Revision as of 07:18, 8 January 2013 editNil Einne (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers73,005 edits →Primary Education in the United States← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:41, 8 January 2013 edit undoMedeis (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users49,187 edits restore improperly deleted materialNext edit → | ||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
</noinclude> | </noinclude> | ||
{{Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/ |
{{Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 December 1}} | ||
{{Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/ |
{{Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 December 2}} | ||
{{Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/ |
{{Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 December 3}} | ||
= |
= December 4 = | ||
== |
== staple food == | ||
Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, first president of Bangladesh said that the staple food of the Bengali people were rice, Hilsa fish and lentil soup. Is there a list of a nation's or an ethnic groups' staple food? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
Atheists believe that there is no god. But what about a devil? Do atheists believe that there is a devil? | |||
:The Misplaced Pages article titled ] is a good place to start. --]''''']''''' 02:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:: And ] and ]. Bangladeshi cuisine has a "Cuisine" infobox at the very bottom of the page that will link you to a long list of other national cuisines. ] (]) 13:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
== Gates, Jobs, Dell and Zuckerberg == | |||
] (]) 00:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:As a generalisation, atheists do not believe in the devil, any gods or demons whatever, or fairies. You might actually want to read about ] before asking more questions on the subject. ] (]) 00:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
::We are, however, quite fond of ]s and ]s, and of ]. --] (]) 00:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
Has any of the companies of the drop-outs above tried to attract drop-outs? ] (]) 13:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::I would simply point out that, unlike members of organised religions, atheists don't have church leaders in some remote place like Rome or California telling them what to believe. There's nobody trying to stop atheists thinking for themselves, so they tend to come to a wide range of conclusions as to how it all works. Some might believe in a devil. Many certainly don't. ] (]) 00:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:Why would they? --]''''']''''' 13:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:As well as Discordians, Pastafarians and others who profess interest in parody religions, there are also Satanists, some of whom believe in God and some don't. Some of them also don't believe in Satan in the way that theists are generally expected to believe in their gods. And there are also people such as chaos magicians, who may or may not acknowledge the existence of spirits that might be regarded by others as gods, but that they personally steer clear of or ignore. Are any of these people atheists? Depends who you ask. ] (]) 00:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::I'm not convinced ] is a "parody religion". I'm not saying it's exactly ''serious''. But I think it's very serious about not being serious. It's not so much anti-religion as anti-earnestness. Pastafarianism and Unicornism, on the other hand, seem to be very direct pokes in the eye at religion, and appeal to people who I find a bit humorless in other ways. --] (]) 02:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
::Atheists don't believe in any supernatural deities. If they did, they wouldn't be atheists. ] (]) 01:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:: |
::Why? Maybe because they recognize some quality in their founders? At least, were they more flexible towards drop-outs? ] (]) 13:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
*reminds me of when I told a classmate in high school I was an atheist and got in response, "So you worship the ''Devill''!?" ] (]) 17:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
**They were making the assumption that if you don't believe in God, you must be in the clutches of Satan. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 18:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
***Most people have no idea about religions other than their own. When I told my mum I was Buddhist at age 16, she said to me, "Oh, so you're gonna stand on street corners, ringing bells and chanting 'Hare Krishna'?" which is completely the wrong religion. <span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml"><font face="MV Boli" color="blue">] (])</font></span> 07:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
****Most people have no idea about their own religion. They are a member of it because their parents were. <small>(And before anyone tries to shoot me down by saying that THEY have studied their religion in depth, please note my use of the word "Most".)</small> ] (]) 07:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
*****You'll have to imagine Senator Claghorn's voice here: "Son, I don't have time to study my religion; I'm too busy defending it!" ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 09:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::The question is unanswerable. Any company will want to attract the best people to work for them. That means taking a holistic view of the candidates' work history, academic record, etc. These four companies are no exception. --] 13:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
== Nontheism, the Devil, Good, and Evil == | |||
:::{{ec}} Well, that presumes that the HR departments of those companies takes direct influence from their founders. Possible, I suppose, but not necessarily guaranteed. I checked, just because references are nice here, some random jobs listed on Apple's Website: . Not every job, of course, has a college degree as a requirements, but ''every one I would have expected such a requirement has such a requirement''. That is, I don't see any difference in job requirements at Apple regarding the need for a college degree in certain jobs than I would expect at any company. --]''''']''''' 13:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
When religions believe that there is a god, they also believe that there is a devil. God and the Devil symbolize and represent good and evil. God symbolizes and represents good. The Devil symbolizes and represents evil. God is good. The Devil is evil. What do nontheists, athiests, agnostics, deists, secularists, and people who don't believe in any religion think that? | |||
:You should probably qualify "drop-outs". If you mean those who graduated high school, but dropped out of college, then probably, yes. If you mean those who completed a ] instead of high school, then perhaps. If you mean those who dropped out of high school and never got a GED, then probably, no. Also, you might find artistic companies to value those who don't fit into the academic world more, say to be fashion designers. ] (]) 21:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
] (]) 00:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
== Can ] vote in both the U.S. and Canada? == | |||
:What is your ] for "''When religions believe that there is a god, they also believe that there is a devil''". ] (]) 00:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
Considering he has the two citizenships?. Thank you. ] (]) 15:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:Atheists in general don't believe in the supernatural. Recommend you read the article on atheism, as recommended in the previous section. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 00:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:See ] ] (]) 15:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:You might also want to check how often an individual personal devil is mentioned in (for example) the Torah. (Hint: the answer is zero.) Then reconsider your assumptions about even so-called Abrahamic religions and the devil, much less other theists. ] (]) 00:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
::Not really a good example. If you limit it to the Pentateuch (Torah), then the answer might be none. If you whgen the Jewish Bible/Tanakh (Torah) the answer is certainly not none. Try the book of Job. ] (]) 02:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::The adversary in Job is not necessarily "The Devil". That interpretation may be a later innovation, and I'm not sure that many mainstream Jewish thinkers equate the two. ] discusses the distinction between the character of Satan in Job according to Jewish tradition and the Christian Devil. --]''''']''''' 02:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
::This question is based on a couple false premises. Not all religions believe in a devil, and not all religions believe god(s) are good. ] (]) 01:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
Yes, I read that but couldn't understand whether or not they are allowed to vote or not. I mean, if they were out of Canada for how long they are not able to vote anymore even if they still have Canadian citizenship? or what? ] (]) 15:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
== His Dark Materials, God, the Devil, Good, and Evil == | |||
:It would help if you clarify what parts of Vmenkov answer confuses you or doesn't answer your question as to me it seems it does. ] (]) 15:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
::The last post in that archived discussion says: | |||
God is good. The Devil is evil. God symbolizes and represents good. The Devil symbolizes and represents evil. But in His Dark Materials, it is the opposite. God is evil. The Devil is good. Why? | |||
:::''Any Canadian citizen living abroad can vote in Canadian federal elections, s/he has lived outside of Canada for less than 5 consecutive years, and s/he intends to return to Canada. Having also a foreign citizenship is not a factor per se. (Of course, if the person's foreign citizenship is acquired by naturalization in a foreign country, it probably means that he's spent too long outside of Canada to be eligible to vote anymore). -- ] (]) 01:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)'' | |||
] (]) 00:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
::In particular, '' provided s/he has lived outside of Canada for less than 5 consecutive years, and s/he intends to return to Canada. Having also a foreign citizenship is not a factor per se.'' I'd look in the given link for confirmation and elaboration. ] (]) 15:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::Yes as mentioned Vmenkov's answer seems to answer the question (and it's supported by the ref and also another official ref ) so it would help if Keeeith clarifies what part still confuses them. The only possible issue of contention I can see is there may be doubt of what happens if you just go back to Canada for a short stay. Per this source it sounds like the current intepretation is you actually have to been considered to have 'lived' in Canada, simply visiting is likely not enough. Although it's a still a bit unclear to me how long you have to have been in Canada to be considered to have lived there again. And it's peossible they may be able to vote in person even if they are not really living in Canada any more, see also . Based on that letter, it's possible if you are considered to have established residence as would be the case if you wanted to vote in a new riding, that is enough to be considered to have lived in Canada. On ther other hand per , it's somewhat unclear to me whether you will be considered to have established residence if you are say, living in some part of Canada for 3 months or even a year but completely intend to leave. (Even though if you're living continously in Canada for over 183 in a tax year, you'll likely have established tax residency for that year no matter your plans.) ] (]) 16:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
Although I have no specific knowledge of Canadian law, as a permanent resident of Hong Kong, and a US citizen, I am entitled to vote (or, stand for office) in both places. Note that HK doesn't require citizenship for voting and for some official offices. ] (]) 08:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:Because the author (an avowed atheist who was brought up in an Anglican household) chose to write it that way. Whether that's ingenious, offensive, or just weak is a matter of subjective interpretation. But don't expect HDM to bear any resemblance either to reality or to the theology of any significant religion. And seriously, read the articles on these topics before badgering us. ] (]) 00:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
*It;s regularly related in the NYC press that certain large local minorities participate in their homeland's elections, for example, . ] (]) 03:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
::I question the certainty of your initial assumption of "god is good". Many religions have some pretty mean and nasty gods. And many question the goodness of even the Christian one at time, what with letting all those innocent people suffer in natural disasters and the like. ] (]) 00:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
== Question regarding citizenships == | |||
:::I think many Christians would question the idea that God is 'good' in the everyday sense; God (if there is a God) is cosmic and intangible, and even if God wants something which may ultimately be viewed or understood as good, it's quite obvious from the state of the world and the fate of many of God's own followers that 'preventing natural disasters' is not part of what God does. And given that most Christians regard a man who was tortured to death as being God himself, it's clear that they think either that God has a radically different sense of justice to practically any human, or that one of God's functions is to be down here in the blood and dirt with the rest of us. Often both. ] (]) 00:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
My questions are, does a person have to give up his Canadian citizenship in order to become an American citizen too?, and my other question is the same but if an Australian citizen becomes American. ] (]) 16:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:See the on ]. Specifically: | |||
::<small>I've read them all, and I don't recognise myself at all ... except in the occasionally dim-witted polar bears :) --] (]) 01:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)</small> | |||
::''"A U.S. citizen may acquire foreign citizenship by marriage, or a person naturalized as a U.S. citizen may not lose the citizenship of the country of birth.U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship."'' | |||
:So, no, not as a general rule. — ] 16:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
Excuse me, I am a stupid person, there are at least two examples of both citizenships, ] himself and ]. It's okay with Canada, it's allowed to hold both citizenships. But what about Australia, does anybody know? ] (]) 16:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:Our ] article isn't great, but it does cover Australia with references. I suggest you check out the article or do a simple search if you have more questions of this nature since they are generally very easy to find. ] (]) 16:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:Yes, though it's comparatively recent, per . So Canada, Australia, and the US all allow mutual dual citizenship in the general case, but specific circumstances may vary (and Misplaced Pages is not a suitable venue for determining those legal specifics). — ] 16:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
::I think you're partially mistaken. The reference only says Australians taking on another citizenship lost their Australian citizenship before 2002. This would suggest it was possible for Australians to have dual citizenship for example if they acquired their Australian citizenship after their other citizenship (American in this case) or possibly if they acquired both at birth. Our article seems to support ] this. ] (]) 15:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::As far as I remember, there is no devil in His Dark Materials. ] (]) 01:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
== A Poem == | |||
== Older name for the "Korean peninsula" == | |||
Poem: "a place in missouri called the ozarks" | |||
I'm looking for a name for the ], or a similar area, that predates the term "Korean peninsula" that is ubiquitous today. Apparently, the name "Korea" comes from the ] dynasty (918–1392), whose northern border was the ] rather than the ] as is the case with modern North Korea. It may be unlikely or impossible that Europeans had a name for the area before then, but there is a good deal of Chinese historical writing about the area—particularly the treatment of the ] in the ], ], and ]. I know that ] used to be a generic name for all the lands east of the ] (which would include both today's "Liaodong Peninsula" and "Korean Peninsula"). But I want to know if there any more specific and ancient term for today's "Korean peninsula". ] (]) 00:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
author: not sure <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:] covers this pretty well, I think. ] (]) 00:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
::You might try looking to see if it jogs your memory. ] (]) 21:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
== Reginald Brentnor == | |||
== Governor General of Canada == | |||
In your article about brentnor, I found no mention of his writing mystery short stories. I just finished the July 1990 issue of Elerry Queen Mystery Magazine containing a short story entirled "The Photography of the Dearest Dearest Defunt" Which appears to be one of a series of stories about a San Francisco used antinque dealer named Alexandrovitch Timifoff. Has anyone heard of this series?— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
: appears to be a collection of his short stories, though that one doesn't seem tp be in it. --]''''']''''' 02:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
I sent an e-mail to his office and I received an automatic response telling me that I will get a response within three weeks. My worries come about that I now see the calendar and see that part of the three weeks falls into the winter break. Is there personnel on breaks too? I would appreciate your help. Thank you. ] (]) 20:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
== 3rd, 4th and 5th and other largest Bangladeshi Americans == | |||
:It may be understood as "three working weeks" - not 21 days on the calendar, but 15 working days. See if the GG's office has a website that announces their schedule for the winter holiday season. ''-- ] (]) 06:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)'' | |||
::Government offices in Canada don't shut down completely for the holiday season. They just do not work on the three statutory holidays (Christmas, Boxing Day and New Year's Day - with all three holidays being moved to the next weekday should they fall on a week-end). Offices are short-staffed during those periods, however, so routine and non-urgent work tends to get pushed aside until January 2nd. --] (]) 15:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
== Mona Lisa Interpretation == | |||
I read that New York City has the largest Bangladeshi American community and the 2nd is Paterson, New Jersey. Which city has the 3rd largest Bangladeshi-American community? Which has 4th and which has 5th? and who else?--] (]) 02:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Donmust90 | |||
:The Misplaced Pages article titled ] lists several cities with large Bangladeshi American populations after those two, but it does not rank-order them. --]''''']''''' 02:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
::Here we go. Start at . Search for the word "Bangladeshi". After that search, on the left side, select the "Geographies" option. A new window will pop up. Select the "Name" tab. Select "city or town" from the list on the left of that menu. Select the check box in "All Places within United States". Then click the "add" button. Close the "Select Geographies" window. Select the first "Asian alone by selected groups" option. This will give you a giant table with every Asian nationality for every city or town in the U.S. You can narrow this down using the "Modify table" button. When you select that, you can uncheck everything except "Bangladeshi". The "Transpose rows and columns" thing may make it easier to read as well. That website can be used similarly to look for estimated populations for any nationality within the U.S., just follow the same procedure. --]''''']''''' 02:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
I felt there were things left to be noticed in the photos available on | |||
=== Arab American cities of New York, New Jersey, California, Michigan and Florida === | |||
] | |||
a) There is a drop of sweat on left side of her nose, near her eyes. She did not remove it shows chances of her behaving in an abnormal way because a person doing something unnatural has higher chances of missing natural tendencies. | |||
Which city in New York state has the most Arab Americans? Which city in New Jersey has the most Arab American? Which city in Michigan has the most Arab Americans? Which city in California has the most Arab Americans? and Which city in Florida has the most Arab Americans? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 05:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
b) There is a mole on right side of her eyebrows. | |||
c) Her posture is a little bend forward. | |||
d) Her hands seem in an uncomfortable position. | |||
i) Her left hand bend and holding table showing anxiety or avoidance of showing nails. | |||
ii) Her right hand's index finger a greater than normal distance apart indicating she might be scratching her left hand. | |||
iii) Her right hand placed on left in a way that its hiding something. | |||
e) Her eyes are reddish which could be pain or anger. | |||
f) Her eyes were sad when drawn as seen by the curve they make. | |||
g) Her face seems older than what Leonardo da Vinci made of her can be understood by observing her torso fat or may be its also possible that Da Vinci had to draw her her torso bigger than what it was just to please the person for whom he made the portrait. | |||
h) Her face looks like a man when seen from extreme right and extreme left. | |||
i) Her guarnello (the transparent cover) is seen mainly on her right side and its dirty near hairs. | |||
j) The background though looks similar shows extremities may be indicative of two phases of her lives. | |||
k) The photo is definitely a part of something whole. | |||
l) In a whole the painter drew something not present in front of her but rather the better version of her. | |||
m) The left bottom side of background looks like an old man when seen by turning photo 90 degree clockwise. May be a sign of Da Vinci. | |||
Harsh Dalmia ] (]) 20:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:]. ] (]) 06:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:Well, I'm skeptical of most of that, but are you aware that portrait painting required the subject to hold a constant posture for many hours? It was pretty stressful. ] (]) 02:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
::See the instructions I gave you above, Donmust? Go to that same website. Don't put anything in the search box. Select "Race and ethnic groups" on left. A new window opens up. Select "ancestry group" from the little menu on the left. Select "Arab" from the middle menu. Close that window. Select "Geographies" from menu on the left. A new window opens up. Select "City or town" from menu on left. Select any individual state you want. Close that window. Select data set B01003, "Total Population". You'll get a nice table for estimates of the number of Arab-Americans living in any city in any state you choose. You can go back and adjust whichever states you are looking for. --]''''']''''' 06:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:: Hey folks, this is not the place to be getting into an OR discussion about this. -- ] </sup></font>]] 02:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
== Alternatives to London ca. 1900 == | |||
:That painting's been around for awhile, so there are liable to be countless websites with opinions on every possible aspect of the painting. Google is your friend. :) ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 11:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
In, say, 1900 a country squire was interested in Society (with a capital S) and shopping, was there ANY alternative to London? ] (]) 04:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
: |
:This is a page for asking for factual information, not for airing speculations or starting discussions. You might find some useful sites from ] and the references therein. --] (]) 11:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
== Creative Sales Strategy == | |||
::What does the French Revolution have to do with 1900 England? And, although it wasn't clear, I meant, where would English families go other than London, for ''au courant'' Society? ] (]) 05:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::You seem to have an unstated assumption that English families couldn't leave England. ] (]) 05:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::In the UK, there's probably nothing equivalent to London, London is (and has always been) a place unto itself within the UK, especially in the past no other city or urban area compared to it. In 1901 (the nearest year when there was a UK census), according to , London had a population of 4,536,541. Liverpool, the next most populous city, had a population of 684,958, and Liverpool has always been a working-class town, especially at the turn of the 20th century. I'm quite sure that there was no other large city in the UK where the upper class congregated in large numbers or where there was significant upper class society life. There were probably numerous cities on the Continent where one could go, but in the UK it was London. --]''''']''''' 05:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
What is the term used for selling products that are custom created, typically with images from the customers?...Thanks for the help! ] (]) 22:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
: For Society, how about resort towns like ] or possibly ]? Can't speak to shopping. Also, why would you assume that English families wouldn't leave England? I'm not totally clear who you mean by "squire" but certainly the upper class often spent weeks in the ], ] and yes, Paris. ] (]) 05:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
: ''bespoke'' is a common term, and may be what you're looking for. ''custom'', custom-designed, made-to-order, tailored to the customer (a metaphor, as you are not literally tailoring), customized, special-order, specialty, customer-specific or client-specific, special order, etc etc. There are many terms. why not just google for other people in your sector that do something like that, and use what they do? ] (]) 22:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:: Why are you and StuRat assuming the OP is assuming that English families couldn't leave England? It seems clear to me that he's limiting his enquiry to places in England, and I assume he has a good reason for that. -- ] </sup></font>]] 06:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:: |
::"Bespoke" isn't a common term for this, at least in the US. ] (]) 22:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
:::::I think almost by definition a country squire was not interested in Society and shopping. They would have found amusement with the local "county set". Sons who wanted to see a wider world had a lot of options: university, the Army or Navy, the colonial service or the Church. ] (]) 09:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:"Personalized". There are also terms for other types of personalization, like "monogrammed" or "custom-fit". ] (]) 22:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
Thank you for your inputs..Can you be a little more specific, something to do with images...i'm looking for a term...i tried to google but i didnt get it...Can someone throw some light, please..Thanks for the help! ] (]) 22:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:Try "Personalized photograph X". For example, here are "Personalized photograph guest towels": . ] (]) 17:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
::You mat be interested in our ] article. I believe that you would have to be a particularly wealthy and well-connected country squire to be accepted. As Itsmejudith says above, most people in that position would have stuck to being a big fish in their own small pond. I don't think that a gentleman would have gone shopping, apart from visits to his ] taylor, bootmaker and gunsmith. This probably holds true for people of a certain class today. ] still make an individual ] for each of their customers feet and store them forever, so there was never a need to shop around, you simply tell them what sort of shoes you want and they make them for you. ] (]) 15:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
== French Taxes == | |||
:::It's quite wrong to suggest that a country squire in 1900 was "not interested in Society and shopping". He would indeed have found ], but few of them in England during the summer months. He was certainly interested in ]s, probably in ]. At his public school (probably ]) he learnt ] and ], and the chances are that he spoke some ] and perhaps some ], too. In his youth he had probably served overseas in the ] or the ] and more likely than not was a member of one or more London clubs. When he travelled during the summer months, his most likely destinations included the ], ], ], and the ]s of Germany such as ]. If he had time to spare he might have gone further afield for some ]. ] (]) 15:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::Would it have been the Highlands for the hunting? And Baden-Baden for the gambling as well as the spa? ] (]) 23:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
In the November 25, 2012 issue of The Washington Post, on page E4, speaking of John Malkovich, in the third-to-last paragraph of the article, it says: "In 2007, he directed the Zach Helm play 'Good Canary' in Paris. He says he earned 25,000 euros for the job. Punch line: 'My tax bill was 29,000 euros.'" Assuming the facts purveyed are accurate, how is it possible that the taxes you owe on income you receive to the income you receive is on the order of 116%? ] (]) 23:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:If you get fined because the French IRS thinks you are earning more than you declared, then yes. It is also the case that France has some form of ], so low earnings doesn't imply low taxes there. ] (]) 01:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
== XKCD comic == | |||
:This is also possible in a graduated tax system. Consider a simplified situation where an income up to 10,000 is taxed at 10%, and an income over 10,000 is taxed at 20%: | |||
It may just be my chronic not-too-brightness flaring up again, but I really don't get . Is it purposely nonsensical, or is there something I'm missing here? ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 10:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
Income Rate Tax | |||
:The idea is that, if people drive through your neighborhood with throbbing bass pounding, the birds and squirrels will think there is food, and swarm their cars, presumably pooping on them. Actually I'm not sure the squirrels help much. --] (]) 10:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
====== ==== ==== | |||
10,000 10% 1000 | |||
11,000 20% 2200 | |||
:So, in this case, 1000 more in income causes 1200 more in taxes. Most countries avoid this problem by saying that only the income over 10000 is taxable at the higher rate and/or by having more gradations. I have run into such a situation, myself, though. In my case, they had a "luxury tax" on suits, so that any suit over $100 had to pay the tax. However, by buying the pants and jacket separately, I was able to avoid that limit. ] (]) 01:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
::Yeah, that was my best guess. Seems like it would just result in more roadkill, though... ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 10:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::StuRat, your arithmetic above illustrates a common misunderstanding of how such systems usually work (I do not claim always). In most jurisdictions (such as the UK) you would pay, on the 11,000, 10% of the 10,000 plus 20% of ''the 1,000 above the 10,000 threshold'', totalling '''1''',200. | |||
:::From my dim memories of such alleged situations (taxes exceeding income) applying to rock bands in the '70s, taxes exceeding income often arose from a confusion between gross and net earnings and which various taxes applied to, the years in which income was earned, confusions about exactly where in an international operation various incomes were earned and where they should be taxed (still a very live issue, as mentioned in our ] article, Section 8.9), and dishonest accountants and other managerial entities ripping off and lying to the artists concerned. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ] (]) 13:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
::I suppose your example is just a fictional one, and that no tax system in the world applies exactly these rates. ] (]) 01:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::There is nowhere on Earth where the normal situation is that you owe more in taxes compared to what you earn, unless you are fined for non tax paid or other irregularities. So either Malkovich was fined or his statement is not accurate (or his statement was reported inaccurately). --] (]) 01:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
::: Confirmed by . ] (]) 11:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
: |
:::: Saddhiyama -- mid-20th century British "death duties" or inheritance taxes could often result in tax liabilities significantly beyond annual income... ] (]) 04:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
:::: The expression "my tax bill" could still be accurate. His "tax bill" could consist of money he owes as taxes, and money he owes as a fine. To him, it's all "tax", because it may as well be. -- ] </sup></font>]] 02:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
::How does that help solve the problem of loud cars? ] (]) 15:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
::: |
:::::A similar situation existed in the US for those on welfare. Until recently, if they got a minimum wage job, they would lose many of their benefits from "being on the dole" and incur taxes, so their financial situation would worsen, not improve. ] (]) 04:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
::::::France definitely has a wealth tax. If you are resident in France, for that tax year, you have to pay tax based on what you own, as well as a tax based on you earn. So if he was very wealthy, he had to pay both. I only ever paid income tax, though, since I was never (and probanbly will never be) wealthy enough to pay the wealth tax. --] (]) 08:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
==What medal is Alexander wearing?== | |||
. Presumably Sir ], KCSI, CIE. ] ] 11:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Combining ]es with generally high ] rates, which is fairly common in Europe, can easily lead to tax rates higher than 100% of your income. In the 1970s novelist ] wrote the story '']'' complaining about her 102% tax rate, and according to my copy of the '']'', shipping magnate ] once had to pay 491% of his income in taxes. ] (]) 08:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:It bears a resemblance to the ], but he doesn't seem to have been a member. ] (]) 15:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::::In Malkovich's case, it appears his tax rate is merely 65%, which he has refused to pay, saying he has paid his taxes to the American IRS instead. So in 2007 the French demanded more money as a consequence of this play than he earned on it. See and for more details. ] (]) 10:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
: <small> What a dour lot of men! They seem to have forgotten to take their happy pills. Or maybe they were just extremely unhappy about having to wear full gentlemanly clobber in the oppressive Calcutta climate. Maybe that's why their terms mostly seem to have been only about 2 years. -- ] </sup></font>]] 18:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC) </small> | |||
::I am quite sure no Arbuthnot has been a member of the OM. ] ] 19:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::(EC with 87 above.) I think StuRat is mistaken about what a graduated tax system means. AFAIK graduated tax system always implies a system with ]. (Note that a graduated tax system is a form of ] but the terms are not synonymous. You can achieve progressive taxation in various ways besides tax brackets but as stated I believe a graduated tax system always implies a system with tax brackets.) Read the article if you don't know what a tax brackets means, it implies a brackets where you have a cutoff point beyond which the additional income above that value is taxed at a higher rate. I'm not aware if there is a name for the system described by StuRat where an income over a certain rate means an increase in rate for all the income (well with tax brackets the marginal rate increases but in specifics the lower income is still taxed at the lower level). Has any country ever even used such a system? (It isn't uncommon for people to misunderstand tax brackets and think the entire income is taxed at a higher rate if you enter into a different bracket.) | |||
:I'm quite confused, since the image you linked to which is captioned on the site as Alexander Arbuthnot, doesn't look like the image of Arbuthnot that is on our page. --] (]) 19:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::While there may be benefit systems where an increase in income can result in a reduction in money coming in I don't think this is common. AFAIK in most countries the system is designed to avoid that. E.g. here in NZ the issue of concern is generally not that you actually take less money in when you increase your income due to benefit reduction which rarely or never happens, but rather that the extra money you bring in is less some say significantly less then the extra you earn because of the combination of taxes and benefit reduction so there is far less incentive to earn more. This happens because benefits gradually reduce rather then being a case of either you get the full amount or none at all. (Theoretically a wealth tax could also mean a person a person will find they make less money by a higher income presuming said income doesn't increase their spending but from my reading of the article countries tend to use a progressive system starting at zero so avoid this. ) | |||
::The source of the wikipicture is "Memories of Rugby & India" by AJA. ] ] 19:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::There are of course cases where you are either taxed or not taxed and a small increase in value can result in a sudden possibly large tax bill which would otherwise be due such as the suit example StuRat gave. This may be related to the example he gave of the hypothetical system where rather then using tax brackets a person earning over a certain amount has the entirety of their income taxed at a higher rate. But it's clearly not the same thing as it does not result in a person actually bringing less money in by earning more, as earning doesn't even come in to the picture. One of the effects of such cases is they can encourage people to ] or ] schemes again as suggested by StuRat with the suit. But note that there can be the same thing even with stuff like a normal graduated taxation system particularly in special cases. E.g. Depending on the brackets, a person who expects to earn a lot less next year or even nothing may wish to find a way to defer about half of their income from this year to next year. Depending on the country and how it's done may or may not be legal but it can result in quite a different tax bill. However again this doesn't mean the person would have got less money because of an increase in income. | |||
::::::] (]) 14:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Note that the system I described is much better if you have more brackets with smaller differences in rates: | |||
::You beat me to it, I had a look round to see if he had any other awards but I did think it was unlikely to be the same person in the image. ] (]) 19:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::Are you saying Calcutta Univ has posted a picture of someone else or that the Vice- Chancellor was a different Alexander? ] ] 19:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
Income Rate Tax | |||
==2012 Inflation Data release?== | |||
====== ==== ==== | |||
Hi all, I left a note ] asking if and when wikipedians with much more knowledge than I will be updating the coding for the inflation formula many articles use. Haven't gotten a response yet and it seems few check that talk page every month. Any editors here know if the official stats have yet to come out and when they do? And also have any knowledge of when wikipedians that have the coding skills usually do this. I realize this may actually be more of a helpdesk issue but trying it here first. Thanks! ] 11:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
10,000 10% 1000 | |||
10,001 10.1% 1010 | |||
:::::::So, here $1 in extra income increases your tax by $10, so it's 1000% of the additional income. However, we're only talking about $10, so it's not such a concern. It also makes the calculations far simpler, with no need for tax tables (although the chart with the rates can get big, too). ] (]) 17:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
== The "only two cars in Ohio" story == | |||
Two different issues here -- income tax / income > 1 (the extreme issue, apparently misleadingly claimed by Malkovich), and marginal tax / marginal income > 1. As mentioned above, at least in the US the latter issue, of a marginal tax rate greater than one, sometimes comes up for people trying to work their way off public assistance, and for people earning social security and working. I remember back in the 1980s, the West Virginia state income tax system was designed so that at a certain income level, one more dollar would cause your tax to go up by many dollars; I wish I could remember the details, because it struck me that the system must have been designed by amateurs. Also, back in the 1960s and quite possibly more recently than that, I think the marginal US federal income tax rate on the highest income was something like 90%, and if you lived in a high-marginal-tax state your combined marginal rate could be very close to (or even greater than??) 100%. Does Misplaced Pages have anything about the history of US tax brackets? ] (]) 16:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
Sorry for the rapid-fire questions, but I'm really curious about this at the moment. I first encountered this story via ] a good number of years ago, but have heard it in various forms since. It has been recounted at several websites, including: . The basic idea of the story is that around the turn of ], there were a grand total of two automobiles in the state of Ohio (or the city of St. Louis, but Ohio is the more popular location), which somehow defied the odds and managed to collide with each other. The problem is, I haven't been able to locate a reliable source that lays out the story in any detail, or any record of contemporary news accounts. I'm curious as to whether or not anyone knows more about this story. It sounds like it could very well be apocryphal, but I'd like to think it's not. ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 11:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:I expect it to be apocryphal, at least for Ohio, but probably anywhere else. ] of Indiana invented the first American design for ] in the mid-90s; while their sales were slow in the earliest years, they sold well over 200 in 1901. Since some made it to New York, I'd guess that more than two made it to Ohio. What's more, cars were so ridiculously expensive (the latter link estimates that they were taking 4200 man-hours of work per day, and it took more than a day to produce a car) that only the wealthy could buy them; this means that it might be hard to find an area where there were two (especially since the slow speeds means that you couldn't easily go from distant place to distant place), and surely the owners would be particularly careful not to run into things, especially since the slow speeds means that you'd have more warning time. ] (]) 15:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
::According to , the state was the first place to commercially manufacture cars in the USA. ''"Alexander Winton, a bicycle manufacturer in Cleveland, Ohio, had become interested in designing an automobile. He built his first motorized vehicle in 1896. It looked rather strange by modern-day standards, as Winton used bicycle tires in his first design. He organized the Winton Motor Carriage Company on March 15, 1897, and on March 24, 1898, became known for the first commercial sale of an automobile in the United States."'' We have an article; ], which says that 100 had been made by 1899, and although many may have been exported across the state boundary, it seems unlikely that 98 of them would have. ] (]) 17:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::See also our ] article; ''"Packard was not completely satisfied with the Winton car he had recently purchased. He wrote Alexander Winton with his complaints and suggestions; however Mr. Winton, offended by Packard's criticism, challenged Packard to build a better car. Packard responded by doing so, his marque outlasting Winton's by many decades. Packard runs his first automobile in Warren, Ohio on November 6, 1899. In September, 1900, the "Ohio Automobile Company" was founded as the manufacturer, while the cars were always sold as Packards."'' Also, the ] was making electric cars in Cleveland, Ohio from 1899. ] (]) 17:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::And yet more... the ] of ] made bicycles, but ''"the company began to build automobiles in 1898."''. There was also the 1900 "Cleveland Runabout" (also electric?) from the ] of Cleveland, OH, who started manufacturing in 1899 and finally, the 1900 "St. Louis Gasoline Buggy" by the ] who also started in 1899. And finally, the ] of Dayton, OH were up and running by 1900. So the place seems to have been fairly crawling with cars by 1900. ] (]) 18:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
*So, in other words, this happened in St. Louis? ] (]) 19:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
: A 1956 newspaper story said it was Kansas City at "the start of the century." . A 1967 Mobil Oil Company ad in Life magazine stated that there were only 2 cars in Ohio in 1895 and they collided: . It was in a 1988 "Book of blunders" as well :. I have read the statistic in many places many years ago. There were certainly cars in operation in Ohio by 1894: . A variant published a few years later said it was Kansas in 1905:. A 1994 writer placed the accident in Indianapolis: . A 2005 book placed the accident in St. Louis:. Many of the later writers may have been lazy and writing down some factoid they vaguely remembered. An 1895 collision is quite credible, since reach driver would have been surprised to see another driver. Snopes also looked into the story: , without really saying yes or no. ] (]) 00:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:: Thanks for the responses! I suspect Snopes is right in that they're won't be a definitive answer anytime soon. ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 22:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:One could make an interesting set of graphs out of . --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 17:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
== Why do flight attendants insist that in case of crashing into the sea you open the lifebelt once you got off the plane? == | |||
::Interesting. Looks like the highest US income rate was 94% in 1945. Now we have it at 35% and the Republicans claim the economy will collapse if we dare to raise it. ] (]) 17:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:Reading ] it becomes clear that "Malkovich ... lived and worked in a theater in Southern France ... left France in a dispute over taxes in 2003". Seems he is not a fan of the French tax authorities and I think he might well have been joking in the Washington Post's interview. While ], at no time does it exceed 100% of income (only in 2013 will a rate of 75% on income over €1 million be introduced). ] (]) 17:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
: If life vests were inflated inside the plane, everyone becomes effectively much larger. So it'd difficult for them to move easily around in the cramped interior of the plane, and particularly through the rather tight emergency exit doors. And there's the danger that, in the crush, the vest could be torn, rendering it useless. -- ]'''ჷ'''] 14:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
= December 5 = | |||
::Note that most instructions I've seen say to inflate one side at the door just before you jump and one side after you touch water (or at least after you jump out). Inflating before you reach the door caries another risk besides those already mentioned. If the plane is already starting to fill up with water you may find it difficult or impossible to reach the door due to the bouyancy of your vest. Premature inflation may have caused some deaths on ], see our article or . ] (]) 16:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
== Does Buddhism teach no fear/ no hope? == | |||
:::See also ], ], ] ] (]) 16:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
At least indirectly, if you live in the present, hope of a future positive outcome or fear of a negative one shouldn't be your top priority. ] (]) 01:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
== Is it true that god is present ? == | |||
{{hat|we don't do opinion or debate}} | |||
Is there any god ? Who created this universe ? ] (]) 18:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:You're going to need to work that out for yourself. --]''''']''''' 18:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:Not sure about Buddhism, but that was pretty much one of the tenets of ]... ] (]) 04:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:Woody Allen once said, "Not only is there no God, but just try to find a ''plumber'' on a weekend." ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 18:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
: |
:Insofar as Buddhism teaches us not to be attached to any particular outcome, and hope or fear regarding outcomes is a mark of attachment, yes. --] (]) 10:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
::So if a Buddhist saw a missile headed straight for him, his reaction might be, "Oh, that's interesting - a missile that looks like it's headed straight for me. Will it hit me? Will it miss me? Only time will tell." ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 13:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::I don't know how to ask, you ask on behalf of myself. ] (]) 19:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::Only if he were a ''really good'' Buddhist, Bugs :-). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ] (]) 13:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::so, really good Buddhist are deemed to die at any crossroad? ] (]) 17:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
*The whole point of Buddhism is to obtain a positive future outcome (i.e., ]). ] (]) 17:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:But do set your mind on this target? ] (]) 18:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
::Fear and hope are passing illusions, no more. ''Sang-gye cho-dang tsog-kyi cho-nam-la Jang-chub bar-du dag-ni kyab-su-chi'' I take refuge in the ] until enlightenment is reached. That's all. ] (]) 10:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
== looking for a song == | |||
:::That won't work if God exists but doesn't intervene in our daily lives. In regards to the OP's question, I think that a Google search would at least bring a little clarity into this question, and then one can take it from there. ] (]) 19:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
I remember a song, not sure who sing it or the title, but it had instruments not just singing. any ideas? --] (]) 14:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:That is possibly the most vague and unhelpful description of a song imaginable. Can you remember any lyrics at all? Because without that, we have basically no chance of helping you. It would also be useful to know what instruments, time signatures, vocal registers, languages, and musical style(s) were involved. ] (]) 14:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
::<small> See also a computer determined years ago that 'GOD DOES NOT EXIST' ;-) ] (]) 21:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)</small> | |||
::Yes.] (]) 16:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::Try looking in ]. ] (]) 16:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:See ]. ] (]) 17:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:: lets you search by whistling into the computer. There's an app that identifies songs by listening to a few seconds of it, too. ] (]) 17:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:Someone should add this thread to ]. ''']''' (] • ]) 06:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
== Are there more rooms or people? == | |||
This isn't helping anyone. ] (]) 01:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)}} | |||
:Yes, there are ]. Of those three, only ] created the universe. ] (]) 22:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
Or, how many rooms are in the world? I try to divide the world into richness levels ] style but I'm still not sure. I'd guess more people, but very dependent on if the poor great majority of humanity has fewer persons per room than I guess. (Now the definition of room itself is fuzzy but I'll at least count basements, attics, rooms on ships, rooms inside infrastructure and bathrooms (except ones the size of closets)) Either way it appears less than you could see per lifetime, flashing a few per second. Another fun over/under I can't decide is which has more volume: everything artificial on Earth or one Independence Day city ship? (, about 50 trillion cubic feet by my reckoning). Probably depens on how far you go with artificial ]? Reservoirs? ] (]) 17:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
::Got a ] for that? ] (]) 23:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:My personal opinion is that the Reference desks should not be cluttered with questions like this that are merely whimsical. ] (]) 17:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::He hasn't even got a reliable source to say that most Christians believe that. The Nicene Creed refers to 'God the Father, maker of Heaven and Earth'. The Athanasian Creed states that "There are not three Gods but One God". PP's interpretation seems to derive from a wholly wilful misreading of John 1. Please don't assert your opinion as facts, Plasmic Physics, nor your heresy as orthodoxy. ] (]) 23:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
::The 1st part could be useful as a measure of wealth, although square footage (or square meterage ?) per person might be a better measure than the room count, since it's less subjective. ] (]) 17:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::It is not my opinion, it is what is written. ] (]) 23:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::I dunno, rooms works better. There are some rich people in cities whose houses have a lot of rooms, but don't cover much ground; while some lower class farmers in the boonies would have a lot of space, but not really as many rooms. ] (]) 17:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:In a major city like New York or London I presume that each person has at least one room each (a bedroom), plus other shared space in the same same house, plus a room at their work place or school that they likely have to share with others, plus a room on their way to work (inside a car, bus, train, etc), plus a bathroom they can visit, and a kitchen, etc. However, in some places the poor have to live many to one small room and do everything there. It is hard to say, but I would be surprised if there were a lot less than 7 billion rooms on Earth. ] (]) 18:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::It is the opinion of whoever wrote it... ] (]) 00:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:: |
::Seems wrong to me to count cars, you can't even stand up in them. ] (]) 19:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
:The Center for Sustainable Systems says there were 4.9 million commercial buildings in the US in 2003. Guesstimate ten times that for the world, and a conservative 20 rooms a building. and we've already at a billion. ] (]) 01:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::::Misplaced Pages rates primary sources pretty low as reliable sources. Primary sources are usually more interested in influencing potential customers than in facts. ] (]) 00:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
::By doing Fermi style, the answer can varies greatly with the power of 10, so it is probably from 1 to 10 billion rooms in the world.] (]) 02:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
== Why are murder followed by suicide so common in our country? == | |||
::::::Where in the Bible does it say that there are three gods, or that only Jesus, and not YHWH, created the world? And I think you'll find that the creeds are primary sources for the beliefs of most Christians, and that there are a wealth of secondary sources to back them up. We also have the writings of the early church fathers as primary sources as to what the early church believed. Please stop lying. I don't care what you believe, and I don't expect you to care what I believe. But it is simply a matter of fact that neither of your claims is to be found anywhere in the Bible, nor in the beliefs of any major church. ] (]) 00:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
{{hat | hot-button and functionally unanswerable topic closed}} | |||
I am from the United States and for instance, it's the anniversary of the ], this week the NFL player who kills his girlfriend and kills self, workplace shootings, among others. Why? Why so much? Thank you. ] (]) 18:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
: |
:I doubt this question won't turn into a debate about gun policy, social equality, genetics and what ever you got. ] (]) 18:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
:: |
::It's yet another question based on an unproven assumption. Should probably be removed. ] (]) 18:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
Remove it, I am tired of the sensitivity of you all on here. ] (]) 18:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::::::"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. ''All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.'' In him was life; and the life was the light of men. (Nine verses omitted.) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me." and " And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." | |||
::::::::There simply is no mention of more than one God here. And if you can't parse the italicised verse (John 1:3) correctly, you have no business even trying to instruct anyone else. It really does not say "Nothing came into being through anyone except him". No amount of trying will make that change. What St John is saying is that the Word participated fully with God in the creation. Not that God did not create things, but only the Word. Are you a Gnostic, perhaps? ] (]) 00:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:"Why" is a difficult question to answer (and in cases like this, there may not even be a known answer). However, I think it's worth noting that we have an article on ] that provides a starting point for you to read and form your own ideas about the matter. Beyond that, I concur that this is a topic more likely to spawn arguing than references. — ] 18:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::Verse three says that "All things were made through ." Note the word 'through' is used, in conjunction with Genesis, it is evident that all things were made by the Word at the behest of another (the Father). Moreover, Jesus is repeatedly refered to as the Lord, the Angel of the L<small>ORD</small>, and as God in other places within the Bible. ] (]) 01:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:Simple answer to the OP's question: If you believe He is, then He is. If you don't believe He is, then He isn't. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 23:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
{{hab}} | |||
:<Small>Why do people commit murder and then suicide ? ... because committing suicide followed by murder is so much more difficult to pull off. :-) ] (]) 18:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC) </small> | |||
== Jonasson == | |||
<Small>Robbie A. Hawkins would've answered this easier, not the sensitive people who are on here. Just a joke. ] (]) 19:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
I was looking for Jonas Jonasson, and searched for Jonasson in Misplaced Pages. The page that appears with people whose surname is Jonasson does not include the writer Jonas Jonasson, for which a page does exist in Misplaced Pages (http://en.wikipedia.org/Jonas_Jonasson). | |||
] (]) 18:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:]. --]''''']''''' 18:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
Who the hell is ]? BTW. I am not sensitive, but this question happens to be loaded. ] (]) 19:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
== Same-sex marriage and the persecution of Christians == | |||
</small> | |||
:<small>A joke? Yes, maybe the whole thing should be taken that way. It would make more sense. (And I didn't even mention the somewhere-centrism of the question.) ] (]) 19:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)</small> | |||
Some Christians not in favour of same-sex marriage seem to name the suffering Church as a counterargument. For example, ], : "We also face deep differences over the issue of sexuality. It is absolutely right for the state to define the rights and status of people co-habiting in different forms of relationships, including civil partnerships. We must have no truck with any form of homophobia, in any part of the church. '''The Church of England is part of the worldwide church, with all the responsibilities that come from those links. What the church does here deeply affects the already greatly suffering churches in places like northern Nigeria, which I know well.''' I support the House of Bishop's statement in the summer in answer to the government's consultation on same sex marriage. I know I need to listen very attentively to the LGBT communities, and examine my own thinking prayerfully and carefully. I am always averse to the language of exclusion, when what we are called to is to love in the same way as Jesus Christ loves us. Above all in the church we need to create safe spaces for these issues to be discussed honestly and in love." (Emphasis added.) | |||
<Small>Robbie A. Hawkins is ], who was my friend, or not my friend, but an acquaintance. But it was a joke anyway. ] (]) 19:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)</small> | |||
I want to apologize for the Hawkins thing, I was just angry that the post was closed. But innocent people were killed by him. I'm truly sorry. I apologize. ] (]) 19:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
: <small> That's fine. But you use the word "sensitive" as if it's somehow a negative trait. Yes, we are sensitive, and we're proud of it. We're sensitive to what makes this place work well and what detracts from it. Without the "sensitives" around here, the ref desks would have gone to hell in a handbasket years ago and you'd be having to ask your questions somewhere else. -- ] </sup></font>]] 19:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:Nigerian culture is notoriously harsh on homosexuals, see ], which shows that there is the death penalty for being gay in Northern Nigeria. Gay Christians in Northern Nigeria thus suffer in that they could be legally killed for being gay. As Anglicanism is a world-wide communion of churches which share a common history and theology (the ]), and historically the ] is considered the "mother church" for all Anglicans, the actions it takes can have a profound impact on the world-wide Anglican communion. The article ] has a bit on a schism between the ] and other Anglican churches over this very issue. --]''''']''''' 19:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
::Not fair, I feel like I have been poached. </small> | |||
::By "Northern Nigeria" do you mean the part where the Episcopalians run it as a religious dictatorship based on a strict interpretation of Leviticus? ] (]) 04:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
{{hab}} | |||
:::No, not sure where you got that from, perhaps you could read some information about Nigeria first before making such statements. There must be some articles around here somewhere. --]''''']''''' 04:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::Actually, I think Medeis was being rather sarcastic... ] (]) 13:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::Sadly, I think not. --]''''']''''' 14:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::The question is rather clear, what is it about northern Nigeria that makes it so much deadlier to its citizens? Is it the ]? ]? ]? The aforementioned ? The mere difference in latitude? What is this hate that dare not speak its name? <!--sarcasm, yes, it's sarcasm: but the question is legitimate-->] (]) 16:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::::So, here's the deal for those of you who don't follow the strange twists and turns of Anglicanism. The bishops of the Church of England last summer came out with a statement opposing same-sex marriage. Welby says he supports that statement, while also claiming, incoherently and self-contradictorily, that he opposes homophobia. He then refers to the situation in northern Nigeria, where Christians of all kinds face violent attacks from radical Muslims. I'm not sure how that situation is connected to same-sex marriage unless one of the reasons these Muslims give for attacking Christians is that some Christians in Western countries support same-sex marriage, which is surely anathema to many Nigerian Muslims (as well as many Nigerian Christians). There really is no logical coherence to Welby's statement. It reflects the tortured position of the Anglican Communion, trying to appeal to the liberal congregations that are its financial underpinning, particularly in the United States, as well as to very religiously and socially conservative Africans, who are providing most of the Communion's growth in membership. ] (]) 18:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
== Artur Carlos de Barros Basto - the name conversation == | |||
==Primary Education in the United States== | |||
> I’m looking at one of your publications Primary Education in the | |||
United States which was reviewed in December of 2012 to the present. | |||
> | |||
> I appreciate the very highly detailed document with the remarkable | |||
number of facts about the education of young people in the United States, however, | |||
I am very interested in comparisons with other nations and the international exam | |||
or or competition you want to call it that examines such attainments for the years | |||
17 to 18. Every year the results of this examination are in newspapers, and if I | |||
remember rightly the most recent one placed us 24th among the nations. | |||
> | |||
> Although I cannot say I’ve examined word for word everything that’s in | |||
your report, I have examined each section for content and cannot find any report | |||
of comparison with other nations. | |||
> | |||
> Have you made such a comparison? If not I think it’s a mistake to | |||
leave that out and one of the things that matters in our strength as a nation is | |||
the education of children. The fact that our young people at 17 to 18 perform in | |||
a way which is more characteristic of a less well developed country than ours | |||
concerns me and I would hope that in future documents you would bring out that | |||
exam. | |||
> | |||
> Could I ask you whilst also talking about education in the United | |||
States if you know of this famous yearly competition and if you do where may I | |||
obtain knowledge about it in greater detail than which I have from the newspaper? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
Why ], has adepted just the surname Ben Rosh? has he had any link between him to the famous jewish spanish family "Ben arosh"? is there any information about? ] (]) 18:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
: You may have come to the wrong place. This is Misplaced Pages, the 💕 that anyone can edit. We don't issue publications. We do have loads of articles for anyone to read (and edit), including an article called ]. -- ] </sup></font>]] 20:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
::I think they are probably talking about our article, just using slightly unusual terminology. --] (]) 20:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
::: I suspected so too, which is why I said "''may have'' come to the wrong place". The article has existed since 2005, yet the questioner says "... which was reviewed in December of 2012 to the present", so I dunno what that's about at all. -- ] </sup></font>]] 02:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::May be the OP means they read the article between December 2012 to now (probably fairly sporiadicly)? ] (]) 07:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:I have no information about this, but I would observe that many Jews in Britain (and I think elsewhere) use a Hebrew name which is quite different from their everyday name, and in which "ben" introduces not a surname but a ]. Two possibilities that present themselves are that his father's name (not given in the article) was something which he felt could be "Hebrewed" as "Rosh", or that he chose "Rosh" (Hebrew for "head") for its associations. --] (]) 14:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:] may be useful to you. --] (]) 20:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
= |
= December 6 = | ||
== Political Science is always misconceived as law or legalistic in nature. == | |||
== She named a crater on Venus - but who was she? == | |||
I am a political science student and my instructor in political science minor subject happens to be an LLB. in law, thus he defined political science as the study of state and government. Luckily I have a professor PhD. in political science who said that political science is not so. This definition is what I argue against, first and foremost with that definition political science appears to be in a legalistic and traditionalistic fashion. I responded that politics does not only refer to the state and government and we should also utilize the modern approaches to the subject such as behaviorism. Because "state and government" will only adhere to the laws, principles, government of the state. It is inadequate in answering all other problems. I argued that political science is a social science different form law, thus political science focuses on the political activity which is not only confined to the state and government such as, international organizations and international relations. Political science does not study law or if it does it is in a social perspective. After this I offered a better definition, that given by David Easton- A study of the authoritative distribution of power, this is the safest and one of the most suitable definition ever made. I also offered a revision to his response by adding the term politics which refers to the social activity related to authority. | |||
The craters on Venus is named after different famous women in history, of which many has articles here. But who was the "]" who is listed under F in the ]? Her full name is not there, it only says "], Spanish actress (18th century)". | |||
Does any one know? Thank you. --] (]) 01:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:It is odd that all references online to "F. A. Fernandez" are from Misplaced Pages mirrors. | |||
:The information for the Fernandez crater derives from which gives the source of the name as "List of famous women provided by the National Organization for Women". This does not help answer the OP's question, however. ] (]) <small>(])</small> 05:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:Here is one possible answer: According to a poster , the namesake of the Fernandez crater of Venus (the poster refers to Mercury, but check the context in the original article there) is ] (Spanish Misplaced Pages); the initials do not match perfectly. ] (]) <small>(])</small> 05:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
I really want to know additional arguments to support my assertion. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:: Ay Caramba!, I suspect ] is it. -- ] </sup></font>]] 06:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::Yeah that's the only 18th century Fernandez in the "stage actors from Spain" category at es.wikipedia. This is not my first encouter with imperfect documentation from the IAU nomenclature folks.--] (]) 17:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::Oh sorry, I didn't see Jack's link, thought he was referring to Hasirpad's candidate. Yeah maybe La Caramba is more likely.--] (]) 17:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:You seem to be referring to ]. Ultimately, political science is what you define it to be. Words and phrases have the meaning we assign to them. In the case of political science, some researchers, especially in the past, really did define it as nothing more than the study of state and government by looking at institutions and laws. Other researchers, especially recently, take your sort of broader view of political science. But to say that one of these definitions is "wrong" is plain stupid. Saying that ] is a drug not wrong just because it's also ]. You might reasonably call the simple definition of political science unpopular, inferior, or archaic - but not wrong. ] (]) 01:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::Thank you very much! This was excellent. Can we conclude that this is correct rather than simply very likely (though I suspect that it is)?--] (]) 18:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
As I was given so good help, I should take the opportunity to ask if another woman in that very same list, ], have her name correctly spelled? She does have an article here, but it is not much bigger than her entry at the list and need to be expanded, and as I have not found much on google, I thought that her name was perhaps misspelled, or that she is more known under a different version of her name? Does anyone now? --] (]) 18:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::It looks like her name was actually Marie-Aimée Lullin. The "Aimée" part of her name is important to include, it's part of a two-part name like the "Luc" in "Jean-Luc."--] (]) 20:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:You might do well to also look into ]. Though sadly our article isn't as good as it could be, some of the sources cited might be of benefit - and your definition "a study of the authoritative distribution of power" would fit in well with the remit of political anthropology too - especially given its forays into contexts where there was apparently no 'state', 'government' or 'law' (or at least, not in the sense that such terms are commonly used). In this context, 'political science' arguably resides somewhere between the social sciences and the humanities as an academic field - and certainly has little to do with any legalistic definition. ] (]) 01:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
== How accurate are home appraisals? == | |||
:Political science means a lot of things--the article ] gives an overview. The part about descriptively studying behaviors of populations includes ] and ] among other things. There are also some normative theories involving ]. It goes all over the place. ] (]) 02:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
I am hoping someone can help me resolve a family dispute. My father passed away last year and we need to sell his house. We've had 2 appraisals done. The first appraisal said that the house is worth $256,000 and another appraisal said the house is worth $260,000. Two of our 4 of my siblings are insisting that the estimate is way too high, by over $40,000. One of these siblings has a conflict of interest as she would like to purchase the house. So, my question is, how accurate are house appraisals? I don't really know much about real estate. I've Googled it but haven't come up with anything definitive. Thanks. ] (]) 02:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC) <br /> | |||
UPDATE 1: I live in the United States. The estimates were done by professional appraisers, not real estate agents. ] (]) 03:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:"Political science" (πολιτικῆ ἐπιστήμη) was a term used by Plato in his '']''. Aristotle takes it up (and some of the material there) more famously in his ]. It referred to what is best called ] now. And "political science" was largely within the mold of Plato and Aristotle (see Cicero's ''De re publica'', Augustine's ''City of God'', and Aquinas' ''Treatise on Law'') until Machiavelli. David Easton's definition accurately describes what Machiavelli started to do: describe the ways political power is and can be distributed. Machiavelli is commonly considered the father of modern political science (you see this emphasized by ] and his followers, for example); so then insofar as contemporary political science still follows Machiavelli, Easton's definition would seem to be fine. But I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss your instructor's definition. He may have meant more by "state" and "government" then you might realize. He also may never have meant his definition to be comprehensive; he may have just been describing one part of political science -- the part he was intending to lecture on. --<font face="georgia">] </font><font face="georgia" size="1">(], ])</font> 04:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:Well, there is the obvious "we cannot give professional opinions, consult a professional" realtor... but, seriously? I can't see your house, you didn't mention who appraised your house... how can I tell you anything? You could have a hovel in the urban wastes of Detroit or a mansion in the Upper East Side of New York for all I know. If two independent (assuming they are) appraisals give you about the same value (which they have) it's a good bet they are accurate, more so than any a random stranger on the Internet can give you. If you had the appraisal done by a professional realtor, they do not stand to benefit at all by lowballing you because that means they collect a smaller percentage. ] (]) 02:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
::AnonComputerGuy - you don't say where you're from. Where I live, Victoria, Australia, real estate agents have a reputation in some places for organising inflated appraisals. This could be related to trying to convince a potential seller to sell, and maybe to the fact that agents are usually paid on commission, so the bigger the selling price, the more they make. It's in their interest to inflate the value. ] (]) 02:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
That will redirect to this ] but I don't see any "list" and I couldn't able to find a list of 100 most influential of the 20th century from Time 100 website. First there is a problem with the redirect since there is no list in the article so it is a wrong redirect. Second, can someone show me a list of 100 most influential people of the 20th century in a "trusted website"? Thanks!] (]) 02:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::Does that reputation have any evidence to support it? Most people would only get an appraisal if they had already decided to sell, and the commission on a few extra grand isn't going to be a significant amount. ] covers this subject and finds very clear evidence (in the US) of estate agents ''understating'' prices, not overstating them. The goal being to get a quick sale so they can move onto the next property. --] (]) 11:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:I think the redirect is ok. The article is not actually a list, so the redirect sends people looking for a list to the non-list article. The time.com link is in the external links section but it is a paywalled article, so non-subscribers can only see a subset of the names. You could probably go to the library and look at the magazine there. ] (]) 02:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::Where I live in Massachusetts we have professional appraisers who just value properties but don't sell them. I would assume they'd have less of a conflict of interest. '''] ]''' 02:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
::: But only within a certain limited tolerance, HiLo. They know, better than anyone, that properties that are priced too high just don't sell, and end up being either dropped in price or withdrawn from sale altogether. Nobody wins that way. -- ] </sup></font>]] 03:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
::Yeah... this is an article ''about'' the Time magazine list... however, I think that is appropriate. If someone wants to see the list itself, they can follow the links to Time Magazine's website (although they will have to pay to read the entire list) or go to the library and find it for free. | |||
::::The standard approach in such cases is to have your lawyer offer the sibling who wants to low-ball the estimate exactly what she says she's willing to pay to buy her out. She should be happy to get what she thinks it's worth, and you should be happy to underpay her. The difference might even cover your legal fees. Which makes me wonder who your lawyer is? Maybe what you really need is better legal advice than you can get from random people on the internet. ] (]) 03:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
::I am not sure if it would be legal for Misplaced Pages to present the entire list ourselves, as doing so might violate Time Magazine's copyright. ] (]) 02:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
::: Years ago, Misplaced Pages did routinely reproduce such lists (hottest swimsuit models, most eligible bachelors, bravest dogs, hottest milfs). But with reflection the community has decided, in a range of discussions, that such lists aren't like lists of postcodes in Stuttgart or highest points in Albania - that they're creative works (however arbitrary and uninformative) of the editorial staff of various organs, and so we can only quote from them ("Vanity Fair said George Clooney was the hunkiest actor of 2003") but not reproduce the whole list outright. -- ]'''ჷ'''] 02:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::::This makes the huge assumption that the OP is in a position to buy out the complaining sib. If not, then the only way to settle it amicably may be to sell the house outside the family and divvy up the sales price. ] (]) 03:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::: To my inexpert legal intuition, that argument seems fairly weak. I might be tempted to argue the point if I thought there were any actual encyclopedic value in these things. --] (]) 02:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::::So long as I am giving free advice, the lowball sibling signs an agreement to accept the lowball amount once the property is sold at whatever price, within a certain period. If she's right, she gets a guaranteed better price than she could otherwise expect. The others should be happy to take that offer, sell for more, and pocket the difference. Or they could take your advice. ] (]) 03:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::The thing is I'm sure there are many curious people who want to see the entire list. I think the purpose of Misplaced Pages is to serve the readers, as many as possible. It is arguable that the list is informative or not.] (]) 04:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::::What justifies providing for-pay information ''gratis'' merely because someone (or many people) express a want or need for it? Misplaced Pages does its job by explaining the nature of this information and indicating where it can be obtained. WP does not include all possible information within its virtual covers. <small>''ergo, I totally agree with User:Finlay McWalter remark (above).</small> -- ] (]) 09:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)'' | |||
::::::174,20: there are a number of things that people come here looking for (or wanting to create) which Misplaced Pages is ]; business directories, articles on their local bands or their favourite websites, for example. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia, with policies on what is appropriate for inclusion. --] (]) 15:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
== online payment methods == | |||
:::::::Why would the lowball sib agree to that ? I do like the concept though, like parents who refuse medical treatment for their kids, saying "Only God can decide who lives and dies". I'd like to shoot them in the head and say "God will decide if you live or die, not me". ] (]) 04:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
I am looking into potential methods of sending and recieving money online for my company, looking into such things as google, amazon, popmoney, serve and so on, a wide variety of options. However their websites still leave me uncertain on some details, making a direct comparison difficult, so I am wondering if people with experience in this matter can offer some advice. | |||
::::::::I have heard of people using set procedures for things like this, like agreeing to taking three appraisals and taking the average, or taking the middle one. That works fairly well in England where sale prices are close to appraisal prices (estate agents are on percentage so don't want to underestimate, but want a reasonably quick sale), but in Scotland the appraisal prices are usually lower than sale prices. (Sale is by sealed bid with the offer price traditionally seen as a starting price I think, Scots feel free to correct me). Presumably they would have some sort of adjustment there, like average price +5% . -- ] (]) 13:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
I need a service that will allow customers to send me money from all around the world, and for that money to be collected together in my account and sent as a bulk payment to the manufacturer to cover costs of making and shipping the items paid for, any ideas on a service that can provide this, to a company based in the UK? | |||
:::::::::@ StuRat, maybe she wouldn't take the offer. ''But that's the whole point.'' In fact, I'd be surprised if she were to take it given how such dynamics usually work. The point is to force her to make a good-faith action, or shut up and stop bothering the other siblings. Unfortunately in a lot of cases like this the lowball sibling is more interested in the power of controlling the process than in actually settling for a lower amount herself. Offered the lower amount that she had said she would be happy to take she will reject it because she can't also force the others into a lower amount. Or she could be right in her estimate, in which case she should take the offer. But by making the offer they effectively castrate any spite and controllingness as a factor in the negotiations. (A good lawyer would know all this, which is why the OP should get one.) ] (]) 16:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
] (]) 03:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
== St. Jude Children's Hospital == | |||
:You can offer several venues. Most methods don't ask for a monthly fee. I think you'll be OK accepting Paypal and credit cards. ] (]) 15:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
If it's totally affordable for anyone (the commercials say "No family is ever turned away because they can't pay") and high quality care, is there a long line of people trying to get in and do large numbers who want to get in not get in for lack of opportunity due to the long line? ] (]) 02:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:According to ], the hospital doesn't charge (above and beyond what insurance pays) for "medically eligible" patients. Presumably, children with a bad sniffle aren't admitted. AFAIK, St. Jude's isn't the kind of hospital that you just walk into and admit yourself; patients who are admitted are done so by referral from another doctor, and they usually have a type of severe illness that local doctors near where they live can't treat. That is, if there ''is'' a nearby hospital which ''can'' treat the illness, then the child probably wouldn't get sent to St. Jude's. That probably keeps the waiting list lower than the average emergency room. --]''''']''''' 03:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
::Hence the symbolism of ]. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 03:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
::"...nearby hospital which ''can'' treat..." Then that would give local Tennesseans preference? Lucky for them financially. "...medically eligible..." Now modulating in policy the level of rarity of cases for which patients are admitted such that the statistical incidence of said admissible diseases that happens to happen minus the number of other centers of excellence that can share the treatment load across the country is lower than the capacity of the hospital to treat seems pragmatic from a business perspective. Though I'm sure if some working class family living on $20,000 a year with crappy insurance has a child with a rare disease that needs a $250,000 operation but lives 500 miles away from a hospital that can handle it (but they'd have to pay) and 600 miles away from St. Jude's, the family's going to push hard for their doc to petition a referral to St. Jude's. With a population of over 300 million across the US, it seems not unreasonable to suppose that even rare diseases are happening to poor people (as well as more fortunate) regularly. ] (]) 04:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::I'm afraid you've misread the title of this part of Misplaced Pages. This is the ]. What you want is the ]. --]''''']''''' 04:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::Sorry. I'm honestly interested in finding out how free high quality health care that could easily cost upwards of hundreds of thousands of dollars is filtered down to organizational capacity. Anyways, I think I found my own ''reference'' answer from the . You "win" a bed by being selected for one of their research studies. From the section "What if my child is not eligible for a St. Jude research study?" it says "...If your child is not eligible for a St. Jude research study, we can help you identify a hospital near you offering an appropriate treatment program and we can provide ongoing consultation with the medical team caring for your child at that hospital." So kids have to be "lucky" enough to be sick with something with an ongoing study in progress and eligible for that study. ] (]) 04:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::It appears that you have an emotional connection to the issue. This board is designed as a dispassionate source of information, not as a place to express your feelings towards a particular situation. --]''''']''''' 04:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::My feelings regarding how normally very expensive things that cost more than some houses are offered at no cost would fairly be described as not dispassionate, but those of wonder and curiosity. I have nothing to do with hospitals or health care at all. ] (]) 04:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::::I never said you did. However, you're using language and writing like "]" and phrasing which indicates that you disapprove of something. This is not the correct forum to do so, even obtusely. --]''''']''''' 04:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::::I'll work on my writing style, sir/madame. ] (]) 04:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
::Yep, sounds like you're looking for ]. ] (]) 16:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
== Why is communism still tried? == | |||
== Was ] Nefertiti 's cousin? == | |||
So one thing popped up in my head. So far, every socialist country that tried to transition to ] failed to truly implement communism (notably ] (now Cambodia) and ]). Except for ] and perhaps ] (I'm not sure), all "communist" countries now have more or less capitalist economies, notably ], but also ] and ]. And of course, the ], ], and ] collapsed. Despite this, around the world, why are there still people who want to try communism? They've seen the failure of "]s" throughout the last hundred years or so. Also, history, as well as several studies, works, and experiences, have shown that communism, while a laudable concept on paper, is just difficult if not impossible to implement in the real world. So why are there people who still believe in communism? Are they pursuing a ]? ] <sup>]]]]</sup> 10:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
Was ] Nefertiti 's cousin? ] (]) 04:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:An interesting question. I read somewhere that the problem with communism is the implementation and control, ensuring that people do work for the common good and that they don't exaggerate their needs. I wish I can remember where I read this, because an interesting observation was that communes can work at sizes where everyone knows everyone else, so peer pressure is enough to avoid free-loading - I think they said that groups of up to 100 people were possible. Above this number you need a "privileged group" to organise and enforce, and every system seems to require that these be "self policing" as they have powers to give themselves disproportionate power and reward. In every practical case this has failed. I think for anyone to try communism again they would need some new method of enforcing motivation and fairness without having a class that just have to be trusted - which may not be possible. -- ] (]) 11:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:It appears uncertain; her ancestry is not well known. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 04:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
== for a debut novelist == | |||
:I'd say Cuba was a better example of a surviving Communist country than North Korea, which has long since veered off into a weird personality cult called ]. Czechoslovakia broke up after the end of Communism, bringing an end to a political experiment that had predated it. Yugoslavia's more violent collapse had a lot more to do with the end of communism, but the unification of Yugoslavia was a monarchist project. Plenty of other political systems have failed in specific cases, and yet remain popular - democracy produced the Dreyfus Affair and McCarthyism, allowed the Nazis to gain control of Germany, and shores up one-party government in Singapore. France has so far had to scrap four republics, two empires, and two attempts to restore the monarchy. I think the lesson is that ''all'' forms of government are difficult. What people seem to want is a government as enfranchising as modern American democracy, as direct and transparent as ancient Athenian democracy, as spectacular as early Roman imperialism, as effective as Enlightenment-era benevolent despotism, and as effortless as the life of an Arcadian shepherd. Even the best form of government in practice will fall well short of this. I will go along with Winston Churchill's preference: "Democracy is the worst form of government that has been tried, apart from all the others." ] (]) 11:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
a) can an author of fiction novel (debut) seek two or more literary agents (or agencies) for a better deal in domestic (best domestic agent) and international markets (best international agent)? | |||
b) is it a wise idea to focus first on domestic market, holding foreign publication rights? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 08:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:While investigating options, expect the agent to present the author with proposed terms and conditions that relate to the domestic/international markets, to be included in a - possibly exclusive - contract the two parties would then sign and fulfill. Perhaps a more productive query here would be: what are the terms and conditions an author can expect a literary agent (independent or publisher's) to fulfill? '' -- ] (]) 09:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)'' | |||
::A novelist with no publications will be very lucky to find any agent at all. ] (]) 02:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
== Scranton == | |||
: Why is capitalism tried? Shouldn't capitalism be abandoned as soon as it becomes evident that the rich or powerful are able to subvert democratic processes? That the poor become a victim of for-profit prisons, are a product to be sold to lawmakers in the form of prisoners? If I can prove to you that the direct consequence of capitalism is that in ever capitalist country, private prisons (and analogous institutions) will jail innocent people by selling their services where not required, would you agree that in this case we should abandon capitalism? In fact, I disagree: although capitalism "doesn't work", it does not need to be abandoned. Like communists, I too believe in the system in which I have seen some measure of success - for me, this is capitalism. Naturally, communism only "works" for a few people. So communist leadership is usually chosen from these. Anyone else can see it's a fools errand, but these people can't. It really is not so simple as you suggest, by viewing yourself as my fellow capitalist in spite of strong arguments against capitalism, I hope you will agree with me. (That said, I may be to the left of you on many issues, and believe one in every ten service dollars should go to the state and be provided by the state, including for many basic things like schools, medicine, security, etc.) ----] (]) 11:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
Where is Scranton, New Jersey? Yes, New Jersey! --] (]) 13:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:If google doesn't know it, it doesn't exist. - ] (]) 13:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
::].--] (]) 14:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::Which is located in Scranton, Pennsylvania... - ] (]) 15:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:nj.com, an agglomeration of New Jersey media sites, returns a reference to . Google returns a map of part of , so presumably Scranton is a neighborhood there or the like. — ] 14:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
::: I added the parenthetical last sentence while in edit conflict with you. If capitalism is benign neglect, then why do we still do it (to any extent) where it obviously doesn't work? (Such as lack of medical coverage causing early deaths where these same people would have easily paid for this up-front cost in taxes paid after the incident.) Arguably, many aspects of capitalism "obviously" don't work - yet we still do it. ] (]) 11:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::The modern approach is kind of a mix of capitalism and socialism, retaining the parts of each that are considered to "work" optimally. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 13:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
It's spurious. The only such address is a listing for J Cafferty at 431 Tenth Ave, Scranton, NJ 07032. Doing an advanced search that excludes any results with "431" will not return any hits for Scranton, NJ at all. ] (]) 17:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
Narutolovehinata5 -- It's an oversimplification to say that North Korea is "communist". For many years, ] was more significant than Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, while in recent decades ] seemed to be eclipsing even Juche. The newest Kim seems to be preparing for yet another shift; I'm not sure anyone but himself knows exactly what it will end up being, but it's unlikely to be a simple variant of classic Communist theory... ] (]) 13:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
*For an argument that North Korea's government uses a race-based nationalism, rather than Marxism-Leninism, to justify its control, see the book '']'' by B.R. Myers. ] (]) 17:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
== Aside from pragmatism what other philosophic tradition criticize the usefulness of formal logic? == | |||
*Communism provides a convenient excuse for brutal, power mad dictators to consolidate their power while pretending to care about the people they crush on their path to power. --]''''']''''' 14:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
**Communism is not unique that way, but it's funny how every Communist government has turned out to be like that. Definitely a trend. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 14:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
Continental tradition doesn't directly dismiss formal logic unlike pragmatism, thus it cannot be the same with pragmatism. And if there is Perestroika movement for social sciences perhaps there are also philosophies which criticize mathematical/formal logic like pragmatism. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
The communist system, albeit in various forms, is alive after 103 years and working well in the ] movement. --] (]) 14:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:Not really. Kibbutzes are small communities centered around communal agriculture, which has about as much to do with Marxist communism as an apple does to a motorcycle. --]''''']''''' 14:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
::The OP asked about "communism". Our article opens with this definition: | |||
::''"a classless, moneyless and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production"'' | |||
::For many Kibbutzim today, the only element from that depiction that is irrelevant is the "stateless". | |||
::As such your hyperbole is incorrect. --] (]) 14:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::This appears to be a debate. I sometimes wonder why we bother. ] (]) 15:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
: |
:Can you provide a source for your assertion that pragmatists' position on formal logic? ] (]) 15:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
== Is it wrong to think that the candidate who wins California will likely be the next President? == | |||
:Perhaps the OP would like to consider the ] (a state on the southern tip of India) as an example of communism working. The state government alternates between the communist led LDF and the Indian National Congress-led UDF; since the 2011 elections the UDF has held power. ] (]) 15:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
Thank you. ] (]) 15:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:As usual, a discussion like this has produced a flood of words within a day, and as usual, I certainly can't contribute a referenced answer. Still, I have often discussed things with extremists, and spent a while listening to them. The question ''title'' asks why people still ''try'' communism, and the question ''text'' asks why people still ''believe''. Slightly different. I'm only focusing on the second, which is easier (the first could do with an expert). Having spoken to communists, and read their opinions (mostly around uni) they are certainly aware of the failure of their system. Most would probably define themselves as "democratic socialists", which I know could be changing the question, but at the time, they struck me as essentially pretty close to communists. They related the problems to Stalinism, rather than communism. I have found some that promote revolution, but when you challenge them on this, they come out as a bit more moderate in their considered judgements. Apart from blaming things on Stalin, the only other concrete thing was that someone blamed the problems on the emergence of communism in just the Eastern bloc. He said his Socialist Alliance (I think that's what they were called) was promoting a worldwide workers movement, so we could all go communist together. Look up ] for some background. In short, you could say that this means they have reflected on history, which does not make them necessarily less utopian. ] (]) 19:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:In the absence of other information, yes, it's an under-informed opinion. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 15:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:I don't feel like digging through all the past elections for the data, but the answer boils down to 'it won't hurt, but it's not necessary'. The candidate who won California won the election in 2012 and 2008 (Obama); lost in 2004 or 2000 (Bush Jr.); won in 1996 and 1992 (Clinton); won in 1988 (Bush Sr.); won in 1984 and 1980 (Reagan — but ''everyone'' voted for Reagan and he was also a California candidate); lost in 1976 (Carter); won in 1972 and 1968 (Nixon).... | |||
:The stated goals of communism are laudable, if it's ability to achieve them falls far short. And, in many cases, it was better than the alternative, which was a population virtually enslaved by a few rich families. Of course, better yet is a mix of capitalism and socialism, where people have an incentive to work to improve things, but we also put some limits on how badly to rich can abuse the poor. ] (]) 21:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:To win the necessary majority of the (current) electoral college – 50 percent plus one, or at least 270 of the 538 votes – a prospective candidate either wants to get the 10 percent (55 votes) from California, or needs to have a solid plan to make up for that shortfall. In the last several election cycles, California ''hasn't'' been seen as a '']''; neither party has campaigned seriously there, assuming that it would go firmly Democrat. It's also not tagged as a ] state; while California probably ends up aligned with the successful candidate more often than not, its 'hit rate' isn't anywhere close to 100%. | |||
:I believe your question can be divided into two parts: (1) Why do supposedly "communist" countries still exist? and (2) Why are there still people who believe in communism? | |||
:As always, past performance is not a guarantee of future returns. ](]) 16:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:For the first part, when you have an established elite or order in a society (in this case the Communist/Workers' Party) who enjoy boons not accorded to the general population, they generally want to remain in that position. It works better if you try to disguise that with a positive ideology so the people will be less likely to try to revolt and overthrow you. I would argue that North Korea has abandoned mostly the ideal of Communism as Marx envisioned it (people generally aren't allowed to read Marx anymore, for that matter), while Cuba is trying to hang on and no longer actively pursuing Communism (though they remain a socialist state). | |||
: xkcd comic explains it well. ] (]) 18:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:For the second part, Communism ''does'' sound like a good idea... in theory. I am reminded about something The Tiger Clemenceau once said (brutally translated), upon learning that his son had become a Communist: "Of course he has! If he had not become a Communist at twenty I would have disowned him. If he is still a Communist at thirty, I will disown him then." ] (]) 22:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
::Do you have a source for that quote? Versions of it are variously attributed to all sorts of people , most commonly George Bernard Shaw . ] (]) 00:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::Various sources actually, including several biographies of him that give it in different forms. I've seen the Frenc original but can't seem to find it. ]. ] (]) 01:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::Hmm, I get the feeling tons of people have said it, and made it seem like their own. Your link gives a very plausible suggestion of the original author, ]. ] (]) 02:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
*California is so Democratic now that it is uninformative about national elections. Every state official and over two thirds of the legislature are Democrats. The chances that California will vote for a Republican are slim. ] (]) 02:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
== Sodom and its sexual interpretation (or lack thereof) == | |||
== Can someone be a Zionist if he's not a Jew? == | |||
I understand that the Bible is a complex, difficult book. I checked the wiki article on Sodom and Gomorrah and looked into the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic interpretations. Apparently, the Islamic interpretation is portrayed as primarily about sex. The Christian interpretation has both sexual and non-sexual interpretations, and the Jewish interpretation seems to be very similar to the Christian interpretation, but is a combination of the sexual and non-sexual: that homosexual rape was an act of inhospitality during Old Testament times. '''How do scholars ''know'' that Sodom is about sex or not? What if the story is just a story without any deep meaning?''' Like one of those spooky stories that parents sometimes tell children at night? I think the Book of Proverbs is supposed to be educational. ] (]) 16:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
I am a Protestant American who strongly supports Israel and its right to exist in God's chosen land for them. Is that considered Zionism?, is there Zionism outside of Judaism? ] (]) 15:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:I'm not sure what Proverbs has to do with anything. As to the rest, I think there's some merit to your suggestion. So much of the Bible has become enshrined in religious dogma over the years, that it's hard to stop and recall that much of it may only ever have been intended as history (whether literal or mythic) and not as instructional material at all. It's worth noting that the story of Sodom forms part of the story of Lot. Lot's narrative is one long disaster. Despite the attempts of God to get Lot and his family to help themselves, they stumble from one hair-raising tragedy to another: their home is threatened by a gang of rapists, Lot's wife disregards a warning and is turned into salt, and then Lot himself is made drunk and raped by his own daughters. Despite the occasional use of this narrative by critics of religion to demonstrate the badness of the Bible, there's nothing in the text to suggest that anything here is praiseworthy or positive. It's all just a miserable slog. This is placed in contrast to the story of Abraham, who accepts God's blessing trustingly, and duly prospers. That might be considered a lesson in itself, but it could just as easily simply be a dramatic device. | |||
:See ]. ] (]) 16:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:All I will say about the positive use of the story of Sodom for teaching is that it's very easy to get 'rape is bad' as a lesson from the whole story of Lot, including this bit; it's pretty easy to get 'the world is a nicer place when we welcome strangers instead of inhospitably trying to rape their house-guests' too; and it's really quite hard to get 'all male-male sexual contact is bad' from this passage alone. The text seems less judgmental about Lot's attempt to hand his daughters over to the rapists instead, too. But the text itself does not specify any of these messages. And thus scholars cannot reasonably ''know'' any of these things. | |||
:Yes, I don't see why not. After all, there are also quite a few male feminists. - ] (]) 16:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:Of course, the use to which scholars and teachers of each faith put this text is rooted not just in the words themselves, but in the existing history of the text's reception by their respective faith communities. In some cases, this includes the testimony of other bits of scripture: Jesus, as might be expected from his as a rabbi of his era, teaches that the lesson of Sodom is against inhospitality. ] (]) 17:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
::Absolutely. Anyone who is in favor of a Jewish state in the Southern Levant is, by definition, a Zionist. Neither ethnicity nor religion is a requirement. Note the difference between ethnic Jewry and the religion of Judaism. ] (]) 16:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:Yes I believe that would be Zionism. I hope that's as opposed to the Protestant American sects that want Israel to wage a nuclear war so God's will on Earth is accomplished and the Rapture comes. ] (]) 16:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
{{hat|Off-topic and turning into a debate}} | |||
No, I am not that kind of Protestant. I just want a Jewish state in all that part of the Middle East, including the Gaza Strip and West Bank, and that the Palestinians be sent to Jordan and Syria, where they came from. ] (]) 16:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
::See also ], and the man who set the Zionist ball rolling, ]. ] (]) 16:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
*This is one of the most popular topics of all time here at the ref desks, and has been discussed as recently as last month. I suggest you read the and then let us know if you have any more questions that need a source to be answrered. ] (]) 17:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:When, exactly, do you think Palestinians came from Jordan or Syria? Who was living in the southern Levant, say, a thousand years ago? Five hundred? (If you prefer not to answer this question, you might also decide not to brandish inflammatory political statements on the RD.) ] (]) 16:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
There were Jewish settlers from thousand years ago, when the Egyptians took the People of Israel as slaves, the Arabs came in and occupied the Jewish land. That's what's told in the Church. ] (]) 17:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:Like you said, it's a complex issue and it depends in part on whether you read the story in isolation or consider references to Sodom elsewhere in the Bible. One important passage that addresses the sins of Sodom is Ezekiel 16:49-50: "''Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. Therefore I removed them when I saw it'' (NASB)". The reference to not helping the poor and needy can be understood to imply inhospitality. On the other hand, the 'abominations' (תּוֹעֵבָה) (which apparently were the final cause of Sodom's destruction) could well refer to sexual sins (the book of Leviticus in particular uses this word for sins like incest, bestiality and homosexuality). In any case, it's not a matter of hard facts, there's a lot of interpretation (and sometimes speculation) involved. And you are right, I think, that sometimes too much is read into the story that isn't actually there. - ] (]) 17:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:Hmmm... you probably want to read our article, ] and also the ], which is when the resident Jews were either killed or evicted. ] (]) 17:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
::Seconded very much. Even according to the Bible, the Israelites under Joshua very much took the land by force and genocide. If that is the base for a valid claim, then so is the claim of Muslim Palestinians, whose families have been living there for longer than Israel existed (where the existence of David's Israel and later Juda as significant kingdoms is very much open to historical debate) from the initial conquest (which is very much open to historical debate, too) to the second ] (which is the first thing well-established in this sentence ;-). --] (]) 17:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:Has it occurred to you to learn history from history books - ideally representing several different points of view - rather than from your church? It is important to distinguish between different time periods, such as the captivity in Egypt (~1400BC), the captivity in Babylon (~600BC), the exile after the Roman invasion (70 & 130 AD), and the Arab invasions much later in the 1st millennium AD. An inability to tell these things apart may lead to people not taking your views on the Middle East seriously.] (]) 17:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
The pastor of my Church has a degree in ] ] (]) 17:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
::He's still just another man, and the idea of pastoral infallibility isn't usually a Protestant trait. You should always feel free to do your own research. If it's something you really care about, you should feel ''obligated'' to do so. The history of the region is more complicated than your pastor seems to know or seems to be telling you. --] (]) 17:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::Whether one goes by theology or history/archaeology... there were people living in Israel/Palistine/Outremer/The Holy Land before Abraham brought his family out of Ur. <small>Sodomites arise... take back your land!</small> ] (]) 17:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
{{hab}} | |||
::::I commend Keeeith for asking his questions here. They do, at times, seem to be based on some less than completely accurate premises, but as he reads and thinks about more of the answers, his knowledge can only improve. ] (]) 17:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
Are you pulling my leg? Or you're serious. ] (]) 18:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
*]. Some non-Abrahamic Canaanites were Zionists, and the Bible doesn't mention them being wiped out (even in the period of Judges). ] (]) 18:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
::I think perhaps the most important thing in interpreting the Sodom story is the very similar one of the Levite and his concubine in Judges 19-20. In this story the outrage is committed by the people of Benjamin, and the rest of the Israelites make war on the Benjaminites because of it, nearly wiping them out. The point of this story may have been to justify the eclipsing of Benjamin by Judah, in other words, politics. ] thinks both episodes were part of the ], which was a Judahite text. --] (]) 22:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
== Lanihau: Sources on Kauaian History == | |||
:I would speculate that ] were real towns, destroyed by volcanism. Afterwards, in an attempt to explain it, the stories of it being a place of evil likely developed. However, it seem unlikely that everybody but one family would be "evil" in a pair of towns. No doubt, if ] is destroyed by an earthquake, "Christian" fundamentalists will all claim it's punishment from God for homosexuality. ] (]) 22:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
Who should I contact on the subject of Lanihau, an obscure chiefess from the 1800s, who was the Governess of Kauai from 1886 to 1888. Her name is mentioned in a few newspaper article, which gives nothing about her, and only one sentence in a few books. I have already email the Kauai Historical Society, who else (history professors, authors, museums, etc) is a good source in this subject area (Kauaian history)?--] (]) 18:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
== Easter == | |||
: I'll start: is the University of Hawaii's expert on Hawaiian history. ] (]) 21:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
What would a typical Easter Sunday be like for a practicing Christian? After reading about the wiki page on ], I came to read ] and then about Easter games, and I am trying to figure out how a person might cram so many things on one day. A person might prepare beforehand to finish all schoolwork/coursework/office work, so on Easter day that person might spend the whole day doing things related to Easter. Or that person might spread things out a bit during the whole Lent period, including ]. It would also be important to do some grocery shopping BEFORE Easter, because on Easter many businesses will probably either be closed or open part of the day. The Easter games part might not seem very important, so those might be cancelled for a person's own schedule, but the church attendance would probably be strongly favored. How long is the church service anyway, and at what time do churches typically observe Easter? ] (]) 19:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
== Bible as inerrant/infallible/authoritative/etc.? == | |||
:Which country? ] (]) 20:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
OK. I have a couple of questions. | |||
::It is easy enough for us to state which country we are talking about, and confine our answer to that. In Australia: when I was a Roman Catholic, church was just the ordinary length service, I think (maybe a bit longer, but unremarkable). I know a lot of very enthusiastic Evangelical Protestants, and it's about the same. I don't think they do much else. Generally, Good Friday and Easter Sunday are the main services. I've never heard of anything else going down. ] (]) 20:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
* How many people in the world view the Bible as the inerrant word of God? | |||
* How many people in the world view the Bible as the infallible word of God? | |||
* How many people in the world view the Bible as the authoritative word of God? | |||
* How many people in the world view the Bible as a written record, based on thousand-year traditions and cultural memories, of ancient literature, daily life, and prophecies that still carries a significant impact in people's lives today, without divine intervention? | |||
] (]) 19:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:You asked this ]. It is unlikely that new scholarship has emerged in the meantime, and the problems with nonspecificity in the language of your questions are still there. — ] 19:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::How long is "ordinary length service"? ] (]) 20:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
== Weren't Nazi party members forced to have at least four children? == | |||
::::Always in the ballpark of an hour, but now that I think about it, the Catholic one might have gone for two hours on Easter Sunday. It was certainly a bigger production, but that's all I remember. The Protestant one is also about an hour, no longer at Easter. Most of the time is taken up by the sermon. With reference to Lomn's post below, I would call them extra-low church (the minister wears jeans). They're not into ritual, just devotion. ] (]) 22:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
Then why such senior Nazi officers like ] and his wife didn't have any child by 1945 when they both committed suicide and made the World a better place? ] (]) 19:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:My typical Easter Sunday is that the church service runs about 15 minutes longer than usual. Due to (lack of) proximity to the church, I tend to skip the additional early (sunrise) service. For my experience (US Protestant, low-to-medium in terms of "high church"), that's about all that's out of the ordinary for a practicing Christian in terms of things specifically relevant to practicing Christians. That is, church attendance isn't out of the ordinary (though for many Christians who don't regularly attend services, it would be), and something like "Easter dinner" might be unusual but isn't particular to practicing Christians. — ] 20:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:I don't believe your assumption is quite right. Maybe they motivated ethnic Germans to have more children, but how would they (yes, even the Nazi Germany would have a difficult task here) force them to have at least four children? They granted the ] to mothers of four or more children, but I don't see any reference of any force or drawback for those who didn't cooperated with the German effort of populating the world with pure Germans. ] (]) 20:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)ac | |||
::Usual time length? ] (]) 20:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
::See this article, , which says that the Nazi regime encouraged large families by means of propaganda, tax breaks and support programmes. Birth control advice and contraception were controlled by law and eventually banned altogether. Misplaced Pages has an article on the ], for ''"mothers who exhibited probity, exemplary motherhood, and who conceived and raised at least four or more children in the role of a parent"''. Curiously, France has a similar award which is still in use, La ]. ] (]) 21:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::For that category (US Protestant, low-to-middle church), normal service length is roughly an hour. Sunday school is additionally roughly an hour, but participation in that is at a lower rate than the service proper, and whether participation is the norm varies more widely within the US -- my wife grew up in a region where adult SS participation was functionally unheard of; I grew up with adult SS being at roughly the same participation rate as child SS. An Easter sunrise service length will have more variance, but 30-45 minutes is a reasonable estimate. — ] 20:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
== crazy babbling == | |||
:There is no single answer to this; Easter ceremonies vary from one local church to another, and more between denominations. My own experience as a High-Church ] is representative only of that tradition within that denomination; but it also reflects quite widespread practice within Roman Catholicism. So with all that said, here's how it works for me: | |||
:We begin before the start of Easter proper. ] has been spent in self-discipline and prayer (in theory!), and ] in contemplating the coming mysteries. (In Anglicanism, Passion Sunday is the Sunday before Palm Sunday, and in some places statues and pictures may be veiled from then on, and the colour of the vestments and altar cloths changes from purple to red.) On Palm Sunday there will be a procession - possibly through the streets, but just as likely to be round the inside of the church - with the people waving palm branches or palm crosses. If they use small palm crosses, these are saved to burn for next year's Ash Wednesday ashes. There may also be a dramatic reading of the Passion from one of the gospels, in which the narrator and the various characters are played by different members of the congregation, or if sung, by different choristers. I have seen performances where the priest played Jesus, and others where the priest played Judas. I prefer the latter; the Passion should challenge our expectations, not reinforce them. | |||
:Holy Week begins quietly. On Maundy Thursday, I aim to leave work at noon, and go to a lunchtime eucharist. When I was a British civil servant, I was helped in this by the traditional award of a half-day 'privilege day' on this day. The Maundy Thursday service is a much closer commemoration of the Last Supper itself than usual. After communion has been shared, the priest takes the remaining wafers, and ceremonially removes them in their ] or ] to a small separate altar, generally elsewhere in the church, called the Altar of Repose. While this is done, the anthem ''Pange Lingua Gloriosi Corporis Mysterium'' is sung by the choir (if in Latin) or everyone (if in English). After the first four verses, the wafers should be in the ] on the Altar of Repose. The priest then intones the first line of the fifth verse: "Tantum ergo sacramentum"/"Therefore we, before him bending", and the anthem is sung to the end while the priest and servers prostrate themselves. Then they return to the main sanctuary. Many of the normal closing prayers are not said. Instead, the choir sings Psalm 22 ("My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?") while the priest and servers strip the altars. Every last thing is removed, until the altar is bare, the priest and servers are in their plain cassocks, and the main tabernacle stands empty, open and unveiled. Only the Altar of Repose is left. Then the priest announces "The disciples forsook him, and fled", and the people 'depart in confusion', although in practice they may stop and eat hot cross buns on the porch. Some people may remain and spend an hour keeping vigil at the Altar of Repose, in commemoration of the agony in the Garden of Gethsemane. | |||
:Good Friday is a bank holiday in the UK. Compared with how much happens on Maundy Thursday, church is comparatively restrained. The church remains stripped bare. One church I know has ], the ] and ], none of which require a priest or any ritual objects. Some churches distribute the wafers from the Altar of Repose in a ceremony called the 'mass of the presanctified', but this seems to me to go against the general presumption that Good Friday is the most solemn day, and no eucharistic actions whatever should be performed. Another typically Catholic ritual is Veneration of the Cross, dubbed 'creeping to the Cross' by Protestant critics. In this, a single plain unveiled cross or crucifix is brought out, and members of the congregation go up one by one to make personal devotion: some kiss the cross, or the 'corpus' figure on it, while others simply make silent prayer. While this is done, it is customary for the hymn 'Faithful Cross' to be sung. | |||
:Holy Saturday is pretty much a day off in church terms. This will, for me, generally be the first opportunity to do anything except eat, sleep, relax, and do church stuff in 36 hours. | |||
:In theory, nothing should now happen until first light on Easter morning. However, in practice, some churches have the first service of Easter sometime after nightfall on the Saturday evening. In this, a brazier or other source of fire is lit outside the church, and a new paschal candle is lit from it. This candle will be used at every baptism that church celebrates for the coming year. The light is brought into the darkened church, and other lights lit from it, gradually revealing the glorious white and gold decor which has replaced the barrenness of Good Friday. The Easter hymn, the ], is sung. This will be the first time that the word 'Alleluia' will have been used in the church since before Ash Wednesday. The service that follows is of a joyful character, with bold, major-keyed hymns and anthems. The gospel is usually the story of the empty tomb: "Early in the morning, while it was yet dark...", to match the theoretical timing of the service. If actually done at dawn, the light of the sun should illuminate the church more fully shortly after the paschal candle is brought in. New sacred elements are consecrated for communion, and there may be the 'great blessing of the waters', in which a font of water is blessed, and the people renew their baptismal vows while the priest sprinkles them with the holy water. | |||
:Later on the morning of Easter Sunday, there will be another communion service for everyone who finds the other one too early, either theologically or practically, which will follow the same basic model, but without the candle procession. Then it's time for lunch, and the afternoon off, followed by another bank holiday, for tourism or DIY or anything else. | |||
:I hope this is a sufficiently complete account of just one way to do it! ] (]) 20:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
There is someone near my building (maybe next door) who is angrily ranting about something I can't make any sense of. It's in unaccented English, has some profanity sprinkled in but mostly seems to be about some specific topic, and yet I can't make out more than a few words here or there. There are very few pauses. The person is just babbling nonstop and not making any sense, and (from my nonprofessional perspective) sounds mentally ill. I've seen similar behavior from streetpeople multiple times in the past. | |||
:PS: Each communion service lasts about 1h15; the Good Friday services are shorter. ] (]) 20:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
Is there a particular illness associated with this symptom/behavior, or a name for the behavior itself? | |||
::: AlexTiefling, you can't eat, sleep, relax, and do church stuff in 36 hours? Not sure if there is a typo, or you really can't relax and sleep in 36 hours. Fasting is understandable, but sleep deprivation? That's like more than a day, and you'd be sleep-deprived by the end, if that were true and not a typographical error. Can you consume a large meal afterwards? ] (]) 21:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
Not looking for medical advice as I have no intention of going anywhere near the person. Just wondering if the situation has a name. | |||
::::No - I mean that those four things are just about all I do between lunchtime on Maundy Thursday and the end of Good Friday. Not a typo; please re-read. I don't fast strictly at any time, as my metabolism isn't strong enough. ] (]) 21:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
] (]) 20:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::::"This will, for me, generally be the first opportunity to do anything except eat, sleep, relax, and do church stuff in 36 hours." | |||
:::::Grammatically speaking, I interpret this as the ability to "do anything EXCEPT eat, sleep, relax, and do church stuff in 36 hours." In other words, grammatically speaking, you can do anything EXCEPT (excluding, not including) eat, sleep, relax, and do church stuff in 36 hours. It may be an English dialect thing. ] (]) 21:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
: You might like to read ]. ] (]) 21:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::::This may be a dialect thing. I parse it as follows: except does mean excluding, so 'anything except X, Y & Z' means all actions other than those things. And I say that this is the first opportunity to do anything except those things - in other words, that I can't reasonably do other things, but only those things, in that time period. I think it may be the anything/nothing bit, rather than the meaning of 'except', which is the problem here. | |||
::::::I'm also happy to answer non-grammatical queries about my lengthy narrative! ] (]) 21:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
== Why do some people say Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East? == | |||
::Just to add the this: the Saturday evening service in the Catholic Church is the ], which is a huge sprawling service lasting about 3 hours and containing all sorts of little ancient relics of Christianity throughout the ages, from the blessing of the fire and the ], to the Exsultet, to the epic ] which is supposed to cover the whole of salvation history and the great Gospel Acclamation in several verses. It is supposed to start after dark, and so the beginning of the service is lit only by the candles that everyone holds: "the flame divided, but undimmed". If adults are being Baptised or Confirmed, this generally happens at the Easter Vigil, which has a special bit of liturgy set aside for it, including the full ]. This goes back to when Christianity was underground, and catechumens were slowly introduced to basic ideas before joining at the Easter Vigil, which would be the first time they were allowed to remain for the ]. Of course, nowadays anyone is allowed to witness the whole Mass. | |||
Isn't Turkey a democracy or isn't it in the Middle East? ] (]) 20:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
::Also, I don't think Alex mentioned that the Maundy Thursday service usually includes footwashing, with the priest washing the feet of parishioners. And a wrinkle to the "Passion Reading" (the reading of an account of the Passion from a Gospel, with different people reading different lines) in a Catholic church is that normally only the priest or deacon reads the Gospel during Mass. For passion readings, lay people read the Gospel during Mass, but Jesus's words must be read by a priest or deacon. The usual parts are "Jesus", "narrator", "Other person" and "crowd" (everyone present). ] (]) 22:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:I think that Turkey is now considered part of ]. ] (]) 21:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
::Not really. But to the OP: See ] for the answer. --] (]) 21:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:On the Turkey point specifically ] and ] (the section that has the 'traditional middle east' and 'greater middle east'). In general see ] ] (]) 21:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::Thank you! I had forgotten the foot-washing. Traditionally, the British monarch performed this at the Royal Maundy service. I don't know off hand if that is done any more. And yes, the Anglican Easter vigil is about half the length of the Catholic one. As to who may read the Gospel: in the Church of England, anyone may, but it is normal practice for a priest, deacon or licensed lay reader (a kind of minor order, I suppose) to do so when Holy Communion is celebrated. Consequently, it is possible for the lay reader to read the Jesus part, and for the priest to be the narrator or another character. Also, Anglican priests tend to sing the liturgy more often the Catholic ones since Vatican II and ''Novus Ordo'', and thus in the case of a sung Passion, the priest may still be a strong enough singer to take a role. ] (]) 22:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
Because they don't know facts. If there would be a universal definition of democracy, Turkey, Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt, and/or Yemen might be included in this category. Someone already found the No True Scotsman fallacy, which pertains to this issue. ] (]) 01:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:Let me give an answer for the US. On the days before Easter, egg dyeing and ] may occur (kids enjoy this). Some foods may also be prepared in advance for the Easter meal, like pies. | |||
== Propaganda in schools == | |||
:"Christians" will go to church, usually in late morning, for about an hour. In some communities, especially African American communities, women and girls often wear special outfits for the day, which include pastel dresses and large, floppy hats. Here's a toddler in such an outfit: . | |||
Do we have an article about a type of propaganda where the state uses the ] to influence the students? For example, by making them study from biased textbooks, or by making them study topics that promote the ruling party (for example, if children had to study "the advantages of communism" in a communist state) ] (]) 21:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:After church it's time to go back home for Easter dinner (which often features a ]) and, if there's kids, perhaps an ]. ] (]) 21:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
: ]. Although it is very short. Searching Misplaced Pages for "biased textbooks" I also found many specifric articles along these lines: ], ], ], ], ], etc. ] (]) 21:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
::StuRat, why do you put "Christians" in quotes? ] (]) 21:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
::There is no doubt that governments have tried to do this in Australia. A read of ] and ] will give some details. This is mostly to do with the issue of whether the arrival of the British in 1788, and subsequent events, should be described as an invasion or a benevolent colonisation. (OK, so those are the extreme positions.) ] (]) 21:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::<small>Because many who profess to be Christians in the US don't actually believe in the teachings of Christ, such as pacifism. They believe in Old Testament, pre-Christian values. ] (]) 21:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)</small> | |||
== A Kipling short story == | |||
:::::<small>Why would a pacifist ever recommend that people sell their cloak and buy a sword? - ] (]) 22:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)</small> | |||
Hello Learned Ones ! I'm looking for the title of that short story about a German policeman in the Weimar republic, he tries to enforce law in the social turmoil of those years & I think he is killed ...Thanks beforehand for your help. T;y. ] (]) 22:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
== French Admiral Serre == | |||
:::::::<small>Jesus's core message was about love, not pacifism. I don't think love is the same thing as pacifism. Some parents do occasionally spank their children or scold their children, when their children do something inappropriate or wrong or socially unacceptable or socially unproductive. For back-up support that Jesus's core message is about love, please read Dr. Jeffrey B. Webb's book, "The Complete Idiot's Guide To Exploring God", which looks into many different religious perspectives of God, God's nature, and God's behavior in the world. In the introduction, the author confesses that he is a Christian, but attempts to portray the different religions in a good light and as accurately as possible. ] (]) 00:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)</small> | |||
Who was the French Admiral Serre who was in Tahiti in 1877? Like his full name, dates of birth/death/time in Tahiti.--] (]) 00:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
== New jersey question rephrased: Is there any "safe area" parts of ]? I know that city/township has a high crime rate bu does it have any safe areas like parks, beaches, or neighborhoods or schools? == | |||
::::Isn't that use of 'Old Testament values' rather unfair to millions of Jews who use the Tanakh - Christians' Old Testament - as a guide to life? I'd suggest that the un-Christian behaviour of Christians has less to do with the Old Testament, and more to do with typical human ignorance and malice. ] (]) 21:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
{{hat|asked and answered at the miscellaneous desk}} | |||
:::::There's nothing inherently wrong with believing in Old Testament values, those just don't happen to be the teachings of Christ. ] (]) 22:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
See ] (]) 9:14 pm, 6 December 2012, Thursday (1 month, 2 days ago) (UTC−5) | |||
{{hab}} | |||
::::OK... what do REAL Christians do during Easter? ] (]) 21:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::There aren't very many of them, perhaps including ], and the ]/]. I'm not as familiar with their Easter traditions. ] (]) 21:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::Let's not try to sort the sheep from the goats ourselves. That way lies madness and the closure of this interesting thread. Suffice it to say that you will find 'real' Christians in pretty much the same places as the, er, 'less real' ones. ] (]) 21:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::Can non-Christians participate during Easter vigil? If Christians renew their baptisms during Easter, then perhaps, during Easter prospective Christians are allowed to be baptized? Do churches baptize first-time non-Christian visitors? ] (]) 21:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::Firstly, you can't be baptised by accident; baptism isn't any sprinkling with holy water, but (outside the small Jesus-only movement) is specifically having the water poured over you, or entering bodily into the water, while another person says "I baptise you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost/Spirit". | |||
::::::I believe some places baptise willing converts between the blessing of the waters and the sprinkling of the congregation, but generally adults or older children who wish to be baptised will have preparatory classes - sometimes integrated with the church's Lent study group - and will plan their baptism. In some places, they will be asked to wait until Low Sunday (the Sunday after Easter), in order not to prolong the first service of Easter too much. Or else the sprinkling will be at the first Easter service, and the baptism at the second. (I think this is what my church is planning this year.) | |||
::::::So non-Christians are generally welcome to come for the Easter vigil, and participate in the lighting of candles, and get free Easter eggs, and so on, but will not be baptised, either accidentally, or deliberately but without planning. A Jewish relative of a regular congregant used to come regularly to our first service of Easter at my previous church; he basically ignored the splash of holy water, and enjoyed the show. | |||
::::::However, all of that being said, if someone approached a priest before the vigil and said "I've never been baptised - could you do me today, please?", the reaction would vary from priest to priest, but many would leap at the chance if the person appeared sincere. ] (]) 22:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::: If you said that to a Catholic priest, I think he'd want to talk to you at length about your desire to convert, and have you go through formal religious instruction to make sure you understood what you're getting into. To the question above about non-Christian participation, I've "read somewhere" (therefore it's true!!!!) that the Catholic Church approves of non-Catholics participating in the Ash Wednesday ritual where the priest rubs palm-leaf ashes into each person's forehead while reminding him in verse that he will die some day. But the rules strictly limit circumstances in which non-Catholic Christians can receive communion. ] (]) 23:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Receiving communion generally requires more than baptism: in most Anglican churches, it requires confirmation, and in most RC churches acceptance at First Communion. I take your point, but I think you are eliding the difference between baptism and other stages of church membership. And my speculation was, in any case, just that - speculative. ] (]) 23:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
Norman Rockwell did a classic illustration on Easter Sunday for the cover of the May 16, 1959 issue of the Saturday Evening Post; see ... -- ] (]) 04:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
== What is a legacy payment system? == | |||
Various things on the web like use the phrases "legacy payment system" and "legacy system" in ways that assume the reader knows what it means. Misplaced Pages seems to have no article about whatever this thing is. What is it? ] (]) 23:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:That's because it isn't a specific thing. It's not a system for the payment of legacies; it's a payment system that's a legacy of some earlier time. Payroll systems are often left like this, but it can affect all kinds of corporate IT. ] (]) 23:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
: In this context "system" means "collection of computers, software, and practices that do a given task". "Legacy system" means "old-fashioned system we wish went away but on which our business really depends". A "payment system" is a system by which banks transfer money (or some magical money-equivalent) to and from one another, or to other entities like retailers or people. "Replacing legacy payment systems" means "behind our bank's fancy modern website there is a core of antique Tandem mainframes and clunky IBM minicomputers which do all the real work, whose function is arcane and complicated and understood only by ancient wizards who have all retired due to stress - so we're terrified to change anything in case our business implodes." -- ]'''ჷ'''] 23:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
::I'd characterize it another way: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". That is, if some critical system works just fine now, even though it's old technology, upgrading to a new technology is rather risky, by comparison. ] (]) 23:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
::: As the PDF Michael linked notes, they still need to be able to change the legacy system (new banking laws, new markets, new types of business). Much as they'd like to leave the scary thing alone, outside effects mean they have to, but do so without breaking something. -- ]'''ჷ'''] 23:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
Well, now I see that there is a Misplaced Pages article titled ], and it's not specifically about payment systems. ] (]) 23:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:<small>A common joke around such systems finally being replaced usually goes along the lines of "Why is the system finally being replaced? The last remaining support person who knew anything about it has died/retired." <span style="font-family:monospace;">]</span>|] 00:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)</small> | |||
= January 8 = | |||
== Drawing conclusions from the wrong experiment-fallacy == | |||
As a libertarian I have to fight arguments along the line "we tried it, and obviously it didn't work" quite a lot in discussions. Examples are Dutch public transport and the Dutch health system which are both "privatised", and turned into a mess. (here I cut quite some lines as "this is not a forum". Just assume for the sake of argument that the Dutch health care system is all but a free market). My response would be to prove that the current state of affairs doesn't exactly resemble a free market because of this and that and such and so. Luckily, in this case, I happen to know about the subject. If I don't, the mere calling something "privatisation" and proving its failure means that it's me who's left with the burden of proof. I'd love an "official Misplaced Pages page" or even better a latin phrase saying: "If you're using the result of an experiment as an argument, it's up to you to prove that the experiment was carried out right". ] (]) 02:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:Something else to think about is that one or two trials doesn't prove much (that number isn't statistically significant). So, you'd need a much larger "population" of privatization trials, like all that have ever occurred in the world, to draw a conclusion about whether they work or don't. ] (]) 03:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
::There have been many such trials - and no, they rarely work- unless by 'work' you mean lining the pockets of a few, while leaving the rest of us with an inferior service. ] (]) 03:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::I'd think it would depend on what is being privatized. Some things are natural functions of government, like the military, while others are natural functions of the private sector, like making shoes. If you privatize the 1st one, expect a disaster, while, if for some reason the government is making shoes, then privatization should improve things. ] (]) 03:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:I believe the fallacy you are describing is a type of ]. ] (]) 04:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
::Like Looie, I think the question is more about the fallacy than about privatisation. All fallacies are ], ie. the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Here, some part of the problem is that the facts drawn as evidence regarding X are incorrect, in that they aren't even examples of X (in this case privatisation). It's a straw man if they really understand the facts, but misunderstand what privatisation is. As it stands, it may not truly be a fallacy. As a solution, just ask them what they know about X. I find the best way is never to put the hard questions to people. Ask them the dumb ones, and you will see quickly enough that it has more to do with ideology than logic. ] (]) 05:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
== What trivias about Tokugawa Ieyasu is verifiable? == | |||
Recently I noted a number of uncited trivias in the trivia section of ]: | |||
*Hobbies in late age:Mount Fuji, eagle and eggplant.He liked to go hiking in Mount Fuji and hunt with eagle, while eggplant is his favorite food; he described eggplant as "food of the conquerors". | |||
*He was the wealthiest among the daimyos in Japan, prabably due to the support of Chinese merchant Li Dan. | |||
*He was a master in the Bows, Swords, Cannons, Horses and Swimming; he learned from a number of skilled warriors. | |||
*People he admired include: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]. | |||
*His favourite books: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] | |||
*Palmistry: He had a ]. | |||
*Other hobbies: he had a wide variety of hobbies; he liked ] and learned Japanese tea ceremony and Go. | |||
*He was a square man with height 156-160 cm and waist circumference 120cm. | |||
*One claim says he died because of poisoning from sparidae tempura. | |||
.... | |||
There are still some left in] I have left not translated. See also], from which I believe the Chinese content is translated, but still has many unreferenced trivias.--] (]) 06:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:As for the first one, It's just a theory of the origin of ]. As for his death cause, it was a popular belief in Japan, but it is denied today. Some of those trivia can be found at the ja article, and they might be the translation from the page. Some are sourced and some are not at the ja page. Some of the trivia at the zh page are different from the ja article. The ja article says he know, but he does not like the Japanese tea ceremony and he was a thrifty and left a large fortune, but there is no mention of the Chinese merchant. ] <small>(])</small> 07:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
==Relatives and Child Support== | |||
== Pastafarian Minister Honorific? == | |||
Have there ever been any cases where a child's grandparent(s) or a child's aunts and/or uncles were forced to pay child support against their will for this child, such as if one of the child's parents died young? If not, are there any laws anywhere that would force grandparents, aunts, and/or uncles to pay child support against their will? ] (]) 01:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
==Gun Selling Question== | |||
I was recently ordained as a Pastafarian minister and I was wondering if anyone knows of an honorific I can be referred to as, officially, rather than "Mr.". ] (]) 06:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
Do gun dealers legally have the option to avoid selling guns to people if they want to, even if these people pass a background check and the requirements in order to buy a gun? ] (]) 01:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:In the United States, with the exception of laws against racial discrimination, any private business owner can refuse to do business with any individual. No one is required to sell you anything. --]''''']''''' 03:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:41, 8 January 2013
Welcome to the humanities sectionof the Misplaced Pages reference desk. skip to bottom Select a section: Shortcut Want a faster answer?
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.
December 1
Muslim nations Snow
Which Muslim-majority nations do receive snow during its winter season? I want the answer to be in a list so I can visit them during their winter season and feel the experience. Please and Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmust90 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- We had the same question several months ago. If you don't find the answer you're looking for there, just let us know. Evanh2008 01:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- (after edit conflict) The most obvious answer is Turkey, which is reasonably far north and has extensive mountains. So does Iran, although it's harder to travel freely there (eg to the snowy bits) for visa and travel permit reasons. I am unable to supply a more comprehensive list at present, but if other people give useful answers too, you might try compiling a list yourself. AlexTiefling (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- It snows in Morocco, according to their tourism commercials. There is snow in the mountains, at least. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Ifrane is a ski resort in Morocco. It had the lowest ever recorded temperature in Africa: -24°C in 1935. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 15:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Then there's Pakistan and Afghanistan. Tourist Meccas that they are in summer, they must be even more attractive in winter. :-) StuRat (talk) 01:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Respectfully, are we joking about Pakistan receiving tourists? Pakistan receives LOTS of tourists. (Afghanistan fewer, admittedly, but it's got huge potential for future tourism including awesome winter sports on the snow which this question is about...)Your Username 23:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sure it does, but to Americans who keep up with overseas events, but who have no particular family or personal ties to Pakistan, the idea of a pleasure trip to Pakistan sounds slightly bizarre at the moment, considering that there are many other countries which are equally scenic, but with a whole lot fewer fanatical extremists, terrorists, and terrorist wannabes. If the Sri Lankan cricket team can't make to the stadium without being bombed, then it seems that U.S. visitors must be very cautious where they go... AnonMoos (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Respectfully, are we joking about Pakistan receiving tourists? Pakistan receives LOTS of tourists. (Afghanistan fewer, admittedly, but it's got huge potential for future tourism including awesome winter sports on the snow which this question is about...)Your Username 23:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- There's Canada. μηδείς (talk) 04:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Fixed your link. Hope you don't mind. Evanh2008 04:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, everyone has a standing invitation to do so. μηδείς (talk) 04:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Fixed your link. Hope you don't mind. Evanh2008 04:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- There's Canada. μηδείς (talk) 04:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, in Russia: Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, North Caucasian Republics (mostly in the mountains, in the valleys snow is weak).--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 04:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Albania has relatively warm winters but it gets some snow, especially in the mountains. There are apparently some ski resorts there. Wow. Also: Bosnia-Herzegovina has a Muslim plurality if that counts. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 06:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I got Kazakhstan, Iran, Kyrgyzstan, Turkey, but what about Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan? don't they get snow in winter season? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmust90 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Well, you've all forgotten Tanzania. I am surprised no one has simply quoted the entire discussion of this two moths back to this thread. It would save time. μηδείς (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- I heard that if you put two moths together you're liable to get some more moths. But I think that's a myth. -- Jack of Oz 19:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- That's not the first such comment by you I've come acrost. You seem to do it alot. In fact, it's curious whether you do much of anything else. μηδείς (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sure Jack would try to place hats on more discussions without any consensus to do so, but someone else seems to be doing that job quite well... --Jayron32 20:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- As for "much of anything else", *cough". -- Jack of Oz 21:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- That's not the first such comment by you I've come acrost. You seem to do it alot. In fact, it's curious whether you do much of anything else. μηδείς (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- I heard that if you put two moths together you're liable to get some more moths. But I think that's a myth. -- Jack of Oz 19:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Every year or two it snows in Palestine. 75.34.30.62 (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Jordan. And I've seen snowdrifts in Afghanistan (mentioned above) that were twice the height of an SUV. But I suppose that's original research. Maybe a shorter list would be Muslim countries that do not receive snow. And another question might be why would anybody assume that Muslim countries don't receive snow? Your Username 23:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Most Muslim countries get snow on rare occasions and/or in mountains where few people live. Not so many Muslim-majority countries get snow every year in their main population centers. In Istanbul, there is little snow most winters. However, in Turkey's capital and second-largest city, Ankara, there is snow most winters. Tabriz in Iran has fairly snowy winters. So does Kabul, Afghanistan. The major cities of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan all see significant snow in the winter. (The main cities of Turkmenistan see a little snow most winters, but typically not enough to stay on the ground long.) They aren't countries, but the Caucasian "republics" of Russia, such as Chechnya, also see some snow in the winter, though their dry climates mean that snowfall is light and tends to melt or sublimate. None of the other majority Muslim countries see much snow in their main population centers most winters. Marco polo (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
The following was posted in response to the same user when he posted the same question September 9th :
Which Muslim nations do tend to receive snow during the winter season? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.155.47 (talk) 16:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Iran gets snow in its mountains, enough for quite a few skiing areas. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 16:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- (ec)It depends how you define "Muslim nation." For example, Kazakhstan is a secular republic, but its population is about 70% Muslim. It is a fairly arid place, but it has cold winters with snow. The climate of the Islamic Republic of Iran is very diverse, but there are high-altitude basins, and numerous very tall mountain ranges; heavy snowfall is common in most of the country. Afghanistan is very snowy, and last time I checked, it is officially an Islamic Republic. And, I'd be remiss if I did not mention Lebanon... the Lebanese people are diverse, but there are many Muslims. As I learned the etymology, "Lebanon" and "lebneh" both come from the same root-word, describing the snowy mountains. Though, this is not in universal agreement. In fact, a senseless war was fought over it. Nimur (talk) 16:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- The mountains of Pakistan, such the Pakistani parts of the Karakoram, get a lot of snow. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 18:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- There are the Caucasus mountains. μηδείς (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- This past February Bosnia and Albania were both hit by heavy snowfall, although this was unusual. Some parts of Turkey receive snow, as any reader of Orhan Pamuk will remember. Of course, there is a particular place in Dubai where it snows every night. LANTZY 21:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- The IP seems to be from Canada, (Toronto per geolocate), which may explain the implied bias. μηδείς (talk) 21:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- What helpful information is conveyed by your comment on "implied bias"? Bielle (talk) 22:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Um, the point of view that southern lands don't get snow? What in the world did you think I meant? μηδείς (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- That point of view might need readjusting. South America, Africa and Australia all get snow. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ 20:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Um, the point of view that southern lands don't get snow? What in the world did you think I meant? μηδείς (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- What helpful information is conveyed by your comment on "implied bias"? Bielle (talk) 22:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- The IP seems to be from Canada, (Toronto per geolocate), which may explain the implied bias. μηδείς (talk) 21:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
See Syria: desperate Homs residents collect snow to drink as water is cut off and SNOW IN JORDAN Weird but True. Alansplodge (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- And I found Bethlehem SNOW! - a mainly Christian town in the Muslim dominated West Bank. Alansplodge (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- On a roll now - It Snows in Alexandria (Egypt), Snowfall in Saudi Arabia and UAE's 'once in a lifetime' snow fall although the last sounds rather exceptional - there's a nice video of some chaps in traditional Bedouin robes building a snowman. Alansplodge (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Afghanistan in particular is infamous for its deadly avalanches and cold waves. Also, if you count the Taklimakan Desert as a "Muslim region", then it has snowed there. ~AH1 18:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- On a roll now - It Snows in Alexandria (Egypt), Snowfall in Saudi Arabia and UAE's 'once in a lifetime' snow fall although the last sounds rather exceptional - there's a nice video of some chaps in traditional Bedouin robes building a snowman. Alansplodge (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
John Mix Stanley in Hawaii
John Mix Stanley painted portraits for King Kamehameha III and Queen Kalama in 1850. To the left and right. Were these pieces ever in color? I can't find anything online for them except the Hawaii States Archive where everything is black and white.
- Have you tried contacting the Archive? If they're all that way, maybe the black-and-whites are merely for reference and no one has bothered to photograph them otherwise. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- I suspect they were painted in color. The concept of "black and white" really came with photography. Certainly "charcoal drawing" existed, but it was rarely used for final products. Oil paintings in greyscale would seem very odd indeed. I would be surprised if these are not originally in color. --Jayron32 12:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- I also think they were probably in color, but it isn't really correct that black and white came with photography. It was very common before photography for travelers who wanted to remember what something looked like to dash off a pencil sketch or an ink sketch. Looie496 (talk) 16:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- I presume Woodblock printing of images and Woodcut was also sometimes done solely in black and white. Nil Einne (talk) 11:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I also think they were probably in color, but it isn't really correct that black and white came with photography. It was very common before photography for travelers who wanted to remember what something looked like to dash off a pencil sketch or an ink sketch. Looie496 (talk) 16:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- I suspect they were painted in color. The concept of "black and white" really came with photography. Certainly "charcoal drawing" existed, but it was rarely used for final products. Oil paintings in greyscale would seem very odd indeed. I would be surprised if these are not originally in color. --Jayron32 12:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Probably two issues here. These might well be lithographic reproductions of his paintings; and a lot of his originals were destroyed in a fire at the Smithsonian in 1865. --jpgordon 16:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- That would explain it. I still think the way to find out for sure is to contact the museum directly. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Although the paintings lost at the Smithsonian are described as his "Indian Gallery" (ie paintings of Native Americans that he was hoping to sell to Congress). See Pioneer Photographers of the Far West: A Biographical Dictionary, 1840-1865 By Peter E. Palmquist, Thomas R. Kailbourn (p.518). It seems a bit unlikely that he would be commissioned to paint portraits of the king and queen and then carry them off home with him. Alansplodge (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- According to Catlin and His Contemporaries: The Politics of Patronage By Brian W. Dippie, Stanley was paid $5,000 for them, so certainly wouldn't have been allowed to leave with them. Alansplodge (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Although the paintings lost at the Smithsonian are described as his "Indian Gallery" (ie paintings of Native Americans that he was hoping to sell to Congress). See Pioneer Photographers of the Far West: A Biographical Dictionary, 1840-1865 By Peter E. Palmquist, Thomas R. Kailbourn (p.518). It seems a bit unlikely that he would be commissioned to paint portraits of the king and queen and then carry them off home with him. Alansplodge (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- That would explain it. I still think the way to find out for sure is to contact the museum directly. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Probably two issues here. These might well be lithographic reproductions of his paintings; and a lot of his originals were destroyed in a fire at the Smithsonian in 1865. --jpgordon 16:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- It's fairly inconceivable that the originals wouldn't have been in color, like his other similar works. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
What is the approach in political science that do not focus on the rigorous mathematical empirical methods?
Behaviorist movement really made political science empirical by using mathematical foundations in order to provide precise conclusions, but this approach is only useful if the study is quantitative and comparative. Anyway since there is this scholarly movement pursuing the use of symbolic elements perhaps there is also another approach which is distinct and quite the opposite of the other much as like of Continental and Analytic philosophical divide. What is that distinct approach? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Atienza (talk • contribs) 07:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- In anthropological fieldwork, Participant observation and Thick description are more common than statistics. They're meant to be factual/empirical in their own way, concerning things which can't be easily quantified. The problem with behavioralism/operationalism was that in their extreme forms they claimed that anything which couldn't be measured (or which you couldn't set out a procedure of steps to be able to theoretically measure) either didn't exist, or could be completely ignored in explaining observables (things which could be measured). In structural linguistics as practiced in the United States, behavioralism/operationalism entered a somewhat degenerate phase in the 1950s, imposing rigid methodological shackles ("biuniqueness" etc.) which focused much attention on side issues such as whether a linguistic analysis could be derived by specified procedural steps from a specified language corpus. AnonMoos (talk) 12:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- A lot of political philosophy is not quantitative at all (e.g. John Rawls). I don't know if that counts as political "science". 66.127.54.40 (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Political science and its sub-disciplines (e.g. international relations) all have quantitative and qualitative forms. They ask different questions and, they require different skills in answering them. I don't think they have special names, they are just different flavors for how people work within these disciplines — it is known by everyone in these fields that there are some people who are quants and some people who are concerned with qualitative issues. My experience has been that nobody in these disciplines thinks of them as quantitative-only, or even quantitative-by-default. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
professions where thinking logically is a disadvantage
Are there professions where thinking logically is a disadvantage? --178.48.114.143 (talk) 10:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Well I was going to say the creative arts, but certainly all forms of music follow their own structures and logic, regardless of whether they are immediately obvious to the observer. I suggest spiritual healer. ;) --TammyMoet (talk) 10:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- The church, alternative therapies, the tobacco industry, the alcohol industry, the meat industry....--Shantavira| 11:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- In several of those areas, there's a lot of logical reasoning based on possibly-dubious premises. For that matter, formal logic was basically kept alive by theologians for centuries during the Middle Ages... AnonMoos (talk) 12:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- That's basically it: It's not necessarily that the logic is flawed, it's that the basic assumptions are flawed. As one of my math teachers once said, rather charitably, "If you start with false assumptions, you're liable to get interesting results." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Politician? Adam Bishop (talk) 12:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Let's not define logic too broadly. Logic is just how you concatenate ideas in a non-contradictory way. There is nothing illogical in the alcohol, tobacco or meat industry, even if you don't agree with their world-view.
- And we also have to draw a line between producers of some theories and consumers of the same. For being politician, clergy, even for creating a sect, logical thinking won't be a hindrance. Indeed, I dare to say that under no circumstances you'll have any disadvantage by thinking straight. OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Even in the case of surrealism, you'll need to think logically to produce illogical effects. Otherwise, how would you know at all that you are surrealist? OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- It depends on what you mean by "thinking logically". It is never a benefit to think illogically. (Osman's correct that even professional liars need to think straight.) But there are situations like sports (say, golfing) or piano playing, or touch typing where thinking about what you are doing, like consciously concentrating on your fingers as you type, will throw you off and cause you to choke. In those cases your mode of consciousness is not logical/verbal and your focus is on the ball, the music, or the composition, not what steps you are actually going through to move your body. μηδείς (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Really effective persuaders (politicians, salespeople, etc.) actually do apparently believe their own bullshit, at least some of the time. Of course that is illogical but they benefit a lot from it. Believing it means they can pitch it with unfaked sincerity that makes it all the more convincing. See reality distortion field. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Believing one's own rhetoric is one of humanity's most cherished traditions. For example, we see it demonstrated here on the Ref Desk almost every day of the week. -- Jack of Oz 21:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. An effective salesman (which in a broad sense includes politicians) has to be not only willing to lie, but to believe the lie himself... that is, to believe a false premise regardless of evidence to the contrary. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I am sorry, but reality distortion field is just pseudoscience. And lots of people refuse to acknowledge consciously what they know subconsciously, it's called cognitive dissonance. Those are the slick politician types. Some politicians are actually sincere, like James Trafficant, Dubya, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan. There are also actually some good salesmen. They are the ones who have good products to sell. It happens. μηδείς (talk) 06:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Well, who should I believe... You? Or my own eyes? :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- "Your eyes can deceive you. Don't trust them." — The Hand That Feeds You: 20:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- That sounds like a salesman talking. "Oldie Von Moldy's Used Cars." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- "Your eyes can deceive you. Don't trust them." — The Hand That Feeds You: 20:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Well, who should I believe... You? Or my own eyes? :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I am sorry, but reality distortion field is just pseudoscience. And lots of people refuse to acknowledge consciously what they know subconsciously, it's called cognitive dissonance. Those are the slick politician types. Some politicians are actually sincere, like James Trafficant, Dubya, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan. There are also actually some good salesmen. They are the ones who have good products to sell. It happens. μηδείς (talk) 06:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. An effective salesman (which in a broad sense includes politicians) has to be not only willing to lie, but to believe the lie himself... that is, to believe a false premise regardless of evidence to the contrary. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Astrologer or fortune teller. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Mitt Romney's campaign manager. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Athletes, especially at the highest levels, tend to avoid thinking about the game situation because they believe it adversely affects their reaction time. They train to rely on instinct rather than examining the situation. As Yogi Berra supposedly said, "You can't think and hit at the same time." → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 14:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
geometrical buildings
There is a page on Misplaced Pages which shows the buildings which are in geometrical shape like Luxor Las Vegas which is in pyramidal shape , etc . Please find it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.224.21.87 (talk) 10:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Try Category:Buildings and structures by shape. Mikenorton (talk) 11:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've linked the Luxor and removed the ref markup.Mikenorton (talk) 11:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Burke's Landed Gentry 2003 ed. Murdoch family
How can I find this online please? Kittybrewster ☎ 14:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Unless somebody torrented it (in which case we wouldn't point you to it here) you will probably have to go to the library. It's worth the trip, they are interesting places, buildings full of high quality copyrighted materials that you can read as much as you want for free. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
With all the due respect, can we say that these countries are not completely independent?
The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions. Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Marshall Islands, Palau, Nauru, Micronesia, etc. I am asking this because of the Palestine vote at the UN. Thank you. Keeeith (talk) 19:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
|
The Aroche city
How can I to know how long time the Aroche city is existing? I would like to know if this city was before 700 year ego 109.253.224.113 (talk) 23:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Before the reconquest, you mean? Why 700 years?
- Aroche seems to have an archaeological museum with evidence of much earlier settlement - ie. Roman. The local tourism site has some an outline of the area's history. bobrayner (talk) 00:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- There are claims that Aroche is Turobriga, see es:Turobriga. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 00:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- According to the article at Spanish Misplaced Pages, the city has existed as far back as the 1200s. --Jayron32 00:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
December 2
Francis Xavier
I just want to ask why Francis Xavier called "Apostle of the Indies". Thanks. 110.54.176.2 (talk) 04:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- you should read Francis Xavier, which makes it quite clear. μηδείς (talk) 04:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Do many of the Indigenous peoples of the Americas not just Canada, USA and Greenland have Mongoloid features and are of Oriental origin?
Do many of the Indigenous peoples of the Americas not just Canada, USA and Greenland have Mongoloid features and are of Oriental origin? Would they aboriginals of Peru be of Oriental perhaps going backs thousands of years? Neptunekh94 (talk) 05:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- The northern tier you listed are the main places where the later waves of migration from northern Asia occurred. I think some made it all the way to Iceland, too. For example, Björk looks partly Asian, to me: . StuRat (talk) 05:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- For some odd reason we don't have an article on the Americanoid race. You can search google for that term, here's the link to it at google scholar. According to most anthropologists and the better linguists, there were some three major migrations into America. The first was the Amerind, the second the Na-Dene and the third the Eskaleut. None of these is exactly of the Mongoloid race as classically defined. But shovel teeth and other features (again, strangely not mentioned at wikipedia) are seen as features linking mongoloids and americanoids. PS, Björk looks Uralic, for which see Uralo-Siberian. μηδείς (talk) 06:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Without getting into debates about the validity of 'race' as a scientific concept, or the ethics of using Björk as an illustration of something-or-other, I'd just like to point out that if one ignores the misleading cartographic conventions, the distance (both geographic and presumably also in terms of whom you engage in reproductive hanky-panky with) between 'east' and 'west' as you move north gets smaller in both directions. It is entirely possible - and probably quite likely - that the inhabitants of Iceland descended from adventurers from the east shared relatively-recent-relatives (!) with those coming in the other direction. On this basis, trying to decide where Björk got her cheekbones from is rather futile. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Iceland is renowned for having thorough genetic records of their citizens, so if anyone can track down the origins of their ancestors, that would be them. StuRat (talk) 07:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sure it's next on their list... Anyway, you're speculation is incorrect - at least as far back as historic record goes, Iceland was settled by Scandinavian people and consistently a site of only their migrations for pretty much the entirety of it's history thereafter. There's no evidence to support the notion of earlier habitation from an east-moving migration, but as this did happen in somewhat-neighboring Greenland, it cannot be entirely ruled out. Regardless, there is no significant contiguous genetic connection between the early migratory groups who moved into the Americas via northeast Asia and the modern ethnicity that Bjork belongs to -- if indeed her genetics are typical of those who live there, and who can really speak as to that? Of course, as has been noted above, the question of whether she looks Asian is partially nonsensical; although we all agree there are trends in the phenotypes of certain ethnicities and that we all can intuit these subtleties to some degree, the truth is, we aren't as good at it as we tend to think we are. But then there are good reasons for this; if you study the diversity of human morphology long enough, you begin to see how recurrent certain phenotypical traits are, even when there is no strong genetic link. The independent evolution of a certain look to the eyelid or ears is not uncommon -- remember that these changes are based more on sexual selection than natural selection, so there's a lot more variation here (even within a given ethnic group) than with traits which are selected for purely by survival odds. Which is a bit of a tangent, but the sum is this: people typically will find all manner of traits from a given race on those occasions when they stop to determine the ancestry of a given face -- and usually these are entirely impressionistic, as with Asian Bjork. Edited to add: That being said, if you had shown me that picture and asked, "Could this woman be from Asia?" I'd certainly have said yes. Looking at her other pictures on our pages though, she certainly looks like she'd fit right in amongst the mixed Nordic-Sami type folk you find in the more northern reaches of Scandinavia. Snow (talk) 08:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- So the theory is that Iceland was uninhabited when discovered by the Vikings ? That doesn't seem likely, considered how long nearby Greenland had been occupied (since 2500 BC). And Iceland is a lot more habitable than Greenland, what with thermal springs and all. StuRat (talk) 09:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- The possibility can't be absolutely disproven, but there's never been any archeological or paleoanthropological evidence to suggest previous occupation before the arrival of European colonists. Bear in mind that the habitability of the region has varied considerably throughout the human epoch and while Greenland was subject to several different waves of migration, many of them did not fair well in the long run (the Scandinavian colonization of the island eventually failed, for example). It's possible the earlier Greenlanders simply never made it that far east. I agree it's not a very satisfying explanation, but the lack of any positive evidence for previous habitation for Iceland is compelling and the ubiquity of human life begins to break down as you approach the poles -- even today Greenland and Iceland have two of the lowest population densities of all nations/regions.Snow (talk) 10:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- StuRat -- when the Scandinavians settled Iceland, the only previous inhabitants they found were a few Irish monks. The lack of other previous inhabitants isn't too surprising, given that Iceland is several hundred miles away from other habitable regions at a somewhat inhospitable latitude. AnonMoos (talk) 10:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed. And if you check the maps at Greenland#Early_Paleo-Eskimo_cultures, you can see that none of the early cultures settled on the East coast of Greenland (which is still 300 km from Iceland). Only the Thule people managed, and that long after Iceland was settled from Europe. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hum, where did I get the idea that Iceland had ever been settled from the
eastwest from then? Should have checked. Then again there was a period when parts of Greenland were occupied by Norsemen, in contact with both Iceland to the east and Arctic peoples to the west, so gene flow was still just about possible. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hum, where did I get the idea that Iceland had ever been settled from the
- Well, it has been settled from the East (where Europe is, relative to Iceland), not from the West (where the East coast of Greenland is ;-). A question about spelling: aren't the compass directions proper nouns and hence capitalized? I'm happy to learn something... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Doh! Still half asleep. I meant west - or possibly West. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- The rule I use is that a direction isn't capitalized, but a region is: "I'm going to head south until I make it to the South." StuRat (talk) 19:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- The vikings did not claim to be first on Iceland. Settlement of Iceland. μηδείς (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Well, yes, but for the purposes of handing on genes to modern-day people we can treat vikings as the first (and practically only) settlers; there may well have been visits by others, and it seems likely that there were a handful of Irish monks, but hardly the kind of long-term settlement where children are born & raised &c. If I remember correctly from Collapse, vikings who settled further west didn't intermingle with other people who had got there earlier (ie. the Inuit) so it's unlikely that the small number of descendants travelling back east would have brought back a lot of "inuit" DNA to Iceland that way... although this is tantalising. bobrayner (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- There is no reason to assume the monks did not have non-monastic companions assuming they were there for more than a few years--someone got them there, likely fishermen. As for no contact between the vikings and the skraelings, see our articles on the Haplogroup X (mtDNA) and on blond Eskimos. μηδείς (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, "intermingling" might very well have been forbidden, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen, just that it was more likely to have been kept hidden. StuRat (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- More likely that the monks took themselves; see Brendan for example. Alansplodge (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Undoubtedly some monks could sail, but they learned it from sailors, not their book of vows. God forbid I had to travel from Ireland to Iceland bearing a cockleful of clerics and nary a navigator with me. A monastic colony would require more than just monasts. μηδείς (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- More likely that the monks took themselves; see Brendan for example. Alansplodge (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
The discussion of Iceland and Greenland is fascinating to me, but it does seem that this thread has veered off from the OP's question, which was whether the indigenous peoples of Latin America have Mongoloid features and are of Oriental origin? A starting point would be Indigenous peoples in Peru (since the OP specifically mentioned Peru) and Indigenous peoples in South America. Also see Indigenous peoples of the Americas#Migration into the continents. Duoduoduo (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
What can Israel do now after the setback at the UN?
With only Canada, the U.S. and a bunch of tiny countries supporting Israel, what can the administration of Mr. Netanyahu do now as retaliation, or better said to avoid the predict future thing. What's doing now? Keeeith (talk) 13:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Lots of news websites (the Guardian and the Washington Post, for example) are reporting that Israel has announced an expansion of settlements and that it is withholding taxes from the Palestinian government, and that these actions are widely seen as reactions to the General Assembly vote. Though, it isn't really accurate to describe the "yes" votes as "supporting Israel". The question being voted on was "should Palestine's status at the UN be changed from non-state observer to non-member observer", not "do you support Israel". 81.98.43.107 (talk) 14:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events. Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This is a politically loaded question, demanding opinions in response to a very opinionated question. We shouldn't be even trying to answer it. HiLo48 (talk) 17:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
|
Beatification of Sancha of León
Was Sancha of León ever beatified? The Spanish wiki calls her a Beata.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 17:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- English Misplaced Pages says the same thing ("Blessed")... AnonMoos (talk) 17:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I added that based on what was the Spanish wiki.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 19:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Isn't there an official list of saints and blessed ones? OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- There are records of officially-canonized saints, and saints celebrated on the liturgical calendar, but a lot of saints in the early days were automatically considered saints due to martyrdom, or legends that grew around them, without ever having gone through a formal canonization process. Also, the early founders of various local Christian communities were considered "saints" in their local areas without their sainthood being recognized by the larger church (Saint Marinus, after whom San Marino is named, was one). AnonMoos (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- I heard of saints, who were never canonized, being revered locally like Niels of Aarhus, but I have never heard of an unrecognized Blessed.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- There are records of officially-canonized saints, and saints celebrated on the liturgical calendar, but a lot of saints in the early days were automatically considered saints due to martyrdom, or legends that grew around them, without ever having gone through a formal canonization process. Also, the early founders of various local Christian communities were considered "saints" in their local areas without their sainthood being recognized by the larger church (Saint Marinus, after whom San Marino is named, was one). AnonMoos (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Was Sancha beatified or not?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
December 3
Fasting on 13, 14 and/or 15 day of lunar month if falls on Friday
Prophet Muhammad said that you don't fast on Fridays but what happens if the 13th, 14th or 15th day of the lunar month falls on Friday, do we fast on those days or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmust90 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- I note you say "we" in your question. I think you need to talk to your imam and get his advice about fasting, as it may vary from sect to sect, community to community. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- This article addresses your question, but Tammy is right that you might want to ask your imam. Marco polo (talk) 14:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
days of shawwal to fast
Which days of Shawwal (e.g. 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7, etc.) do Muslims fast on after Ramadhan because I was told that they don't fast on the day that immediately comes after Eid ul Fitr? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmust90 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Our article Shawwal seems to do a decent job of answering this. Some begin the day after Eid but not all do and there's no consensus on whether the days even need to be consecutive although most appear to think they don't need to be. The linked source doesn't work but it's easy to find sources discussing this with a simple internet search for 'shawwal fasting' . In terms of the day after Eid ul Fitr as you can see from the earlier sources most only seem mention the day itself, which comments on the forbidden days does the same as does which specifically mentions they have no evidence of it being forbidden to fast the day after. Some sources mention two days , but if you read them carefull they are referring to Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha. Most interpretations also seem to agree fasting during Shawwal (or the 6 extra days) isn't wajib/obligatory so I'm not sure what percentage of Muslims actually observe the practice. Nil Einne (talk) 11:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
error in article on German census?
Greetings,
While perusing the census dates map in this article;
http://en.wikipedia.org/Census_in_Germany
I noticed that it seems to imply that the US hasn't had a census since 2004. I was under the distinct impression that I had responded to one in 2010. Am I reading the map wrong? Color confusion? 108.249.33.21 (talk) 07:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- The map was first created in 2008, and probably was just never updated to show the US census. StuRat (talk) 07:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've fixed the map labels to address the error. Unless they are committed to updating articles at least once a year, Misplaced Pages contributors really should not use words such as "since" or open-ended prepositions such as "after". The present will be the past. Marco polo (talk) 14:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- I reverted your changes as they made the situation arguably worse. If you look at the history of the map, people have been updating it since after 2008
(I'm not sure how StuRat missed this)(sorry StuRat misread your comment based on Marco polo's changes). I updated the US (at least I think I did, I initially missed out Alaksa). In truth I'm pretty sure the map is a mishmash of updated and non updated countries, e.g. it sounds like it hasn't been updated for the 2011 EU census. But clearly saying before 2008 is misleading when some of them are censuses after 2008 and the most recent one before was before 2005. It may be best to make a new copy (the map is used in other wikipedias so reverting in situ may be a bad idea) and leave it at a map which is hopefully accurate for 2008 and wait until someone updates it entirely for a new time period (say 2009-2012). In fact if someone plans to update it entirely, it may be better to start from scratch for a new version using SVG which should be easier to update if designed properly. The alternative is simply to remove it from our article, it's rather strange having it in the German census article, I think this arose because it originated from the German wikipedia but I'm not sure (didn't check properly). It would make more sense in the census article or something similar. Nil Einne (talk) 15:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- I reverted your changes as they made the situation arguably worse. If you look at the history of the map, people have been updating it since after 2008
If the map cannot have accurate labels, then it cannot be accurate. The map is clearly inaccurate in suggesting that the United States has not had a census since 2004. We should not be displaying inaccurate media in articles. Unless the map can be made accurate for some date (whether that date is 2008 or 2012), it should be deleted. I am posting this here, since the discussion started here, but I will also post this on the article's Talk page. Please let me know if you see any reason why an inaccurate map should not be deleted from an article. Unless someone is able to update the map to make it fully accurate, I intend to delete it. Marco polo (talk) 16:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oops, so sorry. I missed your comment that you had updated the US as displayed on the map, and also missed the updated map in the article because I didn't refresh the article in my browser. As far as I can tell, the map is now accurate. Thanks, Nil Einne! Marco polo (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think we should keep that map. If we do so, we are committing ourselves to update it every time any nation on Earth does a census. That's a bit much to ask of us, especially since it's only used (in wikipedia.en) for the German census article, and not needed there. I'd remove it from our article and "cut it loose". If other Wikipedias want to maintain it and use it, that's up to them.
- I also can't stand the colors used in that map. With only 5 colors, they ought to be able to find colors more different than the ones used.
- If we do have a real need for that info, say in our general census article, then I'd present the data as a table, instead. This allows anyone to update it, not just the few who know how to update pics. (Even better, if we have the technology, would be if we could have a map which is automatically generated from a table, so anyone can update the map, too.) StuRat (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Of all geographical misconceptions...
Why on earth do so many people think that Africa is a Sovereign State? Legolover26 (talk) 15:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- What makes you think "so many people" do? --Viennese Waltz 15:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- I have met "so many people" who in conversation have implied that Africa is a country. And in my experience, probably more people I meet who are talking about Africa call it a country and not a continent. Legolover26 (talk) 15:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Simple ignorance. I bet even more people think that America is country too. Ah,.. even Misplaced Pages thinks it might be a country! Oh well.--Shantavira| 16:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- You must be in the United States. Ignorance of geography is widespread in the United States. I think it is just an aspect of American culture. Many Americans are not interested in the geography of places they don't intend to visit, most Americans never leave the country, and they aren't required to know world geography to finish school. Most don't really care if Africa is a country or a continent. They may assume it is a country because they don't know any African countries. American news sources often compound this misconception by giving "Africa" as the location of an event, rather than the name of the specific country as they would do for events in Europe, Asia, or even Latin America (though sometimes Latin America is reduced to Mexico, Central America, and South America). Marco polo (talk) 16:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- As for America, we've been through this on this desk before, but America is an accepted English-language short-form name for the United States of America. It is analogous to the use of Britain for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In ordinary English, short forms such as these are permissible. The correct English term referring collectively to North and South America is not America but the Americas. Marco polo (talk) 16:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- I haven't seen a recent one, but this story indicates that the amount of geographic ignorance, especially in the United States, is immense. (Which makes it a favorite topic for the Jaywalking segment on the Tonight Show.) Over 90% of respondents age 18-24 could not find Afghanistan on a map of Asia in a 2006 Roper poll. I suspect that those who think that Africa's a country might not be able to identify it on a world map, either. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- It's widely rumoured that 20% of USAmericans can't even find the US on a map as highlighted in a rather infamous video with Caitlin Upton an arguably worse statistic* then the inability of 90% to find Afghanistan. However the claim appears to be in doubt. An actual figure for young Americans is 6% can't . * = It's obviously a lot lower, but it's their own country and not particularly hard to find. Nil .Einne (talk) 16:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- I haven't seen a recent one, but this story indicates that the amount of geographic ignorance, especially in the United States, is immense. (Which makes it a favorite topic for the Jaywalking segment on the Tonight Show.) Over 90% of respondents age 18-24 could not find Afghanistan on a map of Asia in a 2006 Roper poll. I suspect that those who think that Africa's a country might not be able to identify it on a world map, either. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- This is a reference desk, not an internet forum for bashing stupid Americans any more than it would be for linking to stories about arrogant Europeans or whatever. μηδείς (talk) 17:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- This question is a loaded one. I don't believe many people think that. Equally, I don't believe many Americans are more ignorant about geography than in other countries. Obviously everyone knows the geography of his own area what implies that European will know about more countries than Americans or Australians. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- It's not bashing if it's true.... At least it looks like it was a few years ago, the most recent timepoint I could find data for in a quick search. See for instance these stories from 2006 and 2002. The relevant quote from 2006, discussing the 2002 study reads: "The 2002 project also surveyed 18- to 24-year-olds in Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Sweden, and Great Britain. The U.S. trailed every other country in that survey, except Mexico, which did only slightly worse." Other sources for this include the BBC and CNN. These studies included questions that were world-wide, so Europeans would not have had an unfair avantange, and that would also not be the case for Japan. Now, this was what I found after a 2 min search, and I stand to be corrected if someone else digs out sources showing the opposite, but don't call something bashing if there is data suggesting otherwise. EDIT:I've just seen that this story is already linked to above, poor reading on my part. Fgf10 (talk) 18:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- That's not all that bad, it just puts the US 7th of 8 nations with high education standards. Presumably, if you included all the third world nations, the US will beat most of them. It's not great news for the US, but not horrible, either. And probably everyone agrees there are more important things to know, like how to read. StuRat (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Right, because all those people in Europe who know the map better than Americans also don't know how to read... --Jayron32 19:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- As for why people might think that about Africa, particularly, it's due to it having a large number of nations, most of which have little international influence. Asia also has a large number of nations, but some are quite influential, like China, Japan, and Russia. The same is true of Europe and North America. South America is somewhat similar to Africa, in that no one nation stands out above the rest, although perhaps Brazil does. Australia only has one nation, and Antarctica none, so those are simple. StuRat (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry no reference, but I recall that after the 2008 U.S. Presidential election some advisors of John McCain claimed that his choice for vice president, Sarah Palin, thought that Africa was a sovereign country. Based on that, it wouldn't surprise me if a substantial fraction of Americans think that too. Incidentally, I've always assumed Jay Leno's Jaywalking segment is scripted -- that they tell the passerby what to say if he wants to be seen on the Tonight Show.Duoduoduo (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Then there's the fact that that there are Italian Americans, Irish Americans, German Americans ... and lots of African Americans. The first three are countries, so ... Add that to what Marco Polo said about news events often being described as occurring in "Africa" rather than Lesotho or Chad or Ghana or wherever, and hey presto. But it must go deeper than that. If the news sources don't specify the country, it must be because either (a) they neither know nor care, or (b) they think their audience would neither know nor care - and that says a lot about what people are taught, and what they're taught to be interested in. Do kids collect stamps anymore? There's no better way of learning about foreign countries and a smattering of foreign languages than acquiring a pile of assorted international stamps and having to work out where they're from and discover whether those countries even exist anymore, and if not, what ever happened to them. Fiume, Trucial States, Ubangi-Chari, Cochin China and so on - I would never have heard of these defunct places had I not been a committed philatelist in my younger days. Same goes for an interest in coins and flags and maps. They reveal so much about the world we live in, and they're all related, vexillocartophilatelonumismatologically speaking. -- Jack of Oz 19:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Geez, Jack, are you sure you want to admit to having committed philately on a public forum like this ? :-) StuRat (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- To Medeis, I am an American myself and did not mean to "bash" my countrymen and -women. I don't think acknowledging a weakness is the same as bashing. And the problem is not exclusive to the United States. A few years ago in Tanzania, I had to explain to a young Tanzanian that the United States was not in Europe. Marco polo (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- My visiting Australian cousins were amused to be asked (more than once) if they would be "going to Europe" while they were staying in England. Quite right too - Europe is that funny place on the wrong side of the Channel. Alansplodge (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- To Medeis, I am an American myself and did not mean to "bash" my countrymen and -women. I don't think acknowledging a weakness is the same as bashing. And the problem is not exclusive to the United States. A few years ago in Tanzania, I had to explain to a young Tanzanian that the United States was not in Europe. Marco polo (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Americans have the National Geographic Bee. See National Geographic Bee - National Geographic.
- —Wavelength (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Ignorance about the cultural and historical differences of countries in a region doesn't only affect Africa, but in the Western mindset is still a special case. The percentage of Americans or Europeans who would attribute anything as "typically Togolese" or "typically Namibian" would be extremely small, whereas quite a few people would at least cough up a few stereotypes about Brazilian samba and football, Inca ruins in Peru, Mexican enchiladas and tequila and Cuban salsa and revolution. Likewise quite a few Americans would associate Switzerland with cheese and banks, France with wine and rude waiters, Spain with bullfights, etc., and quite a few Europeans would be quite well versed in knowing something about the cultural differences between New York and Texas. I think the assumption of Africa as a big homogenous bloc has somewhat to do with the whole Berlin Conference thing, compounded with general racist stereotypes.
- The fact that the borders of Africa were drawn in Europe, cutting across linguistic, ethnic and religious communities, led many people to assume that nationality would be secondary to Africans. However, this shows a quite weak understanding of the relationship between citizenship and nationality. Over the decades of independence, national cultures and national polities have developed in Africa, whereby people do identify strongly with their nationality, and whereby some cultural features of some of the ethnic and linguistic groups of the country become identified as the mainstream culture. The case how Wollof developed as the de facto national language of Senegal or how the ivoirité idea developed in the Ivory Coast are a clear indications of this, but other examples can be found across the continent.
- To some extent, pan-Africanists and civil rights activists are to blame for this. In the African diaspora, there have been many attempts to focus on racial identity (relevant as the discrimination in the US was on racial grounds, and the fact that most African Americans had completely lost their original language, religion and ethnic identity) as opposed to parochialisms of language and ethnicity. The creation of African American identity sought to unify all people of African descent also portrayed Africa as a quite homogenous place, thereby stressing the links between the diaspora and an imagined mystical heimat. A clear example is the usage of Swahili words in Black activism in the US, in spite the fact that the African American population is overwhelmingly of West African descent. --Soman (talk) 08:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- Excellent points. When we say Irish-American, Italian-American or African-American, they all sound like country names. It occurs to me that the fact that it's a news item when somebody gets it wrong, suggests that it's the exception rather than the rule. (At least I hope so.) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- Soman gives an excellent answer here. Very well explained and quite wonderful. Thanks for that! --Jayron32 13:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks! --Soman (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. A comment from the UK here - I think we may be a little bit better informed, partly because of our colonial history - so that most people know that Nigeria is a different country from Kenya, is a different country from South Africa, is a different country from Uganda, etc.; and partly perhaps because of sports - we're conscious of athletes from Ethiopia, footballers from Cameroun and Ivory Coast, etc., perhaps to a greater degree than those of you in the US. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see the Western as more ignorant towards geography than the others. However, depending on the origin, people don't tend to see or even know that there is a difference between citizenship and nationality. They both tend to be the same in America and in Europe. OsmanRF34 (talk) 14:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- What frustrates me in this area of knowledge is people who are ignorant about their ignorance. I know that Africa isn't a country, but I couldn't, with any confidence, name all the countries within Africa, nor pick all of them out on a map showing borders but not names. I would get maybe half of them right. But I KNOW that's the limit of my knowledge. People who are confident to declare that Africa is a country are showing a double level of ignorance, and it annoys the crap out of me. HiLo48 (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't believe there are many people who believe Africa to be a country. It has become an Internet meme, once Sarah Palin asked if South Africa is also part of the country. Maybe she thought that there's a country called Africa (like the continent), and a South Africa, which is not a part of it, on the South. Who knows. OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, I think that if you asked people in the United States "To the best of your knowledge, is Africa one of the countries of the world?" I think the number who answer "yes" would exceed the number who answer "no". Marco polo (talk) 16:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't believe there are many people who believe Africa to be a country. It has become an Internet meme, once Sarah Palin asked if South Africa is also part of the country. Maybe she thought that there's a country called Africa (like the continent), and a South Africa, which is not a part of it, on the South. Who knows. OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- Possible. But until your assumption gets corroborated by facts, it's only speculation. Although I don't deny that some people will get confused here. They are probably thinking since America is a country and a continent, and South America and South Africa are both countries, then there could be a country called Africa somewhere. 17:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OsmanRF34 (talk • contribs)
- Hold on... when did South America become a country? (Isn't it a was a colony of West Europe... or is it independent now?).
- Possible. But until your assumption gets corroborated by facts, it's only speculation. Although I don't deny that some people will get confused here. They are probably thinking since America is a country and a continent, and South America and South Africa are both countries, then there could be a country called Africa somewhere. 17:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OsmanRF34 (talk • contribs)
- This reminds me of an entry I saw in an early twentieth-century directory from (what is now) Belarus: "Winnipeg, Manitomba , Africa". הסרפד (Hasirpad) 03:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- That should have pride of place on the bookshelf alongside English As She Is Spoke. -- Jack of Oz 22:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
1918 influenza epidemic in Tahiti
How many people died during the 1918 influenza epidemic in Tahiti? What is a good and detail account (books, newspaper, etc) about the event? I just know a lot of the Tahitian royals and chiefs died during this year because of it. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Are you aware that this was a worldwide event? Have you looked at 1918 flu pandemic? Looie496 (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Third hit in a Google search for tahiti flu epidemic points there, too... --jpgordon 19:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
The search is complicated because of a severe outbreak on a troopship called the HMNZ Tahiti. However, I found The Mercury (Hobart, Tasmania: Friday 27 December 1918. INFLUENZA EPIDEMIC - THE OUTBREAK IN TAHITI. SEVENTH OF PEOPLE DEAD.. The Pacific Islands: Environment & Society edited by Moshe Rapaport (p.258) quotes figures in terms of increased death rate. Finally, The New York Times: TAHITI BUILDS PYRES OF INFLUENZA DEAD; Seventh of Papeete's Population Succumbs and Bodies Feed Steady Fires. Alansplodge (talk) 13:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've been moved to write an article about the abovementioned RMS Tahiti which was quite an unlucky ship. Beached by an earthquake in Jamaica (1907), one of the worst single flu outbreaks ever recorded (1918), ran down a ferry in Sydney Harbour killing 40 (1927), and finally sank herself when her own prop shaft smashed a big hole in the stern (1930). Alansplodge (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Do we know any death tolls from the epidemic specifically in Tahiti?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- At least 14% of the Tahitian population died as a result of the 1918 Spanish flu epidemic. Google it. I tried posting a link to the website source but for same reason Misplaced Pages wouldn't allow me to do this. Futurist110 (talk) 22:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
public access to criminal records
Does anyone know how one might go about getting the arrest or other court records of Hector Camacho from Florida or Mississippi? (I am interested in confirming his legal name.) Or whether such records are generally available to the public from the state on line? My searches all lead to pay sites that offer information like unlisted phone numbers and so forth. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 17:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- There are pay sites that include criminal records, aliases, etc. They may be public records, but this doesn't mean they are made available online for free. StuRat (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- What makes you think that Héctor Luís Camacho Matías was not his legal name? OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- What I want to confirm is if he was ever referred to as Héctor Luís Camacho Sr. (It's unlikely the matronymic Matías will be used in American legal records.) Our article says that senior is his father's title. But the German article has the dead boxer's article named Hector Camacho Senior. Except for boxingscene, which I believe is a wiki, and is certainly not a reliable source, I have not seen Camacho referred to as senior in a good source. μηδείς (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Presumably he added the title "Senior" only after having a son with the same name. StuRat (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think you can appropriate the title like that. If his father was 'senior' as implied above, surely he would be 'junior' and his son would be 'the third'? Calling himself 'senior' as well would surely cause ambiguity with his father? – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 04:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think you can appropriate the title like that. If his father was 'senior' as implied above, surely he would be 'junior' and his son would be 'the third'? Calling himself 'senior' as well would surely cause ambiguity with his father? – NULL ‹talk›
- Not if his father was dead by then. StuRat (talk) 05:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
You have to find out what specific court he went to proceedings in, and then visit that court's website or call the court directly to find out how documents are accessed. Some courts put the records online, and others must be visited in person. Even in criminal cases for adults, however, certain documents may be sealed from the general public. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
The grandfather and grandson are still alive. I saw a caption in a video interviewing the grandfather which referred to him as senior, but haven't been able to find it again. Of course the titles don't change after death. John Smith III doesn't become John Smith II or Junior when his grandfather dies. I am hoping any court records will specify the title to differentiate him from his relatives of the same name. μηδείς (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
M. Brun
Who was the Protestant pastor of Tahiti by the name of M. Brun during the 1880s? I am getting a person by the name of Prosper Brun or Le Brun, which one is it? A full name, some dates and details will be helpful.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Everything I’ve found is Prosper Brun, who was posted in Tahiti/Moorea from 1872 to 1900 per this book (page 90 gives the dates). Portraits of him and his wife are catalogued here and here. He’s also mentioned here, page 48 and the initial P is further confirmed in the listings here, p 136 and here, p 203. 184.147.123.169 (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- In case this isn't obvious, one use of "M." is as the abbreviation of Monsieur (as in "The Facts in the Case of M. Valdemar"). Deor (talk) 17:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Name of a famous company
This question is part of which famous company’s interview process 'If your flight got cancelled, and you were stuck in the airport for a few hours with this guy or this girl, how happy would you be about that?' What name is given to it? please help me with this...Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linkinfloyd (talk • contribs) 23:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- I believe you're referring to the Airport Test interview question. It's used by many companies. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 05:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- What's that supposed to test? How flexible you are to change or unexpected consequences? Dismas| 10:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- That seems like a reasonable assumption. "How do you handle the unexpected?" There's probably no "right" answer, but it's an indicator. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- What's that supposed to test? How flexible you are to change or unexpected consequences? Dismas| 10:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- It seems that the Airport Test is not only a brain teaser. The Airport Test (How to Ace that Interview) suggests that it can also be a sort of filter used by the prospective employer, to weed out the boring or intolerable applicants. The Student Branding Blog - Interviewing: the Airport Test supports that usage; the interviewer wants to find out "if my colleagues had to spend hours at the airport with me, would I be someone that they would want to engage with?" IBankingFAQ... become an investment banker says "The primary use of fit questions is for the interviewer to make an assessment of whether you have the right attitude and skill-set to be a successful investment banker. Most importantly, interviewers will want to understand why you want to be a banker and whether you are someone they would want working FOR them. The secondary purpose of fit questions is to assess whether you are someone they would want to work WITH. Some refer to this is the airport test. How would they feel if they were stuck in an airport with you for 4 hours?" Alansplodge (talk) 13:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
December 4
staple food
Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, first president of Bangladesh said that the staple food of the Bengali people were rice, Hilsa fish and lentil soup. Is there a list of a nation's or an ethnic groups' staple food? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmust90 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- The Misplaced Pages article titled Staple food is a good place to start. --Jayron32 02:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- And Bengali cuisine and Bangladeshi cuisine. Bangladeshi cuisine has a "Cuisine" infobox at the very bottom of the page that will link you to a long list of other national cuisines. 184.147.123.169 (talk) 13:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Gates, Jobs, Dell and Zuckerberg
Has any of the companies of the drop-outs above tried to attract drop-outs? OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- Why would they? --Jayron32 13:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- Why? Maybe because they recognize some quality in their founders? At least, were they more flexible towards drop-outs? OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- The question is unanswerable. Any company will want to attract the best people to work for them. That means taking a holistic view of the candidates' work history, academic record, etc. These four companies are no exception. --Viennese Waltz 13:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Well, that presumes that the HR departments of those companies takes direct influence from their founders. Possible, I suppose, but not necessarily guaranteed. I checked, just because references are nice here, some random jobs listed on Apple's Website: . Not every job, of course, has a college degree as a requirements, but every one I would have expected such a requirement has such a requirement. That is, I don't see any difference in job requirements at Apple regarding the need for a college degree in certain jobs than I would expect at any company. --Jayron32 13:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- You should probably qualify "drop-outs". If you mean those who graduated high school, but dropped out of college, then probably, yes. If you mean those who completed a GED instead of high school, then perhaps. If you mean those who dropped out of high school and never got a GED, then probably, no. Also, you might find artistic companies to value those who don't fit into the academic world more, say to be fashion designers. StuRat (talk) 21:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Can Michael J. Fox vote in both the U.S. and Canada?
Considering he has the two citizenships?. Thank you. Keeeith (talk) 15:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- See Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2012_November_8#Are_people_such_as_Michael_J._Fox.2C_Jim_Carrey_allowed_to_vote_in_both_Canada_and_the_U.S..3F OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I read that but couldn't understand whether or not they are allowed to vote or not. I mean, if they were out of Canada for how long they are not able to vote anymore even if they still have Canadian citizenship? or what? Keeeith (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- It would help if you clarify what parts of Vmenkov answer confuses you or doesn't answer your question as to me it seems it does. Nil Einne (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- The last post in that archived discussion says:
- Any Canadian citizen living abroad can vote in Canadian federal elections, provided s/he has lived outside of Canada for less than 5 consecutive years, and s/he intends to return to Canada. Having also a foreign citizenship is not a factor per se. (Of course, if the person's foreign citizenship is acquired by naturalization in a foreign country, it probably means that he's spent too long outside of Canada to be eligible to vote anymore). -- Vmenkov (talk) 01:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- In particular, provided s/he has lived outside of Canada for less than 5 consecutive years, and s/he intends to return to Canada. Having also a foreign citizenship is not a factor per se. I'd look in the given link for confirmation and elaboration. Duoduoduo (talk) 15:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes as mentioned Vmenkov's answer seems to answer the question (and it's supported by the ref and also another official ref ) so it would help if Keeeith clarifies what part still confuses them. The only possible issue of contention I can see is there may be doubt of what happens if you just go back to Canada for a short stay. Per this source it sounds like the current intepretation is you actually have to been considered to have 'lived' in Canada, simply visiting is likely not enough. Although it's a still a bit unclear to me how long you have to have been in Canada to be considered to have lived there again. And it's peossible they may be able to vote in person even if they are not really living in Canada any more, see also . Based on that letter, it's possible if you are considered to have established residence as would be the case if you wanted to vote in a new riding, that is enough to be considered to have lived in Canada. On ther other hand per , it's somewhat unclear to me whether you will be considered to have established residence if you are say, living in some part of Canada for 3 months or even a year but completely intend to leave. (Even though if you're living continously in Canada for over 183 in a tax year, you'll likely have established tax residency for that year no matter your plans.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- The last post in that archived discussion says:
Although I have no specific knowledge of Canadian law, as a permanent resident of Hong Kong, and a US citizen, I am entitled to vote (or, stand for office) in both places. Note that HK doesn't require citizenship for voting and for some official offices. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- It;s regularly related in the NYC press that certain large local minorities participate in their homeland's elections, for example, Dominicans. μηδείς (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Question regarding citizenships
My questions are, does a person have to give up his Canadian citizenship in order to become an American citizen too?, and my other question is the same but if an Australian citizen becomes American. Keeeith (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- See the US State Dept page on dual citizenship. Specifically:
- "A U.S. citizen may acquire foreign citizenship by marriage, or a person naturalized as a U.S. citizen may not lose the citizenship of the country of birth.U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship."
- So, no, not as a general rule. — Lomn 16:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me, I am a stupid person, there are at least two examples of both citizenships, Michael J. Fox himself and Jim Carrey. It's okay with Canada, it's allowed to hold both citizenships. But what about Australia, does anybody know? Keeeith (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- Our Multiple citizenship article isn't great, but it does cover Australia with references. I suggest you check out the article or do a simple search if you have more questions of this nature since they are generally very easy to find. Nil Einne (talk) 16:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, though it's comparatively recent, per Australia's Dept of Immigration and Citizenship. So Canada, Australia, and the US all allow mutual dual citizenship in the general case, but specific circumstances may vary (and Misplaced Pages is not a suitable venue for determining those legal specifics). — Lomn 16:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- I think you're partially mistaken. The reference only says Australians taking on another citizenship lost their Australian citizenship before 2002. This would suggest it was possible for Australians to have dual citizenship for example if they acquired their Australian citizenship after their other citizenship (American in this case) or possibly if they acquired both at birth. Our article seems to support Australian nationality law#Dual Citizenship this. Nil Einne (talk) 15:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
A Poem
Poem: "a place in missouri called the ozarks"
author: not sure — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.42.254 (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- You might try looking here to see if it jogs your memory. Duoduoduo (talk) 21:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Governor General of Canada
I sent an e-mail to his office and I received an automatic response telling me that I will get a response within three weeks. My worries come about that I now see the calendar and see that part of the three weeks falls into the winter break. Is there personnel on breaks too? I would appreciate your help. Thank you. Keeeith (talk) 20:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- It may be understood as "three working weeks" - not 21 days on the calendar, but 15 working days. See if the GG's office has a website that announces their schedule for the winter holiday season. -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Government offices in Canada don't shut down completely for the holiday season. They just do not work on the three statutory holidays (Christmas, Boxing Day and New Year's Day - with all three holidays being moved to the next weekday should they fall on a week-end). Offices are short-staffed during those periods, however, so routine and non-urgent work tends to get pushed aside until January 2nd. --Xuxl (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Mona Lisa Interpretation
I felt there were things left to be noticed in the photos available on Wikipedia_Mona Lisa Mona Lisa Close Up pics
a) There is a drop of sweat on left side of her nose, near her eyes. She did not remove it shows chances of her behaving in an abnormal way because a person doing something unnatural has higher chances of missing natural tendencies. b) There is a mole on right side of her eyebrows. c) Her posture is a little bend forward. d) Her hands seem in an uncomfortable position.
i) Her left hand bend and holding table showing anxiety or avoidance of showing nails. ii) Her right hand's index finger a greater than normal distance apart indicating she might be scratching her left hand. iii) Her right hand placed on left in a way that its hiding something.
e) Her eyes are reddish which could be pain or anger. f) Her eyes were sad when drawn as seen by the curve they make. g) Her face seems older than what Leonardo da Vinci made of her can be understood by observing her torso fat or may be its also possible that Da Vinci had to draw her her torso bigger than what it was just to please the person for whom he made the portrait. h) Her face looks like a man when seen from extreme right and extreme left. i) Her guarnello (the transparent cover) is seen mainly on her right side and its dirty near hairs. j) The background though looks similar shows extremities may be indicative of two phases of her lives. k) The photo is definitely a part of something whole. l) In a whole the painter drew something not present in front of her but rather the better version of her. m) The left bottom side of background looks like an old man when seen by turning photo 90 degree clockwise. May be a sign of Da Vinci.
Harsh Dalmia 14.139.241.89 (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.241.89 (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I'm skeptical of most of that, but are you aware that portrait painting required the subject to hold a constant posture for many hours? It was pretty stressful. Looie496 (talk) 02:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hey folks, this is not the place to be getting into an OR discussion about this. -- Jack of Oz 02:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- That painting's been around for awhile, so there are liable to be countless websites with opinions on every possible aspect of the painting. Google is your friend. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- This is a page for asking for factual information, not for airing speculations or starting discussions. You might find some useful sites from Speculation about Mona Lisa and the references therein. --ColinFine (talk) 11:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Creative Sales Strategy
What is the term used for selling products that are custom created, typically with images from the customers?...Thanks for the help! Linkinfloyd (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- bespoke is a common term, and may be what you're looking for. custom, custom-designed, made-to-order, tailored to the customer (a metaphor, as you are not literally tailoring), customized, special-order, specialty, customer-specific or client-specific, special order, etc etc. There are many terms. why not just google for other people in your sector that do something like that, and use what they do? 178.48.114.143 (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- "Bespoke" isn't a common term for this, at least in the US. StuRat (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- "Personalized". There are also terms for other types of personalization, like "monogrammed" or "custom-fit". StuRat (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your inputs..Can you be a little more specific, something to do with images...i'm looking for a term...i tried to google but i didnt get it...Can someone throw some light, please..Thanks for the help! Linkinfloyd (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Try "Personalized photograph X". For example, here are "Personalized photograph guest towels": . StuRat (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
French Taxes
In the November 25, 2012 issue of The Washington Post, on page E4, speaking of John Malkovich, in the third-to-last paragraph of the article, it says: "In 2007, he directed the Zach Helm play 'Good Canary' in Paris. He says he earned 25,000 euros for the job. Punch line: 'My tax bill was 29,000 euros.'" Assuming the facts purveyed are accurate, how is it possible that the taxes you owe on income you receive to the income you receive is on the order of 116%? Peter Michner (talk) 23:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- If you get fined because the French IRS thinks you are earning more than you declared, then yes. It is also the case that France has some form of wealth tax, so low earnings doesn't imply low taxes there. OsmanRF34 (talk) 01:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- This is also possible in a graduated tax system. Consider a simplified situation where an income up to 10,000 is taxed at 10%, and an income over 10,000 is taxed at 20%:
Income Rate Tax ====== ==== ==== 10,000 10% 1000 11,000 20% 2200
- So, in this case, 1000 more in income causes 1200 more in taxes. Most countries avoid this problem by saying that only the income over 10000 is taxable at the higher rate and/or by having more gradations. I have run into such a situation, myself, though. In my case, they had a "luxury tax" on suits, so that any suit over $100 had to pay the tax. However, by buying the pants and jacket separately, I was able to avoid that limit. StuRat (talk) 01:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- StuRat, your arithmetic above illustrates a common misunderstanding of how such systems usually work (I do not claim always). In most jurisdictions (such as the UK) you would pay, on the 11,000, 10% of the 10,000 plus 20% of the 1,000 above the 10,000 threshold, totalling 1,200.
- From my dim memories of such alleged situations (taxes exceeding income) applying to rock bands in the '70s, taxes exceeding income often arose from a confusion between gross and net earnings and which various taxes applied to, the years in which income was earned, confusions about exactly where in an international operation various incomes were earned and where they should be taxed (still a very live issue, as mentioned in our Starbucks article, Section 8.9), and dishonest accountants and other managerial entities ripping off and lying to the artists concerned. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- I suppose your example is just a fictional one, and that no tax system in the world applies exactly these rates. OsmanRF34 (talk) 01:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- There is nowhere on Earth where the normal situation is that you owe more in taxes compared to what you earn, unless you are fined for non tax paid or other irregularities. So either Malkovich was fined or his statement is not accurate (or his statement was reported inaccurately). --Saddhiyama (talk) 01:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Saddhiyama -- mid-20th century British "death duties" or inheritance taxes could often result in tax liabilities significantly beyond annual income... AnonMoos (talk) 04:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- The expression "my tax bill" could still be accurate. His "tax bill" could consist of money he owes as taxes, and money he owes as a fine. To him, it's all "tax", because it may as well be. -- Jack of Oz 02:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- A similar situation existed in the US for those on welfare. Until recently, if they got a minimum wage job, they would lose many of their benefits from "being on the dole" and incur taxes, so their financial situation would worsen, not improve. StuRat (talk) 04:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- France definitely has a wealth tax. If you are resident in France, for that tax year, you have to pay tax based on what you own, as well as a tax based on you earn. So if he was very wealthy, he had to pay both. I only ever paid income tax, though, since I was never (and probanbly will never be) wealthy enough to pay the wealth tax. --Lgriot (talk) 08:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Combining wealth taxes with generally high marginal tax rates, which is fairly common in Europe, can easily lead to tax rates higher than 100% of your income. In the 1970s novelist Astrid Lindgren wrote the story Pomperipossa in Monismania complaining about her 102% tax rate, and according to my copy of the Guinness Book of Records, shipping magnate Hilmar Reksten once had to pay 491% of his income in taxes. Gabbe (talk) 08:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- In Malkovich's case, it appears his tax rate is merely 65%, which he has refused to pay, saying he has paid his taxes to the American IRS instead. So in 2007 the French demanded more money as a consequence of this play than he earned on it. See and for more details. Gabbe (talk) 10:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- (EC with 87 above.) I think StuRat is mistaken about what a graduated tax system means. AFAIK graduated tax system always implies a system with tax brackets. (Note that a graduated tax system is a form of progressive taxation but the terms are not synonymous. You can achieve progressive taxation in various ways besides tax brackets but as stated I believe a graduated tax system always implies a system with tax brackets.) Read the article if you don't know what a tax brackets means, it implies a brackets where you have a cutoff point beyond which the additional income above that value is taxed at a higher rate. I'm not aware if there is a name for the system described by StuRat where an income over a certain rate means an increase in rate for all the income (well with tax brackets the marginal rate increases but in specifics the lower income is still taxed at the lower level). Has any country ever even used such a system? (It isn't uncommon for people to misunderstand tax brackets and think the entire income is taxed at a higher rate if you enter into a different bracket.)
- While there may be benefit systems where an increase in income can result in a reduction in money coming in I don't think this is common. AFAIK in most countries the system is designed to avoid that. E.g. here in NZ the issue of concern is generally not that you actually take less money in when you increase your income due to benefit reduction which rarely or never happens, but rather that the extra money you bring in is less some say significantly less then the extra you earn because of the combination of taxes and benefit reduction so there is far less incentive to earn more. This happens because benefits gradually reduce rather then being a case of either you get the full amount or none at all. (Theoretically a wealth tax could also mean a person a person will find they make less money by a higher income presuming said income doesn't increase their spending but from my reading of the article countries tend to use a progressive system starting at zero so avoid this. )
- There are of course cases where you are either taxed or not taxed and a small increase in value can result in a sudden possibly large tax bill which would otherwise be due such as the suit example StuRat gave. This may be related to the example he gave of the hypothetical system where rather then using tax brackets a person earning over a certain amount has the entirety of their income taxed at a higher rate. But it's clearly not the same thing as it does not result in a person actually bringing less money in by earning more, as earning doesn't even come in to the picture. One of the effects of such cases is they can encourage people to tax evasion or tax avoidance schemes again as suggested by StuRat with the suit. But note that there can be the same thing even with stuff like a normal graduated taxation system particularly in special cases. E.g. Depending on the brackets, a person who expects to earn a lot less next year or even nothing may wish to find a way to defer about half of their income from this year to next year. Depending on the country and how it's done may or may not be legal but it can result in quite a different tax bill. However again this doesn't mean the person would have got less money because of an increase in income.
- Nil Einne (talk) 14:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Note that the system I described is much better if you have more brackets with smaller differences in rates:
Income Rate Tax ====== ==== ==== 10,000 10% 1000 10,001 10.1% 1010
- So, here $1 in extra income increases your tax by $10, so it's 1000% of the additional income. However, we're only talking about $10, so it's not such a concern. It also makes the calculations far simpler, with no need for tax tables (although the chart with the rates can get big, too). StuRat (talk) 17:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Two different issues here -- income tax / income > 1 (the extreme issue, apparently misleadingly claimed by Malkovich), and marginal tax / marginal income > 1. As mentioned above, at least in the US the latter issue, of a marginal tax rate greater than one, sometimes comes up for people trying to work their way off public assistance, and for people earning social security and working. I remember back in the 1980s, the West Virginia state income tax system was designed so that at a certain income level, one more dollar would cause your tax to go up by many dollars; I wish I could remember the details, because it struck me that the system must have been designed by amateurs. Also, back in the 1960s and quite possibly more recently than that, I think the marginal US federal income tax rate on the highest income was something like 90%, and if you lived in a high-marginal-tax state your combined marginal rate could be very close to (or even greater than??) 100%. Does Misplaced Pages have anything about the history of US tax brackets? Duoduoduo (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- One could make an interesting set of graphs out of this. --jpgordon 17:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Interesting. Looks like the highest US income rate was 94% in 1945. Now we have it at 35% and the Republicans claim the economy will collapse if we dare to raise it. StuRat (talk) 17:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Reading John Malkovich#Personal life and political views it becomes clear that "Malkovich ... lived and worked in a theater in Southern France ... left France in a dispute over taxes in 2003". Seems he is not a fan of the French tax authorities and I think he might well have been joking in the Washington Post's interview. While France has high tax rates, at no time does it exceed 100% of income (only in 2013 will a rate of 75% on income over €1 million be introduced). Astronaut (talk) 17:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
December 5
Does Buddhism teach no fear/ no hope?
At least indirectly, if you live in the present, hope of a future positive outcome or fear of a negative one shouldn't be your top priority. OsmanRF34 (talk) 01:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Not sure about Buddhism, but that was pretty much one of the tenets of Stoicism... AnonMoos (talk) 04:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Insofar as Buddhism teaches us not to be attached to any particular outcome, and hope or fear regarding outcomes is a mark of attachment, yes. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- So if a Buddhist saw a missile headed straight for him, his reaction might be, "Oh, that's interesting - a missile that looks like it's headed straight for me. Will it hit me? Will it miss me? Only time will tell." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Only if he were a really good Buddhist, Bugs :-). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 13:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- so, really good Buddhist are deemed to die at any crossroad? OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Only if he were a really good Buddhist, Bugs :-). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 13:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- So if a Buddhist saw a missile headed straight for him, his reaction might be, "Oh, that's interesting - a missile that looks like it's headed straight for me. Will it hit me? Will it miss me? Only time will tell." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- The whole point of Buddhism is to obtain a positive future outcome (i.e., Nirvana). Looie496 (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- But do set your mind on this target? OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Fear and hope are passing illusions, no more. Sang-gye cho-dang tsog-kyi cho-nam-la Jang-chub bar-du dag-ni kyab-su-chi I take refuge in the Buddha, dharma and sangha until enlightenment is reached. That's all. SkylonS (talk) 10:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
looking for a song
I remember a song, not sure who sing it or the title, but it had instruments not just singing. any ideas? --91.120.48.242 (talk) 14:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- That is possibly the most vague and unhelpful description of a song imaginable. Can you remember any lyrics at all? Because without that, we have basically no chance of helping you. It would also be useful to know what instruments, time signatures, vocal registers, languages, and musical style(s) were involved. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes.165.212.189.187 (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Try looking in song. Duoduoduo (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes.165.212.189.187 (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- See WP:POINT. Looie496 (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- musipedia.org lets you search by whistling into the computer. There's an app that identifies songs by listening to a few seconds of it, too. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Someone should add this thread to Misplaced Pages:Unusual requests. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 06:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Are there more rooms or people?
Or, how many rooms are in the world? I try to divide the world into richness levels Fermi problem style but I'm still not sure. I'd guess more people, but very dependent on if the poor great majority of humanity has fewer persons per room than I guess. (Now the definition of room itself is fuzzy but I'll at least count basements, attics, rooms on ships, rooms inside infrastructure and bathrooms (except ones the size of closets)) Either way it appears less than you could see per lifetime, flashing a few per second. Another fun over/under I can't decide is which has more volume: everything artificial on Earth or one Independence Day city ship? (, about 50 trillion cubic feet by my reckoning). Probably depens on how far you go with artificial Embankment dams? Reservoirs? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- My personal opinion is that the Reference desks should not be cluttered with questions like this that are merely whimsical. Looie496 (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- The 1st part could be useful as a measure of wealth, although square footage (or square meterage ?) per person might be a better measure than the room count, since it's less subjective. StuRat (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- I dunno, rooms works better. There are some rich people in cities whose houses have a lot of rooms, but don't cover much ground; while some lower class farmers in the boonies would have a lot of space, but not really as many rooms. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- The 1st part could be useful as a measure of wealth, although square footage (or square meterage ?) per person might be a better measure than the room count, since it's less subjective. StuRat (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- In a major city like New York or London I presume that each person has at least one room each (a bedroom), plus other shared space in the same same house, plus a room at their work place or school that they likely have to share with others, plus a room on their way to work (inside a car, bus, train, etc), plus a bathroom they can visit, and a kitchen, etc. However, in some places the poor have to live many to one small room and do everything there. It is hard to say, but I would be surprised if there were a lot less than 7 billion rooms on Earth. Astronaut (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Seems wrong to me to count cars, you can't even stand up in them. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- The Center for Sustainable Systems says there were 4.9 million commercial buildings in the US in 2003. Guesstimate ten times that for the world, and a conservative 20 rooms a building. and we've already at a billion. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- By doing Fermi style, the answer can varies greatly with the power of 10, so it is probably from 1 to 10 billion rooms in the world.174.20.99.196 (talk) 02:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Why are murder followed by suicide so common in our country?
hot-button and functionally unanswerable topic closed |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I am from the United States and for instance, it's the anniversary of the Westroads Mall shooting, this week the NFL player who kills his girlfriend and kills self, workplace shootings, among others. Why? Why so much? Thank you. Keeeith (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Remove it, I am tired of the sensitivity of you all on here. Keeeith (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Robbie A. Hawkins would've answered this easier, not the sensitive people who are on here. Just a joke. Keeeith (talk) 19:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC) Who the hell is Robbie A. Hawkins? BTW. I am not sensitive, but this question happens to be loaded. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Robbie A. Hawkins is Robert A. Hawkins, who was my friend, or not my friend, but an acquaintance. But it was a joke anyway. Keeeith (talk) 19:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC) I want to apologize for the Hawkins thing, I was just angry that the post was closed. But innocent people were killed by him. I'm truly sorry. I apologize. Keeeith (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
|
Artur Carlos de Barros Basto - the name conversation
Why Artur Carlos de Barros Basto, has adepted just the surname Ben Rosh? has he had any link between him to the famous jewish spanish family "Ben arosh"? is there any information about? 95.35.152.34 (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- I have no information about this, but I would observe that many Jews in Britain (and I think elsewhere) use a Hebrew name which is quite different from their everyday name, and in which "ben" introduces not a surname but a patronymic. Two possibilities that present themselves are that his father's name (not given in the article) was something which he felt could be "Hebrewed" as "Rosh", or that he chose "Rosh" (Hebrew for "head") for its associations. --ColinFine (talk) 14:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
December 6
Political Science is always misconceived as law or legalistic in nature.
I am a political science student and my instructor in political science minor subject happens to be an LLB. in law, thus he defined political science as the study of state and government. Luckily I have a professor PhD. in political science who said that political science is not so. This definition is what I argue against, first and foremost with that definition political science appears to be in a legalistic and traditionalistic fashion. I responded that politics does not only refer to the state and government and we should also utilize the modern approaches to the subject such as behaviorism. Because "state and government" will only adhere to the laws, principles, government of the state. It is inadequate in answering all other problems. I argued that political science is a social science different form law, thus political science focuses on the political activity which is not only confined to the state and government such as, international organizations and international relations. Political science does not study law or if it does it is in a social perspective. After this I offered a better definition, that given by David Easton- A study of the authoritative distribution of power, this is the safest and one of the most suitable definition ever made. I also offered a revision to his response by adding the term politics which refers to the social activity related to authority.
I really want to know additional arguments to support my assertion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Atienza (talk • contribs) 01:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- You seem to be referring to Political_science#Behavioral_revolution_and_new_institutionalism. Ultimately, political science is what you define it to be. Words and phrases have the meaning we assign to them. In the case of political science, some researchers, especially in the past, really did define it as nothing more than the study of state and government by looking at institutions and laws. Other researchers, especially recently, take your sort of broader view of political science. But to say that one of these definitions is "wrong" is plain stupid. Saying that coke is a drug not wrong just because it's also a soft drink. You might reasonably call the simple definition of political science unpopular, inferior, or archaic - but not wrong. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- You might do well to also look into Political anthropology. Though sadly our article isn't as good as it could be, some of the sources cited might be of benefit - and your definition "a study of the authoritative distribution of power" would fit in well with the remit of political anthropology too - especially given its forays into contexts where there was apparently no 'state', 'government' or 'law' (or at least, not in the sense that such terms are commonly used). In this context, 'political science' arguably resides somewhere between the social sciences and the humanities as an academic field - and certainly has little to do with any legalistic definition. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Political science means a lot of things--the article political science gives an overview. The part about descriptively studying behaviors of populations includes rational choice theory and behavioral economics among other things. There are also some normative theories involving psychodynamics. It goes all over the place. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 02:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- "Political science" (πολιτικῆ ἐπιστήμη) was a term used by Plato in his Statesman. Aristotle takes it up (and some of the material there) more famously in his Politics. It referred to what is best called political philosophy now. And "political science" was largely within the mold of Plato and Aristotle (see Cicero's De re publica, Augustine's City of God, and Aquinas' Treatise on Law) until Machiavelli. David Easton's definition accurately describes what Machiavelli started to do: describe the ways political power is and can be distributed. Machiavelli is commonly considered the father of modern political science (you see this emphasized by Strauss and his followers, for example); so then insofar as contemporary political science still follows Machiavelli, Easton's definition would seem to be fine. But I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss your instructor's definition. He may have meant more by "state" and "government" then you might realize. He also may never have meant his definition to be comprehensive; he may have just been describing one part of political science -- the part he was intending to lecture on. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 04:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
List of TIME Magazine's 100 most influential people of the 20th century
That will redirect to this Time 100: The Most Important People of the Century but I don't see any "list" and I couldn't able to find a list of 100 most influential of the 20th century from Time 100 website. First there is a problem with the redirect since there is no list in the article so it is a wrong redirect. Second, can someone show me a list of 100 most influential people of the 20th century in a "trusted website"? Thanks!174.20.99.196 (talk) 02:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- I think the redirect is ok. The article is not actually a list, so the redirect sends people looking for a list to the non-list article. The time.com link is in the external links section but it is a paywalled article, so non-subscribers can only see a subset of the names. You could probably go to the library and look at the magazine there. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 02:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah... this is an article about the Time magazine list... however, I think that is appropriate. If someone wants to see the list itself, they can follow the links to Time Magazine's website (although they will have to pay to read the entire list) or go to the library and find it for free.
- I am not sure if it would be legal for Misplaced Pages to present the entire list ourselves, as doing so might violate Time Magazine's copyright. Blueboar (talk) 02:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Years ago, Misplaced Pages did routinely reproduce such lists (hottest swimsuit models, most eligible bachelors, bravest dogs, hottest milfs). But with reflection the community has decided, in a range of discussions, that such lists aren't like lists of postcodes in Stuttgart or highest points in Albania - that they're creative works (however arbitrary and uninformative) of the editorial staff of various organs, and so we can only quote from them ("Vanity Fair said George Clooney was the hunkiest actor of 2003") but not reproduce the whole list outright. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 02:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- To my inexpert legal intuition, that argument seems fairly weak. I might be tempted to argue the point if I thought there were any actual encyclopedic value in these things. --Trovatore (talk) 02:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- The thing is I'm sure there are many curious people who want to see the entire list. I think the purpose of Misplaced Pages is to serve the readers, as many as possible. It is arguable that the list is informative or not.174.20.99.196 (talk) 04:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- What justifies providing for-pay information gratis merely because someone (or many people) express a want or need for it? Misplaced Pages does its job by explaining the nature of this information and indicating where it can be obtained. WP does not include all possible information within its virtual covers. ergo, I totally agree with User:Finlay McWalter remark (above). -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- 174,20: there are a number of things that people come here looking for (or wanting to create) which Misplaced Pages is not; business directories, articles on their local bands or their favourite websites, for example. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia, with policies on what is appropriate for inclusion. --ColinFine (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- The thing is I'm sure there are many curious people who want to see the entire list. I think the purpose of Misplaced Pages is to serve the readers, as many as possible. It is arguable that the list is informative or not.174.20.99.196 (talk) 04:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- To my inexpert legal intuition, that argument seems fairly weak. I might be tempted to argue the point if I thought there were any actual encyclopedic value in these things. --Trovatore (talk) 02:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
online payment methods
I am looking into potential methods of sending and recieving money online for my company, looking into such things as google, amazon, popmoney, serve and so on, a wide variety of options. However their websites still leave me uncertain on some details, making a direct comparison difficult, so I am wondering if people with experience in this matter can offer some advice.
I need a service that will allow customers to send me money from all around the world, and for that money to be collected together in my account and sent as a bulk payment to the manufacturer to cover costs of making and shipping the items paid for, any ideas on a service that can provide this, to a company based in the UK?
86.15.83.223 (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- You can offer several venues. Most methods don't ask for a monthly fee. I think you'll be OK accepting Paypal and credit cards. OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yep, sounds like you're looking for PayPal. EIN (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Was Amenhotep IV Nefertiti 's cousin?
Was Amenhotep IV Nefertiti 's cousin? Venustar84 (talk) 04:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- It appears uncertain; her ancestry is not well known. --jpgordon 04:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
for a debut novelist
a) can an author of fiction novel (debut) seek two or more literary agents (or agencies) for a better deal in domestic (best domestic agent) and international markets (best international agent)? b) is it a wise idea to focus first on domestic market, holding foreign publication rights? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.141.254 (talk) 08:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- While investigating options, expect the agent to present the author with proposed terms and conditions that relate to the domestic/international markets, to be included in a - possibly exclusive - contract the two parties would then sign and fulfill. Perhaps a more productive query here would be: what are the terms and conditions an author can expect a literary agent (independent or publisher's) to fulfill? -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- A novelist with no publications will be very lucky to find any agent at all. Looie496 (talk) 02:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Scranton
Where is Scranton, New Jersey? Yes, New Jersey! --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- If google doesn't know it, it doesn't exist. - Lindert (talk) 13:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Scranton (NJT station).--KAVEBEAR (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Which is located in Scranton, Pennsylvania... - Lindert (talk) 15:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Scranton (NJT station).--KAVEBEAR (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- nj.com, an agglomeration of New Jersey media sites, returns a reference to Scranton, NJ in zip code 07032. Google returns a map of part of Kearny, NJ for that zip code, so presumably Scranton is a neighborhood there or the like. — Lomn 14:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
It's spurious. The only such address is a listing for J Cafferty at 431 Tenth Ave, Scranton, NJ 07032. Doing an advanced search that excludes any results with "431" will not return any hits for Scranton, NJ at all. μηδείς (talk) 17:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Aside from pragmatism what other philosophic tradition criticize the usefulness of formal logic?
Continental tradition doesn't directly dismiss formal logic unlike pragmatism, thus it cannot be the same with pragmatism. And if there is Perestroika movement for social sciences perhaps there are also philosophies which criticize mathematical/formal logic like pragmatism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Atienza (talk • contribs) 15:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Can you provide a source for your assertion that pragmatists' position on formal logic? OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Is it wrong to think that the candidate who wins California will likely be the next President?
Thank you. Keeeith (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- In the absence of other information, yes, it's an under-informed opinion. --jpgordon 15:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't feel like digging through all the past elections for the data, but the answer boils down to 'it won't hurt, but it's not necessary'. The candidate who won California won the election in 2012 and 2008 (Obama); lost in 2004 or 2000 (Bush Jr.); won in 1996 and 1992 (Clinton); won in 1988 (Bush Sr.); won in 1984 and 1980 (Reagan — but everyone voted for Reagan and he was also a California candidate); lost in 1976 (Carter); won in 1972 and 1968 (Nixon)....
- To win the necessary majority of the (current) electoral college – 50 percent plus one, or at least 270 of the 538 votes – a prospective candidate either wants to get the 10 percent (55 votes) from California, or needs to have a solid plan to make up for that shortfall. In the last several election cycles, California hasn't been seen as a swing state; neither party has campaigned seriously there, assuming that it would go firmly Democrat. It's also not tagged as a bellwether state; while California probably ends up aligned with the successful candidate more often than not, its 'hit rate' isn't anywhere close to 100%.
- As always, past performance is not a guarantee of future returns. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- This xkcd comic explains it well. Matt Deres (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- California is so Democratic now that it is uninformative about national elections. Every state official and over two thirds of the legislature are Democrats. The chances that California will vote for a Republican are slim. Looie496 (talk) 02:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Can someone be a Zionist if he's not a Jew?
I am a Protestant American who strongly supports Israel and its right to exist in God's chosen land for them. Is that considered Zionism?, is there Zionism outside of Judaism? Keeeith (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- See Christian Zionism. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I don't see why not. After all, there are also quite a few male feminists. - Lindert (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Absolutely. Anyone who is in favor of a Jewish state in the Southern Levant is, by definition, a Zionist. Neither ethnicity nor religion is a requirement. Note the difference between ethnic Jewry and the religion of Judaism. EIN (talk) 16:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes I believe that would be Zionism. I hope that's as opposed to the Protestant American sects that want Israel to wage a nuclear war so God's will on Earth is accomplished and the Rapture comes. Dmcq (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Off-topic and turning into a debate |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
No, I am not that kind of Protestant. I just want a Jewish state in all that part of the Middle East, including the Gaza Strip and West Bank, and that the Palestinians be sent to Jordan and Syria, where they came from. Keeeith (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
There were Jewish settlers from thousand years ago, when the Egyptians took the People of Israel as slaves, the Arabs came in and occupied the Jewish land. That's what's told in the Church. Keeeith (talk) 17:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
The pastor of my Church has a degree in theology Keeeith (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
|
- I commend Keeeith for asking his questions here. They do, at times, seem to be based on some less than completely accurate premises, but as he reads and thinks about more of the answers, his knowledge can only improve. HiLo48 (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Are you pulling my leg? Or you're serious. Keeeith (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Of relevance. Some non-Abrahamic Canaanites were Zionists, and the Bible doesn't mention them being wiped out (even in the period of Judges). Ian.thomson (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Lanihau: Sources on Kauaian History
Who should I contact on the subject of Lanihau, an obscure chiefess from the 1800s, who was the Governess of Kauai from 1886 to 1888. Her name is mentioned in a few newspaper article, which gives nothing about her, and only one sentence in a few books. I have already email the Kauai Historical Society, who else (history professors, authors, museums, etc) is a good source in this subject area (Kauaian history)?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'll start: Noenoe Silva is the University of Hawaii's expert on Hawaiian history. 184.147.123.169 (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Bible as inerrant/infallible/authoritative/etc.?
OK. I have a couple of questions.
- How many people in the world view the Bible as the inerrant word of God?
- How many people in the world view the Bible as the infallible word of God?
- How many people in the world view the Bible as the authoritative word of God?
- How many people in the world view the Bible as a written record, based on thousand-year traditions and cultural memories, of ancient literature, daily life, and prophecies that still carries a significant impact in people's lives today, without divine intervention?
140.254.226.183 (talk) 19:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- You asked this just over a month ago. It is unlikely that new scholarship has emerged in the meantime, and the problems with nonspecificity in the language of your questions are still there. — Lomn 19:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Weren't Nazi party members forced to have at least four children?
Then why such senior Nazi officers like Philipp Bouhler and his wife didn't have any child by 1945 when they both committed suicide and made the World a better place? Keeeith (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't believe your assumption is quite right. Maybe they motivated ethnic Germans to have more children, but how would they (yes, even the Nazi Germany would have a difficult task here) force them to have at least four children? They granted the Cross of Honor of the German Mother to mothers of four or more children, but I don't see any reference of any force or drawback for those who didn't cooperated with the German effort of populating the world with pure Germans. OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)ac
- See this article, Motherhood in Nazi Germany, which says that the Nazi regime encouraged large families by means of propaganda, tax breaks and support programmes. Birth control advice and contraception were controlled by law and eventually banned altogether. Misplaced Pages has an article on the Cross of Honor of the German Mother, for "mothers who exhibited probity, exemplary motherhood, and who conceived and raised at least four or more children in the role of a parent". Curiously, France has a similar award which is still in use, La Médaille de la Famille française. Alansplodge (talk) 21:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
crazy babbling
There is someone near my building (maybe next door) who is angrily ranting about something I can't make any sense of. It's in unaccented English, has some profanity sprinkled in but mostly seems to be about some specific topic, and yet I can't make out more than a few words here or there. There are very few pauses. The person is just babbling nonstop and not making any sense, and (from my nonprofessional perspective) sounds mentally ill. I've seen similar behavior from streetpeople multiple times in the past.
Is there a particular illness associated with this symptom/behavior, or a name for the behavior itself?
Not looking for medical advice as I have no intention of going anywhere near the person. Just wondering if the situation has a name.
66.127.54.40 (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- You might like to read Tic. 184.147.123.169 (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Why do some people say Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East?
Isn't Turkey a democracy or isn't it in the Middle East? OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- I think that Turkey is now considered part of Europe. Keeeith (talk) 21:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Not really. But to the OP: See No true Scotsman for the answer. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- On the Turkey point specifically Accession of Turkey to the European Union and Middle East (the section that has the 'traditional middle east' and 'greater middle east'). In general see Democracy in the Middle East ny156uk (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Because they don't know facts. If there would be a universal definition of democracy, Turkey, Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt, and/or Yemen might be included in this category. Someone already found the No True Scotsman fallacy, which pertains to this issue. Futurist110 (talk) 01:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Propaganda in schools
Do we have an article about a type of propaganda where the state uses the public education to influence the students? For example, by making them study from biased textbooks, or by making them study topics that promote the ruling party (for example, if children had to study "the advantages of communism" in a communist state) Cambalachero (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Bias in education. Although it is very short. Searching Misplaced Pages for "biased textbooks" I also found many specifric articles along these lines: Japanese history textbook controversies, Pakistani textbooks controversy, Views_on_the_Arab–Israeli_conflict#Biased_text_books, Saudi Arabian textbook controversy, California textbook controversy over Hindu history, etc. 184.147.123.169 (talk) 21:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- There is no doubt that governments have tried to do this in Australia. A read of History wars and National Curriculum (Australia) will give some details. This is mostly to do with the issue of whether the arrival of the British in 1788, and subsequent events, should be described as an invasion or a benevolent colonisation. (OK, so those are the extreme positions.) HiLo48 (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
A Kipling short story
Hello Learned Ones ! I'm looking for the title of that short story about a German policeman in the Weimar republic, he tries to enforce law in the social turmoil of those years & I think he is killed ...Thanks beforehand for your help. T;y. Arapaima (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
French Admiral Serre
Who was the French Admiral Serre who was in Tahiti in 1877? Like his full name, dates of birth/death/time in Tahiti.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
New jersey question rephrased: Is there any "safe area" parts of Irvington? I know that city/township has a high crime rate bu does it have any safe areas like parks, beaches, or neighborhoods or schools?
asked and answered at the miscellaneous desk |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
See http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#new_Jersey_questions:_Is_Lakewood_New_Jersey_part_of_the_Delaware_area.3F μηδείς (talk) 9:14 pm, 6 December 2012, Thursday (1 month, 2 days ago) (UTC−5) |
Relatives and Child Support
Have there ever been any cases where a child's grandparent(s) or a child's aunts and/or uncles were forced to pay child support against their will for this child, such as if one of the child's parents died young? If not, are there any laws anywhere that would force grandparents, aunts, and/or uncles to pay child support against their will? Futurist110 (talk) 01:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Gun Selling Question
Do gun dealers legally have the option to avoid selling guns to people if they want to, even if these people pass a background check and the requirements in order to buy a gun? Futurist110 (talk) 01:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- In the United States, with the exception of laws against racial discrimination, any private business owner can refuse to do business with any individual. No one is required to sell you anything. --Jayron32 03:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)