Revision as of 03:45, 11 August 2012

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

• WP:RD/H

Main page: Help searching Misplaced Pages

How can I get my question answered?

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

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

August 6

Countries where nationalism or patriotism is/was discouraged.

I was wondering if there are/were any countries where, at some point in time, nationalism and/or patriotism, or at least ultra-nationalism and ultra-patriotism, is/was frowned upon, or at least wasn't that prominent. Have there ever been such places? Narutolovehinata5 00:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

That depends on what you mean by ulta-nationalism. If you mean groups like the British National Party or the English Defence League in the UK, and equivalents elsewhere, then they are often very much frowned upon by the mainstream. --Tango (talk) 00:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

As in the ones that many Americans seem to follow, especially the political analysts and the right-wing politicians. Also, that includes the attitude of calling your country the "greatest". Narutolovehinata5 00:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The Soviets under Lenin and Stalin were antinationalist due to promotion of the ideals of the international brotherhood of workers. There was an abrupt change after the nazis invaded though, with Stalin calling on the soldiers to act in defence of Mother Russia. 112.215.36.177 (talk) 00:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure that's a good example. Certain nationalisms were discouraged, while others were carefully channeled and controlled, but Soviet patriotism and blind faith in the leadership of the Soviet Communist party were strongly inculcated. By the way, one feature of Stalin's Soviet Union was that certain passages of Marx, Engels, and Lenin on Tsarist Russian imperialism were not allowed to be printed! (So much for the "complete" edition of Marx's works.) AnonMoos (talk) 00:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

See Russian nationalism and Socialism in One Country. It's the best example of the state rejecting nationalism that you're ever likely to find. 112.215.36.185 (talk) 05:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a good example of rejecting the ethnic nationalism of the largest or most significant ethnic group in a state (though hardly unique -- the Ottoman empire didn't significantly encourage Turkish nationalism in the modern sense until 1908). However, it's a poor example when it comes to rejecting ideas of collective loyalty and loyalty to the leaders of a state (since fervent loyalty to the Soviet Union and the Bolshevik party was highly encouraged). AnonMoos (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I suppose that's a good example of a majority not needing to install its own national patriotism, because it could rely on some sort of 'state patriotism' which would protect its own culture and heritage. In that sense, many countries have discouraged minority patriotism (seen as separatism) and attempted to promote the culture and language of the majority. Examples that come to mind are the many hill tribes in SE Asia, which have been encouraged to adopt a Thai/Lao/Burmese identity (with strong patriotism) instead of their own. Though, of course, there are other countries where the forced assimilation of minorities have taken place, such as with the Sámi of Scandinavia. V85 (talk) 16:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Also relevent is Bourgeois nationalism, which in theory Marxist/communist countries would ascribe to; the idea that nationalism was anti-communist by its nature. The ideal Marxist state was anti-nationalist. Sadly, in practice this worked out very differently. At first, the Soviet Union tried to support world-wide communism by promoting local nationalism in its various constituent republics, see Korenizatsiya. This didn't last long, and instead it proceeded on a policy of Russification. --Jayron32 06:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

In Britain during much of the 1920's and 1930's, there was a strong reaction against the propaganda and jingoistic patriotism of WW1 (contrasted with the meaninglessness of much of the WW1 fighting), so an ostentatious anti-patriotism was fashionable in certain university circles, and it was famously debated at the Oxford Union that they would "in no circumstances fight for... King and Country". Kim Philby came out of this environment. AnonMoos (talk) 00:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

There have been plenty of self-hating countries, Weimar Germany, Vichy France, Britain under the Labour Party (UK). Germany and Japan banned the symbols of their prior regimes after WWII. They no longer sing Deutschland Ueber Alles do they? Although that is due, of course, to the US-lead victory of the allies, the US being, objectively, the greatest country in world history, with no need to prove it. μηδείς (talk) 02:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

They still use the third stanza of the Deutschlandlied as the national anthem, but the first stanza would not be appropriate as the places mentioned no longer form the boundaries of Germany. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The fact that the composer Joseph Haydn was what we today call Austrian, and it was written in honour of the Kaiser of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, has never stopped Germany using any part of the anthem. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 20:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

"Britain under the Labour Party...." ??!! , I think. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, that was probably a response direct to Medeis, but it reads like a response to me. Could you please in future indent it one in from the post to which you're responding, and not one in from the last one in the current thread? It makes for very disjointed reading when you don't make it immediately clear to whom you're talking. Thanks. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 22:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

"The Nation" repeatedly reconfigures itself in relation to perceived or actual deficiencies. Consider, for example, the construction of appropriate German behaviour prior to 1914, prior to 1930, prior to 1945 and prior to 1989. One example to consider is the changes of meaning in "Australianness" in the past 130 years. Previous configurations of Australianness such as the Dutiful Daughter, the Authorised War Larrikin, New Australian-ness, or Multiculturalism come and go. Below them seethes changing ethnic and racial conceptions of the nation. In many cases competing concepts of nationalism contend. In the 1940s through the 1980s the Australian Communist Party championed a nationalist Australian identity, made from a gum leaf harmonica and Eureka stockade (without Lambing Flat riots)—meanwhile the Returned and Services League of Australia commemorated our valiant dead and their noble sacrifice beneath aging posters of Queen Victoria the Second. Very different nationalisms within a single "nation." Were the CPA anti-patriotic because they wanted President Larrikin instead of QEII? Fifelfoo (talk) 02:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Who the hell is Queen Victoria the Second? 87.112.129.180 (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

a) Brainslippage; b) riffing off the RSL's very Australian-As-British worship of QEII. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

United States Population Growth By Region

How come there is much faster population growth in the Western U.S. (plus Texas) and in the Southeastern United States than in the rest of the United States? Not only is this happening right now, but this has consistently been the case since at least the Great Depression and WWII. Futurist110 (talk) 01:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with your timing. It seems to me the decline of the rust belt is a consequence of the US moving from an industrial economy to a service economy, since most industry was in the North Central and North East. On the plus side, global warming may push people back up north, as the South becomes unbearable. StuRat (talk) 03:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Another reason is that recent immigration to the US has been more from tropical areas than the traditional northern European nations, and people tend to move to where the weather is like home. StuRat (talk) 03:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

We have an article Sun Belt... -- AnonMoos (talk) 04:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Air conditioning. --Jayron32 04:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

And insecticide. Neutrality 04:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

See also list of U.S. states by population growth rate, mean center of United States population, and Demographic history of the United States (the latter being a rather terrible article, unfortunately). Neutrality 04:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

In regards to the Sun Belt, the U.S. population growth isn't purely divided along the Sun Belt lines. Utah, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Nevada, and Colorado are above the Sun Belt, yet also grow much faster than the national average. Meanwhile Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Alabama are on the Sun Belt but are growing slower than the national average. As for my timing, it is based on facts, considering that most states in the North, Midwest, and "Interior South" (Southern states which don't border the Atlantic Ocean) experienced their peak number of Representatives in the U.S. House of Representatives in the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, or 1950s. Futurist110 (talk) 06:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Early on, that might be almost solely based on the growth of California, and to a lesser extent in the rest of the West. This was just because those territories were newly opened, by things like the transcontinental railroad, and it takes many decades for an area to reach it's equilibrium population after that. Then, as noted previously, there was movement away from the rust belt (due to deindustrialization) and into most of the South (due to affordable home A/C). The growth of the Hispanic population, mainly in the Southwest, also played a role. StuRat (talk) 19:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

We should also consider the African American migrations which were primarily south to north until about 1970, afterward reversing: Great Migration (African American) (1910–1930), Second Great Migration (African American) (1941–1970) and New Great Migration. Rmhermen (talk) 14:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Why couldn't the Rust Belt more efficiently transform into service/post-industrial economies, though? The Rust Belt still has a lot of room for its population to grow, even right now. The air conditioning thing makes sense, since this made living in the Southeast and Southwest much more tolerable. Also, you're right about the large decrease in European immigration (most of whom moved to the Rust Belt) and the large increase of Asian and Latino immigration (most of whom moved to the West and to a lesser extent to the Southeast). Futurist110 (talk) 22:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Many service jobs are much lower paid than the manufacturing jobs they replaced. And, those that pay well often require years of education, so aren't a good option for somebody already in their 50's when the plant closes. StuRat (talk) 04:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Urban legends or real?

Are these two stories true?A8875 (talk) 03:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Those stories are touching, but not particularly incredible, so I see no reason to doubt them. StuRat (talk) 03:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The bear story reminds me of one of the plots in Le Fabuleux Destin d'Amélie Poulain. —Tamfang (talk) 04:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

We have an article about Sadako Sasaki with links to several related articles. Fred Small also wrote a song about her. 67.117.146.199 (talk) 05:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I want to create a page for a sculptor

My grandfather is a sculptor in Cd. Juarez Mexico who has made several statues for the government in Juarez city, Chihuahua city, El Paso, TX even Chicago.

I'd like to document his work and his life as well as put pictures of his statues. How can I do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.182.167.113 (talk) 03:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

First, read the guidelines to see if your grandfather is notable. If so, you can use WP:YFA or WP:RA to either create the article yourself or ask for someone else to create it. In either case, also read the policy about conflict of interest. In the future, you should ask this sort of question on the help desk at WP:HD RudolfRed (talk) 03:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, Rudy, ever heard of "don't bite the newbies? Conflict of interest? Wow. μηδείς (talk) 03:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see what is biting about my response. I pointed the OP to two resources useful for creating new pages. The OP is related to the subject of the proposed new article, which introduces the possibility of conflict of interest, so I pointed to the relevent page. RudolfRed (talk) 04:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Welcome, prospective editor. You'll need some sort of references, books or periodicals, that mention his work. So long as there are reliable sources that show he is notable you can create an article based on them. You will find doing so easier if you create an account for yourself. Once you have done this, search for his name as you would want it to appear in the Article, say John Q. Public. When you do so, unless we have an article on someone else with the same name, it will offer you the option of creating an article on him. Any instructions you need you will find here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Help:Contents

The only real mistake would be to create an article without any published sources as references. (They can be published on line, but be related to something more than a blog.) If you don't have sources, someone is liable to nominate your work for deletion pretty quickly. If you have further questions, follow the help link I gave. Use the chat option if you want immediate help. This page is for research questions, so ask us if you need us to look something up for you. μηδείς (talk) 03:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, there are still some helpers in "the chat" who will point potential COI editors to the COI link before giving them any other advice. I am not one of those, because it would be tiring (about 95% of new entrants to the chat have a COI.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Bonaly skating video, what is the music?

Thanks. 67.117.146.199 (talk) 04:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Echo Nest says it's Georgopoulus, A. as Arp (2007) "Odyssey (For Bas Jan Ader)" on In Light (San Francisco: Smalltown Supersound), but that can't be right because the video was uploaded in 2006. 70.59.11.32 (talk) 10:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Presidents of the Congress under the Articles of Confederation

Are the Presidents of the Congress under the Articles of Confederation given any respect or acknowledgement anymore and were they ever in the past? It seems like they are largely forgotten. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

They were all very famous at the time, but the presidents of the Congress of the Confederation had absolutely no executive power, and their duties to preside over the congressional assembly were almost always delegated, so they didn't really do anything. It was just a ceremonial role. The colonial speakers were the actual executives until the Constitution was ratified. 70.59.11.32 (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

No, the state governors, and the Congress itself, were the "actual executives" during the Articles of Confederation era. But yes, the president of Congress was not much more than a ceremonial position, a symbolic head of an increasingly unimportant body. No one really wanted the job, some guys turned it down, and my guess is few Americans at the time knew or cared who held the office. To the extent that some of the presidents were famous, they were famous for doing other things. —Kevin Myers 10:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

We should mention that Congress did get around to creating some executive departments. The most important official in the government was not the president, but the Superintendent of Finance of the United States. —Kevin Myers 10:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

U.S. Urbanization Data By State Before 1900 and in 2000-2010

Does anyone have it? Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 11:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

http://www.demographicchartbook.com/Chartbook/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=135&Itemid=142 - This page has pre-1900 and 2000 urbanization data, but I'm not sure what its source for the data is. Futurist110 (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Another possible place to look is http://www.census.gov . They have a wealth of demographic data, directly from the US census. --Jayron32 19:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 06:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Riots in Belgium

How many riots in Belgium dealt with the ethnic minority? because you wikipedians didn't mentioned about a riot regarding the burqa ban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.20.38 (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to the question, but regarding your second sentence, Misplaced Pages is not the news, it is an encyclopedia. Looie496 (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

BBC News is not an encyclopedia either, but still, that didn't mention Belgian riots any place I could see. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Huffington Post mentioned the riots. That actually took me longer than I thought it would. Most of the sources mentioning the riots are blogs of one sort or another. Based on the description given, as well as the paucity of coverage, I am assuming this was more "a few dozen people angrily congregating in front of a police station" and less, you know, rioting. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Even if you want to call it a riot... not every riot is notable. Essentially, if sources don't talk about an event (in some degree of depth), we shouldn't have an article about it. Blueboar (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The Belgian newspaper Le Soir has had quite some coverage of this; for example: this story. However, I suspect that as such things go, it really wasn't that notable. Even the French Misplaced Pages has nothing on riots. Astronaut (talk) 10:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The Daily Mail covered it: . It's their kind of story, though... --Tango (talk) 21:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

If it's some minor riot in Belgium, most Western media outlets, other than those in Belgium, won't be interested in it, compared to all the other stories they get. Belgium media outlets, however, may have reported more on it. --Activism1234 00:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Think and Grow Rich and The Law of Success + The Law of Success In Sixteen Lessons by Napoleon Hill

Hello there, I have already purchased Napoleon Hill's "Think and Grow Rich" and start reading it and the book seems quite impressive to me. I have noticed there are two more books of this writer available in the store (The Law of Success and The Law of Success In Sixteen Lessons). I am thinking to purchase one of them. But I am bit confused about this two book whether they are similar to "Think and Grow Rich" book. If they are then I wouldn't go for them. Has anyone have own / read these books? What are the differences lays in them? Thanks in advance--180.234.114.129 (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has articles "Think and Grow Rich" and "The Law of Success".

—Wavelength (talk) 22:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Books that are popular, well-written, and successful, have a problem - the publisher will force the author to write more books on the same approximate topic, even if the original books covered the topic comprehensively. When deciding whether to buy the subsequent books, one thing you could consider is whether the original books lived up to their promise. Did you get rich? If so, then you will have no problem affording the new book or books. Did you not yet get rich? In that case, I would suggest that buying a possible re-hash of the book that failed to get you rich, is a bad idea. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Dogbert has a word of warning here: ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I recommend "The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better" (the Misplaced Pages article and the book of the same name).

—Wavelength (talk) 00:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I recommend "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" by Ayn Rand. μηδείς (talk) 16:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I recommend "Investment Banking: Valuation, Leveraged Buyouts, and Mergers and Acquisitions." It will help get you started on the path to knowledge that will actually earn your money. It might inspire a career change and the taking of the Series 79 exam. 24.38.31.81 (talk) 13:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

August 7

US Consuls to Tahiti

Dorence Atwater was appointed US Consuls to Tahiti in 1870. Was this a diplomatic gesture to France (having many consuls in French areas of controls) or was it because of a treaty/recognization of the still semi-independent kingdom? Was there ever an American-Tahitian treaty?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

If the US considered it independent, presumably a chargé d'affaires or minister would have been sent, not a consul... AnonMoos (talk) 04:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't fully understand how the consular system worked at that time, but apparently it had more of an economic function than a diplomatic one. In any case it looks like the first U.S. consul to Tahiti was a Belgian named J. A. Moerenhout, appointed Jan. 1835 (oddly he later became the French consul!).--Cam (talk) 23:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Appointing a consul would not meant the same as recognising a country as independent. A country might have an embassy in the capital of a country and several consulates scattered around the country. So, if a country has an embassy in DC and consulates in NY, LA and Houston, that doesn't mean it recognises those places as independent, but that for whatever reason, it is necessary to have some sort of official representation in those places (lots of business going on in those places, or just to make it easier for citizens of their own country to get paperwork, or citizens of the other country to get visas). My guess is that the US at the time view Tahiti as an area of interest where it was necessary to have some sort of official representationwho could deal directly with the local authorities, rather than having communcations having to pass through Paris all the time. V85 (talk) 16:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Paintings by John Cleveley the Younger

These are a set of four Views of the South Seas:

1. View of Huaheine, one of the Society Islands;
2. View of Morea, one of the Friendly Islands;
3. View of Charlotte Sound in New Zealand (sic, actually a view in Matavai Bay, Tahiti);
4. View of Owhyhee, one of the Sandwich Islands (also known as 'The Death of Cook')

My questions are which is which? Which painting is missing here and what does it look like. Also where is "Morea, one of the Friendly Islands", the Friendly Islands was Tonga; it isn't Moorea since that was called "Eimeo" at the time. I am assuming that the third image is 'The Death of Cook' but why does it differ from the other version, also credited to John Cleveley the Younger, File:Deathofcookoriginal.jpg, File:Death of Captain Cook, Alexander Turnbull Library.jpg and File:John Cleveley the Younger, The Death of Cook (1784).jpg; which is the original one?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's a description of the set of four at the time of their auction by Christies in 2004. There's a tiny thumbnail of the missing one. These four watercolours of Matavai Bay in Tahiti, the nearby Morea, Huaheine and Sandwich slands (Hawaii). These are thought to be the original drawings from which a set of prints was published in 1788. The scene of the Sandwich Islands depicts the skirmish that resulted in the death of Captain Cook. However, this watercolour shows Cook trying to defend himself, whereas the subsequent print depicts Cook being attacked from behind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.9.92 (talk) 09:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the original Christies listing, compare lots 35, 40 and 41. You may have images of J. Martyn's aquatints, not Cleveley's originals? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.9.92 (talk) 09:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

And The Independent, reporting on the sale, explains why the Death of Cook is different: it shows what actually happened, from Cleveley's brother's original sketch (Cook fought the Hawaiians). Martyn and other aquatinters revised the image to show the "official" version (Cook tried to make peace).

Dozens of aquatints produced after his death in 1779 show Cook acting the peace-maker...this image of Cook became the authorised version of his death... But a painting by John Cleveley, on which the etchings were based, exposes another version...Cleveley died in 1786 and by the time his four watercolours were turned into aquatints by John Martyn two years later, the changes to the scene had been made... Clevely's previously unknown work makes clear that 18th-century engravers deployed the art of spin to boost sales...Nobody had known until now that the Martyn set of aquatints, called Views in the South Seas , were so clearly an act of historical revisionism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.9.92 (talk) 09:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

United Kingdom Government

There has always been a discussion about the monarchy in the UK. One of the Royalist arguments is to say that a monarch, as the permanent (ceremonial) head of state, is more experienced than a temporary elected one (and saves a small fortune on not having to organise and facilitate elections). If the head of state is ceremonial then couldn't they just do away with monarchy altogether, and just continue, unceremoniously, as they already do? — Fly by Night (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

You'd likely be interested in Republicanism in the United Kingdom. Dismas| 01:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

"Couldn't they just do away with monarchy altogether, and just continue, unceremoniously, as they already do?" Yes. μηδείς (talk) 02:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

And if they died, what then? Who would succeed them? The point of a monarchy is that the succession is a matter of fact rather than election: this in itself removes uncertainty, promotes stability, and facilitates the transfer of experience. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

"They" who? I don't think FbN was proposing an elected ceremonial head of state, but rather dispensing with a ceremonial head of state altogether.

This is one of my issues as well. Constitutional royalists often respond to cost questions by saying that, if you didn't have the monarch, you'd still need a head of state. But do you, really? Why is a head of state necessary at all? --Trovatore (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The way international relations work, you do need a head of state. You could just have the Prime Minister as head of state, though. --Tango (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Why? The Queen doesn't really do anything as regards international relations. She is toasted, she shows up, people are introduced to her. None of that is in any obvious way essential to conducting international relations. People seem to assume it is, but I have never seen any good reason given for it. Do you have an example where it has been tried and failed? --Trovatore (talk) 20:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Diplomacy is all about protocol and tradition. It's part of how you show respect to a country. When a foreign head of state comes to the UK on a state visit, they expect to be hosted by the the British head of state, for instance. It's really just a name, though. You could call the Prime Minister head of state and that ought to work just fine for diplomatic purposes. --Tango (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you really think, if the UK (UR?) were to decide to just dispense with all this protocol and tradition, other countries would want to stop interacting with it? --Trovatore (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

That's no argument for change. Every country has its protocols and traditions, almost none of which are strictly necessary for the continuation of the country, or life on the planet. They are part of the set of things that make other countries interesting, and people have a funny habit of being interested in things that are interesting and different, but not particularly interested in things that are the same as what they're familiar with. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 00:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

But I wasn't making an argument for change. I was attempting to refute an argument I've heard against it, another matter entirely. --Trovatore (talk) 01:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It sure read like an argument for change to me: Why is a head of state necessary at all?. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 01:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The argument I'm attempting to refute says that the monarchy is not a waste of money, because in any case a head of state is necessary and money would have to be spent on one. I am questioning the underlying assumption that a head of state is necessary. Now, even if a head of state is not necessary, there is a possible argument for having one along the lines you bring up, but that is a separate argument from the one that says a head of state is necessary. --Trovatore (talk) 01:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Consider just one aspect; the right to grant pardons. In the US, pardons are given freely to the highest bidder, especially if the criminal in question is of the same party as the governor or president, who happens to be retiring. In the UK, that type of corruption doesn't happen, because the Queen has plenty of money, so has no reason to risk the scandal, which could ultimately result in the monarchy being dissolved. StuRat (talk) 04:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Like most actions of the monarchy, royal pardons are done "on the advice of a government minister" (Pardon#United Kingdom) and the Queen would never normally refuse, so the existing system could easily be modified by giving the Home Secretary or Justice Secretary the formal right to pardon. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Then he would sell pardons to whoever contributes the most to his party, as in the US. If he recommends pardons to the Queen based on such bribery, however, and she gets wind of it, she would refuse to grant them, and he would be disgraced. It's an extra level of safety. Hopefully she would also be suspicious if an outgoing minister suddenly submits hundreds of pardon requests (since he will soon be beyond caring about voter contempt). StuRat (talk) 09:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

He would, Stu? Really. You are wildly and baselessly speculating, something we don't engage in on the ref desks. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 11:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The question of why any system of government is used requires thinking of possible ways that governments have failed, and can fail again, so we can then determine if the system in question is more or less likely to have the same failings. StuRat (talk) 11:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

As Colapeninsula mentioned, the Queen pretty much never acts against ministerial advice. Technically, she could, but it would be a major constitutional crisis and it is generally assumed that she would lose whatever reserve power she had used in the aftermath. She's unlikely to intervene in that way to prevent corruption and would just leave it to the justice system to deal with (selling pardons is illegal - if the minister tried to pardon themselves from the corruption charges, that is where the Queen might step in!). --Tango (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Can the Queen just delay granting iffy pardons until an investigation is concluded ? StuRat (talk) 20:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

If advised to by her ministers, yes. Otherwise, no, not in practice. --Tango (talk) 21:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

She wouldn't lose power if the decision (to act against ministerial advice) had popular support. This is one function of the monarchy: as a backup system against the unlikely event that the elected government is utterly corrupt. See Thailand.  Card Zero  (talk) 22:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

She probably wouldn't lose her position, but using her reserve powers like that would draw attention to them and people will generally be uncomfortable with her having that kind of power. One of the main reasons the UK has never got rid of its monarchy is because we really don't care all that much. It would be a lot of work and we don't really see any harm in just letting things carry on the way they are. There are a small number of strong supporters of the monarchy and a small number of ardent republicans, and the rest of the population doesn't have a strong enough opinion to really do anything about it. The Queen overruling elected officials, even in a beneficial way, would force the argument and the result would probably be to at least remove the power she used. --Tango (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Stu, have monarchs historically refused to create peerages (etc) that were motivated by donations to the party in power? —Tamfang (talk) 00:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

No. The Queen didn't play any significant role in the cash for honours scandal. --Tango (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The crux of the debate is that we, the people of the United Kingdom, rather like things the way they are, thank you very much. Yes, we could do without them, but we'd rather not. Alansplodge (talk) 10:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd like change. You speak for yourself, not the 'people of the United Kingdom'.Dalliance (talk) 12:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Apologies if that sounded a bit pompous; what I meant was that the Constitutional Monarchy continues by the grace of Parliament, which represents (however poorly) the collective will of the people of the United Kingdom. If and when a reasonable majority come around to your way of thinking, then the time for change will have arrived. Alansplodge (talk) 19:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Granted that this seems to be a theoretical question (can the UK become a republic?) rather than one of likelihood (is the UK likely to become a republic?) or procedure (what would it require for the UK to become a republic?), the simple answer is, of course, yes: the UK could indeed become a republic if the necessary legal changes were made, much in the same way that the Supreme Court was made a separate entity from the House of Lords.

However, I don't think that it's likely, at least not anytime soon (let's come back to that one when King Charles III has been crowned), for two reasons: firstly, the Monarch would have to be written out of all legislation and whoever holds the actual power would have to be written in, instead. Secondly, when I read the OP, I got hung up on the formula 'just continue, unceremoniously, as they already do?', which seems to show a lack of understanding for how British society works. The British do not do things unceremoniously, they do them with all the pomp and circumstance that they can muster. V85 (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

You wouldn't need to rewrite legislation like that, you just have to pass one piece of new legislation that says all references to the monarch in existing legislation should now be interpreted as references to whatever replaces them. References to the monarch are fairly rare, anyway, outside of Acts specifically pertaining to the monarchy (which would probably just need to be repealed). --Tango (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Medeis answered this question. This question was put intending to cause debate and seek opinions, rather than to seek answers and references adequately. This question has been repeatedly asked and answered as demonstrable from the archives. The history of parliamentary supremacy is reasonably well known in the British constitution just as well known as the failure of potential Commonwealth forces in supraparliamentary movements like the Chartists or the disinclination for the UK Labour party to take republican stances. Can we all now go and read the archives; for this is as tiresome as a question seeking debate on abortion politics, US firearms law, or the moral deficiency of the Australian. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Arcadia, South Sea Islands

Where is Arcadia, South Sea Islands?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

In some Nicholas Chevalier admirer's art collection?. The only other Arcadia with any connection to the South Seas I can find is MV Arcadia, which will be sailing there in 2013. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Is it made up? Or is it an archaic European name for a South Sea Island?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Chevalier was just using "Arcadia" in its extended sense of "an idyllic place". As the text at Clarityfiend's link states, the actual setting was Opunohu Bay on Moorea. Deor (talk) 10:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

See also Et in Arcadia ego. I'm not sure the article is brilliantly done, currently, as to my mind, it seems to bury the information about the phrase while explaining the paintings' contents and significance. Might need to split the article. --Dweller (talk) 09:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

list of marriages of famous people which took place in a particular year

Looking for names of famous personalities who got married in a particular year say 1949 (my current interest). Appreciate any help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.111.228.20 (talk) 06:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course the Internet has a "Celebrity Weddings Archive"! There are 160 listed for 1949 there. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Buddhism, meditation and illusion

When Buddhists say meditation is good against daydreaming, do they imply daydreaming is bad for you? And, assuming they imply that, do they say that because daydreaming is just an illusion? And, how do Buddhists view things like prestige? Is that also just an illusion? Budddhhha (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

See Buddhist meditation, satipatthana, and mindfulness. Neutrality 18:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

They do not explicitly say daydreaming is bad, or that the prestige that you get from, as an example, being fashionable is just an illusion that has to be avoided. I've already read similar articles, but it's difficult to find concrete information. Budddhhha (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

If you daydream you are not living in the present, fully experiencing what it is to be human now. That is what Mindfulness is about. (I doubt whether a Buddhist would say anything is bad, actually. I think what they'd probably say is that it keeps you from doing something which is better for you.) Prestige I think they view as a diversion from the pursuit of nirvana. Having a status in the eyes of others is irrelevant really. What is relevant is the achievment of nirvana and the Eightfold Path. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

How many of the world's technological advancements have come from Buddhists? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

If that's a serious question, Bugs, it should have its own section. μηδείς (talk) 02:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Paper, gunpowder, rocketry...you know, nothing special. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Daydreaming is "outside the box" thinking, and if someone really opposes that concept, I don't see how they could invent anything. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

According to the Gunpowder article, it was invented by Chinese warriors. Buddhist warriors??? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Kind of like how the atom bomb was invented by Judaism? μηδείς (talk) 04:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The Jews invented it after all? I always though the atomic bombs were just a Jewish hoax. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

"Daydreaming is "outside the box" thinking" sure, and jaywalking ought to be confessed before the community of Christ as a sin. You're projecting quite badly here, and could probably do with closer reading of articles surrounding mindfulness. Many, if not most, practising Buddhists are aware of the idea of mindfulness and mindful action in the world. Daydreaming is a typical act which is unmindful, it is a thought process occurring to an individual and catching them up in their attachment to the contents of the though process. Given that some strands of Buddhism spend a great deal of time thinking about the way the mind works on the basis of its observed workings, and, given that a significant number of Buddhist practices encourage mind states involving "outside the box" thinking—even if only in a pedagogical context—I'm not exactly seeing your point Bugs. Finally, given that a large part of day dreaming appears to be a result of a process lying prior to the mind, in external reality, it is hard to prevent a mind from wandering because this is the nature of the mind—but it is possible for some people to do so "mindfully," and without "attachment" to the desiring nature of having your mind wander. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

August 8

Oceania

The Misplaced Pages page of Oceania says that there are different opinions on which areas of the world are part of Oceania.

1) What is the reason for these different opinions? It seems odd to me - geographical areas should be an agreed, set thing, it isn't exactly a dispute over differing scientific theories. 2) What do most people, in modern-day every-day usage, refer to when they say Oceania?

I find it to be particularly problematic when nation-wide tests will ask a question about Oceania, for example on a history test, because there are different opinions on what exactly Oceania is.

Thanks.

--Activism1234 00:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Continents are a matter of convention, shaped by cultural and historical influences. Oceania is not only the only continent subject to different definitions. Boundaries between continents lists several others. OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Oceania is not really a "continent" — I know that word is sometimes used, but it's imprecise. The relevant continent is called Australia and does not include New Zealand, which is made up of volcanic rather than continental islands. --Trovatore (talk) 02:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... Interesting... But still, if I said "Africa" people would know what and where I'm referring to. If I say Oceania, where would I be referring to (meaning, what's the most commonly accepted definition?) Thanks. --Activism1234 00:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

People will get the general idea of "Africa" or "Oceania". The only problem is on the boundaries and islands of both continents. OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

If you have a nationwide test which uses a certain convention, you need to use an educational curriculum which uses the same definition. Even if the differences are a bit arbitrary, just use the same convention the test-writers used. It doesn't pay to argue with a test. It can't argue back. --Jayron32 00:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Well I'm a bit above the age of taking tests, my question was hypothetical, but your response is very true. --Activism1234 00:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

For 1), the lead in our maritime boundary points out several potential causes behind geographical areas boundary dispute: A maritime boundary is a conceptual division of the Earth's water surface areas using physiographic and/or geopolitical criteria. As such, it usually includes areas of exclusive national rights over mineral and biological resources. Sometimes it's national pride, but Fishing zones + potential oil extraction sites are especially problematic - see List_of_territorial_disputes and especially Territorial disputes in the South China Sea. Royor (talk) 01:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting. Will check it out. --Activism1234 02:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Concepts are tools, and how they are used depends on the context. There are circumstances under which the Arabian plate is seen as part of the African continent, so even "Africa" is not so well defined. See Sahul, Zealandia, and the Geography of New Caledonia for some interesting facts. My experience with "Oceania" is that it is a convenient term for encyclopedists when they want to refer to what is left over after the look at the Old World, The Americas, and Antarctica. μηδείς (talk) 02:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Nazi plans for the occupation of the US

In the Ken Burns series The War, Episode 6, The Ghost Front, near the start, a former US soldier stated that a captured German claimed that he had been trained for the administration of captured US mainland territories:

1) Did such training occur ?

2) Do we have an article on it ? StuRat (talk) 01:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

We have an article that goes into detail on Axis operations in North American during WWII, as well as plans for the same that never saw fruition. There is no mention of a planned occupation, however: American Theater (1939–1945). I also looked through our categories on cancelled German military operations of WWII, and didn't see anything of the like. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure, but almost positive that Hitler planned to conquer America at some point. --Activism1234 01:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I completely believe that, and we do have Category:Cancelled military operations involving Germany as well as the more general Category:Cancelled_invasions, whose contents are mostly from WWII. But I have a suspicion that the occupation of the United States was more of a pipe dream for Hitler than anything else. There were certainly efforts to get spies and saboteurs on the American mainland, and plans for military attacks, as well as rampant speculation of an future Nazi invasion, but I find no solid sources that any such plan moved beyond the imaginary. Maybe someone will show me something that really should be on Misplaced Pages. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I don't think he got anything ready before he died, since he was busy in the east/west Europe front, but I don't think it's disputed he did intend on eventually conquering America. Indeed, see New Order (Nazism), which describes Hitler's plans to bring Nazism to the entire world. --Activism1234 02:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I fixed your link. StuRat (talk) 03:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

So the implication of the documentary was incorrect ? StuRat (talk) 03:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I completely believe that a US soldier claimed that a German soldier said he was trained for such an operation. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

But one of the two must have been lying, right ? StuRat (talk) 03:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Allegedly, after the Navy Seals killed Osama bin Laden, it became very popular for douchey men at bars to claim they were seals to make themselves look macho. It wouldn't surprise me if POWs did much the same thing, especially the comparatively well treated ones held by US soldiers. The German soldier could also have just been trolling. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I have a question--if Nazi Germany wanted to occupy the entire U.S., how exactly were they planning to deal with the massive resistance that would follow afterwards? Also, I seriously doubt that Nazi Germany would have been able to cross the Atlantic in large numbers AND build a nuke before the U.S. built some nukes of its own. Futurist110 (talk) 05:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, any plans to invade the US would have been foolish, but that doesn't mean they didn't make them anyway. After all, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was just as foolish, since they had almost no chance of winning, based on industrial capacity, but they went ahead with that plan anyway. As for how the Nazis would deal with resistance, their usual pattern was massive reprisals against civilians. As for nukes, the Nazis didn't know how quickly the US program was progressing. StuRat (talk) 05:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The Japanese proved to be tough fighters. In many battles with the Japanese, far too many American soldiers were killed, for the reason that Japanese soldiers in WWII fought to the very last man, and even the last man kept on fighting. That was one of the factors in the decision-making of whether to launch a nuke on Japan. Launch a nuke and kill thousands, or invade and lose thousands of soldiers?

The Nazis as well would likely have attempted a form of blitzkrieg which they did across Europe, with a possible Battle of London style bombings taking place beforehand. I doubt they would've been able to conquer America in 1945, but given enough time and strength, it's possible they may have been able to in the future. That's not a future I would want to live in.

If their own citizens (especially white ones) are killed Americans tend to get extremely angry and go out of control. And didn't the Nazis have spies in the U.S. to determine the pace of the U.S.'s nuclear program? Futurist110 (talk) 05:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Fighting to the death isn't always the best military strategy. If outnumbered and about to be surrounded and wiped out, if often makes military sense to retreat to a more defensible position, where your forces will be more effective. Force preservation is important even if you have an inexhaustible supply of trained soldiers (which the Japanese did not), in that the equipment the retreating soldiers carry with them and prevent from being captured may also be critical to winning future battles. StuRat (talk) 20:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

In a recent movie about the Japanese Army "Letters from Iwo Jima," the Japanese soldiers in a bunker killed themselves with hand grenades, which is hardly "fighting to the last man." If they had run down the mountain toward the Allied soldiers and THROWN that same hand grenade, then made a bayonet assault, that would have been "fighting." In some cases, on other islands there were such forlorn hope human wave assaults. Edison (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It's tougher to provide resistance when you're locked inside a ghetto with fierce guards and forced to toil because you're not an Aryan, or under strict military control with soldiers who don't mind to shoot you, even if you're a child, on spot, or send you to a gas chamber, or a death camp. See Warsaw Rebellion, one of the few rebellions in concentration camps, which ultimately failed and ended up with everyone being killed. --Activism1234 23:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, if I was with the resistance, I wouldn't attack, knowing it would get everyone in town massacred. What I'd do, instead, is stockpile weapons and bide my time, until when they were too weak to retaliate (maybe due to a counter-offensive, maybe due to a power struggle within the Nazi Party, etc.) StuRat (talk) 06:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not aware of the Nazis having any real idea how well the Manhattan project was coming along. The Soviets did, for sure, and even had the blueprints for the bomb. We have a section on it at Manhattan_project#Espionage. The German attempts to infiltrate the project is barely a blip its history. Coincidentally, the Soviet spy that penetrated the project was born in Germany. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

A lot of this reads rather like American Exceptionalism to me. If their own citizens (especially white ones) are killed Americans tend to get extremely angry and go out of control? Please. Do you genuinely think that people in other countries don't mind their citizens being killed?

The Nazis had various unpleasant methods to quell resistance in occupied territories – read Harry Turtledove's short story The Last Article for a counterfactual look at a Nazi occupation of India to see some of the methods they might have used on the conquered Americans. 87.112.129.180 (talk) 19:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

And racist exceptionalism, to boot. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 20:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, the racist part is right. When a cute white girl goes missing or is killed it's national news here, but not when it's a black girl. StuRat (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Careful, Missing white woman syndrome is generally not considered unique to the US so you risk more American Exceptionalism. Nil Einne (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm no expert on Nazi Germany and its "plans", but I understand that the dominance of the Third Reich was meant to last for 1000 years, or some equally silly, very long time. It's virtually a certainty that some folks with that belief structure would have felt that taking over every country in the world was simply a matter of time (within that "very long time"). So yes, there would have been "plans" to invade and occupy the US (along with everywhere else) in some peoples' heads, but they probably weren't very detailed, nor possibly even written down, nor would they been intended for implementation in late 1945. HiLo48 (talk) 20:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Training people to administer the occupied US territories implies that they thought they could conquer the US far sooner (certainly within the lives of the people they were training, but probably in the 5-10 year zone, since, if it was going to take longer than that, they could use those people in the war effort early on and train them later). StuRat (talk) 20:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

We have an article on the equally silly Kaiser Bill's plan to invade the US called Operational Plan Three. A recent reprint of some maps from a 1942 issue of Life Magazine seem to represent how the US imagined that it might be invaded, or more likely what the US Government imagined would make the war effort seem more urgent to tthe folks at home. This page apparently reproduces a Misplaced Pages article called Axis plans for invasion of the United States during WWII which seems to have been deleted. This forum discusses an entry in the Goebbels Diaries, suggesting that weapons and equipment might have been manufactured by secret factories in Mexico, so that only personel needed to be moved across the Atlantic. Alansplodge (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The deleted articles only sources were a history channel program and various German plans to conduct long-range bombing raids on U.S. targets. Rmhermen (talk) 17:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

If we're extending this to the WW1 period, then the Zimmermann Telegram is by far the most famous... AnonMoos (talk) 01:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Any plausible invasion of the USA by Germany during the Second World War, would first have required that Germany conquer the fifty-first state. After German defeat in the Battle of Britain in 1940 before the USA even entered the war, such conquest was pretty much impossible. Of course, this wouldn't have stopped a few small units still carrying out planning or training, for morale or deception purposes. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I doubt if the Nazis planned for WWII to end when (and how) it did. HiLo48 (talk) 23:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Well indeed - they invaded Poland in 1939 in the hope that Britain and France didn't really intend to do much about it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Why Are Druze Much More Patriotic Than Other Israeli Arabs?

Some Druze even vote for Likud and Yisrael Beitenu, despite the latter's anti-Arab platform and the former's desire to keep all of Jerusalem united under Israeli control. My question is--why? Futurist110 (talk) 05:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Becouse they not consider themseves Arab or Muslims.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 06:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The Druze have traditionally been somewhat less permeated by Arab nationalist sentiments than either Arab Muslims and Arab Christians, and they certainly do not have the same attitude of historical entitlement ("We should be the rulers!") that Muslims do, so many decades ago they made a pragmatic decision to serve in the Israeli army, and reap the corresponding benefits... AnonMoos (talk) 06:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The Druze, being a minority, might fear that they would be mistreated in a Palestinian state. Similar logic applies in Syria, where ethnic and religious minorities have supported the current regime, because they fear how they might be treated under a new regime (of course, this logic changes once they believe the current regime will soon collapse). StuRat (talk) 06:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Druze were Arabs. This is like how I am partially ethnically Jewish even if I do not want to be. Also, Druze consider themselves to be "an Islamic Unist, reformatory sect", which implies that they consider themselves to be Muslims. If Druze are afraid of being mistreated in a Palestinian state, then why is there not such a large support for Israel among Arab Christians in Israel and Palestine? Also, why exactly was Arab nationalism less popular among the Druze than among other Arabs? Futurist110 (talk) 06:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

While Christians are a minority in Israel, they are a far larger group, overall, than the Druze, so may feel they would be protected by other nations, should Israel collapse. StuRat (talk) 06:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Christian countries sure haven't done much protecting of Christian minorities in Muslim countries lately, such as the Copts in Egypt. Futurist110 (talk) 07:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Are they being systematically massacred ? StuRat (talk) 07:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

No but I haven't read of any countries systematically massacring or wanting to massacre Druze either. Futurist110 (talk) 08:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

As to why Druze have been less influenced by Arab nationalist ideologies, I would assume it's because many of the special factors which made Christians and Muslims nationalistic didn't apply to the Druze. In particular, Christians were more likely to be literate town-dwellers, and to be influenced by European modernism and nationalisms, and felt pressure to prove themselves to be just as patriotically Arab as were Muslims. So many of the early theorists of Arab nationalism (Antonious, Aflaq, etc.) were Christians. Muslim Arabs resented Ottoman Turkish rule, and remembered the glorious history of the early Arab Caliphates, and felt that as Arab Muslims they had a natural right to rule. All this would have been less relevant to the Druze, who tended to keep to themselves to some degree... AnonMoos (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Our excellent article on the Druze shows that they have experienced periodic persecution from what could be described as the more mainstream branches of Islam since the eleventh century. The article also says, "the Druze religion doesn't endorse separatist sentiments, urging the Druze to blend with the communities they reside in". --Dweller (talk) 08:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

What exactly is it that the OP means by the Druze being more "patriotic" than other Israeli Arabs in this scenario? Could the OP give some examples? --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Serving in the Israeli army, being members of some right-wing Israeli political parties, etc. For example, a recent terrorist attack from the Egyptian border was thwarted a few days ago, and a Bedouin Reconnaisance Unit in the Israeli army were crucial for this. Bedouins are excellent in the army for border control, as they know the desert very well and are great hunters and trackers. --Activism1234 14:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

But how does that make them more patriotic than others not doing this? --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how personally patriotic Druze or bedouins feel towards Israel, but as communities, they've been able to make pragmatic decisions which have brought them some practical benefits -- whereas Muslim and Christian peasants and town-dwellers are much more likely to be motivated by abstract rigid inflexible ideologies, and so make decisions on a maximalist "100% of what we want or nothing" or "the best is the enemy of the good" basis (and Muslims in particular are likely to have a burning sense that the world owes them sovereign authority, and that Muslims ruling over non-Muslims is the natural state of affairs, while non-Muslims ruling over Muslims is a grievous insult which must be avenged). Frankly, abstract maximalist and rejectionist ideologies have been the curse of Arabs in the Palestine area for at least the last 65 years, and those subgroups which have been least motivated by such ideologies have come out the best... AnonMoos (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure I agree with you on your characterisation of Muslims, but I do appreciate your interpretation of the special characteristics of the Druze regarding this question, it does make it more clear and seems to be a good answer to the original question. I think patriotism is a questionable term to use at random without any kind of specific definition to go with it, and of course it is a very loaded term that is also extremely subjective (one mans terrorism is another mans patriotism and vice versa). --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Quite. Basically, since the inception of the state, the existing differences between the Druze & others have been used to divide & rule, in a very common pattern. In this conflict, as usual, the abstract rigid inflexible maximalist rejectionist ideology is generally not - or at the very least not solely or predominantly - the province of the ruled & occupied side.John Z (talk) 20:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Yet during the British Mandate period, the Yishuv leadership were experts at obtaining incremental practical short-term gains to help consolidate their long-term strength, and not letting fantasy daydreams get in the way of the immediate pragmatic needs of the moment. AnonMoos (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Saddhiyama, the examples make them patriotic because it shows that Arab Bedouins are more than willing to serve in the Israeli army and thwart terrorist attacks, thus recognizing that Israel is their country and taking the voluntary decision to serve that country. They are not required to serve in the Israeli army, unlike other citizens of Israel (since they're Arabs, and it's given that most Arabs would object), who are required. Rather, many of them volunteer to do so, feeling that they owe something to the state. The Bedouins are content with their nomadic lifestyle and are free to practice it. Compare this with other Arab citizens, very few of which serve in the Israeli army, and most of which serve secretly out of fear that members of their community would attack them. In the Bedouin community, there is no such fear. Perhaps best way to explain this is to watch this YouTube video of a short interview with a Bedouin soldier and his father, to see their perspective. Hope it helps. --Activism1234 23:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, there are so many variables in your post subject to discussion, but I am going to let it slide, because it will only play into the hands of the OP, who is obviously a ref desk troll, and I am going to stop feeding him. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The OP is a good editor whose using the ref desk in good faith, which should be encouraged, although I find that his posts are questions that can be done on talk pages that experienced editors know, as most editors here aren't going to be able to answer these questions which are typically on the same topic, and would prefer if that could be taken to talk pages (I'd be willing myself)... --Activism1234 01:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a troll, but if someone gets emotional or upset when I mention Israel or another topic, then I apologize, but all the topics that I post about are legitimate subjects of discussion. Futurist110 (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

You're certainly not a troll, but a lot of your legitimate posts have made the ref desk into a mini-Guardian newspaper, in which one small country the size of New Jersey receives disproportionate coverage nearly every day from all other topics. You understand what I'm mean? There's nothing wrong, it's just awkward and it will mainly be the same people who will answer them. --Activism1234 21:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you mean. I'll try talking somewhat less about Israel and somewhat more about other countries from now on. For the record, though, some of my past posts do discuss other countries, such as the U.S., the U.S.S.R., Finland, Burma, Pakistan, Iraq, and other countries. Futurist110 (talk) 22:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm entering this discussion late (after an unannounced Wikibreak) to make a few considered remarks on the information proffered above. No doubt all participants wrote to the best of their knowledge and in good faith. My concern is that it be understood that a lengthy exchange of remarks here is no substitute for seeking out and reading authoritative sources on the topic. Bear in mind that a WP page is only as good as its contributors use of verifiable content, and that any source provides only partial information - in both senses (i.e. incomplete and/or biased). Here are some statements which I believe are valid, pertaining to - and in some points contradicting - what's been written above:

• Druze is the religion of an Arab people. Druze do not marry outside the faith and so have the identity of an ethnic/cultural community.
• Druze are loyal to the government of the country they live in, which may obligate them for military conscription.
• A law-abiding citizen's military service and voting behavior do not necessarily indicate a motive of "patriotism".
• Bedouins in the north of Israel live in villages and towns.
• Military service by Israeli Bedouins is by no means widely accepted in that community.

Sources supporting these statements might be found in the Israeli print media and their electronic editions accessible on the Web. These are produced by journalists practicing their profession by accepted standards, though inclusion or exclusion of content is necessarily determined by their employers' editorial policies. Some relevant information would be kept, and possibly published, by the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, some might be classified for reasons of security. With all due respect, there are some things current inhabitants of Israel are likely to know better about their own communities and their neighbors, than would those who only (or never) visit, but original (primary) research is inadmissable for WP mainspace page content. So while I hope what gets shared here is reliable, I remind us all to bear the caveats in mind and take responsibility for verifying information as we acquire knowledge. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Kaliningrad Oblast

What benefit does Russia get from Kaliningrad Oblast? Why haven't they sold it to Poland or Lithuania? --108.227.27.111 (talk) 05:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Your second question seems to assume that any bit of land that is not contiguous with the main geographical part of the country is of no interest to them. Why hasn't the USA sold Alaska to Canada or Russia? Countries do not just give up bits of themselves like that. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 06:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It could be a year-round naval port, for one thing. And Lithuania is poor. Indeed, would Poland or Lithuania be interested? Surely some Germans would, but other Germans would be repelled. But let's suppose that nation X wants Kaliningrad. (China or Saudi Arabia could afford it, and might find some use for it.) Yes, common sense says that if (say) Argentina is so keen on (re) acquiring the Malvinas, it should just make an offer for them. But common sense and national dignity clash. (NB national dignity, or anyway his notion of it, seems to be of particular importance to Putin.) Also, the inhabitants of the Malvinas consider themselves British and not Argentinian, and the inhabitants of Kaliningrad consider themselves Russian, even though the EU may beckon. ¶ NB this is all just off the top of my head. -- Hoary (talk) 06:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

What does NB mean? Also, I agree with everything you wrote, and I also want to point out that Kaliningrad is a large city (not some small rural area) and thus it has important economic (and strategic) value for Russia. Also, considering that most (or a very large part) of the Soviet casualties during WWII were Russian (Russia formed a majority of the U.S.S.R.'s population at the time), many Russians even today feel that Kaliningrad is their compensation from Germany for being forced to endure so many casualties and damage during WWII. Futurist110 (talk) 06:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Nota bene, or "note well". (Or New Brunswick, but that might not apply here.) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 08:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

See Nota bene, which includes a link through to the Wiktionary article. --Dweller (talk) 08:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Russia's need for a year-round warm water port was a huge concern for the country in the 18th and 19th centuries, but with improvements in shipping technology and operations, and the building of the trans-sib, that's not such a concern any more. If it had to, Russia could operate its commercial and military shipping from Murmansk, Archangel, and Vladivostok alone. St Petersburg's ports (incl. Ust-Luga and Vyborg) are iced about 40 days / year, and can still be operated with icebreakers (with only occasional major closures). To the extent that it still has a blue-water capability, the Russian Navy's fleet is centred around Kola Bay and to a lesser extent Vladivostok - the Russian Navy doesn't harbour (sic) any fantasy about maintaining a strategic ocean-going presence from enclosed seas like the Baltic and Black Sea. But, while not being strategically or economically vital, Kaliningrad is still a major port and a major economic asset. Between them the Baltic ports handle the majority of Russia's shipping, of which the St Petersburg ports seem to get the lion's share, but Kaliningrad's traffic is growing. The Port of Kaliningrad is hooked up to the Russian railway and pipeline networks, which means its convenient for the Russians to use, and the transit fees they pay to the Baltic states are a nice earner for them. So (tl;dr) Kaliningrad is not strategically necessary, but it's nice for Russia to have, and profitable to run. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 11:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The article Kaliningrad says "Kaliningrad is the only Russian Baltic Sea port that is ice-free all year round and hence plays an important role in maintenance of the Baltic Fleet". --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Its primary benefit is military in nature — even more so now that the Warsaw Pact is kaput. Having a forward outpost on the Western front is highly advantageous to Russia; giving it up for a cash settlement would be a bad idea even if the Russians were not flush (which they are, at the moment). --Mr.98 (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

But, as I said at the outset, the notion of a nation just selling off bits of itself is wrong-headed. We don't ever need to find reasons to justify why Russia has NOT sold Kaliningrad. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 19:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, we are not just talking about giving up parts of your territory but selling it (Mr.98 in particularly noted cash settlement and Russia being flush). Although it's very rare nowadays, it wasn't unheard of in the past with colonialism etc, to sell some of your territory when you were desperate for cash, particularly if you thought someone was just going to take it anyway. E.g. speaking of Alaska and Russia; Alaska Purchase. Nil Einne (talk) 20:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The world has moved on a pace since then. And we should too. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 20:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

But 'moving on' doesn't mean we can't consider what things would be like if it were different. There's nothing wrong with pointing out to the OP their basic misconception, but there's also nothing wrong with explaining even if their misconception wasn't a misconception, their suggestion still made little sense. Also, we have no idea how the world would change in the future so there's even less reason why people shouldn't give the question are more thorough analysis rather then saying people aren't allowed to because someone already pointed out one flaw in the premise. Nil Einne (talk) 21:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that up above in the rules we explicitly ask people not to ask questions that would involve us engaging in hypothetical discussions. Apparently we regulars are permitted to initiate such hypotheticals ourselves, but outsiders can't initiate them. Worst double standard I've ever seen. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 10:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course, this ignores the part where we ask why the Russians that live in Kaliningrad would be keen on suddenly being abandoned/sold off by Moscow to some foreign power to which it has no connection. True, it had been a German territory in the past, but the Germans were driven out after World War II, and it's been an almost entirely Russian territory since then. There are a few smatterings of ethnic minorities there (I believe a small number of Volga Germans were relocated there at some point), but it is basically as Russian as Moscow or St. Petersburg today. Russia has LOTS of territories which aren't very convenient to hold on to, which is still does (i.e. Chechnya), why it would want to get rid of a loyal, peaceful, productive territory which is populated mostly by ethnic Russians is completely silly. --Jayron32 01:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, has Kaliningrad's isolation provided it any protection against the mafia infiltration that has so blighted the rest of Russia? Wnt (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

do all humans have synesthesia?

like if there is an food flavoring that is clear but tastes like orange, and you put an equal small-ish amount in two glasses of water, but in the second you also put orange food coloring that has no taste - then will people actually "taste" the second glass as having more orange taste? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.3.160.86 (talk) 10:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

not asking what they would say about it - just whether it ACTUALLY "tastes" more ornage-y. (becaues the raw input from taste is mixed with visual cues or knowledge to come up with "sense of taste"). here is another example of two sense affecting each other. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0 . --84.3.160.86 (talk) 10:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Have no idea what the experimental results of the test you proposed in your question would be, but I'm not sure that this would really test for synesthesia as such. When I was younger, I had an association between letters of the alphabet or numerical digits and colors -- not activated when I read words and numbers in context, but only when I considered isolated symbols in the abstract -- and this seems to be more what synesthesia in the classic sense is (though a very mild case)... -- AnonMoos (talk) 11:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I see from our article Synesthesia that that's "Grapheme → color synesthesia" (though I didn't actually see letters or numbers on a printed page as being colored -- only when I contemplated them in my mind's eye with eyes closed). AnonMoos (talk) 11:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The bouba/kiki effect suggests that almost everyone has at least some degree of "synesthesia-like mappings" -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 12:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• That's not exactly synesthesia in the strict meaning of the term, but probably all humans have interactions between sensory modalities. You might be interested in the McGurk effect, an even more striking example. Looie496 (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The scenario you propose would not be a case of synesthesia but rather just the power of suggestion; there is no direct interplay between the visual and gustatory processing centers but rather a cognitive influence first suggested by a visual queue but influencing (in your hypothetical) gustatory perception. This is quite different from the top-down influence of synesthesia where sensory data from two different modules is fused into a single (and automatically unified) perception. So, this situation does not suggest the influence of synesthesia. Even so, the answer to your initial question is still yes - the current popular view amongst neuroscientists who have studied synesthesia in its more striking forms is that they are probably not isolated and anomalous conditions so much as they are examples of particularly strong associations in pathways which are common in neurotypical individuals but not as robust as they are in the synesthete. In other words, synesthesias are not best defined as binary conditions so much as a variation in degree of potency. Snow (talk) 10:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

National anthems that are fanfares.

I read in our article on national anthems that some countries only use a fanfare as their national anthem. What are particular examples? Is Jordan one? Narutolovehinata5 10:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

This webpage, National Anthems of the World: Origins of National Anthems says; "Fanfares: A small group of anthems, mainly those of oil-producing countries in the Middle East (Bahrain and Kuwait) amount to little more than a fanfare-like flourish without text."

The National Anthem of Jordan, Al-salam Al-malaki Al-urdoni (Arabic: السلام الملكي الأردني‎ "Long live the Jordanian King"), is a bit fanfare-like, but has lyrics which you can hear on this YouTube clip, meaning "Long live the King! His position is sublime, His banners waving in glory supreme." It has the virtue of brevity, unlike the full version which runs to several verses. Alansplodge (talk) 20:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Badges on UK numberplates

150px|right

This is not a request for legal advice: I don't even have a driving licence.

On modern UK numberplates there is a space to the left of the registration number where the country code is shown. Below this there is often a badge indicating in which part of the UK the car is registered. Are there any particular restrictions on what badges may be used here, and if so, what? In particular, I often see plates bearing the arms of the Football Association (right) in this position, which I suppose is a mistake for the royal arms of England (left). Is it legitimate to display the emblems of sporting organisations there, or is it in fact restricted to symbols of constituent countries? Marnanel (talk) 11:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Those symbols are discussed in Vehicle registration plates of the United Kingdom, Crown dependencies and overseas territories#National emblems within Great Britain (it's from the owner's preference, not the place of registration - one could live in England and have a SCO emblem, for example). I don't believe other symbols, beyond those described in the article, are permitted. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 11:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The following does not constitute legal advice. As always, if you want to know the law on something, contact a lawyer. Vehicle registration plates as displayed on a vehicle in the UK must conform to certain specifications. They need to be a certain size, shape and colour, and have writing in a certain font. They must also display either the EU flag, one of the flags of a constituent nation*, or no logo at all. Other logos (including football clubs' & associations') are not permitted. However, it is possible to buy 'vanity plates' to put on your wall, in the front window of your truck or to be used on cars at motorshows. They sometimes have unusual fonts, irregularly spaced letters, or different logos. These plates must not be used on the roads, although it does happen. A car with such a plate will fail its MOT, and cannot be passed until the plates are replaced. Normally, the police have better things to do than pull over cars for having irregular number plates, although if you are pulled over for another offence they will be quite happy to stick on another 3 points (I think) for the dodgy plates.

The original purpose of these logos was to do away with the need for an International license plate code when travelling abroad. All vehicles registered in the EU can carry the EU logo and the 2- or 3-letter code for their country on the registration plate. Due to controversy over the display of the EU logo on all British number plates, a compromise was negotiated whereby there was an option to carry a national flag or no logo instead, but those vehicles still need to carry a separate country code sticker when abroad.

(*)The permitted flags are: the Union Flag, the English, Welsh or Scottish flags or the EU stars on a 'AB XX CDE' style plate, along with the letters 'UK', 'ENG', 'England', 'CYM', 'Cymru', 'Wales', 'SCO', 'Scotland' or 'GB' as appropriate; and the Union Flag and the letters 'UK', or the EU stars with 'GB' on a 'AIZ 1234' style plate in Northern Ireland. A coat of arms from a Crown Dependency would not be permitted on either of these plate styles, since the Crown Dependencies have separate registration systems and different plate styles. The English coat of arms is similarly not permitted, because it's not on the proscribed prescribed list above. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Moving slightly away from the question, the Royal Arms of England (three gold lions on a red ground) are widely respected as a Royal emblem and are very rarely seen in England. The only exception I can think of was that in my 1960s childhood, you could buy little sets of paper flags on sticks to decorate sandcastles with, and they always included the three Royal lions of England. I don't know if the College of Heralds eventually caught-up with the manufacturers. The FA lions however, are seen everywhere when there's an international football tournament afoot, but disappear quickly when we crash out of the competition at an annoyingly early stage. Alansplodge (talk) 20:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The College of Heralds in England have very little enforcement authority, as compared with Lord Lyon in Scotland... AnonMoos (talk) 00:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Although the Royal Arms of Scotland. the "Lion Rampant", seems to be used by every Tom, Dick and Jock north of the border. Alansplodge (talk) 11:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I've never noticed either of those two badges on a UK numberplate. Since I noticed this thread earlier this week, I've been actively looking. All I've seen are the flags shown in our article, as linked by Finlay. --93.96.36.99 (talk) 08:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

And that's as it should be. As I say, if you do see a different logo, the driver of the vehicle is breaking the law by driving an unroadworthy vehicle (i.e. a vehicle that, in its current state, would fail an MOT). But most people are law abiding, and it takes a conscious decision to go and buy a vanity plate and put it on your car. Nonetheless, it does happen, although I seem to find that more often it's the font or the spacing of the letters that people change. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 09:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Bach Cantata #4

Michigan legal weirdness

A petition has been signed and approved to place on the ballot a proposal to repeal the Michigan Emergency Manager Law. This part I understand. However, the effect seems to be that the Emergency Manager Law is suspended immediately, until the vote results are counted. This I don't understand. Why does it not stay in effect until the vote ? StuRat (talk) 21:19, 8 August5 2012 (UTC)

That does sound strange. Can you provide a reference? It may be easier to understand if we can read the reports for ourselves. --Tango (talk) 21:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

(2nd paragraph). StuRat (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems to come directly from the constitution: "No law as to which the power of referendum properly has been invoked shall be effective thereafter unless approved by a majority of the electors voting thereon at the next general election." . It does seem very strange. It gives a group equal to 5% of the voters at the last gubernatorial election the power to temporarily overrule the elected legislature... I guess the idea is that the legislature shouldn't be able to deprive the people of this right by simply not giving them time to enact it. --Tango (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. StuRat (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know the details of the Michigan referendum procedure, but the Washington state procedure (which seems similar) is that a law goes into effect on a certain date, unless a petition with a sufficient number of signatures is submitted before that date, in which case a vote on the law is part of the next general election, and if passed, the law goes into effect the day the election is certified. Referendums don't suspend the law because the law never went into effect in the first place. (See Washington Referendum 74 (2012) for the most recent invocation of the process.) --Carnildo (talk) 03:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

That seems a bit more reasonable, since it prevents the law from going into effect, rather than suspending an existing law. The Michigan law seems likely to cause chaos. StuRat (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I will mark this Q resolved. StuRat (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

East Jerusalem Arabs and Israel

• http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2011-09-19/east-jerusalem-palestinian-state-arab-israel/50470736/1
• http://www.jpost.com/NationalNews/Article.aspx?id=203269

Why have only 5% of East Jerusalem Arabs accepted Israeli citizenship so far when a very recent poll showed that at least 35% of them would prefer to continue living under Israeli rule? Was the poll that came up with the 35% figure flawed, or is there another reason, such as many East Jerusalem Arabs wanting to have dual Israeli-Palestinian citizenship but being afraid that if they accept Israeli citizenship before a Palestinian state is created, they will be denied Palestinian citizenship later on due to fear of having dual loyalties? Also, this is a separate but related question--how come no politician (at least to my knowledge) has proposed holding a referendum in all the Arab East Jerusalem neighborhoods (excluding the Old City, since that's a special case) to determine if these neighborhoods should belong to Israel or Palestine in a final peace deal? At least with a referendum, none of the sides can complain that they didn't get as much as they could have gotten in Jerusalem. Futurist110 (talk) 22:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it's difficult to answer that, as people can have a variety of reasons. What you mentioned could be significant, also there could be social pressure among Palestinian Arabs/Muslims against holding Israeli citizenship. - Lindert (talk) 22:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The answer to the second question is easy: No one wants to split Jerusalem. Even along the most general lines of Arab/Jewish neighborhoods, no one is really that keen on the idea. And, given the fact that the neighborhoods are often distributed haphazardly, with little regard for geography or contiguousness, such a solution would probably not be practical anyway. Regarding the first question, I'd say Lindert's thoughts regarding social pressures are a strong possibility. Evanh2008 22:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Your statement about no one wanting to split Jerusalem is inaccurate. Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert offered to divide Jerusalem in a final peace treaty in the past, and likewise Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas demanded that Israel divide Jerusalem when they were negotiating with Israel. It's true that some Israeli politicians (such as current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu) oppose dividing Jerusalem, but there is no consensus among Israeli politicians about whether or not Jerusalem should stayed united under Israeli control. Futurist110 (talk) 22:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Allow me to rephrase that: No one with any great amount of political power currently wants to divide Jerusalem. As long as Likud and friends are in power, it's highly unlikely that any two-state solution that entails a divided city is going to be agreed upon. Yasser Arafat is dead, and Abbas has had little credibility with the majority of Palestinians for years. In 2009, the Palestinian Authority refused to endorse even the basic principle of a two-state solution, so even if significant portions of the civilian population want a divided city, the leaders currently in place on both sides are either dead-set against it (Netanyahu), or highly unlikely to be able to effect it (Abbas), even through a plebiscite. Evanh2008 23:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Your examples though are cases of Israeli leaders offering concessions to Palestinian leaders, and this hasn't happened yet the other way around regarding Jerusalem. Also, I find it tough to imagine the Israeli public (not just right-wing) accepting a divided Jerusalem, if that ever happens, which I doubt it will. Note that Yitzchak Rabin, who started the "peace process" with Oslo, specifically said he opposed dividing Jerusalem.

The Arabs in East Jerusalem (and Golan Heights) were offered citizenship following the 1967 war. Most refused, not wanting to recognize Israeli sovereignty. Since then, those have been permanent residents, but they have municipal voting rights and are entitled to municipal services. Since then, as that poll indicates, many of them have seen how life under Israeli rule differs from that under Palestinian rule, and prefer Israeli rule, although are not yet ready to accept citizenship and become actual citizens. This is despite the fact that the poll shows that more East Jerusalem Arabs would prefer Israeli citizenship over Palestinian citizenship. Thus, it is possible that they simply haven't accepted Israeli citizenship yet due to social pressure, although they would prefer it. --Activism1234 23:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

In regards to my statements about Israeli leaders making concessions to Palestinians in Jerusalem, my point was that there is no unanimous consensus in Israeli politics not to divide Jerusalem. As for the Palestinians, they made some concessions on the Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem in the past, but not on the Arab neighborhoods (at least not yet). As for Rabin, he said that he opposed dividing Jerusalem, but that's what Barak and Olmert also said and then proceeded to offer Jerusalem up for re-division afterwards. This is especially interesting in the case of Barak, who was aware that Peres lost to Netanyahu just 4 years earlier partially due to Netanyahu's allegations that Peres would divide Jerusalem. It's possible that Rabin would have also embraced the division of Jerusalem had he survived, especially if he would have been Prime Minister or another prominent official at the time of the 2000 Camp David Summit. Barak was aware that refusing to agree to divide Jerusalem could certainly mean that the U.S. (and the world) would put some or all of the blame for the summit's failure on Israel. Barak was not prepared for that, and I'm not sure that Rabin would have been prepared for Israel to get blamed either.

You're right that a vote for the re-division of Jerusalem might or might not pass a public referendum in Israel (which is required by Israeli law right now). There have been a number of polls asking Israelis about the division of Jerusalem, and the results so far have been mixed, since I've seen some polls where a majority said that they opposed re-dividing Jerusalem but also some polls where a majority said that they supported a final peace deal based on the Clinton Parameters and the Geneva Initiative (both of which call for Jerusalem to be re-divided). Futurist110 (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Futurist110 -- the 5% citizenship statistic is not too surprising, since changing citizenship would require them to make an irrevocable decision (burning the bridges behind them in a rather final way), and take the risk that their family's place of residence wouldn't end up in Israel in a final settlement, etc. The far more self-defeating action is actually the boycotting of Jerusalem municipal elections, since this ensures that East Jerusalem's interests receive an even lower priority than might otherwise be the case, in the service of some kind of theoretical political rhetoric. The Palestinians are long-term experts in shooting themselves in the foot and denying themselves immediate pragmatic and practical short-term gains and accomplishments in the name of abstract maximalist and rejectionist ideologies. AnonMoos (talk) 00:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, there would be a practical point in accepting Israeli citizenship since that will guarantee that your residency permit in Jerusalem will not be revoked. Also, if one has Israeli citizenship, then one can move to other parts of Israel outside of Jerusalem, and one would also be able to vote in Israeli national elections. If one expects that one's place of residence will end up in Israel anyway, then the only reason why one wouldn't accept Israeli citizenship right now is due to the fear of being denied Palestinian citizenship later on (if one wants dual citizenship). I strongly agree with you that it's especially stupid that East Jerusalem Arabs don't vote in municipal elections (which they can do even without being Israeli citizens), either due to strong social pressures or fear of rejection by their communities afterwards. Maybe if more Arabs voted in Jerusalem there would be much more government efforts to improve the lives of East Jerusalem Arabs, thus causing their financial situation to improve. Futurist110 (talk) 01:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I also want to point out that the reason that I asked about holding a referendum in each Arab East Jerusalem neighborhood was that the international community, some American officials (Bill Clinton, etc.), and even some Israeli politicians have completely embraced the Palestinian position on Jerusalem. A much fairer and more neutral proposal for solving the dispute over East Jerusalem would be to hold a neighborhood by neighborhood (with the exception of the Old City) referendum there. I don't see how either side would be able to wiggle out of accepting this proposal (if the referendum was monitored by neutral observers to make sure that it was free and fair), considering that both the Jews and the Arabs in Israel/Palestine have consistently argued for national self-determination for several decades by now. Futurist110 (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The Old City is one of THE obstacles in the peace process. The other neighborhoods can be negotiated. It's the Old City that is a tough one. Palestinians claim it as Islam's 3rd holiest site and their capital, while Jews claim it as their #1 holiest site and are scared of a 1949-1967 situation if they give it up, in which Jewish religious sites would be destroyed and Jews would not be allowed into the city, compared with the current situation in which every religion is allowed. --Activism1234 01:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

In regards to the Old City, I think that either the status quo should remain or that some (such as the Temple Mount) or all of it should be put under international control. Do you honestly think that the Palestinians would be willing to give up all the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem to Israel in exchange for having parts of all of the Old City be put under international control? To be honest, I don't see what huge value the Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem outside of the Old City have for the Palestinians. Futurist110 (talk) 02:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

However, I think that if the Temple Mount becomes an international zone Israel should demand that the same be done to the Cave of the Patriarchs and other places that are important to both Jews and Muslims. I don't see the fairness in internationalizing the Temple Mount while letting the Palestinians have sovereignty over Jewish holy sites. Futurist110 (talk) 02:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

When did Russian unmarried women reach legal majority?

I have been told that in the 19th-century, all unmarried women in Europe - with the exception of Great Britain, as I understand - was under the guardianship of the nearest male relative their entire life. This started to change with legal reforms in the late 19th-century.

My question is: when was the law changed in Russia, to allowed unmarried women to be regarded as capable in the eyes of the law?

I recently read that in the 1860s, radical Russian women in intellectual circles entered in to marriages with male intellectuals merely to escape guardianship and separate afterwards on mutual consent, as the marriage was arranged by the couple only to free the woman from guardianship.

By that, I conclude that Russia was not an exception such as Great Britain, but that unmarried women were under guardianship there as well. When was this changed? Was it not until the 1900s? Thank you.--Aciram (talk) 22:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It's complex, but a good place to start your research would be Women's rights. It took over a century, but there was serious intellectual consideration given to full equality for women as early as the late 18th century, in Britain Mary Wollstonecraft published A Vindication of the Rights of Woman in 1792, and a few years prior Abigail Adams was writing letters to her husband John in the early years of the United States in the Continental Congress to press for women's rights. In France at around the same time, Olympe de Gouges was agitating in France much the same way as Mary Wollstonecraft and Abigail Adams was in France. I'm not exactly sure what the situation was in Russia, per se, at the same time Category:Women's rights by country does not seem to have an article for Russia. Digging around a bit, I did find Timeline of women's rights (other than voting) which has some interesting entries for Russia, which have references. The Russian references are cited to this Book titled Women is Russia: 1700-2000, which may give you somewhere to start your research. --Jayron32 01:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

In the common-law countries, the main governing principle was Coverture (a restriction on married women only) until various Married Women's Property Acts started being passed in the second half of the 19th century. In much of continental Europe during the 19th century, forms of Code Napoleon prevailed; this was overall somewhat regressive, but sometimes gave married women more property rights than traditional common law did. Don't think any of this has much to do with Russia... AnonMoos (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

If have checked the book linked above, but I could not find this answer. My question pertains to unmarried women, rather than married ones. Reading about the history of women's rights, the question does not seem to be that complex: each country have a clear year, when the unmarried woman was declared of legal majority - in Sweden, for example, that was in 1858, in Denmark in 1857, and so forth. I am looking for the year for Russia. It is somewhat odd, of course, that England is the only example in the Western World were unmarried women was not placed under guardianship, but so it seems. In no country other than England, as far as I am aware, was unmarried women free from guardianship. --Aciram (talk) 10:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

August 9

Partition of india- Boundary Comission members

Can I get names of the members of the two boundary commissions for PUNJAB and BENGAL( Four member each beside Cyrill Redcliff ) before partition of British India in 1947?? Thanks AANIRUP' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aanirup (talk • contribs) 02:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The members of the Punjab Boundary Commission were Din Muhammad, Muhammad Munir, Teja Singh, and Mehr Chand Mahajan. The members of the Bengal Boundary Commission were Abu Saleh Muhammad Akram, S. A. Rahman, Charu Chandra Biswas, and B. K. Mukherjea. (source)--Cam (talk) 06:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Burma Reforming

Why exactly did the Burmese junta suddenly decide in 2010-2011 to begin reforms, after essentially running a poverty-stricken police state for several decades? The pace of reforms in Burma so far has been very rapid, so I'm wondering what the causes of it were. Futurist110 (talk) 02:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Your incredulity is understandable and the answer to this seemingly unlikely rapid change of affairs comes in two parts. First, pressure for change did not occur starting in 2010 alone; since the middle of the last decade there was considerable mounting popular resistance to the regime which culminated in widespread protests in 2007. This, combined with external pressure (coming mainly in the form of considerable U.N. scrutiny) and the need to court foreign aid to cure the countries economic woes, led to a constitutional referendum in 2008 which ultimately paved the way for the dissolution of the State Peace and Development Council. However, this leads to the second point - many Burmese feel that the military, while diminished somewhat in it's authority, morphed it's approach to controlling the nation more so than it really gave up power; the military-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party (UDSP) won over 80% of open parliament seats in the initial election under questionable circumstances with many of these positions going to former military officers - this is in addition to the 25% of the seats which are held in reserve for standing military officers under the current constitution. Of nearly 60 new cabinet positions, the vast majority are held by individuals who formerly served in high positions in the former regime, including the president. There have also been continuing reports of consistent ongoing suppression and mistreatment of ethnic minorities. However, yes things do seem to be slowly on the upswing for the beleaguered state and to the extent reform is pressing ahead, it can be largely attributed to the decades long work of opposition and humanitarian groups; see, for example, Aung San Suu Kyi who only just two months ago was able to formally accept the Nobel Peace Prize she was awarded more than two decades ago, just three years into her effort to resist the Junta, which, in a broken series of arrests, kept her imprisoned or under house arrest for nearly 16 years. So the answer as to how reform could take place so rapidly is that it really hasn't in reality; it was the result of a long-fought contest and continues to progress in starts and fits. For more information on the matter, the BBC, which has covered these events in detail, has an impressive backlog of articles on their Asian news site. Snow (talk) 06:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

There was an article about this in a recent New York Review of Books: . Pfly (talk) 08:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

And a well-written and comprehensive article at that - thanks for bringing it to attention. Snow (talk) 09:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

In my view, it all depends on how cynical you want to be. If you aren't very cynical, the point of opening up would be to actually change and become more democratic, and 'giving in' to external and internal pressure calling for increased democratisation. If you want to be very cynical, the reason for doing reform isn't to really become more democratic, but to present a veneer of democracy that will make Burma palatable as a business partner for other states, particularly the West. The reason for wanting more business is obvious: From being a pariah state that only has the ability to sell raw materials that are then processed in other countries before reaching the market, by opening up, the Burmese brand can be exported, and processing of natural resources and production of goods can take place in Burma before being exported directly to markets, without having to take a detour to other countries (such as China, India and Thailand), and leaving big chuncks of the profit there. In the latter case, the ruling elite of Burma is no longer the military holding the country in a powerful grip, but rather the military-cum-capitalists holding all the resources and exploiting those resources and the population for its own gain. There are other countries that aren't boycotted due to Human Rights abuses, but that still are less than democratic, and where the elites earn millions on trade with other states through exploitation of their own populations. V85 (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

French codes in Oman's History

I have asked this question at the Peninsular War talk page but no editor is replying. So i'll ask it here with any luck. I noticed that this article uses citations from Oman's A history of the Peninsular War. I'm just interested in understanding how the French codes used during the Peninsular War worked. If anyone has a copy of Volume 5 of the histories there is a description of how the French codes worked in Appendix 15 of that book. It would be much appreciated if anyone with a copy could provide me with a brief explaination of those French codes or perhaps list an internet link to a digitalised copy of the book, as I have found neither E-book nor hard copy of Oman's histories. Thanks, Uhlan 05:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Does this link work for you? It's the start of the appendix you want, from Google Books.--Cam (talk) 05:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Why did Nixon resign

I heard a theory that the original Watergate breakins were ordered by John Dean to remove evidence of his now wife of her call-girl/high end escort past. The press at the time glossed over this and most assumed that G. Gordon Liddy and others were caught on the 1st attempt but G. Gordon and others have admitted that it was NOT their first break-in to DCC HQ at the Watergate. Nixon being in a bunker mentality and paranoid with the anti-war rallies at the WH gates for years, violent protests and even the '68 MLK and RFK killings instinctively started covering it up and protecting his "plumbers" and friends on staff. The way I heard it John Dean basically orchestrated the whole response. The missing 18 minutes of tape and Ehrlichmans recollection that Nixon was afraid of the "whole Bay of Pigs thing" coming out seems like Nixon the 8 year VP for "beware the military/industrial complex" Eisenhower and architect of the original plot to get Castro in 1960 knew something that was far more destructive and crippling that resignation was the better choice. One WH insider I remember stated "what was Nixon's motive for the break-in? what was his motive to coverup specifically the break-in?", it seems like there was some other big reason that the break-in lead back to prompt him just to have the nation turn the page instead. Thoughts? user:Marketdiamond MarketDiamond 11:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

He resigned because his position became untenable. I don't know that the truth of the matter was, but the truth isn't really relevant - if enough people thought he had done something wrong, that's enough to make it politcally impossible for him to continue. He could have tried to prove his innocence in an impeachment trial, but that wouldn't have helped much politically. The old adage "there's no smoke without fire" tends to be relevant in this kind of thing - if enough accusations are made, people will believe there must be some truth to them. --Tango (talk) 12:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

He resigned because he had "lost his base of support in Congress". That was his way of saying that his own party was sitting ready to join the Democrats, to impeach him and throw him out of office. So he resigned instead, and almost immediately was pardoned by his successor, and dat was dat. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

To answer the other question, which is "Why did he have to go", there are a few layers to the answer, which amounts to why he was not going to be President anymore, whether he resigned or was fired. First of all, a chief executive is expected to be directly responsible for the misdeeds of his charges. This is true in many walks of life: American college football coaches get fired when their students are on the take, principals get fired when their teachers cheat on tests, CEOs get fired when companies are mismanaged by their underlings. It is a common thing. The fact that the break-in was tied to people who were underlings of Nixon in various capacities (whether on the White House Staff, he personal staff, or in the Republican Party structure, like the Committee to Re-elect the President (CREEP)), Nixon must bear some culpability for that. Secondly, and perhaps more damning, was that Nixon was directly involved with the cover-up of the break-in. It is possible that the break-in occurred without his prior knowledge, and without his direction. However, the minute he becomes aware that the break-in was managed by his own people, he has an obligation to cut those people loose, turn them over to the authorities, and disavow them entirely. Had he done so, it may have likely saved his job. The fact that he knew about the break in, and all the details, and continued to protect the people involved is why he was forced to resign. As Howard Baker famously quipped, the key piece of information that cost Nixon his job was "What did the President know and when did he know it?" The fact that he knew a lot fairly early, and did nothing about it, was the difference between keeping his job and losing it. --Jayron32 19:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

In a recent interview with Woodward and Bernstein, Bob Woodward (himself a Republican) said that Nixon was "operating a criminal enterprise" in the White House. The thought of turning in those "third-rate burglars" likely never crossed his mind. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The simple answer to "why did he resign" is that he surely would have been impeached and convicted had he not. I'm not sure if a pardon from Ford was counted on at all. It was an unpopular decision at the time Ford made it too. Shadowjams (talk) 00:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep. There were claims that a fix was in, but Ford always said that he did it to basically put an end to Watergate and let America move on to other things, which was likely the wise and, frankly, statesmanlike thing to do. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Philosopher studying philosophies of other men

Template:Formerly

I need to know if these philosophers studies/studied every specific detail in philosophical terminologies or did some of them proceed immediately to the normative area with the aid of philosophical information of some philosophers, and not all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smilingswordfish (talk • contribs) 12:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

All of the above. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

1. Does a philosopher really need to know exactly all the philosophies of all other men before him or during his existence No.
2. is it him who would pick those he think is essential for him Yes
3. these philosophers Which philosophers?
4. if these philosophers studies/studied every specific detail in philosophical terminologies The terminology of philosophy is great and I think it's safe to assume that no philosopher studies terminology for areas of philosophy of no concern to him or her.
5. did some of them proceed immediately to the normative area What do you mean by "normative area"?
6. with the aid of philosophical information of some philosophers What do you mean by "philosophical information"?

-- Hoary (talk) 13:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

When you talk about what a philosopher needs, what do you mean by "need"? Needs to get a qualification or an academic position? To be published? To perform philosophical analysis? To be a professional applied philosopher such as a medical ethicist? To put "philosopher" under profession on their passport?

No philosopher has studied every past philosopher (although Gilles Deleuze came close), but you have to be aware of the work of previous philosophers in your area, and the normal method of doing philosophy in an academic context is to analyse and critique the work of earlier philosophers. Virtually all philosophy PhDs and published papers will be responses to the work of an earlier philosopher, ancient or modern. If you look at the greatest philosophers, they all started by studying and critiquing the work of earlier philosophers. The influence of even the oldest philosophers is still felt today in the way questions are phrased and analysed and the terminology that is used, so a broad historical overview is very useful.

Having said that, there's a difference between educational procedures that focus on the history of philosophy and those that focus on contemporary philosophical issues - in both cases you'll be studying the work of older philosophers, but if you're studying some philosophical topics then all the important work is from the last 100 years and Plato or Aristotle won't do you much good. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I am revising the heading of this section from Does a philosopher really need to know exactly all the philosophies of all other men before him or during his existence or is it him who would pick those he think is essential for him to Philosopher studying philosophies of other men, in harmony with WP:TPOC, point 13 (Section headings). Please see Microcontent: Headlines and Subject Lines (Alertbox).

—Wavelength (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• Would you please just get yourself an undergraduate philosophy textbook and stop plaguing the Reference desk with these inane questions? Looie496 (talk) 15:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

"All philosophies" "every specific detail" implies a lot of stuff. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Can i entitle myself as a moral philsopher

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

You have been warned regarding this conduct Smilingswordfish, the reference desk is not your blog Fifelfoo (talk) 22:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The above answers were incredibly specific and helpful! So this is my question; I am engaged in moral philosophy and studies it as autodidact and fortunately and successfully I have recently made and submitted a paperwork concerning my own view of meta- ethics, and normative ethics, the problem is how I would represent my self to the society of scholars, can entitle myself, because of the thought I am engage unto, a moral philosopher, in such manner that I belong to such field. I really need answers fast, the conference is nearing! Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smilingswordfish (talk • contribs) 14:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

My personal point of view would be that anyone who philosophises could be a 'philosopher' (moderate it as you see fit). However, I think that scholars tend to look more at what someone has accomplished rather than what they call themselves. I.e. if you haven't produced any notable work, they wouldn't really accept you as anything other than 'some guy'. Of course, if you have published something (like a scholarly article or two, or something similar) - especially recently - I think that you could claim such a title, since it would seem that this is something you plan to pursue. V85 (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I take offense to that. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Without academic credentials I do not believe anyone within academia will take an autodidact seriously. misspells like 'philsopher' won't also be helpful for your objective. OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

When presenting yourself to academic and professional scholars (say, when applying for a conference or presenting/submitting a paper), you should title yourself simply an "independent scholar." This is the preferred term for someone who is outside of the academic discipline. To some people it will say, "possibly nutty" (because most academics deeply distrust anyone who is not an academic), but to other, less-insecure folks it will say, "someone who, for whatever reason, has opted out of the traditional system," and with any luck they will give you a fair shake. Titling yourself "moral philosopher" will simply say "definitely nutty" to such people, if you aren't already published and respected. Nobody titles themselves things like that — they say, "professor in moral philosophy at the university of such-and-such" which is a professional title, not one necessarily descriptive of their work or even self-identity. If you want to be accepted into such circles as an equal, start humble, make no disguise of your outsider status, and work to make alliances within the academic circles so that others will take you seriously. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

There's an article on that: independent scholar.OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

unidentified symbol

The bottom line of this image of the original proposal for braille consists of an apostrophe, hyphen, and a character I don't rec. I think it might be an end-of-verse symbol. Does anyone recognize it?

Thanks, — kwami (talk) 19:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, it's so obscured I'm having trouble making even a decent guess. Given the symbols it is grouped with, we can probably assume it's a fairly common feature of punctuation in French, but, racking my brain, I can't seem to come up with an even outdated typographical feature that fits. I'm wondering if maybe it's meant to represent an underscore or space? Our French braille article indicates that the braille configuration corresponding to that symbol in the chart in question is currently used to represent the "@" symbol. Snow (talk) 21:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I must be blind. You were correct, that same article indicates the configuration doubles as a notation for an end-of-verse mark. Snow (talk) 21:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

And it appears to be a kind of typographic lozenge. <> Fifelfoo (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggested the verse mark because most French-braille characters have retained their original values. (The guillemet is also barely legible, but can be ID'd because it still has that value in French.) I just have no idea what an early 19th-century French end-of-verse mark may have looked like. — kwami (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

In any event, our article seems to support your assumption, though unfortunately it lacks a citation for this specific meaning, nor a link to a clearer representation of the symbol. Snow (talk) 23:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

(Well, I wrote that article; that sense is inherited from WP-fr, as are a couple others. — kwami (talk) 00:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC))

You might wish to ask a librarian at Bibliothèque nationale de France.

• BnF - Poser votre question

—Wavelength (talk) 23:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Will do. — kwami (talk) 00:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems that this is a sign that isn't very frequently used in typography (intended for the non-blind), or at least not in modern typography, as neither French Misplaced Pages, nor French Wiktionary are capable of giving an actual sign for it (either Unicode or as a picture file), but describe it using words. I guess this could be due to the ability of a seeing person to see the end of the verse (there is no more text on the page, the verse-form is exchanged for conventional prose form, or some other symbol is used, such as a short line across the bottom on the page or a centred asterisk), while a blind person might need some other primer to indicate the end of a verse. Similarly, French Braille includes a sign indicating italics. A seeing person can easily see the difference between normal and italicised text, while a blind person, so long as Braille doesn't include a second set of characters for italics, would need some other primer.

Personally, I would compare it to that little circle or square one sometimes sees at the end of articles in newspapers or magazines, indicating that there is no more text beloning to that article on the following pages. The most commonly used symbols (that I've seen) used to indicate this are □, ■, ○ and ●. Conversely, to indicate that anarticle continues on the following page/s, there might be no mark, or a small arrow that points to the right. V85 (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Person that signed most bills into law in the U.S.

Hello. This here might be a difficult question: Which officer in the U.S. (president or governors) signed most bills into law during his tenure in office in the histrory of America? And how many? Is this known? Thanks a lot in advance. --78.50.226.128 (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm unable to find a source to confirm it, but I would be amazed if it were anybody other than Franklin Roosevelt. Looie496 (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that Looie is correct. Hard numbers are hard to find, but Roosevelt seems to be the consensus based on a few simple Google searches, along with more dubious claims that the honor goes to Bill Clinton, Barack Obama (I seriously doubt that one), or Lyndon B. Johnson. Evanh2008 23:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

How could he not beat out the other presidents? He had more terms to do it. He certainly tops the List of United States presidential vetoes. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

He almost certainly beats all other presidents, but maybe not some governors who aren't always term limited. Bill Clinton had a combined 17 years between Ark. governor and President. NY Gov. George Clinton is the longest serving governor in U.S. history with 21 years in office, but I doubt his 18th/19th century bill signing record rivals FDR. D Monack (talk) 02:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It's definitely not Obama — the Congresses under his term have enacted a historically low number of bills. The number of bills passed by Congress in general has been decreasing since the 1940s. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• It's definitely FDR. As Mr. 98 said, the number of bills passed by Congress has been decreasing since the 1940s -- but it's actually even more dramatic than the chart that he cites to suggests. That chart only shows public laws. There used to be an enormous number of private bills, which are laws that only affect one person or a small number of people. The US Constitution bans private bills that punish someone, but not private bills that are helpful or neutral. Back before the rise of federal agencies, Congress spent much of its time dealing with matters that now get handled by Veterans Affairs, Social Security, etc. Part of the reason for the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 was that it was getting out of control, with congressmen getting more requests than they could possibly even read, let alone vote on. --M@rēino 15:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

FDR sounds like a reasonable guess, but without something more empirical I wouldn't say with 100% certainty it's the correct answer. If you're just talking about presidents who signed in the most public bills as president (to narrow down the criteria), you could do an analysis by looking at public laws (the PL or statutes at large) by time-frame. If you removed overturned vetoes (which are rare and you could probably safely exclude) then you could get a count by year and use that to determine who had the highest count.

The question asks about governors too... that makes it trickier because you'd have to do this for all 50 states. Very good question, but hard to answer. I think finding a definitive answer from scratch would be a time consuming process. Shadowjams (talk) 00:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

FDR was also governor of New York for a while... AnonMoos (talk) 01:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

August 10

Code of Pomare 1819

Does anybody know where I can find a copy of the Code of Pomare 1819 in English? It seems the only versions I can find are French beginning with "Dieu a donné comme roi à Tahiti", but the London Missionary Society was in Tahiti at the time and probably helped with Pomare II in writing it.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

August 11

Gold reserves and currency

So is it possible to raise a a country's currency's values if all the gold in that country was mined and sent directly to its gold reserves? And will such a move improve a country's economy? Narutolovehinata5

Keeping it in reserve would have no significant impact, but if the country used the gold to buy up some of its circulating currency, you would get a deflationary impact that would increase the value of the currency. The economic impact would be negative, though. Looie496 (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

U.S. Census Bureau Classification of Asian

How come the U.S. Census Bureau classifies all people of Asian origin (excluding the Middle East) as Asian, rather than creating separate categories for South Asian and East/Southeast Asian (or "Oriental")? All the other race and ethnic U.S. census definitions seem to make sense, but it would appear to make more sense to separate the "Asian" category into two parts.

Also, this is a similar question--does anyone have data on the East/Southeast Asian ("Oriental") and South Asian population in the U.S. in 2000-2010, 1950-1970, and before 1910? Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 01:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Race and ethnicity in the United States Census... -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Just putting this here: "Oriental" is pejorative in American English. It exoticizes and objectifies. It was almost always spoken with condescension in its heyday and brings up all the connotations of the negative things it was associated with in 19th century America—the image of the early Chinese immigrants working on railroads in the western United States with broken English, pigtails, and fu manchu beards. People who were incidentally one of the most common targets of racial violence in the wild wild west. The word itself is innocuous, it's the history behind the word that's offensive. I can't help but think of it as someone's polite way of saying "coolie". It remains acceptable in British English where it was used more correctly in the meaning of "eastern". Same thing happened with "negro" which literally just means "black", but has become highly offensive in the US, although it remains acceptable in a lot of other countries where it has never acquired a racist connotation. Also I'm wondering why you separate South Asia but still lump East Asians and Southeast Asians together? The difference between the latter two are just as vast. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 02:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a big WP:NPOV, buddy. If it actually is pejorative, you don't need to argue that it exoticizes (stripper aerobics?) and objectifies (makes a follower of Ayn Rand?). No one complains the term "Western" is racist. Well, maybe at Berkeley.... μηδείς (talk) 03:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Which is why if you google almost nothing will show up. (Ha.) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I apologize if someone was offended by my use of the term Oriental, but I do want to point out that the Gerontology Research Group (a very respected gerontology research organization) and even the Misplaced Pages page List of supercentenarians from the United States uses the letter O as an abbreviation for Oriental. The reason that I used the word Oriental was because I do not know of a better, more politically correct, short term for collectively saying East Asians and Southeast Asians combined. If you know of such a short politically correct term, please let me know. Keep in mind that English isn't my first language, though I am rather good at it. As for why I separated South Asians but not Southeast Asians is because the cultures and appearances of Southeast Asians are much closer to East Asians. In contrast, the cultures and appearances of South Asians are very different from those of East Asians. I can always easily distinguish between an Indian and Chinese person by looks, but it is much harder to distinguish a Chinese person from a Laotian or Thai person. Futurist110 (talk) 03:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Paumotu and Tuamotu

Why were the Tuamotus also called the Paumotus in the past?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

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