my costs) doesn't count. Have I got this correct? What about if I use a mortgage to fund construction, acquisition or improvement of a property? That involves a financial service which presumably counts towards GDP in some way, but I am not sure what feature of the mortgage gets counted? Presumably not the entire mortgage payment. ManyQuestionsFewAnswers (talk) 14:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everything you said is correct. As for the interest payments, the last paragraph in GDP#Examples of GDP component variables says

Services (such as chequeing-account maintenance and services to borrowers) provided by banks and other financial institutions without charge or for a fee that does not reflect their full value have a value imputed to them by the compilers and are included. The financial institutions provide these services by giving the customer a less advantageous interest rate than they would if the services were absent; the value imputed to these services by the compilers is the difference between the interest rate of the account with the services and the interest rate of a similar account that does not have the services. According to the United States Bureau for Economic Analysis, this is one of the largest imputed items in the GDP

I interpret this to mean that the "compiler" (mortgage lender? government statistics bureau?) decides (imputes) how much of your interest payment is purely the cost of borrowing (not in GDP) and how much is expenditures on your part for services rendered (processing your payments, etc.; included in GDP). The part of the mortgage payment that goes to repayment of principal is not included. Duoduoduo (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure everything you say is quite correct, actually. GDP is also the sum of value added in an economy per year. Thus, if you construct or renovate your house then sell it, the difference between the price of the house/raw materials before and after should count towards GDP at time of sale, at least theoretically (in practice it would be difficult to separate out the inflation effect from the real effect). Though admittedly this was always on of the parts of the economics course I understood least well. - Jarry1250 ^{[Vacation needed]} 16:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The value added is added by the contractor and by the producer of the materials he used. This will be the amount you pay the contractor for the work, and is counted at that time and the time the materials were produced only. The increased market value of the house (regardless of when you sell it) will consist of two components: the amount you paid the contractor, and any (positive or negative) excess over and above that, which is due to market conditions (not just inflation). The increase due to market conditions is not part of GDP, and the increase due to the renovations is not counted at the time of sale; the renovations themselves are counted at the time the contractor does the work. Duoduoduo (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The value added for GDP purposes is the amount paid to the contractor. The "value added" from the developer's point of view is the total increase in the resale value of the property, which may be more or less than what was paid to the contractor. Is there a better term to use than "value added" in this perspective, since this seems to be where the confusion creeps in? ManyQuestionsFewAnswers (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a developer rather than a homeowner who pays the contractor, then (I'm guessing here) I think that the developer itself has done some value added by planning and organizing the efforts, so I would think the developer's value added would be computed at the time of sale as the amount charged by the developer above and beyond its payments to the contractor. It strikes me that the asymmetry here -- the developer's efforts count as value added for GDP, but a private homeowner's efforts don't -- is analogous to the well-known asymmetry that a homemaker's efforts don't count in GDP but a paid housekeeper's efforts do count. Duoduoduo (talk) 13:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does a person who live in the Western hemisphere practice Chinese folk religion without parental or familial guidance? How does a person get started? 140.254.226.246 (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I vaguely remember a Chinese family on Postcards from Buster PBS TV show that practices a form of Chinese folk religion and lives in Chinatown somewhere in the United States. I wonder how might a person would assimilate into the culture and practice the religion. 140.254.226.246 (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only way to assimilate into the culture and learn the religion would be to live in a Chinese community for a period. You would have to learn the Chinese language spoken by that community, since there are no texts or other media that fully teach the concepts and rituals of Chinese folk religion in non-Chinese languages. It would be much easier to do this in China, since the easiest way to learn a language (and culture) is through immersion. It's hard to imagine how you would do it in the United States. Maybe if you asked around in a neighborhood with a concentration of Chinese immigrants, you could offer to pay someone to teach you about that religion. Perhaps you could start at a practitioner of traditional Chinese medicine, since some of the concepts of that medical system are connected with Chinese folk religion. Beforehand, you might take a course in ethnography, since you would need to adopt something like an ethnographic method. Marco polo (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional Chinese medicine is a dangerous pseudoscience that harms hundreds of millions of people by turning them away from treatments which actually work. Your suggestion is therefore medical advice of the most alarming kind. I highly recommend that you remove both it and my post. --140.180.243.51 (talk) 22:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. TCM is no better or worse than Western medicine, provided it is used properly by someone who knows what he or she is doing. Several governments, including Hong Kong, recognize it for purposes of regulation and healthcare provision.DOR (HK) (talk) 07:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have no idea what its efficacy is, but I've noticed that it seems to have a voracious appetite for dubious ingredients, destroying a large number of early Chinese historical documents (oracle bones) in the past, and currently playing a significant role in driving rhinos to extinction, etc. etc. AnonMoos (talk) 11:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The FDA officially approves homeopathic remedies. Does that mean homeopathy is effective? No, it just means that the FDA is too lazy, too corrupt, or too stupid (take your pick) to go after people selling pure water as medicine. Do you seriously believe that a folk remedy that relies on no scientific knowledge, takes Qi seriously a century after science has disproved vitalism, and is supported by no empirical evidence is as effective as a modern vaccine or surgical procedure? You might as well pray to the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and you'll get the same benefits. --140.180.243.51 (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Qi isn't the same as vitalism. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have read on a Wikipedia article that modern-day Chinese have revived Confucianism. If it's possible to revive a religion, then perhaps it's also possible to learn and practice a religion within one generation. 140.254.226.246 (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that it ever went away, as such. Rather, it was discouraged in the PRC (especially during the cultural revolution) until recent decades, but was still openly adhered to by many outside the PRC. Anyway, it's doubtful whether Confucianism by itself is really a "religion" as those in Christian/Jewish/Muslim societies would understand it... AnonMoos (talk) 11:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could also take a look at Zen Buddhism, which is originally from China, but has a significant number of Western followers. OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it family-oriented? I was expecting a religious ritual that a whole family could do together to worship. Maybe set something at the family shrine or altar to worship the ancestors or spirits. 140.254.226.246 (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did a quick search, and apparently Zen Buddhism is said to serve as a "spiritual retreat" for some Westerners without leaving behind a cultural/religious heritage for the children. In that case, the Western type of Buddhism is too individualistic. 140.254.226.246 (talk) 21:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out, Zen can and often is pursued in a family oriented way among Westerners. The first thing that came to my mind was this, but google "family dharma" or phrases like that for lots of links. Pfly (talk) 09:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Christians in China tend to include their own cultural-religious teachings into their own variant of Christianity. Perhaps, that is not so hard to do in the West. A Westerner may attend church, raise the children in the faith, and identify themselves as Christians. In practice, Chinese Christians may include elements from Taoism, Buddhism, and Confucianism. 140.254.226.246 (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confucianism is different from Chinese folk religion in that Confucianism relies heavily on texts. It is much easier to "revive" a religion based on text than one passed down largely by word of mouth. Do you have any experience of either of these religions? If not, I suggest that you try to get a sense for them before deciding to study one or the other. The best way to do this would be to travel to China. Forgive my original research, but my impression from visiting places of worship for both Confucianism and Chinese folk religion in China is that these two religions are almost antithetical in style. Confucianism is more of a philosophy than a religion: highly intellectual, with an austere, almost sterile aesthetic. By contrast, Chinese folk religion is intuitive, largely nonrational, and very colorful. If you are interested in Chinese religion, you might also explore Taoism, which has both a philosophical dimension and a religious dimension that is related to and somewhat overlaps with Chinese folk religion. You might also look into Chinese Buddhism, which is more influenced by the Pure Land tradition than by Zen, and which is more communal and less individualistic than (Western) Zen. Marco polo (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another suggestion is try to immerse oneself in a Chinese Christian community in the United States. 140.254.226.246 (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question seems a little backwards to me honestly. Typically, to practice a religion in the traditional sense of being a true adherent, the principles of the religion would already be of interest to you, as in the case that you were brought up in it (in which case you'd already have some knowledge of the various practices involved). Not a criticism, but rather a request for further context. You've emphasized the familial a couple of times now, so is this perhaps a case of you wanting to surprise family members who are already practitioners with a ritual you've learned? If so, the answer to your question will vary considerably given just which specific religious folk traditions we're talking about. If you're not looking for something this specific, but rather looking for any traditional folk practice, perhaps a little bit more context would assist (just speaking for me, of course). Snow (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

it's been said from time to time that america was lucky in that it acquired large, isolated region (bounded by the oceans) and was apart from the war and strife of europe.

I would like to know if this is true: what percent, approximately, of each state's budget goes toward defense against other states, border control, intelligence, and so forth?

Is it exactly 0%? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.48.114.143 (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly 0%. Duoduoduo (talk) 20:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) There is no border control between U.S. states to speak of. There is a small amount of between-the-states security issues, possibly, in dealing with things like law enforcement jurisdiction and extradition between states, but I don't think that's what you're talking about here. International border crossings are maintained by the federal government with some aid from states along those borders, but there is no border control amongst the states, and there is no "defense against other states" or "intelligence" in the sense of espionage committed by one state against its neighbors. It simply doesn't exist. Now, whether this meets your definition of "exactly 0%", I'm sure we could find some line item on some budget somewhere that could, maybe, possibly be interpreted as border control expenses for states, but realistically, there is complete freedom of movement from one state to another, and the states make no effort to "police" their borders with other states. --Jayron32 20:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Not exactly 0%, since California, at least, has border checkpoints to enforce prohibitions on the movement of some animals and plants into the state, though people are not required to stop at these checkpoints and can't be forced to stop unless it is obvious that they are transporting livestock or plant matter. (See this link.) Also, there are state defense forces, which theoretically could be used in interstate conflicts, but they never have been used in that way. Marco polo (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the last time there was actual fighting amongst the states as states (as opposed to something like the Civil War, which was under the auspices of the US Federal Government and the CSA Federal Government) was the Toledo War, which involved mobilization of state-controlled militias of the State of Ohio and the (then) Territory of Michigan. However, since then, I don't believe that any state defense forces have ever been involved in any conflict with the state defense forces of another U.S. state under the auspices of their state governments, nor in any inter-state conflict. Interstate military conflict simply does not happen. --Jayron32 20:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Michigan won the Toledo War, forcing Ohio to take Toledo. :-) StuRat (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]

In the 1930s, the City of Los Angeles took it upon itself to send city police officers to the state borders and turned back "Okies" the city decided were unwanted. The state Attorney General declared such action illegal and made the city back down. [1]. RNealK (talk) 22:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting here that most airports that are not strictly municipal will have a degree of border security that does not necessarily discriminate between whether the originating flight was international or simply interstate (well, not in all respects anyway), meaning there is, with respect to air travel at least, some degree of border control between states, albeit largely incidental. Of course, this security infrastructure is largely the purview of the federal government. Snow (talk) 02:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a federal thing. But you can drive a car freely anywhere within the US and cross state lines to your heart's content. That doesn't mean you can do any old thing you want. There are stories (possibly true, possibly rumors intended to serve as deterrents) that bordering states police will cooperate in this way: Various types of fireworks are legal in Wisconsin but not in the bordering states. Hence there are often large fireworks sellers just inside the Wisconsin borders. So the story goes that cops will note the plate numbers of cars from bordering states and notify the state police when they head back to their home states with this contraband. Whether it actually happens or not, it could happen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing with a state's police catching people who go just across the border to buy lower-tax alcohol and try to bring it home. Duoduoduo (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

what is the reason for all the insanity and often directly stupid laws that are among the most states in the U.S.? Can not even see any historical meaning to them. a few I think of

• California: prohibited to shoot a whale if you sit in a car
• Oklahoma: It is illegal for a tavern owner to let any of his guests pretend to have sex with a buffalo.
• Maryland: It is illegal to scrub a sink
• Oregon: Its prohibited to whistle underwater

Is that a deeper meaning to this kind of laws U.S. States? --109.232.72.49 (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This inquiry sounds more like an opinion than a request for information, unless someone can actually provide and cite a written reason for those laws. I think you may be interested in "Blue Laws". Actually, I am not sure if "Blue Laws" is the right term, but I do know there is a special term for "stupid laws". 140.254.226.246 (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blue laws may be "stupid", but they are not all obsolete. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, im sorry i ask on my own way. Are you happy now?--109.232.72.49 (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Two things to keep in mind: 1) Most of these "lists of stupid laws" which are circulated on the Internet are made up out of whole cloth, that is, they're complete fabrications. 2) In cases where they aren't completely made up, the wording of the actual laws is perverted to the point where it looks odder than it is. For example (and I'm making this up, but using it to illustrate the idea based on your above statement), perhaps the law in California for whale hunting carefully defines how whales can be hunted: this isn't unusual: most states have lots of regulations on what you can hunt, when you can hunt it, and how you can hunt it. It may not specifically say the words "You can't shoot a whale if you sit in a car". Instead, it may carefully state the types of vessels you can use to hunt whales, or perhaps there's a law that says you can't hunt anything from inside a car. Who knows? But any of those would be reasonable (and not at all stupid) laws that someone has twisted to sound stupid. Any sensible law can be made to sound "stupid" if you play around with the wording a bit. I've yet to see a single one of these "lists" of laws which actually cites the chapter-and-verse from the state law codes in question, so that someone could look it up. That should tell you something right there. --Jayron32 20:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We had a similar question not long ago: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2012 December 26#Weird laws. Sjö (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to Jayron's comment, there are laws in the Bible that seem to be insensible today. I suppose you may call them "senseless laws", though that may be ripping out of the cultural context of the people who wrote it. 140.254.226.246 (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Oklahoma law, if it exists, sounds like a reaction to a specific performance in a bar, which they decided was obscene, and wanted to outlaw, without affecting anything else. StuRat (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another class of silly laws is ones that are now obsolete. For example, there was once a law requiring that somebody walk in front of a car waving a red flag, to warn everyone the car was coming. Sensible at the time, but absurd now. StuRat (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consider (as background) this UK related web page which does not look like a reliable source --Senra (talk) 23:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dumb laws. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to speak? Alansplodge (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right. They just lie there silently in the lawbooks, waiting to be discovered by triviaists. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How wrong is it to address Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, and Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, with the title of princess? As I understand, officially they are not princesses. OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How wrong is it? What are you using to measure the how? 140.254.226.246 (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you need degrees of wrongness? a. stupid mistake, b. just plain ignorance, c. common mistake, shared by many people, d. socially acceptable, although not true. OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine is a princess, as her article says. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 20:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It actually says that she's the wife of a prince. Does it imply that she's a princess? OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Her full title and style is "Her Royal Highness Princess William, Duchess of Cambridge, Countess of Strathearn, Lady Carrickfergus". I don't see why it would be wrong to call her a princess. She's addressed as "Princess William" at 1:20 in this video[2].Dncsky (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) See British Royal Family#Royal styles and titles: "These letters patent state that henceforth only the children of the Sovereign, the children of the sons of the Sovereign, and the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales would 'have and at all times hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names or with their other titles of honour.'...Women marrying sons and male-line grandsons of a Sovereign are normally styled Her Royal Highness followed by the feminised version of her husband's highest title... However, when a woman marries a prince who does not hold a peerage, she is known as HRH Princess [Her husband's Christian name], followed by whatever territorial or titular designation." Thus, the former Camilla Parker-Bowles is princess by virtue of being married to the Prince of Wales, and the former Kate Middleton is both Duchess of Cambridge (by virtue of being married to the Duke of Cambridge) and Princess Kate (by virtue of being married to the son of the Prince of Wales, who is himself also allowed the dignity of "Prince". In the U.K. tradition, the wife of a title holder is normally allowed to bear the feminized version of that title. Since William is both a Prince and a Duke, Kate is both a Princess and a Duchess. Notably, the reverse is NOT true; so the husbands of female title holders in their own right do not normally enjoy the use of that title jure uxoris. Thus, when Margaret Thatcher was named "Baroness Thatcher" in 1992, her husband Denis Thatcher was NOT afforded the dignity of being a Baron; he was a Baronet under a separate letter patent, but did not become a Baron upon his wife's elevation. Had the reverse been true, she WOULD have become a baroness. --Jayron32 21:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She's not "Princess Kate", she's "Princess William". If Prince William had not been created a duke upon his marriage she'd be styled "HRH Princess William of Wales". In the British system only women who are princesses by birth rather than marriage (or in very rare cases who are specifically granted the privilege) have their own name, rather than their husband's name, in their title. (This mirrors the usage for the nobility: whilst Lord John Smith's sister may be Lady Jane Smith, his wife is Lady John Smith.) Proteus (Talk) 00:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you for that correction. --Jayron32 02:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The official position on titles, explained above, does not prevent the press and the public from using an unofficial title, as they did with Princess Diana. Dbfirs 14:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And as for the Duchess of Cornwall, see Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall#Titles, styles, honours and arms. She is actually a princess, but chooses not to be called that. But I'm not sure if anyone in authority really minds if people use the wrong titles, it's just a matter of pride for those who like to get these things right. Alansplodge (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, people do mind to a point. If she said she prefered to be styled "Queen of France" it might piss a number of people off. The Duchess of Cornwall is a reasonable title for her to choose from amongst her various legal titles, and she's in a unique situation considering the position her predecessor held in the social consciousness of Britain.. It seems a prudent move on her part to use the title she does. --Jayron32 19:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that if anyone called her "Princess Camilla", she would probably smile politely and carry on. It's not as big a deal as some people think. BTW pissing off the French is something of a reciprocal national sport here and has been these last few centuries. Alansplodge (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As with this, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And it was no joke. Your monarchs were formally styled "King of France" right up until 1801, long after there was any French territory actually under British control. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your monarchs too, Jack. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 11:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. That the eastern part of New Holland was claimed by Captain Arthur Phillip in 1788 for George III, King of France is not normally taught in our schools, but malheureusement, c'est trop vrai. (Jacques d'Oz)-- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]

There are a couple of French-speaking islands ofs the coast of France under the rule of the queen of England, Scotland and NI still. Which just goes to show how complex it all is. Rmhermen (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although they don't speak an awful lot of French there these days; see Languages of Jersey. Now we're getting REALLY off topic. Alansplodge (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They do speak an awful lot of French in Québec, though. — Kpalion^(talk) 22:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bien sûr... Alansplodge (talk) 02:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

why isnt this covered by ins — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.114.44.234 (talk) 01:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What ? StuRat (talk) 01:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question is presumably asking Immigration and Naturalization Service. I am not sure what "this" is referring to. 75.185.79.52 (talk) 03:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"this" is not covered by "ins" because the former has letters "t" and "h" which the latter does not. —SeekingAnswers (reply) 00:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The is a Bedford County, Virginia, but Buford, Virginia is in Pittsylvania County?--Inspector (talk) 03:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or did he mean Buford's Tavern?--Inspector (talk) 03:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a brief remark about this association in Simon Singh's The Code Book, but there seemed to be no notable google results other than that from The Code Book. Do anyone ever heard of this association?--Inspector (talk) 5:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

How come the United States and Russia never established large (permanent) African colonies before World War I like some Western European countries did? I'm assuming that the U.S. was uninterested in international affairs before 1898 and by that point it was too late to colonize Africa, plus racists in the United States might not have wanted the U.S. to rule over much more black people. In regards to Russia, I'm thinking that its late industrialization relative to many Western European countries was the reason that it never acquired any (large) permanent African colonies. That said, is there anything that I'm missing and/or that I'm mistaken on? Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 03:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware that Liberia sort of was an American colony, set up as a means of returning ex-slaves to Africa ? See American Colonization Society. Check out the flag of Liberia for any similarities with the US flag, and note that their capital, Monrovia, is named after President Monroe.

Also, I don't see racism as a reason to avoid having colonies in Africa. On the contrary, those nations that did have colonies there were rather racist, and US racism didn't stop the US from colonizing the Philippines, where the natives were called "our little brown brothers".

As for Russia, they weren't much of a naval power then, which would be required to have a colony in Africa, as the land route was blocked by the Ottoman Empire, among others (and they'd be sure to trip up, if they tried to walk over all those foot-stools). StuRat (talk) 04:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Liberia (sort of) was an American colony, but the U.S. gave it its independence in the 1840s, almost 70 years before World War I began. In contrast, European nations generally didn't give up their African colonies until at least after WWI and generally after WWII. In regards to the Philippines, they had an important strategic location being close to China and whatnot. Yes, the U.S. was racist against Asians in the 1890s (and beyond) but it also believed in the White Man's Burden of "civilizing" Filipinos. In contrast, the U.S. didn't really make any big effort to educate or "civilize" its own black population after Reconstruction ended. Your point about the Russian Imperial Navy makes a lot of sense, and thinking about it the U.S. itself didn't have a decent Navy until the 1880s, when U.S. President Chester Arthur began modernizing it. Futurist110 (talk) 04:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answering "why whatever didn't happen" questions are essentially impossible. We're getting into the realm of pure speculation when we do that. If you want to know what did actually happen, start reading at Scramble for Africa to understand the history of African colonization. The only reasonable way to answer your question, if there is one, is to simply say that it wasn't in American or Russian interests to get heavily involved in African colonization. --Jayron32 04:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it's unanswerable. There must be any number of historic documents discussing the merits and negatives of US and Russian colonialism. If anyone can dig those up, they would be relevant here. StuRat (talk) 05:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why go all that way when the Americans could steal/confiscate/conquer land from the Native Americans and the Mexicans or buy from the French or Russians with much less trouble? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, at some point the US had obtained all the land it could in that manner. However, there were still vast areas of the US open to new farming and ranching, so this did somewhat reduce the need to resort to colonies to obtain new land. StuRat (talk) 05:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The US has never been much for traditional colonization. We've been more into buying influence. You might say we would prefer to "rent" another country rather than to "own" it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaii? Alansplodge (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, insofar as Manifest destiny looks a lot like colonialism, though of a peculiar American type (i.e. colonialism for annexation rather than the sort of extractive/exploitative colonialism as understood by mercantilist economic theory, which is how most European nations thought of colonialism, even into the 19th century) American was certainly colonialist in that sense. However, you are broadly correct that the U.S. was not generally involved in the kind of colonialism that marked the Scramble for Africa at all. As I said above, it just didn't fit America's interests to be involved in that type of colonialism. U.S. "colonies" like the Philipines weren't really American colonies, they were inherited from other European powers as a result of war treaties, and the U.S. had very specific interests (mostly military) in keeping them as territories. But the U.S. didn't really colonize the way that the Europeans did in Africa in the 19th century. It just didn't operate that way. --Jayron32 06:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Futurist110 -- during the 1880s-WWI period, Liberia was understood to be under U.S. protection (though not a formal colony), so that a move by any European power to annex Liberia would have been considered hostile towards the U.S. But otherwise, the U.S. was not interested too much in Africa, and certainly not in tying down any military units there. What the United States was interested in was safeguarding trade routes that were important to it, and ensuring that no European power gained new footholds in its "back yard". In pursuit of this policy, the U.S. built the Panama Canal, and acquired various strategically-located islands and bases on islands (Hawaii, the Philippines, Guam, Guantanamo, the Virgin Islands etc.) and exercised a kind of hegemony over central America and the Caribbean area. The U.S. was content to leave Africa to the Europeans, and in return expected Europe to leave central America to the U.S... AnonMoos (talk) 10:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AnonMoos is explaining the Monroe Doctrine, the driving force behind U.S. Foreign Policy for about 100 years leading up to WWI. The half of the Monroe Doctrine that gets remembered is that the U.S. actively opposed European involvement in the Americas, but there was a flip side to that coin, which was that the U.S. did not itself get actively involved outside of the Americas. As I said above, it was not in the U.S. interest to be involved in the Scramble because the U.S. considered its interests to be its own backyard rather than Africa. --Jayron32 19:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as Russia is concerned, the usual Russian policy - since at least 15th century - has always been that of expanding into contiguous territories, especially to the south and east. So the 19th century was spent in wars with, or "peaceful" expansion at the expense of, the Ottoman Empire, Persia, Caucasian princelings, Central Asian states, and the Qing Empire. After the Crimean War, Russia's only major overseas possession - the Russian America - was viewed as indefensible, so it was sold (for U.S. $7,200,000), even as the Russian Empire continued to expand in Northeast Asia, in Central Asia, and in the Caucasus. Russian rulers usually sensibly preferred to play the Great Game with the British in the inner Eurasian regions where it may have had the advantage of overland access, rather than go for overseas adventures. (The few exceptions, more or less, prove the rule. E.g. an abortive attempt to establish Russian presence in Hawai'i in the early 1800s was abandoned due to obvious inability to project power at a competitive level with the British). AFAIK, the only serious Russian involvement in the the 19th Africa was Nikolay Leontiev's mission to Ethiopia; however it probably should be viewed not as an overture for outright colonization, but as an attempt to cultivate the Ethiopians (who are Oriental Orthodox) as potential allies. -- Vmenkov (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is New Jersey Governor Chris Christie so popular in New Jersey? Futurist110 (talk) 03:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because in order to run for office, he needs to win the popular vote? Chris Christie is a politician. Politicians are usually charismatic folks to charm their audience. Whether it's a smooth talk or an intelligent planning, politicians are usually striving for popularity. How many politicians do you know who reject popularity? 75.185.79.52 (talk) 04:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Chris Christie is a Republican in a liberal, Democratic state. For a Governor to run a state which is not that favorable to his party and remain popular is quite an achievement. Most politicians try to remain popular, but keep in mind that a lot of times politicians lose popularity due to things and events outside of their control, such as the economy, et cetera. Futurist110 (talk) 04:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, he's not a smooth-talking politician at all. He "tells it straight", which is how Jerseyites like it. And, while nominally a Republican, he's really a moderate. Just look at his actions after Hurricane Sandy, where he praised Obama and blamed Republicans for holding up the aid bill. Those are not the actions of a Republican loyalist. And being fat makes him seem like a real person, and being able to laugh about it on Letterman helps, too. (Hopefully we can get our resident Jerseyite, Medeis, to comment before she closes this down for whatever reason she comes up with this time.)StuRat (talk) 04:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are liberal, moderate, and conservative Republicans and Democrats. To conflate liberalism to the Democratic party or conservatism to the Republican party is an error, because there are liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. Funny, I never knew Medeis was female.75.185.79.52 (talk) 04:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Chris Christie is a notably liberal Republican in a liberal state. Don't believe the oversimplified view of "Republican = conservative" and "Democratic = liberal" along some universal scale at a national level. All politics is local, and that includes the "liberal-conservative" continuum. Lots of traditional "leftist" places have had Republican politicians, including governors of Massachusetts (Mitt Romney and Bill Weld), Rudy Giuliani as mayor of New York City, Arnold Schwarzenegger in California, etc. likewise there have been many Democratic politicians to be office holders in heavily "conservative" areas (Ann Richards in Texas, Bill Clinton in Arkansas, Brian Schweitzer in Montana, etc.) The thing about local party politics is that, generally, Republicans tend to be on the conservative side, and Democrats on the liberal side, of the local political continuum. Chris Christie would be "left" of many southern Blue Dog Democrats, for example. This can create a problem at the national level, you can see the sort of corners presidential candidates like Romney and Giuliani get painted into where their local policies run afoul of the national party platform. Romney's Massachusetts health care reform served as a model for what Republican's dubbed "Obamacare", while Giuliani' socially liberal stances on issues such as gay marriage (he pushed through marriage equality ordinances in NYC in 1998) and abortion (he's vocally pro-choice) put him at odds with the national platform of the Republican party. However, on the local scale (Romney in Massachusetts and Guiliani in New York) the two generally fall to the right of most of the Democratic Party members in their states. To the original question: attempting to understand Christie's appeal in New Jersey by looking at the National Republican Party platform, and ignoring the local political spectrum in New Jersey, doesn't work. --Jayron32 04:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, StuRat's and Jayron's answers make a lot of sense. What other progressive things did Christie do besides criticizing the national GOP for certain things and hugging Obama after Hurricane Sandy? Also, off-topic, but is Medeis really a woman? This is the first time that I've heard of this. Futurist110 (talk) 04:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, she is. Back to Christie: This site collates his positions on many issues, and This article covers some of his more liberal positions. His positions seem somewhat nuanced. If we're going just on the bullet points, he is currently pro-life on abortion (though in his early political career was pro-choice); he's vetoed a marriage equality bill, but has also supported broad civil rights protections for other sexual identity issues. He's fairly pro-enviornment, opposing offshore drilling and supporting "green energy" initiatives, and supporting pollution controls to combat climate change. He's opposed some initiatives that grant broad amnesty to illegal immigrants, but also supports easing immigration restrictions and providing easier paths to citizenship and immigration in general. He's for gun control (unlike many Republicans) and he's also largely in line with President Obama's education policies. So, as I said above, he's more conservative than New Jersey Democrats (which is where you'd expect a New Jersey Republican to be) but on many key issues, he's not in line with the national Republican Party line, being considerably more liberal on several key Republican platform planks. --Jayron32 05:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From our article: "On January 23, 2012, Christie filed the first nomination to the New Jersey Supreme Court of an openly gay man, Bruce Harris, and an Asian American, Phillip Kwon." Of course, he has also done some rather conservative things, like making deep spending cuts in social programs. However, NJ is in such debt that the citizens may go along with this.

And I don't know if Medeis is female, so I should have used a gender-neutral pronoun, sorry. StuRat (talk) 05:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We established in an epic discussion two years ago that he is male. Nil Einne (talk) 06:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A woman! On the Internet! Preposterous. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume everyone online is female, unless specifically told otherwise. Most places I go online, this is actually true; it shortcircuits some of the "keeping our heads down" behaviour that makes women look rare online; it leads to much more interesting and useful reactions when you misgender someone. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 23:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]

A male who refers to himself as a waitress, no less; or a waitrice, no lice. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 10:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Do you not see the irony of discussing the sex of someone who calls himself "nobody"? Not to mention its inappropriateness on the Reference Desk? I claim to be a 32-year-old Mayan woman with 12 fingers. Prove me wrong. --140.180.243.51 (talk) 05:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, you must be a cousin to Antonio Alfonseca. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's less uncommon than you might think for blue states to have Republican governors, and vis versa. That said, often the governors in those states tend to be more moderate, or "in name only." Shadowjams (talk) 06:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Christie is more than Republican in name only. His economic policies, for example, are right smack dab in the middle of Republican ideology. As I note above, however, his social stances are more nuanced. --Jayron32 06:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the 8 year stretch of dems and the credit crunch played into the "time for some new blood/ anything but the incumbent party" attitude as well.165.212.189.187 (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are bills like this [3] still legal tender in Russia? Since they're selling for half the exchange rate, someone (me) could buy them and trade them in for thirty american dollars. 70.162.199.202 (talk) 04:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If they were, don't you think the seller would do that ? StuRat (talk) 04:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is legal, but it's not worth what you think. The entire Russian currency was re-denominated in 1997, making your ebay bill worth 3 cents at face value. Presumably people are selling these old bills as collectors items. (See Russian_ruble#Seventh_ruble.2C_1_January_1998.E2.80.93. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are charging $14 with shipping, for a bill worth 3 cents. Unless it's rare (which seems unlikely for a bill only 18 years old), that seems like quite a rip-off. StuRat (talk) 05:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they're counting on getting rich from people who doesn't know about the redenomination?Dncsky (talk) 06:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The remunerator's on top, the redenominator's on the bottom. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 10:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC) :) [reply]

Those bills are worth only 3 cents more than the Razzbucknik. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would be very surprised if it still circulates in Russia. It's a 1000 RUR (pre-1998)"sixth rouble" note. On 1.1.1998 the seventh rouble was introduced, at 1 RUB = 1000 RUR, so your note is worth 1 RUB, or about three US cents; the smallest note currently being printed is 10 RUB. As usual, we have an article about it. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, we do. I thought the re-denomination took place in '94, where currency changed from the flag variant (one with the tricolor) to its present state. Well, looks like I was wrong. Ebaying is a very nice way to pass a wikibreak, might I say. 70.162.199.202 (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If a customer offers to pay much more they need to because they didn't understand what constitutes the subset they want from an itemized quote, is there any obligation for the seller to correct them? I'm not asking legal advice because I am not a party to this situation, but I've just learned about it third-hand, and the person I learned about it from (who is also not a party to the transaction) and I disagree about the answer. 71.215.94.144 (talk) 04:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ethically, the seller should make it clear to the customer that they may be paying too much. The legality of it depends on the country(ies) where the transaction is taking place. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, at least, anything legal (or even illegal but unenforced) seems to be considered ethical, by businesses, these days. StuRat (talk) 05:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm not a lawyer, but my work requires that I know something about contract law and I have studied it at university level, though in Sweden.) Your IP geolocates to Denver, Colorado so I guess that is the jurisdiction that you're asking about. The answer will of course vary between jurisdictions but in cases like this the defafult answer is "it depends".

"Legal" can be understood in different ways. One question is "is it criminal for the buyer to accept the offered money" and another is "is it a binding contract if they go through with the sale". The OP's question seems to be closer to the second meaning. If that's correct the articles Contract and United States contract law will give you some insight. As I see it, the buyer would be considered to have made a counteroffer which the seller can accept or reject. Normally, that would lead to a binding contract. However, there are a whole lot of different ways a contract can be invalid, and the articles list them (not having studied US law I'm not sure if the list is complete). If a case like this is taken to court the court will consider all the circumstances in the case, and the outcome will depend on that and on the arguments made before the court. That's why I wrote that it depends. Sjö (talk) 07:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on a lot of things, like the setting (are these consumers or businesses?), the exact items in question, whether there was a written agreement and what it said, and other matters like that. Broadly, my view of the law (others may disagree) is that if it came to a lawsuit, the purchaser would lose, more likely than not. That being said, there's a fair number of exceptions to that, especially as regards consumers, and there are likely to be variations based on what state you are in and what your legislature and courts have done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dependds, equity will probably have something to say about it if there is any circumstance that suggests less than fullly honest dealing. And as Wehwalt mentions, most jurisdictions have consumer protection laws. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 20:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guatemala, Haiti, Mexico, Pakistan, and USA have a right to bear arms clause in their constitution. Are there any other countries with this clause in their constitution? Right to keep and bear arms was no help because it's missing two of the above-mentioned countries. Dncsky (talk) 05:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is of course a spelling mistake. It should be "bare arms"! But seriously, English common law (used in a number of countries) allows the right to bare arms. Note that assult or killing will attract an assault, manslaughter or murder charge. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically which ones? If there are any common-law countries with the right to bear arms clause in the constitution that's not listed above then please feel free to point it out.Dncsky (talk) 05:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that rather the point of common law, that it doesn't need to be written down, it's just understood from tradition and precedent ? Of course, I realize that you specifically asked about the constitutions, but Alex assumed you'd also be interested in nations which have a right to bear arms despite it not being in their constitutions. There could also be the reverse case, where the right is in the Constitution, but the nation ignores that entirely. For example, the Constitution of the Soviet Union was very generous with giving citizens rights, but their government completely ignored it and did as they pleased. StuRat (talk) 06:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Far as I know (it's been a long time since Law 101), common law is written down. It's called "case law", and those books aid legal eagles in finding precedents to fall back on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It can be, but doesn't need to be, unlike statute law. For example, if a law was passed saying people could no longer hunt foxes, a common law argument could be that "people have been allowed to hunt foxes for hundreds of years, so it's an established common law that we can". Of course, having previous case law on their side would strengthen the argument. StuRat (talk) 06:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Common law" is a basic descriptor of a legal system. Most British progeny are "common law" legal systems. Used in that sense is different, but related, to the used in the sense of judge made law, or as in general common law. The British have been writing down statutes since at least the 16th century. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Just being picky, but English law was codified by the Statute of Westminster 1275. Any legal rights which predated 6 July 1189 (the accession of the previous monarch, Richard I) were described as being "since time immemorial". In 1832, the principle was amended to "rights which had been enjoyed for twenty years (or as against the Crown thirty years) should not be impeached merely by proving that they had not been enjoyed before", unless there is a relevant statute of course. Alansplodge (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first English codification I could find was in the 880s, during King Alfred's reign. (Richard wasn't the predecessor to Edward I). The Statute of Wesminster did not end common law in England. Shadowjams (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't say that. My (admittedly rather shaky) understanding is that if you had exercised a right "from time immemorial" then it was a "custom" established in common law.[4] But we digress. Alansplodge (talk) 02:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, the Soviet constitution's a good example of a written Constitution almost completely ignored. I assume that's what the other examples do too. The U.S. occasionally ignores the language of its own constitution; interpreting legal documents is often reliant on other factors (not saying that's always correct either). Shadowjams (talk) 06:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The US Constitution is rather vague on the right to bear arms. It can be interpreted as only giving that right to those who are in well-regulated state militias. Also, it may prevent federal laws from taking this right away, but whether state laws can is another question. StuRat (talk) 06:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll steer clear of your first point to avoid any debates on the RD. Your second point can be answered by McDonald v. Chicago.Dncsky (talk) 06:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent advice. Best not to open any unnecessary cans of worms. Shadowjams (talk) 08:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only interested in the constitutional clauses. I have no interest whatsoever in other gun laws and whether they are enforced or not.Dncsky (talk) 06:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. StuRat (talk) 06:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, modern interpretations aside, the US constitutional provision about bearing arms is explicitly linked to the maintenance of a militia, and the Constitution of China (the Communist one) requires citizens to join the militia in accordance with law, which, at least textually, amounts to something similar: join the militia (and bear arms), except that this is a duty, not a right. You won't see much of this in cities these days, but in villages this constitutional provision is very much alive and able bodied men are organised into local militias with more or less regular training, and might be mustered to, say, lock down a dissident under house arrest in the village. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 20:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The founders were perfectly capable of saying the right to bear arms in a well-regulated militia shall not be infringed, if that's what they had meant. They didn't say that. The "militia" bit is a subordinate clause explaining the independent clause, not limiting it. --Trovatore (talk) 09:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be careful in putting too much emphasis on placement of commas, etc., as those practices have changed over time, and the founding fathers weren't particularly careful about grammar, in any case. This explains why we have such gems as "...in order to form a more perfect union" (it's either perfect or not, it's not "more perfect"). And there really wasn't any need to explain the reasoning behind the Amendment. How many other Amendments in the Bill of Rights have their motivations explained ? StuRat (talk) 16:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know if their were any hangings of black Americans in Flippin Arkansas between the years 1870 and 1870 ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.194.122.136 (talk) 11:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you check your years for accuracy? And for the reference of others, that is not an insult against the fair state of Clintonland but he's talking about Flippin, Arkansas.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Flippin, Arkansas is the town. Do you mean in 1870? Or have you made a typo: between 1860 and 1870, or between 1870 and 1880? In 2000, the population was 1,357 people, of whom 0.44% were Black or African American, i.e. 6 people. According to History of Arkansas, following the 1868 election, "the KKK began whitecapping throughout Arkansas". According to Marion County, Arkansas, the population of the whole county was much lower in 1870. This is just general background in case it helps. I expect someone will come along shortly who knows how to research this kind of local history. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may have been few, if any. Northwest Arkansas is listed as pro-Union with few lynchings in this source. Rmhermen (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, fewer than seven, and perhaps approaching a number multiplied by zero? Is there a context for this question, besides a barstool? μηδείς (talk) 03:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Try this with a magnifying glass or go to its source.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2013/01/08/lynching_map_tuskegee_institute_s_data_on_lynching_from_1900_1931.html alteripse (talk) 02:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Often, political science is attributed to law. I think everyone agrees that there is a relationship between the two, but there is also a lot of differences between them. How exactly is political science different and independent from law according to some leading political scientists? I asked this because political science appears to be somewhat dependent and inferior to law whenever we discuss their relationship. This treats political science only as an introductory class for law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.205.29.248 (talk) 14:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an analogous question: How is cooking independent from nutrition according to some chefs? If you think about that question, it might give you some insight into your question. Looie496 (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In a democracy [or most governments for that matter] politics create the law. Looie's answer's excellent too. Shadowjams (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You asked a related question before. Political science is usually descriptive, whereas law and political philosophy are usually prescriptive. That ties in with Looie's response. μηδείς (talk)

Resolved

A China-based division of an international company wants me to work for them. I am currently in the U.S. I do not need to be on site, so I could remain in the U.S. and work out of my apartment. However, I am trying to determine which is the most economically advantageous choice. I am confounded by [5] which suggests that it may be reasonably expected to ask for my current U.S. salary to be paid to my U.S. bank and taxed by the U.S. only, while earning an additional ~20,000 RMB (USD $3,000) foreign living allowance of which China would tax 20% and the U.S. would tax 28% (in that order, I presume, resulting in a 42% actual tax on that allowance.) If this is indeed common practice for Western engineers accepting positions in China, it would certainly be advantageous to move there. But does that actually reflect reality? Neo Poz (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are unable to give legal advice, and if you are thinking about claiming a foreign living allowance without actually living in a foreign country, you probably need legal advice. Looie496 (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, call your local IRS office. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should speak to a tax advisor - it depends on the tax laws of each country and most importantly any double taxing treaty between them. Chinese tax law especially is a very complex area that few other than tax accountants and tax lawyers understand properly, and you should not trust some random guy on Wikipedia, still less Yahoo. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 19:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My question wasn't about the tax laws, and I certainly wasn't thinking about claiming a foreign living allowance without actually living in a foreign country. I only want to know if foreign living allowances in addition to base salary are typical, i.e., more common than deducting the allowance from the base salary. But I certainly will discuss this with colleagues who are familiar through personal experience with the tax laws, and probably a tax preparer too. Neo Poz (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Though so long as your company doesn't report your "U.S." income to China, how would the Chinese tax authorities know about it? That would be a question for your company's payroll department (what they report to whom). I can say that for professionals employed overseas by a company in their home country, it is fairly standard to ask for additional pay to cover the cost of maintaining two residences and travel back and forth. Also, I am assuming that the $3,000 (20,000 RMB) that you mention would be monthly, not yearly. If it is yearly, then it is trifling and will not come close to covering your expenses in China. The cost of living in China is lower than the United States for a comparable living standard, but not that much lower. Maybe on the order of 70% of U.S. costs aside from housing. Housing varies widely within China. In Shanghai, Shenzhen, and Beijing, rental housing is comparable in cost per square meter to average U.S. cities. (Housing for purchase is comparable to San Francisco or New York.) Farther inland, it's less expensive. Aside from financial considerations, though, there is another factor that might be decisive. Have you spent much time in China? The air pollution there is difficult for an American to imagine. It makes the air Los Angeles on a bad day look like a pristine mountain vista. The smog can be so thick that it is difficult to see more than one block away. It can give you headaches and shortness of breath and irritate your throat and eyes. It isn't like that every day, but it is like that fairly regularly, sometimes for a week or more on end. People with no history of asthma or respiratory disease have developed it while living in China. Then there are serious concerns about food safety, and the impotable tap water. For me, the health risks alone would rule out a long-term stay in China, almost no matter how much money was involved. Marco polo (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; the "fairly standard" part is what I wanted to know. The additional information is very helpful and suggests further research too. Neo Poz (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uh oh! Thank you for making me look at air quality. Neo Poz (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those PM2.5 readings in the mid-100s are fairly routine. They are kind of bearable short-term, but I wouldn't want to live in those conditions. However, it isn't so unusual for the readings to rise into the "very unhealthy" range over 200, where even short-term exposure is harmful. See these numbers from last month. Marco polo (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"For me, the health risks alone would rule out a long-term stay in China, almost no matter how much money was involved." And this is Marco Polo we're talking about! All joking aside, Marco did hit on some points that would be my first response to your question, specifically that I think there are much larger factors that I'd put before the (relatively) small financial variances between the two options. Moving from the U.S. to China would very likely involve a significant amount of culture shock and, in your case as Marco has noted, a significant change in lifestyle and quality of living. Now, for some people that can be a selling point, of course -- the idea of new vistas and immersion in a new culture -- and this aspect can offset the headaches and comparable lack of comfort and security, but seeing as you're apparently an engineer and a good deal of your time is going to be spent on in the work you're doing regardless (as opposed to say some twenty-something over there to teach English and travel the countryside, or some such) and you've emphasized practical economic concerns, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you'd probably be second-guessing your decision not long into your stay if you opted for the move. I apologize that this response does not bare much on the specific income taxation question you raised, but I've known a number of people who have worked in China, and the above is what I've taken away from their impressions on the pros and cons; hopefully it is valuable input and doesn't come off as just me chiding you for focusing on the financial. ;) Snow (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This is all very good advice. I'm arranging a ~1 month trial period after which I will decide the long-term situation. And again, I have no tax questions; I only mentioned the taxes because of their impact on the total pay and total expenses resulting from the two choices. Neo Poz (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my mistake; I meant to say overall financial cost-benefit comparison. Snow (talk) 05:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to assume that you will have more income – or equivalent – in China than Rmb20,000a month. That won’t cover typical expat housing, meals, entertainment, transport etc. So, there should be something else such as housing provided by your employer (or a housing allowance). That is also taxable. Further, note that China tax law can apply to your entire income, including overseas. While this is not typically the case, it is the law and you’ll want to have the advice of a good accountant.

Other than that, go for it. Living abroad, especially a place like China, will change your world view and provide stories that you’ll be telling for the rest of your life. It is also likely to look very good on your resume. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really, I shouldn't have been so negative. While it wouldn't be my choice, obviously lots of reasonable people decide breathing the foul air is counterbalanced by other advantages. To prepare for your trip, you might want to have a look at these videos. I don't fully endorse the videographer's point of view, but it is one person's perspective. Marco polo (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it helps to illustrate, the last time I worked in China I was getting paid my UK wage in the UK as normal and only paying UK tax on it, and receiving a "living allowance" of RMB 3,500 a month (after tax), which I found enough for daily commuting and food and groceries (this was in one of the most expensive cities in China), but I had to dig into my wages for travelling to other parts of China. Accommodation was provided though, so I didn't have to pay rent.

My caveat is again about tax laws. I was there for half a year, I was told the tax arrangements are different if you are there for longer. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"In a Golden Rule buyout, the parties agree that in the event they disagree to such an extent that the company effectively cannot function, each partner can offer to buy the other out for a price determined by the offering partner. The other partner then has a period of time (usually thirty days) in which to do one of two things: he or she can either agree to the price and terms offered by the offering partner and sell their ownership stake, or he or she can turn around and buy the offering partner's stake in the company for the same price and terms that the offering partner proposed."[6]

Basically applying Divide and choose on a company.

I'm looking for works of fiction that contain a Golden Rule buyout, preferably as a major plot element.

I asked this question 2 weeks and received a blind guess. Dncsky (talk) 02:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This question sounds familiar. Did you check the recent archives? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the date of the question. They copied it right out of the archives, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 February 11#Golden Rule buyout in fiction. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose I want to build a bomb. God, I have a headache! Is the humiliator plugged in or not? μηδείς (talk) 02:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I asked it 2 weeks ago but didn't get any leads.Dncsky (talk) 02:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want guesses, I'd say Heinlein, Number of the Beast era. μηδείς (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I'm looking for something more solid than guesses. Links to plot summaries or if you read the books and recalls clearly there being a golden rule buyout in it would be great. Dncsky (talk) 03:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You got one lead and said you will look in to it. Did it turn out the book didn't cover what you asked in your question or are you just looking for other possibilities? If you're going to ask a question again, it always pays to explain why previous answers weren't sufficient. It's particularly a bad idea to suggest you didn't get any answers when you did. Nil Einne (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't receive an answer. I received a blind guess. I don't plan on buying a novel just because it has the words "buyout" in the title. I'll add the explanation to my question above. Dncsky (talk) 03:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a little misleading to call it a 'blind guess' or imply they were solely going by what was in the 'title' when the person involved took the time to research for an answer and read reviews to try and confirm what was in the book and found evidence from those reviews, which they pointed out to you, that it covered what you were asking about. It would have been helpful for them to clarify this to a greater extent in their answer or otherwise make it clearer when answering that they couldn't be sure it covered what you were asking about, but then again your followup here didn't clarify your apparent demands of answers and didn't even mention that you'd asked before until it was pointed out. Nil Einne (talk) 03:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate their help and thanked them personally both in the RD thread and on my talk page. But that still doesn't change the fact the novel Buyout was suggested simply because the title matched "buyout" and an in-novel object called "Golden Needle" happened to match the word "golden". There is nothing in the review to suggest the novel contained anything near what I'm looking for. Dncsky (talk) 03:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Erm. My original response was most definitely not a blind guess. I did spend time looking and I did read reviews and to me, the plot device in Irvine's Buyout did appear to be similar to your requirement. More similar than you imply above. Fiction, Buyout in the title, Golden needle, trade-off within 48-hours and hints of deals going bad. The only thing I did not say originally was that I hadn't read it but I corrected that in my follow-up where I also explained why I had not directly linked my answer to the commercial site Amazon. Frankly, I feel it is a little disingenuous to call my response a blind guess. Thank you @Nil Einne for drawing my attention to this discussion --Senra (talk) 10:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this really does sound like a device one would come acrost in either Heinlein or Piers Anthony, but I am not sure how one goes about searching for plot devices, and I can't remember any specific story where this would apply exactly. Number of the Beast has a lot of this ultimatum stuff going on. μηδείς (talk) 03:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thing, I'm absolutely fascinated by this device but there's really no good way to search for it. This particular business strategy has dozens of names, and could even be referred to by an in-universe name in an SF or fantasy setting. Novel summaries and synopses usually don't have enough space to describe all the business exchanges within the book. So I'm pretty much down to asking fellow readers: "Hey, have you seen this cool gizmo in any of the books you've read?"Dncsky (talk) 03:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you just looking for reading material? If you like this sort of thing you should like most anything by Heinlein. Piers Anthony is actually more of a juvenile writer, although some of his books are adult/adult level. There's also John Grisham. μηδείς (talk) 03:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no surefire hits then yes, I'm pretty much just looking to expand my reading list of legal/business/entrepreneurship themed novels until I stumble upon one with the device. Thanks for your suggestions, I'll chalk them down.Dncsky (talk) 03:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you like stories with gimmicks you'll also probably like Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, although the legal tricks are secondary, and the first book takes a good 70 pages to get into. As for Heinlein, his best works are:

• Citizen of the Galaxy--coming of age thriller
• Tunnel in the Sky--coming of age politics
• Starship Troopers--military politics
• Stranger in a Strange Land--cult classic
• Farnham's Freehold--postapocalyptic freedom and responsibility
• The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress--The American Revolution and the nature of sentience
• I Will Fear No Evil--a rich old man buys happiness
• Time Enough for Love--the immortal nature of love
• The Number of the Beast--Dr Who meets incest and orgy
• Friday--apocalyptic spy thriller

μηδείς (talk) 04:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm a huge Heinlein fan, but that wouldn't have been my list at all. On my top ten, the only of those I'd keep is Tunnel in the Sky. Let's see, in no particular order — Gulf, The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag, Double Star, The Door into Summer, The Puppet Masters, Waldo, Job: A Comedy of Justice, The Man who Sold the Moon. I might come up with a different list on a different day. Dncsky, for what you're asking about, definitely check out the last one. Probably we have an article: The Man who Sold the Moon -- see if that's blue. --Trovatore (talk) 05:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already second thoughts — definitely scratch Gulf and substitute Lost Legacy. Dncsky, I can't emphasize this enough — The Man Who Sold the Moon is absolutely smack-dab in the middle of the kind of thing you're asking about. You might also like Magic, Inc.. --Trovatore (talk) 06:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestion. The Man Who Sold the Moon is now definitely on the top of my list.Dncsky (talk) 06:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would it have been helpful in my reposting to mention that the novel Buyout contains an object called "Golden Needle" and so if you googled "golden rule buyout" you would get hits to summaries of the novel even though it's completely unrelated? I made a judgement that this explanation doesn't clarify the question at all and would introduce needless confusion. If my judgement was wrong then I apologize, but I made the judgement in good faith.Dncsky (talk) 03:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know the proposition as a "shotgun clause". It is common in shareholders' agreements and corporate real-estate agreements. A "golden buyout" sound more as if it would be related to "golden parachutes" and "golden handshakes". There are a few mystery novels where corporate ownerships are structured this way, often in family-owned businesses, and lead to murder. Emma Lathen wrote at least one with this theme. Bielle (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Thank you. I've been collecting alternate names for it as well since it helps to broaden the search.Dncsky (talk) 03:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because of a published thesis by Anna Christine Lofstedt, a USC student, the city of Pasadena was moved to appoint a Special Housing Committee to recommend solutions for Mexican Americans housing needs. The Board of Directors meeting of the Pasadena Chamber of Commerce and Civic Association meeting of June 20, 1922 described a housing crisis. "The need is urgent. Seventeen families are obliged to give up their homes immediately because of the gas companies need of a new gas tank. Some of the families will probably be housed temporarily in tents. The number of housed that can be rented to Mexicans is very limited and this often results in Mexican families being crowded together to a disgraceful degree. Many of the houses that are available are such filthy shacks that they should not be tolerated. If a constructive work is to be done in teaching the Mexicans law and order, something must be done to help them secure decent homes." It was decided that the Mexican American families would prefer to stay in the area where schools, churches and welfare agencies were already available. "The committee also said, "The residents of Pasadena would not welcome any encroachment on their residence section on the part of the Mexicans.

This 1920's mover and shaker lit a fire under the community and because of her thesis 24 homes were built as "Broadway Court." (now Arroyo Parkway) Anna Christine Lofstedt, who had studied the neighborhood, became principal of the fine new Junipero Serra School. ññ Mary Ann C. M... (surname and email removed) 71.92.71.193 (talk) 02:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have a question for us? This page is for asking questions that require references. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[7] - why delete the article because of small errors? There is a whole category Category:Russian words and phrases. Please correct the errors. Thank you in advanceVyacheslav84 (talk) 04:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a ref desk question, and the problem wasn't small errors. It is not something that people can follow. However, it looks like a good faith contribution, and I encourage you to keep working on things. Start by collaborating on an established article that needs a bit of work. And use the ref desk if you have any reference questions about it. IBE (talk) 09:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• [8] and [9] - complete destruction of the contribution???? Vyacheslav84 (talk) 09:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Scientific Myth was a Google translation of ru:Научный миф and I suspect that your other articles were, too. The Google translations are mostly impossible to read, and as such don't reach basic quality standards. Please do work on other articles, for instance the articles your edits were redirected to. You can create a subpage to your talk page where you can edit the rough translation from Google until it's passable English.Sjö (talk) 11:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was rather thinking the OP had been having a time with Google translate. Still, we encourage this sort of enthusiasm, so keep at it, and you will gradually absorb the culture here. IBE (talk) 15:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

what did they to the get Louisiana purchase.
why did the want to get the territory for?
what did they do to capture Texas?
why did they want the territory for?
who was responsible for the capture of organ country?
what did they do to get organ country?
where did they get the territory from?
when did they get it?
why did they want the territory for?
who capetured the war with mexico?
what did they do to get it?
where as they territory located?
when did it happen?
why did they want it?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuahhhw (talk • contribs) 05:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Louisiana Purchase, Mexican-American War, History of Texas, and Oregon Territory (I sure hope that's what you were asking about). StuRat (talk) 05:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could summarize by answering the questions individually: money, expansion; annexation, expansion; us, treaty, British, 1840s, expansion; us, war, Mexico, 1840s, expansion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joshuahhhw -- I hope you know that the events you mentioned happened over several generations (from 1803-1848 at least). As for "why", see Manifest Destiny... -- AnonMoos (talk) 10:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Manifest Destiny was kind of a cover for the desire for more land and power. For a survey of these acquisitions, see United States territorial acquisitions. Marco polo (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The cash for the Louisiana Purchase was borrowed from a British bank, and Napoleon promptly spent the whole lot on his planned invasion of England. Nearly the only time that a country has financed her own defeat. As things turned out, the bank made a profit and Napoleon nearly bankrupted himself, so it turned out all right in the end. Alansplodge (talk) 02:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of a political version of Brock for Broglio. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which first-level administrative divisions of Italy are traditionally left wing stronghold?; Which first-level administrative divisions of France are traditionally left wing stronghold?; Which first-level administrative divisions of Portugal are traditionally left wing stronghold?; Which first-level administrative divisions of Spain are traditionally left wing stronghold?; Which first-level administrative divisions of Belgium are traditionally left wing stronghold?; Which first-level administrative divisions of the Netherlands are traditionally left wing stronghold? Which first-level administrative divisions of United Kingdom are traditionally left wing stronghold? Which first-level administrative divisions of Israel are traditionally left wing stronghold?--Donmust90 (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]

DonMust90, please stop bombing the reference desk with questions, especially without showing what research you have already done on them. --ColinFine (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Regarding the Netherlands, I think none of the 12 provinces can really be called a 'stronghold' for either right-wing or left-wing politics. Party results vary wildly between elections and quite a few parties are not particularly right or left. However, see http://www.google.com/elections/ed/nl/results for an impression of vote distribution. You'll see that the most important right-wing party (VVD) is strongest in the west: North Holland and South Holland, the left-wing PvdA is strongest in the three northern provinces Friesland, Groningen and Drenthe, while the Socialist Party is strongest in the south: North Brabant and Limburg.

We would first have to agree on the definitions of the first-level administrative divisions. In the UK, do you just want to know about Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland, or do you also want to know about the English regions? Note that left strongholds are unlikely to correspond with the administrative geography. In France the "red belt" around Paris is well known, but Ile de France region as a whole is split between the Socialists and the UMP. The left also had strength in the Massif Central and in Languedoc, but that depended on economic and social structures that are long gone. In the UK, the Conservatives do much less well in Scotland and Wales than in England, but that does not mean that Labour has a free run in those countries, as nationalist parties are also very popular. In Spain, the mining region of Asturias was known for its left politics, but may not be now. The left has been strong in Catalonia and the Basque country; nationalist parties are too. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Donmust90 -- are you aware that Israeli parliament elections have no geographical basis (i.e. the whole country is one big district)? AnonMoos (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that were true, it wouldn't mean that certain regions of Israel didn't tend to vote certain ways. There may be geographic voting patterns even in the absence of single-member disticts. Though, I should remind Donmust as I have everytime he's asked this is the best place to start his research in these directions is at "Politics in XXXX" articles. --Jayron32 01:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I ask this question was because I forgot to mention about Italy's People of Freedom and Democratic Party popular support. According to People of Freedom#Popular support, it said that its stronghold is in Lombardy, Veneto, Sicily and Apulia. Campagnia has been traditionally a left-wing stronghold. Democratic Party strongholds are Tuscany and Emilia-Romagna.--Donmust90 (talk) 03:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]

I have a Juleplatte 1906 painted by Gerhard Heilmann. I have tried to search for information about his art during this time, but cannot find anything & also wanted to find out how/where to find out about getting evaluations on his artwork from that time. Any help on this issue would be greatly appreciated. Thank you... Katie9991 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katie9991 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Start with our article; Gerhard Heilmann. Alansplodge (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States, what criminal charge would apply to a suspect accused of poisoning someone else to the point of causing serious injury (for example, permanent physical disability) but without killing or an intent to kill, so that it would not be either murder or attempted murder? My initial guess was grievous bodily harm, but the Wikipedia article on that topic, though not too clear on the subject, seems to imply that charge exists only in the British Isles but not in the United States. Also, what charge would be leveled for an unsuccessful attempt to seriously poison? —SeekingAnswers (reply) 19:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The United States does not have just one law code, it has 51 at least: a separate code for each of the 50 states, and the federal code. Exactly how poisoning is handled varies among these different jurisdictions. In some jurisdictions, (effective) poisoning is a separate felony that can be the basis for a criminal charge. In many jurisdictions, an unsuccessful attempt at poisoning would be considered assault. Marco polo (talk) 20:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "In some jurisdictions, (effective) poisoning is a separate felony that can be the basis for a criminal charge." Yes, and that's my question exactly: what then is the name of that charge? —SeekingAnswers (reply) 21:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As Marco Polo suggests, in some US jurisdictions an effective act of poisoning without the intention to kill would be an assault, but only in those jurisdictions that have removed the distinction inherited from English common law between assault and battery (e.g. New York). In those jurisdictions where this distinction is maintained (e.g. California), it would be a battery. I misread Marco Polo's point. An effective poisoning might be an assault where the term incorporates battery or a battery where it doesn't, but I presume an ineffective poisoning could only be an assault where the two terms are distinct (and where the victim was "caused to apprehend violence").

Browsing through the criminal codes relating to offences against the person of a handful of states [10] [11] [12] [13], what's striking is that US state law seems more concerned with who is being assaulted/battered (with lots of specific types of individuals whose involvement as victims makes the offence aggravated) and why they are being assaulted/battered and less concerned with the means of causing injury. This is to some extent in contrast to the Offences against the Person Act 1861 in English law which in its original enactment [14] spends more time talking about the different means of causing harm, with a legal distinction between shooting "with loaded Arms", and wounding (essentially an injury where the skin is pierced), and other forms of causing bodily harm, and separate sections for such acts as using chloroform (etc.), or choking, or gunpowder, or poisoning (Section 23 when "so as to endanger Life or inflict grievous bodily Harm" and Section 24 where there is "Intent to injure, aggrieve, or annoy any other Person").

In many codes the means of assault/battery are largely elided and the issue is that the assailant "[i]ntentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes physical injury to another" or "[i]ntentionally or knowingly causes serious physical injury to another" [15] or similar wording, which would seem to cover most attempts to cause harm without specific intent to kill. Again just randomly browsing different state codes:- Virginia does have a specific offence relating to "Attempts to poison" [16], but this offence doesn't distinguish as to whether there was an intent to kill or only to injure; Arizona has a specific offence re: "Unlawfully administering intoxicating liquors, a narcotic drug or dangerous drug" but it's not clear to me whether all poisons would fall under those labels - presumably this would be partly down to case law in that state; Idaho has a specific offence of poisoning [17] which sits in its own chapter unlike some of the other offences which fall under a general "assault" or "crimes against the person" chapter. You can look for others yourself by googling the state codes of individual states. Federal law on assault similarly refers very generally to "assault resulting in serious bodily injury" etc. [18] which would seem to cover an effective poisoning where there was no specific intent to kill. Valiantis (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that it's taken me a while to get back to this, but my understanding is that in some states a person can be charged with poisoning. Marco polo (talk) 03:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From my experience in the USA, I have encountered more Muslims praying than Christians. On the other hand, if Christians do pray, then they perform a prayer that is not directly observable. Could it be Jesus's commandment in the Book of Matthew that Christians ought not to be like the hypocrites near by the synagogues who show off their religion and therefore Christians are not obligated to pray publicly because doing so may indicate excessive pride or false piety? 140.254.121.40 (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Practice varies widely. Some Christians pray before meals, whether at home or in a restaurant. Others do not. Islam does not require public prayer but it does require prayer a certain number of times per day, at specified times. That might be why you saw more Muslims praying in public. thx1138 (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, there is actually more diversity in the Christian population than the Muslim population, presumably because Christianity does not specify prayer. It may require a person to pray (I can't imagine a religious person who doesn't pray), but does not specify the prayer or how it is done. 140.254.121.40 (talk) 20:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is more diversity in the Christian population, but you might be interested in reading about the Divine Office/Liturgy of the Hours. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooh. Thanks! 140.254.121.40 (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Matthew 6:5 μηδείς (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if that is really interpreted to mean a caution for false piety or a caution to literally praying outside the synagogues or something else. It's not so much what a book says, but how it is interpreted to say that matters. I wonder if it may contribute to Christian views of Muslims. 140.254.121.40 (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Well, there is a specified prayer, The Lord's Prayer (Matthew 6:9-13), but in the preceding verses (Matthew, 6:6), Jesus advises that it should be said in your own room with the door shut. However, in Matthew 18:20, Jesus says that when two or three are gathered together in His name, he will be with them. This is the text which supports the practice of communal prayer, such as in church. It is quoted at the start of the Anglican service of Morning Prayer. More advice about prayer comes in the various letters of Saint Paul to the early churches. But I broadly agree with Ndteegarden's comments above.

Also, have a look at our articles, Christian prayer and Salah, which explains the Islamic perspective. Alansplodge (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be on the safe side, the Christian prayer page looks ill cited. They reference to the direct pages of the Bible without explanation on why or how it is being interpreted, leading one to the assumption that those interpretations about prayer are general throughout Christianity. 140.254.121.40 (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200274587 and scroll down to "frequency".

—Wavelength (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, Wavelength is providing guidance from a single denomination, the Jehovah's Witnesses, and may not represent views held by the preponderance of all Christians. Which only highlights the point that there are many different denominations of Christianity, and each of them is likely to provide different guidance on this; there is probably no universal understanding within Christianity regarding prayer. --Jayron32 22:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking totally anecdotally, we always said grace at meals served at the house, and never at restaurants, because that would be "showing off", as per the words of Jesus. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See, and I wouldn't read Jesus's words to be a total condemnation of public prayer. Jesus is clear in other places when he speaks about such matters is that a person's internal mindset is what matters, NOT a person's outward actions. Jesus clearly prays in public at times, and as noted above, also advocates it in places. What he's advocating is a proper mindset in prayer such that the purpose of the prayer is to communicate with God, and not to make oneself appear pious merely to impress one's peers. --Jayron32 00:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For a Russian Orthodox, it's recommended to pray after and before sleep, before and after every meal, in some special occasions, at church every Sunday. To follow all these there are special prayerbooks. Not all of them should be done in public, for example, before sleep one prays in private, but before meal one can pray in public. No one thought of this as a sign of false piety (at least for lower classes; for noblemen it could look indeed as hypocrisy). But nowadays only tenths of percents do this, and in the modern atheistic society a personal public prayer would be perceived as strange at least. Though collective prayers led by priests still happen.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 10:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe your society is atheistic. Ours certainly is not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was clear from the context that I was speaking about Russia/CIS (where >90% of at least "declared" Russian Orthodox Christians reside) and not about Uganda or the USA.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 10:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

90% believers doesn't sound like an "atheistic" society. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are "so-called" believers. Theoretically all the ethnic Russians are Orthodox Christians but this is far from reality, such optimistic claims are only said by the Russian Church's officials. Better say they are "declared" or "ethnic" Christians, but not practising. The only "Christian things" the majority do are baptizing their children and burying the deceased according to the Christian rites. Some also marry at church, and many "celebrate" (in their sense) Christmas and Easter. Russia is a semi-atheistic/agnostic society with ritualistic remnants in the popular culture.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore it, Luboslov: your meaning was and is quite clear, and this discussion will go nowhere productive. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm a lot denser than you are, so maybe you could explain which "modern atheistic society" he's referring to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He said 90% of the Russian Orthodox, i.e. of every ten Russian Orthodox believers in the world, more than nine of them live in Russia. That would be true even if there were just one hundred Russian Orthodox believers worldwide and ninety-one lived in Russia. Nyttend (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Russia is one of the European countries with the high percentage of people who do not believe in God at all or believe in some "supernatural force" but never attend church or follow any religion rites.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ethnicity I've found about Harvard so far is pretty vague. It only has big category like Asian, White, Black, Hispanic/latino, Native American. But I want to know specific numbers of students of each nationality from around the world. Like how many Harvard students are Chinese, Indian, Iranian, Russian and so on... (Including those that were born in the US or come from that country). Is there any source that provide the information? If not then why Harvard doesn't publish such a vital information like that? Is there a reason to hide such a thing?184.97.244.130 (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Without answering the question directly, I note that your last question is a loaded question. It contains an as-yet-not-established assumption, and yet assumes that assumption to be true. What evidence do you have that Harvard University is deliberately covering up information? If you don't have any such evidence, then your last question is entirely unanswerable. --Jayron32 03:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did I ever claim that Harvard University is deliberately covering up information. I'm saying if Harvard doesn't publish the information regarding specific ethnicity then what is the reason behind that?184.97.244.130 (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There does not need to be a reason for not publishing information. You haven't told us your age or eye color. Why not? Is there a reason to hide such a thing? --140.180.254.250 (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant comparison. My age and eye color have nothing to do with this. A reason the information I was asking is needed because of something called Affirmative action in the United States.184.97.244.130 (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You said, and I quote " Is there a reason to hide such a thing?" We cannot answer that question because you have not yet established that Harvard is hiding anything. --Jayron32 05:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why is this knowledge "vital"? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's "vital" because there is a thing called Affirmative action in the United States. This information is handy to see what are the chances of someone that can get to Harvard. I know there are so many other factors that determine one will get to Harvard or not but ethnicity is clearly one of them. It is well known that if you're Chinese then it would harder for you to get in Harvard due to intense number of Chinese applicants = intense competition = harder. 184.97.244.130 (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard itself has these figures.[19] The international population is only 11 percent, so there could be any number of reasons they don't care to break it down further. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No no, I'm not just talking about international students. What I mean is specific number of students in all the nationality and ethnicity including those that were born in the US or come from aboard. Most of Harvard students are American of course but many of them have ancestors come from many different countries. Example: number of Chinese that come from China or number of Chinese that were born in America or having Chinese ancestor are all considered as Chinese in Harvard, same thing apply to all the other ethnicity or nationality. I want to know that information not just international student.184.97.244.130 (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, and this item,[20] also published by Harvard, has a breakdown by country, for years 2007-2011, on page 4. I found these items in Google by searching [harvard enrollment by race] or something like that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Though it is a very complicated matter, but I do not think that such things as "Iranian, Indian, Pakistani, Nigerian, Congolese", etc. are ethnicities, and not nationalities. "Russian" can mean both nationality and ethnicity but outside of Russia it's usually the former.--Yęzýkin (talk) 09:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your first sentence has me scratching my head, Lüboslóv. Can you perhaps rephrase it more clearly? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 10:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for example, Pakistani is not an ethnicity, as in Pakistan there are many ethnic groups. Strictly speaking to call Pakistani an "ethnicity" is wrong. Pakistani is a nationality. It would be strange if Harvard collected the information about how many Sindhis, Baluchis or Punjabis there are in the university.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 10:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

184.97.244.130 -- It sounds like Harvard is using the racial categories defined in recent U.S. censuses. -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Harvard even has this nationality information. To get admitted to Harvard, you need to send in 2 application forms: the Common Application, found here, and the Harvard Supplement, found here. Neither of them asks for nationality. The Common Application asks for race information in the categories the OP specified, but not nationality, and even the race section is optional. I'm in university right now, and I've never had to specify my nationality on any university documentation. --140.180.254.250 (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that I know for sure now Harvard doesn't have information like that because in the application, it doesn't even ask to specify your ethnicity but just a big vague category.184.97.244.130 (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It asks for citizenship. Citizenship is a legal manifestation of a nationality. The link above by Baseball Bugs gives the statistics of students' origin by country.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, except the OP said above that he didn't want citizenship information. --140.180.254.250 (talk) 21:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I need to clear up something, let say I want to know how many Chinese or Indian in Harvard. The numbers I'm looking for including those Chinese or Indians that are from China, India or born in America such as Chinese American, Indian American. To me Chinese that come from China or Chinese that born in America are Chinese and should be counted as Chinese in Harvard. 184.97.244.130 (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried contacting Harvard directly about this? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No but I see no point in it now. There is no way Harvard could have gotten the information anyway due to the fact that the application doesn't even ask for the information.184.97.244.130 (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If they don't collect the information themselves on U.S. citizens, by what magical process do you expect it to exist elsewhere? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now... if I were conspiracy minded, I would ask... why does Harvard not collect such information? Are they deliberately not collecting it so that they will not have something to hide? If so, what exactly are they not hiding, and why are they not hiding it? What did the President of Harvard not know and when did he not know it? Blueboar (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]

That's got more 'not's in it than a cheap plank of pine. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands technically US soil? I'm trying to determine whether the statement "the first thermonuclear device was detonated on US soil" is technically correct or not. The islands were obviously administered by the US, but I'm trying to figure out its exact legal status.

I read through United Nations trust territories but couldn't find the answer.Dncsky (talk) 06:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the phrase "US soil" or a closely similar phrase is defined somewhere in legislation, then "technically correct" is a phrase without meaning. --ColinFine (talk)

By "US soil", I would assume the OP means "owned by the US", which I believe has a precise meaning. The article United Nations trust territories says All of the trust territories were administered through the UN Trusteeship Council, and that they were destined for independence, implying that they were owned by no one except possibly themselves but were administered by, in this case, the US on behalf of the UN. Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands speaks of US administration of the territory, not ownership. And Territories of the United States lists the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands not under the various categories of "territories" but rather under the category "Areas formerly administered by the United States".

So I think it's impossible to justify calling the Trust Territory of the Pacific Island "US soil". Duoduoduo (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clothing made in Palau is legally allowed to have labels saying "Made in the USA", even though factories there don't have to meet US labor laws. This has been a matter of some contention for a while now. RNealK (talk) 23:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the excellent answer, Duoduoduo. Much obliged. Dncsky (talk) 02:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

I saw some news reports. They were about the United States Postal Service launching their own line of apparel. Who's going to manufacture the clothes? Will they be made here in the United States of America? When will the items come out?142.255.103.121 (talk) 07:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The clothes will be made by The Wahconah Group. For details, see this. --PlanetEditor (talk) 11:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Maharam says that it "is an acronym of the words ...מורנו הרב רבי מ (Morenu Ha-Rav rabi M..., Our teacher the Rabbi M...)." While מ is a frequent initial for names, it obviously isn't the only one. Are there other such acronyms ending in other letters for names that don't begin with "M"? — Sebastian 09:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Two such are "Maharal" for Judah Loew ben Bezalel and "Maharash" for either Meir Wahl or Shmuel Schneersohn. Deor (talk) 10:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is also "Ramban" for Nachmanides. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I understand the question completely, but there is Rambam, Shach, Rashi, Radak, etc. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, everyone, for your answers; they put my question nicely into context. Deor's reply was what I had been looking for. I'm wondering if we should add something like that to the Maharam article. I would have done so, but Evanh's uncertainty makes me doubt whether that would really improve the article. I'll suggest it at Talk:Maharam. — Sebastian 20:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC) - On second thought, a better place to discuss this is Talk:Hebrew name. — Sebastian 20:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maharishi... Gzuckier (talk) 07:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to List_of_intelligence_agencies#Vatican, Secretary for Relations with States is Vatican's intelligence agency. But after going through the article, it does not seem to be an intelligence agency analogous to CIA or FSB. --PlanetEditor (talk) 11:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to our Vatican City article, "The military defence of the Vatican City is provided by Italy and its armed forces". I would imagine then that they rely on the Italians for external intelligence, but haven't found a reference that explicitly states that yet. Alansplodge (talk) 12:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a search will show, this is an area full of conspiracy theories like suggestions the Vatican run some sort of super secretive intelligence service that is the best in the world. Some of the less extreme discussions I came across as [21] and [22]. (I'd note the later mentions as extant, Sodalicium Pianium which I assume is a typo of Sodalitium Pianum which our article suggests hasn't existed for a long time.) Even this CBC Canada obituary of Pope John Paul II [23] says 'It is said that such connections give a pope unofficially one of the best intelligence services anywhere. And the Vatican's timeless diplomatic corps is widely viewed as one of the world's best.' On the other hand, this book [24] [25] which analyses the situation from Pius VII to Pius XII, mentioned by the CIA here [26] suggests even then Vatican intelligence isn't all it's cracked up to be. One thing that is believable from the earlier links is that the Vatican (as with most governments) likely cooperates to some extent with anyone willing to provide useful information who they have some degree of alignment with which likely includes not just the Italians but the US, UK etc Nil Einne (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --PlanetEditor (talk) 06:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a fresh report of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service warning of possible attacks within the country. What could be the possible targets?. I mean, the Twin Towers were a highly notable target. But in Canada? Thank. Kotjap (talk) 13:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt there are Wikipedians who work for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, so it will be impossible for us to answer your question. --PlanetEditor (talk) 14:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorist attacks do not necessarily have to be on highly visible locations—I would even suggest that the use of symbolic targets (such as in the 9/11 attacks) is quite rare. Any attack would likely occur in a highly visible location, such as the downtown area of a major city. The phrase "terrorist attack" is quite broad in scope—violent attacks on public transport or large, highly-visible buildings would be most probable, though something less targeted (a car bombing, for example) could also be likely. 124.148.93.246 (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most terrorist attacks hit civilian targets, and can be anywhere. Just like the 7 July 2005 London bombings, which was on three trains and a bus. Some terrorists target women shopping in the market, others target children in schools. Most high-level targets, such as Parliament, and so on, are heavily guarded, and thus will not present a target, so they go for the most vulnerable. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 2005 London attacks were aimed at major transport hubs, the suspected reason for a bus being targeted was that the Underground had already shut-down when the last bombers arrived. In previous decades, the Provisional Irish Republican Army had targeted economic targets such as the Baltic Exchange and a shopping centre in Warrington crowded with children. So you're right that could be almost anywhere, but there's usually a twisted logic behind it. Alansplodge (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The bombing of the shopping centre in Warrington had an apology issued afterwords, as we in Liverpool and the North West in general are ethnically Irish. It was unfortunate that the apology was not for killing children, although it was expressed that way. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For a start 2006 Ontario terrorism plot may be of interest. Targets contemplated include the Canadian Broadcasting Centre, the Canadian Parliament building, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) headquarters itself, the parliamentary Peace Tower, and power grids. Of course, this doesn't mean they would have succeeded in penetrating any or all of these targets, some of which (such as parliament) are supposedly well-guarded. (I say supposedly, as incidents such as this suggest reality may sometimes be otherwise). They also contemplated assassinating Ministers, including the Prime Minister. I assume any future terrorists may consider a similar target set. Hope this helps. 58.111.191.25 (talk) 13:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In what sort of regard were the Founding Fathers of the United States (and even later presidents) held in the Confederacy? Washington is featured prominently on the Great Seal of the Confederate States of America, but how many others were revered as "national heroes", or even claimed as predecessors to those involved in the CSA? Would this have been just limited to figures from the South, or based along more political lines? 124.148.93.246 (talk) 15:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Had the South won, there would be a whole revisionist literature on the subject. We can assume John Adams and John Quincy Adams would have been unpopular as anti-slavery Northerners. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton would have been unpopular for defending the Federal Constitution over the Articles of Confederation. μηδείς (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything in Confederate States of America about it (though I might have missed it). But my memory is that the Founding Fathers in general were held in high regard, and the secessionists believed that they were going back to the values of the Founding Fathers, who had been betrayed by the mid-1800s US. As for the US Constitution versus the Articles of Confederation, my memory is that the secessionists revered the Constitution just as they revered the Founding Fathers. For example, Confederate States of America#Constitution says Much of the Confederate States Constitution replicated the United States Constitution verbatim, but.... Duoduoduo (talk) 22:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jefferson's reputation in the South had declined because of his authorship of the Declaration of Independence and the phrase "all men are created equal", an idea against which Southern leaders had long been waging rhetorical war. In his Cornerstone Speech, Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens explained that Jefferson and like-minded founders were "fundamentally wrong" for thinking that slavery was a "violation of the laws of nature". The founders were still admired, however, and Stephens later clarified that he had not meant to question their patriotism, ability, or wisdom. The Confederates admired former presidents Washington and Jackson enough to put them on their money, both ironic choices; Jackson in particular would have likely hanged every Confederate leader he could have gotten his hands on. —Kevin Myers 06:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wilson Jermaine Heredia considered black? Venustar84 (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Define "black". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody needs to define "black", because the question was only whether he is considered black. The best I've found so far is an interview in which he says: "See, my dad is a black Dominican and my mom is a white Dominican, so the 70s were very rough for them here." [27], which tells you that his father is considered black and his mother is not. Someone who is more au fait with American concepts of race will probably be better able than I to find references on whether he himself is considered black in general. The simplest reference would, I assume, be a quote from him in which he described himself with a racial term, or him being featured in an article or award centred around race. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 22:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only definition that matters is what he considers himself. Race is a self-identified issue in the U.S. The official census stance on this is that a person is whatever race they pick on the census form, and there is no other official test or proof. What anyone else "considers" him is irrelevant. --Jayron32 22:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having done a bit of searching, I couldn't find any instances in which Heredia was labeled "black". I found instances where he was labeled "Hispanic", "Latino", and "mixed race", but not "black". That isn't to say that no one has ever called him black, but he does not seem to be widely considered black. Marco polo (talk) 22:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking at his pictures on Google Images, my first thought was medium-toned Hispanic rather than any strong African heritage. But as you suggest, it can be hard to tell sometimes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Venustar84 -- traditionally in the United States there was the One-drop rule, but that's semi-irrelevant nowadays, and there's not any real "official" definition as such... AnonMoos (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Es muy dominicano, pero no muy negro. No entiendo que le importa. μηδείς (talk) 02:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There ya go. P.S. He's taken this question to the Entertainment Desk. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does one need a passport to travel between Russia and Ukraine? Does it depend on your nationality? Do Russians need a passport? Would Americans? RNealK (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may depend on nationality, but I suspect it is mandatory for all nationalities. Russians require a passport, but no visa, to travel to Ukraine. Americans require a passport, and also a visa if staying for over 90 days. See this site. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 23:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question arises because of the movie A Good Day to Die Hard, where the two American characters drive from Moscow to Chernobyl where no mention is made of their stopping at the border. Of course, their grasp on geography is rather tentative, since they seem to think Grenoble is in Switzerland. RNealK (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware that is a fictional story, with the definition of fiction being "making stuff up", right? --Jayron32 02:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most third-country nationals definitely need a passport (US citizens, certainly do) to cross the border, whether by air or overland, In many cases they need a visa from one or both of Russian and Ukraine. As to the nationals of Russia and Ukraine themselves, a treaty was signed in 1997 ( http://ria.ru/spravka/20121212/914540165.html ) which allows travel with just national ID documents; it is still in force. On the other hand,, at least overland. Now Timatic says that even Russians and Ukrainians need passports to fly between the two countries, but perhaps their database does not include all the rules. -- Vmenkov (talk) 00:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have a list of passport-free borders, including the CIS. However, you need to show your ID card at the border. CS Miller (talk) 17:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. I am not primarily interested in Kant's morals and ethics. What I cannot grasp is what his thoughts about reality were. What does he mean by "transcendental"? Why did this spark so much reaction? From what I've read, it sounds like he was talking about some strange notion of another plane or something. Did he think contradictions could be true?
2. What does the idealism in German idealism have in common with Berkeley's immaterialism?
3. What the heck is Hegel talking about when it comes to God, history, and ideas? Did he think everything in existence was some giant idea or was he making analogies? Was this concept of the Absolute that he had come up with something like Brahman? Did he think contradictions could be true? What does he have to do with Marx?

— Melab±1 ☎ 23:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ding-an-sich, Antinomy, Transcendental idealism, Subjective idealism, and dialectic might be useful starting points. Tevildo (talk) 00:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe. On every fundamental issue, Kant’s philosophy is the exact opposite of Objectivism. -brief summary, Ayn Rand. μηδείς (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this relevant? — Melab±1 ☎ 04:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I was not aware Ayn Rand was opposed to Kantianism. --PlanetEditor (talk) 06:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not just opposed, she described Kant as literally evil. μηδείς (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those last three articles are not helpful. — Melab±1 ☎ 04:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1.a. Transcendental broadly describes those methods and things which deal with conditions for thought, as described in Kant's first critique. Here's a normal way of describing Kant's metaphysical philosophy in an historical setting: Kant accepts Hume's/Teten's empiricism (which analyzes knowledge down to matters of fact and relations between ideas), and thus is also skeptical of Leibnizian-Wolffian metaphysics (which seems to extend beyond any grounding in mere matters of fact or relations between ideas). However, he also believes that such empiricism can allow synthetic a priori truths beyond what Hume or Tetens recognized, more in line with what Leibniz/Wolff recognized. This is the transcendental turn, which Kant calls his "Copernican Revolution" in metaphysics. This turn is showing that empirical thought, which is well-grounded in the content of experience, has conditions of its possibility, and these conditions give a grounding to synthetic a priori thought. These conditions of possibility, Kant theorizes, are part of what it is to be human: Human thought is constrained into experiencing the world in certain forms. These constraints thus determine human thought prior to any experience. One example: human experience is guaranteed to have effects related to causes; Hume could not find causation in anything but constant conjunction of sense data; Kant thinks there is a robust necessity between cause and effect in experience. The necessity of causes for effects is one of the things Kant thinks transcendental philosophy helps establish. These matters are well described in various ways in Graham Bird's The Revolutionary Kant and Henry Allison's Kant's Transcendental Idealism, 2nd Edition.

b. Kant sparked a lot of reaction because his arguments are very compelling, while the arguments from the Leibnizian-Wolffians, which was the dominant philosophy at the time, were also very compelling, while the two metaphysical systems are very different and contradictory. Also, Kant seems to be the first to have theorised that the objective world is partly determined by subjective human nature. You might think that Kant also sparked much reaction from going beyond Hume, but really Hume wasn't popular at the time. Hume became popular again with Russell and the logical positivists/empiricists. Lorne Falkenstein is a current professor who wrote a famous book on Kant, Kant's Intuitionism. He later abandoned studying Kant because he felt Kant, in the end, just fails to make sense, and now champions Hume's skeptical empiricism as the superior philosophy.

c. Not another plane, no.

d. He did not think that two contradictory propositions could both be true, no. That is dialethism.

2. They both limit human experience to ideas. One difference is that Kant also thinks that there are things in themselves, albeit of unknown quality and quantity; Berkeley thinks there are only ideas.

3. I don't know Hegel. I believe he did indeed think that everything in experience is an idea. I know some who treat Hegel as the same as any other philosopher. I have also heard this about Hegel (paraphrasing): "Hegel is a perfect example of the common notion of a sophist." What the person meant was that Hegel just makes a nice sounding myth and intentionally weaves fallacious arguments together without sincerity.--Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 09:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Melab, I suggest you try the Stanford Philosophical Encyclopedia, here is a list of their articles on Kant and Kant topics. μηδείς (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In 1996, Ludovic Kennedy wrote a review of Mark Peel's book The Land of Lost Content, ISBN 1-85821-400-9. The review was published in a major UK newspaper. It was entitled "Too small a man in too big a job?" A subheading (perhaps called a byline in some places) said "Ludovic Kennedy assesses the good and bad marks of a controversial Head". The image caption reads "Chenevix-Trench at Eton in 1964: 'He never bore a grudge'".

I've searched with title and author on Questia and Highbeam, but either they don't have it or I'm Doing Something Wrong(TM).

Which newspaper? What was the date it was published? (And, if possible, page number?) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have checked The Times and the Guardian/Observer and the FT; it is none of those. Seems likely to be the Sunday Times, for which Ludo K. did write book reviews occasionally. Otherwise Daily or Sunday Telegraph or The Independent or the Independent on Sunday (none of these is fully electronically searchable for the year in question, unfortunately). I've tried Newsbank, which does have some items from those titles, but to no avail. -- Alarics (talk) 08:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was a (extremely critical) review of this book in The Guardian (London) September 4, 1996 entitled "SIR, THE SADIST" written by Paul Foot but which mentions Ludovic Kennedy prominently - this is a reprint of the same article by Foot in the 'London Review of Books' --_nonsense ferret 13:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It turns out to be the Telegraph, although I'm still looking for exact date and page number. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was reading on the internet a while back, some article by a sociologist of religion. I only remember that he was an Evangelical/ Fundamentalist Christian (not sure which, or quite how strong, but quite strong in his beliefs) and his research had studied what makes people join a religion. He said that it was quite curious that they had found that it didn't matter what the religion was, as people began associating with it, it became progressively more likely, indeed almost certain, that they would join. Does anyone have any clue who the sociologist might be? I'm pretty sure he was from the US, and I don't think his name was extremely well known to the public, but he was fairly prominent in his field. IBE (talk) 11:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He wrote Horst-Wessel-Lied where he harshly condemn the Reds. Was he the first Nazi to openly express capitalism? Thank. Kotjap (talk) 13:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about Horst Wessel himself, but in the early days of the Nazi party, there were many members who rejected international / Marxist / Soviet / "Jewish" socialism, but were in favor of a socialism along German nationalist lines, and so were not necessarily supporters of unreconstructed capitalism in its then-current form. That's why the party was called the "National Socialist Party". Hitler discarded most of the meaningful socialist content in the 1930s... AnonMoos (talk) 13:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno if someone can answer this question, but I might as well try.

Recently, I was reading of the (well publicised) decision to grant Oscar Pistorius bail. I make no comment on the correctness of this decision. However, one thing did very much surprise me.

In the media reports of the conditions set for Pistorius' bail, there appeared to be no mention of any condition that he surrender his firearms, and not possess any others. In the jurisdiction I come from (Australia) and presumably many other jurisdictions, such a condition would be absolutely included in a case of alleged murder (or even manslaughter / culpable homicide) by means of a firearm. (Well, any exceptions would be highly extraordinary, that's all I can say). What am I missing? Possibly the South African Police Force have already suspended his firearms licence(s) and seized his guns? Or has there been a (IMHO) gross oversight by the prosecutors on this issue?

Yes, I understand that South Africa is a dangerous country, and people may generally obtain licences to carry a gun in self-defence. But in a case like this (where, by all accounts, the accused has shot and killed an innocent person), surely there would be an exception?

(My question is very specific - please don't go into tangents on questions of Pistorius' guilt or innocence, or the correctness of the decision to grant him bail). 58.111.191.25 (talk) 13:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I can't remember where, but I read that he had to surrender his firearms. Duoduoduo (talk) 13:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The surrender of firearms is very much one of the many conditions placed on Pistorius's release on bail, to wit:

• He appears in court on 4 June at 8.30am.
• He surrenders all passports.
• He refrains from applying for any passports.
• He refrains from entering any airport.
• He surrenders all firearms.
• He refrains from possessing any firearms.
• He refrains from talking to any witnesses for the prosecution.
• He will have a probation officer and correctional official from the date of release until the conclusion of the case.
• He shall inform the official of all his movements and ask for permission for any journeys outside Pretoria.
• He shall give them a phone number and must be contactable day and night.
• He must not be charged with an offence of violence against women.
• He must not use drugs or alcohol.
• He must not return to his home and must not make contact with any residents of his estate except the Stander family.

- Cucumber Mike (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)]][reply]

The ex governor of Illinois had to surrender his Illinois Firearms License when he was indicted. Shadowjams (talk) 07:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I was a journalist, I frequently reported on criminal defendants getting bail by mentioning only the financial amount. Most of the other conditions are boilerplate and imposed on everyone, with little or no discussion in court. Typically only the money gets any discussion. If one of the other conditions were an issue of contention, it would likely be mentioned in the media.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 17:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The surrender of firearms was certainly mentioned in the news reports I heard on BBC Radio 4, along with surrendering his passports and not being allowed to go to his home. --ColinFine (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, the surrender of firearms seems critical, to me. Even if we believe his story, that still makes him an idiot and/or delusional, in that he imagines intruders behind the bathroom door and opens fire on whoever's there, sight unseen. Such a person should never have access to firearms. StuRat (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please refrain from gratuitous violations of WP:BLP? μηδείς (talk) 03:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even in the gun crazy! United States, felons, domestic abusers, habitual drug users, and.......... people on bail are prohibited from possessing guns. Similarly many are prohibited from leaving the country, are required to check in, etc. South Africa has some quite strict gun laws. I suspect whatever this case is about, the gun aspect is the least important part. Shadowjams (talk) 07:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading this article, which has many examples from people's bills, such as $283 for a chest X-ray which costs medicare-covered people $20.44, or (on page 2) $18 for a single diabetes test strip when a free market example of Amazon shows them freely available for 55 cents each. Are these not cases of price gouging? Or if so, why is health care exempted? 67.163.109.173 (talk) 14:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that these examples are outrageous, but they don't constitute price gouging. As our article defines it, price gouging occurs when suppliers drastically raise price in response to an emergency, for example when the price of plywood shoots up as a hurricane approaches. Looie496 (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The keyword you want is "chargemaster". Quote from the following article (which is referring to the Times article in your link) "Brill repeatedly discusses the "chargemaster," which is basically the internal price list at every hospital, which has no basis in reality whatsoever, but which the poorest patients, and those without insurance, or with limited insurance, are often hit over the head with. Throughout the article, Brill details over and over and over again how hospital administrators and spokespeople all refused to address the chargemaster at all, constantly blowing it off as no big deal, because so few people actually pay the list price. . A quick Google search for U.S chargemaster confirm this practice. ex: [28]. As Looie said it's not really price gouging, just a bad systematic setup based on distorted financial incentive. Lastly not ideal but very interesting reddit link. Royor (talk) 21:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that having an absurdly high Suggested Retail Price is by no means limited to the health care system. Many industries set the price at 10 times their cost, then announce 80% off sales. The difference, in the case of US health care, seems to be that some people (those without insurance or a government program negotiating the price down) have no choice but to be charged the full price. In many cases, they can just choose not to pay, and the health care system will just absorb that cost (tack even more onto everybody else's bill), but you occasionally run up against a health care provider that plays hardball, and actually insists on being paid at this absurdly high rate. StuRat (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! They sure as hell wouldn't just "absorb the cost" - more like refer the bill to collection and the fun time begin: collection -> law suit to garnish wages, failing that, repo. Royor (talk) 02:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in most cases, they don't pursue it to that degree. It just isn't in their business interest to do so. There's the cost of the bad publicity, cost of lawyers, and a fairly low possibility of recovering much cash, as people who've been chronically ill and racked up huge medical bills are often already broke. So, whether the patient declares bankruptcy or not, they aren't likely to be able to pay. They might also die before the legal mess clears. Better to just overcharge the next patient by even more, etc., until you find a sucker who actually pays. StuRat (talk) 02:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This may sound like i am defending some of the absurd overcharging in the US healthcare industry, but you should understand that the economics are bizarre and there are just as many examples of services that are grossly underpaid for. Imagine a hardware store that must give plywood to anyone who walks in for free-- and those folks feel no obligation to pay at all, and many others with chits from the government that will pay the store 10 cents a sheet and you begin to understand why the store might be tempted to charge those willing to pay about 10x what it costs the store. The basic forces that produced this strange mess are (1) third party payment for most medical care so that consumers and doctors pay no attention to price, and (2) the expectation by a rising proportion of the population that they shouldnt have to pay for it but shouldnt be turned away. Watch what happens next year when the hardware stores are required to give plywood to 3x as many people for 7 cents a sheet. alteripse (talk) 02:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Price gouging" is code for "other ways of apportioning scarce resources, probably through lines and political connections". Shadowjams (talk) 07:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ah, the thorny thicket of medical pricing. Best expressed on a blog I was reading as "We pretend to bill for our services, and they [insurers, payors, etc] pretend to pay for them." To begin with: providers of all types have exorbitant "list prices", a small fraction of which is actually paid by large payors, i.e. insurers including Medicare, who have the bargaining clout to threaten to steer their large numbers of patients elsewhere if they dont get a huge break. Of course, the chances of collecting more from uninsured people than they collecty from the insured are not good.

This leads hospitals to bill ridiculous amounts like $10 for an aspirin, because/wherever they can; inpatient pharmacy appears on bills as a lump sum not line items, so cannot be disputed/bargained. This is, of course, the reaction to the hospitals being squeezed to death by payors on everything which is itemized, plus the sad fact that government reimbursement for care they are legally required to give to people who can't/don't pay is nowhere near what the hospital actually shells out for such care. Bottom line, hospitals are perpetually broke and will do what they can to scrape up a buck. (note that my experience is limited to non-profit hospitals). This applies only to the hospitals, not the doctors providing the care within, who are totally separate billing entities. This also does include dunning people who are too poor to have insurance (as distinct from just deciding not to), are not insured by their employer, and nevertheless have something like a house which can be seized. Aside from the arguably just instances of such, there are also plenty of instances of extortive interest rates, often leading to enormous bills for somebody who didn't even know they owed anything until much later; "going where the money is", i.e. ignoring the person who actually incurs the debt in favor of pursuing an estranged spouse or similar even when said person is not only not ethically, but not even legally obliged to cover the bills; and plenty of just chasing the entirely wrong person, etc. [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]. Again, this is arguably as much from a sense of self-preservation and reaction to being forced to provide uncompensated care as any free-floating greed, and the kind of thing universal insurance, of any kind, is designed to eliminate. Gzuckier (talk) 08:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

excuse me if this is a naive question but i was wondering. are arab shahs kings etc automatically targets for america when they travel? sorry if this is offensive to anyone i was just wondering about this international situation. if you need to reply to correct some basic misunderstanding or link to an article i am happy to read anything, thank you. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shah is a Persian/Iranian title. Iran is not an Arab country. Many Arab countries (and many non-Arab countries with Muslim majorities) are US allies - e.g. Saudi-Arabia and Kuweit. Many others have reasonably friendly relations with the US. So no, Arab leaders are not automatic targets for the US (much less "america"). In general, states are no supposed to target civilians at all. Sanctions are sometimes imposed that limit travel to certain countries, but there is no international legal basis for attacking civilians. Moreover, it's generally illegal to perform military or police action in a foreign state without the local government's consent, unless in a declared state of war. This is sometimes violated, but still widely frowned upon. The major reason for that is that states are sovereign, and need to keep a reasonable protocol to talk to each other to avoid escalation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) see also United Arab Emirates–United States relations. As Stephan said, lots of Arab countries have good relations with the US. IBE (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was confused, I thought for example that any high-level arabs would be killed on sight due to the war on terror. i didn't think america had arab allies though i guess i should have thought of it. sorry if i offended anyone - you can close this question if you want as my question has been asnwered. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 'War on Terror' is not a war on Arabs generally, or on any Arab state. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only Arab leader I can see possibly being targeted right now is Syria's Bashar al-Assad, as this might bring the Syrian civil war to an end. However, due to the unpredictable aftermath, I doubt if even this course of action has been seriously considered. StuRat (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Was there any political motive in naming Arthur I, Duke of Brittany after the king of Camelot? Henry VII named his son and heir Arthur because the Tudor's were Wesh and had he reign it would fulfil the Arthurian legend. Bur Arthur wasnt in line since his uncle Richard was still alive. And were there any royals before the duke of Brittany named Arthur? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Emperor's New Spy (talk • contribs)

Broadly, yes, Arthur I's name did have political connotations - although there are only a limited number of studies in this area. The Arthurian legends were new and very popular during the late 12th century. Henry II, Arthur's grandfather, was the patron of a number of collections of Arthurian stories, and was also involved - according to the chroniclers - in the "discovery" of the legendary Arthur's tomb at Glastonbury, as well as arguing that the legendary Arthur was the ruler of Ireland, which Henry also conquered/reclaimed.

Geoffrey's relationship with Henry was sometimes difficult, and he seems to have used the Arthurian mythos to bolster his own rule in the Duchy. The young 12th century Arthur was born after Geoffrey's death, and the chronicler Geoffrey of Monmouth suggests that there was something of a dispute over the naming of the child - Henry II apparently wanting him to be called Henry, and the local Breton nobility preferring Arthur. The naming of Geoffrey's child in this way would have had resonances of glory, future success and a stronger Duchy. Richard I, who declared Arthur his heir when he went on crusade, was also interested in the legends, and his nomination of Arthur as his heir would probably have added to the political atmospherics. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)This was in the early days of the popularity of the Arthurian legend with the ruling class of England. It was really dredged out of obscurity by Geoffrey of Monmouth, whose book, Historia Regum Britanniae was written in 1131. Although the book started with Brutus of Troy and told mythical stories about all the supposed British kings until they were finally overwhelmed by the Saxons, King Arthur was the star of the book, It tells how he conquered most of Europe and was laying siege to Rome when his empire suddenly collapsed due to treachery at home. Most of the story's early success was that it showed the Saxons as treacherous usurpers, who were beaten by Arthur in a series of battles. Geoffrey was creating "...an ahistorical continuity of rule, from the kingdom of Arthur to the kingdom of Henry, thus picturing the Anglo-Saxons as the true interlopers."[34] If there is a political pretext, that's where my money is. Alansplodge (talk) 19:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that the Arthurian legends were of especial importance in Brittany. The Bretons saw themselves as the true descendents of Arthur. Gildas, one of the main saints of Brittany, refers to the Battle of Badon having occurred in the year he was born (calling the English a "rascally crew"). The relation of continental versions of Arthurian lore to oral Breton traditions is not fully known. It's quite possible there was a strong local identification with Arthur linked to anti-English (Anglo-Saxon) sentiment which merged with the revival promoted by Geoffrey, who was certainly trying to affirm a Welsh (Brythonic/Briton/Breton) allance with the Normans to marginalise the interloping English. Paul B (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. By this time, Henry II had ensured that Arthur had more Plantaganet blood than Breton, see Dukes of Brittany, and probably reinforcing his Breton heritage would have been an advantage. BTW, Gildas was a Briton rather than a Breton, but the two nations shared a common language and heritage. Alansplodge (talk) 01:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Briton' and 'Breton' were the same thing in his lifetime. Indeed there may even have been an idea at least of common rulership over Brythonic territory. He was born in Britain but died in Brittany. He is "one of the main saints of Brittany" because he lived and died in Brittany and is identified with Brittany by Bretons. There are numerous shrines to him there and places named after him. The statue depicted at the top of our page on him is in Brittany. Ask a Breton who Gildas is, and they'll have at least heard of him. Ask a Briton and they'll say "who?". Paul B (talk) 04:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Aurell's chapter in "Henry II: New Interpretations" is good if you've got access to it. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Always, when here are executions, there are three hanged. Why?. It's Japan. Kotjap (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why not 4. Four is sometimes pronounced shi in Japanese, which is also the word for death. OsmanRF34 (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does the execution facility have room for only 3 ? If so, then they might choose to execute 3 at once, figuring this will reduce the publicity over 3 separate executions. StuRat (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, according to Capital_punishment_in_Japan#Execution: the OP's assumption is not true. They tend to execute people together, for whatever reason, but that can be one, two, three or four. It just happen that three at a time was more common. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

A criticism I've seen of proposed post-capitalist economic systems such as The Venus Project is that humans have a psychological need to earn their living. However, I've also seen it suggested that this an artifact of the culture of capitalist economies, and might change if earning a living was no longer the norm. If this response were valid, I'd expect the harmful psychological, non-financial effects of being unemployed or not seeking work to vary among different economic and cultural contexts (e.g. to be smaller in areas where the employment rate is chronically lower). Have any studies tested this? NeonMerlin 01:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No studies. When I think about how someone would try to measure any "innate need to earn", distinguishable from an "innate need to do something of use for your group" the question quickly devolves into meaninglessness-- or at least unprovable political opinion. You are perhaps aware of the rising tide of disgust, distress, and concern throughout North America and Europe about an enervating "culture of entitlement" in which an increasing proportion of the population feels no need to work whatsoever? In that context, I think the concept of a "psychological need to work" one of the stupidest ideas i have heard in a long time-- but that is just my opinion. alteripse (talk) 02:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not up on that area of psychology, but I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be possible to do experimental studies of the effects on happiness/satisfaction of having a job. I would be amazed if no such studies had ever been done. The response above doesn't give the impression of being written on the basis of knowledge. Looie496 (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To eliminate the possible effect on happiness of having or lacking money, the study would have to have one group of people who work for a living, and another who are paid the same, despite not working. Of course, this neglects all the costs associated with working, such as transportation, clothing, lunches out, etc.

Personally, I don't think it's working, per se, from which we derive satisfaction, but only certain types of jobs, where we feel we can accomplish something concrete. If you are employed to do something meaningless, then this might have a negative effect on self-esteem.

Conversely, as was alluded to above, we can derive satisfaction from unpaid work where we feel we accomplish something. StuRat (talk) 02:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Louie, you might brush up your reading comprehension before snarking inaccurately. The question very specifically did not ask whether people with a job were happier than those without, but whether any studies supported a "need to earn a living" as opposed to having it given to you. And when you show us some facts that contradict what I wrote, you can then describe it as showing lack of "knowledge". alteripse (talk) 03:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to clarify first: I believe User:NeonMerlin originally asked: Have any studies tested whether "harmful psychological, non-financial effects of being unemployed or not seeking work" vary "among different economic and cultural contexts"? Such is what the "this" refers to in User's last question. User did not ask whether "any studies supported a "need to earn a living" as opposed to having it given to you" except perhaps indirectly by asking the first question given. There are such studies. See [35] for some examples. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 04:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like NeonMerlin to clarify the meaning of "psychological need to earn a living". It doesnt matter how many studies show that unemployed people are happier or unhappier than average if that isnt the question he asked. alteripse (talk) 04:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think Atethnekos is right on the money with the interpretation of the question. The first bit is background; the actual question is in the last 2 sentences. I also don't see anything objectionable in Looie's post. I too would have thought such studies would exist (and Atethnekos has given some examples), and I would think they were relevant whatever the exact configuration of the question. The OP can judge the exact relevance, and clarify and refine if he so desires. IBE (talk) 08:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that neither polytheism nor monotheism nor atheism is a religion, but a particular religion may be polytheistic or monotheistic or atheistic. The only religion that I have heard called atheistic is Buddhism. Are there others? Michael Hardy (talk) 05:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that Taoism has any God-like figures in its core belief system. --Jayron32 05:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shinto ? New Age ? StuRat (talk) 06:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Atheism itself has some resemblance to religion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It all depends on how you choose to define the words, but we should be more regimented with our definitions. Religion is generally defined to be an organisation that has a belief in a supernatural deity, and someone who is part of that organisation or follows those beliefs is religious. Polytheism and monotheism are simply different type of religion - note the use of theism. Atheism (a-theism) on the other hand is the rejection of theism. To call atheism a religion is like calling sport a religion. Neither atheism nor sport are religions but they could sometimes be like a religion, i.e. when they are followed with a religious fervour. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Religion is generally defined to be an organisation that has a belief in a supernatural deity" by lazy people who don't study it, and that doesn't even fit your own explanation that polytheism is a type of religion. Michael is right, and yours and Bugs's comments are strange and unhelpful. If you are unaware of atheistic religions, then you could just not comment.

Michael, I don't know any atheistic religions other than those mentioned, but Unitarian Universalism can sometimes be an essentially agnostic religion if that helps. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 07:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Religio is a Latin word that originally referred to proper conduct toward the divine ("gods"). See Religion in ancient Rome for the original matter to which the word referred. This entered the vernacular languages—hence English "religion"/"religiun"—with the same basic meaning. So, it should not be considered strange that the concept of religion is intertwined with the notion of deities. That does not mean that the word has not been applied to practices and groups that only otherwise bear similarities to Ancient Greco-Roman religion, including Christianity. Understanding family resemblance may be important here. Many practices and ideologies which are nontheistic and which are sometimes called "religions" in English were not called "religions" by those who founded and first developed them. For example, Taoism was not called a "religion" in Chinese, as "religion" was not a word in Chinese. I don't want to say anything more about Taoism, before I put my foot in my mouth. Whether a nontheistic practice or ideology may not be considered a religion on that basis alone is a question of word usage for English speakers. Some may maintain that religions deal with the divine. That's not lazy, that's just having a normal usage of a word that is nonetheless different from others'.

Nontheistic_religions gives examples from Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, and Jainism.--Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 08:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to exclude rulers such as Phil and Al, as the child gets an unfair advantage right from the start. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do you define "successful", and what is your yardstick to determine what is more or less successful? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mary and Jesus have had a pretty good run so far. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In golf, Old Tom Morris and Young Tom Morris. UK Football: maybe Tony Hateley and Mark Hateley, although Frank Lampard senior and Frank Lampard junior would count too. Harry Redknapp and Jamie Redknapp probably tops either, as Harry is a very successful manager. No doubt more will be added to this list. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're all getting in on the act before waiting for the OP to clarify his question: it would be hard to beat the Bach family for musical fecundity spanning a number of generations. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In race car driving, there is the Andretti family. In baseball, there are Ken Griffey Sr. and Jr. In acting there are numerous family 'dynasties' such as Martin Sheen and his sons Charlie and Emilio. The Redgraves (Michael Redgrave, Lynn Redgrave, Vanessa Redgrave, et al). The Fondas (Peter Fonda, Jane Fonda, et al). Dismas|^(talk) 11:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Though I try to forget them often, I guess I succeeded this time... The Bush family... George H. W. Bush and his son, George W. Bush. Both, so called, "leaders of the free world". Dismas|^(talk) 11:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Graham and Damon Hill? In science, Nobel Prize winning father-and-sons can be found here, along with mother-and-daughter success in the form of Marie Curie and Irene Joliot-Curie (who was also the daughter of a successful father). - Cucumber Mike (talk) 11:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why restrict to a "pair"? A parent can have more than one notable child. In the Grace family, not only is it true that "Fourteen members of the family played first-class cricket, with brothers WG, EM and Fred Grace all going on to play Test cricket for England", but, in the first generation, the founder of the dynasty and all five of his sons at least played first-class cricket. --Dweller (talk) 12:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst the youngest managed a department store - Cucumber Mike (talk) 12:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to know?. Thank. Kotjap (talk) 10:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly, but a good estimate can be obtained by multiplying World population by Mortality rate. Dbfirs 11:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]