Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

February 26

Portraits

Before photography, were people more likely to get their portraits painted when they were younger, and less likely as they aged? Or did age not seem to matter? 58.109.53.196 (talk) 06:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Probably whenever they could afford it. Portrait paintings weren't cheap, so some people couldn't pay for it until they made their fortune. For others, who inherited their wealth, this wasn't an issue. Of course, if they managed to squander it, then you might not see any portraits of their old age. Vanity might also play a part, so people might be more likely to have their portrait done when they were "at their prime". This may have been a bit younger for women than men, though, as the "distinguished older man" might have been preferred over a portrait of a woman the same age. StuRat (talk) 07:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is there need to be "at their prime" though? Since you're the one paying the painter can't you just say "Make me look 10 years and full of muscle"? Sorry for the stupid question. I know my hypothetical scenario rarely happens but I don't get why. I walk through rows of portrait paintings everyday and none of them seem to have been "beautified" with. Is it because of the portrait painter's professionalism? Some unspoken code of conduct perhaps? 99.245.35.136 (talk) 07:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

If anybody figured out that this is what you did (which is quite likely), then you would look quite vain. On the other hand, if you had a picture of you done in your prime, they would assume you just hadn't gotten around to having a more recent one painted. In comparison with modern times, if somebody asked for your photo, wouldn't you feel more guilty if you sent them a photoshopped version of you than one where you happened to look good naturally, even if it was a few years old ? StuRat (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It happens sometimes. Supposedly Hans Holbein made Anne of Cleves more attractive in paintings than she was in real life. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

(ed conflict) They did. User pays & the fiddler plays the tune. The difference is between one who paints other people in portraiture and those who are society (or prestigious) portrait painters. There are heaps but can't think of them right away however, John Singer Sargent for one, made people look good. In wikipedia [1] the gallery will show you the range of portraits in general. With paint you can do anything photoshop can do to create idealised people. The idea isn't new. However people hired to paint a memento mori or flattering portrait did better than ask someone like Frida Kahlo who lost the gig when she painted a couple's late daughter in the truthful scene of her (for them, embarrassing) death. Then there was Lucien Freud's infamous portrait of the Queen of England. The important thing is to check with the client to suss out what their expectations are and the purpose for the painting. Manytexts (talk) 09:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Presuming you're referring to Dorothy Hale#Frida Kahlo painting, our article says it was her friend Clare Boothe Luce who hired Frida Kahlo, not Dorothy Hale's parents. It's not even clear to me if they ever saw the painting. Nil Einne (talk) 14:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Single-battle wars

Are there any examples of wars ended after a single battle? Cambalachero (talk) 13:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Anglo-Zanzibar War for one. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Battle of the Ten Kings --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 13:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The Football War. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

2001 Indian–Bangladeshi border conflict --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 22:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

follow-up

have there ever been any legitimate, full-scale wars declared by both sides that have been WON (not some truce or back to the status quo) without a single battle?--80.99.254.208 (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I can not think of any actual examples... but I can imagine a plausible scenario where this might have taken place: a small independent state might have declared war on a much larger, invading state (purely for honor's sake - knowing that it does not stand a chance), and then surrenders without a fight as the opposition armies advance into its territories. Blueboar (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

See The Mouse That Roared. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at the Anglo-Zanzibar War, also known as the 38 minute war. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I listed it as having a single battle above – which, given 500 people died, would be a fair designation. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)#

Oops, sorry, my attention slipped. Normal service has already resumed. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Our article on the Three Hundred and Thirty Five Years' War claims that the war between the Scilly Isles and the Netherlands had no battles, since the Scilly fleet was forced to retreat by another navy before the Dutch arrived. However, it's not clear how legitimate a war it was. The Scilly fleets (the remainders of the Royalist navy from the civil war) were attacking Dutch shipping, and the Dutch turned up to stop them, but it seems the Dutch captain may not have had the authority to declare war. Smurrayinchester 18:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

How about the First War of Kappel, a religious war in Switzerland. A catholic priest was executed and a protestant pastor was burned at the stake to kick off the war. But once the cantons declared war and marched out, mediation ended the war.Tobyc75 (talk) 01:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Equity and Restatements of Law

Is there a restatement of law that specifically talks about equity? Which is it? And can someone give me a link to it? Thanks! Rabuve (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you be a bit more specific? Are you talking about money, i.e. "capital"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The OP was a Restatement of the Law on equity. The US isn't my jurisdiction, though. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

There's a Restatement of Restitution, as well as a Restatement of Judgments. Either should be close to what you're looking for. I don't believe there's an out and out Restatement for equity. Shadowjams (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Equity is too broad a subject to fit into a single Restatement. In addition to the Restatements that Shadowjams mentioned, the Restatements of Property and the Restatement of Trusts would broadly come within equity, as would significant portions of the Restatement of Contracts and probably some of the other Restatements. Also, bear in mind that law and equity have been merged in the large majority of American jurisdictions. John M Baker (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Cheap high quality education

Shouldn't an education in fields like literature, philosophy, mathematics and others be quite cheap, even at a high level? The low salaries of post-docs and having no need of labs won't make that expensive. Excluding the "brand" name universities, that should be possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XPPaul (talk • contribs) 16:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Academics have managed to refuse the concept of teaching only positions, which means that, in general (an using an Australian workplace cry): 40:40:20. 40% teaching, 40% research, 20% service related duties. If we break this down by 35x48 (discounting long service, sick, parental, public holidays, etc) you get 672 hours for teaching duties. Let's work out a students serviceable structure, based on a teaching model with "primary" instruction and "secondary" instruction and "assessment", primary instruction being the delivery of considered expert opinion in a one way format, secondary instruction being the supervision of student thought in a two-way format, and "assessment" being any object designed to form or sum-up a student's learning. Primary assessment is often delivered as "lectures" being one or two hours by a semester length.

I am familiar with a very particular Australian employer, so I will speak in relation to material that is visible in their Enterprise Bargaining Agreement and their University Calendar. This university teaches humanities subjects as 12 weeks of 2 hours of lectures and 1 hour of tutorial face to face contact, with approximately 4500 words of assessment per student, with 4500 words of assessment being markable in one hour. The EBA claims that for lectures, for casuals, four hours of duty is required for each hour paid, and for tutorials 3 for the first, and 2 for each subsequent.

So the hour cost of teaching is 4x12x2 + 3x12 + 2xN where N is the number of repeat tutorials. In addition the marking cost is M (being the number of students). Assume that each tutorial is 25, a nice round number shown in Large Institution's time table, which is publicly visible. So for N=0 4x12x2+3x12+25 hours for course delivery. Or 157 hours of delivery. Add 49 hours for each additional tutorial. In addition to delivery, there's preparation (writing the damn course) which could take as long as a piece of string, but I'd suggest about 20-60 hours. So to deliver a hundred student course it takes 364 hours, or about half of an academic's workload in teaching for a year (672). So divide an academic's salary by 400 students to get the cost per student in labour.

Let's use Australia as the example again, with ANU's level B step 6 (terminal grade Lecturer, the entry level position in Australia for permanent staff, ie "tenured" in other systems). They're on 95,407, but the University has other obligations associated with them, which I would place at about 26% in immediately payable oncosts related to labour. So 120212 is the cost to the university, so the labour cost per student for a Lecturer is 300 a head. (Doing a similar sum using a PhD casual at the rate of $50 an hour + 26% gives: 114.66 per head, if we divide the academic cost by 40% we get 120 per head).

So teaching with PhD casuals isn't more efficient than teaching with PhD permanent staff, if the permanent staff make appropriate research outputs. At a paper output of 1 unit per year to remain employable (a unit being a chapter, journal article or conference paper), then we can price the cost of a journal article at $50,000.

For researchers working in this field, I'd suggest reading anything you can get by Robyn May, from Australia. The NTEU's Australian Universities' Review also has literature related to this. But, as I've demonstrated in the Australian case there's no financial advantage for hiring a PhD qualified casual as opposed to a permanent member of staff at Level B terminal. Obviously Level C D and E are more expensive, and would need to push out other outputs (PhD graduates, Masters programme courses, or more research). Correspondingly, I didn't evaluate the $38/hour non PhD qualified tutor, but their capacity to prepare a course and present lectures is lower, so they could only really substitute in for marking and tutorial teaching. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Obviously an academic without administrative support, a class room, a computer network, a library, a campus would be worthless, so you've got to price the costs of the support services when considering a final student cost. But for 2012 each EFTSL of humanities students (consider 8 students taking one course to equal an EFTSL) generates 5,168 in Federal funding (PDF) or 646 and using UWA's figures 706 in student contribution. Or a total of $1354 per student. Compare and contrast to the 300 per head of a Lecturer, 114.66 per head of a teaching only PhD casual, or (by calculation now) about $378 per head for a Level E Professor teaching a 400 student load. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

And to follow on further—Australia's "Banded" and "Clustered" funding model for commonwealth grant funding is related to a deal done between Vice Chancellors in the 1970s about "how much it would cost" to teach various courses. They split courses into three categories: chalk and talk; dry lab (sociology etc.); and, wet lab. Though this system has been overlaid with the "option" of Universities differentially funding courses (simulationist maths requires dry labs, for example); and an idea of a national system of priorities, and a national system of differential costs to students based on perceived life outcomes; the basic conception of different courses being groupable by costs remains. So Australia directly implemented your suggestion of cheaper humanities courses, and they still cost about $1400 a course in 2012 dollars. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The answer to the OP's question is yes. It should be possible, for it once was possible in (formerly) advanced nations like the USA. It should be affordable, and this would have great economic benefits for those who undervalue the intrinsic value of knowledge. The USA has worked very hard for decades to make education less affordable than it once was, to wreck one of its most valuable (economic) assets, its higher education system, by making it more like the USA's leading (economic) liability, its culture of business. Part of this process has been a grotesque proliferation of highly paid adminstrators who do nothing. Part of this is encapsulated in misjudgments like "Obviously an academic without administrative support, a class room, a computer network, a library, a campus would be worthless". Compare such a focus on distracting, peripheral matters to I. I. Rabi's famous retort to Dwight D. Eisenhower - "Mr. President, the faculty are not the employees of the university. They are the university.". Compare to a more modern official in another country, which understands and applies basic economics, unlike the USA & most of the advanced, developed nations. The banks of his country have become formally insolvent, having engaged essentially in disguised fiscal spending by making bad, unpayable "loans" to universities: "Asked how the University planned to pay it back, the Secretary simply commented with a smile, what would the bank do with a University campus?" [2]John Z (talk) 07:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Well for starters I'd make the library pay by access leveraging site-licensing against the cost of individual article retrieval, lease the commercial space on a competitive basis to push marketing commodity merchandisers at the lower end who want access to A and B demographics with high disposable income and a cultivated lack of debt awareness, marketise or divest any residences held, sell three quarters of the campus for real-estate, push provision of education services into online only modes, and burn the "brand" image over a five year horizon while I make KPIs. There is a fair bit a bank can do with the "externalities" of a University. And it is far easier to do so in the Australian or New Zealand contexts where many campuses are integrated into urban areas.

As far as academics working in an unsupported environment, this is only valid if you see lecturers as some kind of Stakhanovite, who is forcing hidden work down a food chain onto unpaid or underpaid lackeys. Losing the site licences would hurt almost all academics on a campus, as would losing that poor fucker who knows how to load paper and actually get the network printer to go. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I forgot—as far as affordability goes, it is completely fucked and nothing short of a combination of moral and physical force against the state, but also against the employers of graduates, will change the affordability of higher education. Affordability is an externality that employers first successfully pushed onto the state, and then in alliance both have pushed onto workers and the few children of management who bother with higher education. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Do Australian universities really solely use academic stuff for tutorials and marking? From my experience in the University of Auckland, that sort of stuff tends to use postgraduate students (who get paid a lot less), at least in the first and often second year. Obviously the academic staff still need some involvement but your figures seem to assume the hours are solely coming from the academic staff or specialised casuals. Nil Einne (talk) 12:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Unpaid labour by doctoral candidates in relation to teaching is illegal in Australia, it is similarly illegal in terms of research not connected with progression towards a degree but far more difficult to police. The Union has had a reasonably strong history in keeping casual pay rate up (to strongly suggest the use of permanents on a price basis), and casuals performing academic duties (tutoring, certain kinds of (and at certain times) demonstration. I only have anecdotal data that I can share regarding casual academics life profiles, but Robyn May has published in this area. Some people are permanently engaged as part-time casuals, working 24 weeks of face-to-face in a year. The "ideal type" in Australia is the doctoral candidate who does no more than 3-4 hours face to face over 24 weeks, being about 13 hours actually performed duties a week (including paid marking). The actual type is more often someone struggling in precarious work between up to five different campuses to stitch together a 50+ hour week over 24 weeks, not knowing their appointment stability until Week 0 or Week 1 of teaching. However, as noted, post-graduates do not generally (or legally) perform unpaid teaching duties. Casual academics (non PhD) are about $38 an hour at Group of 8s (check publicly available EBAs), whereas PhD possessing tutors are $50ish. Given that the EBAs I know best say that "PhD or performing course-coordination duties" for the higher rate, any attempt to substitute casuals for permanent (or fixed term contract...) staff would need to be budgeted around $50 an hour before paying on-costs on labour. In my humble opinion, when it comes to course-coordination and development, it is cheaper to force these duties out of the unpaid overtime of permanent staff, particularly given that a course repeats over three to five years minimum. A casual who can walk a way with an hours notice in Week 10 of the third year they're running the course has too much industrial muscle. A permanent who did the same thing would be engaged in illegal industrial activity. If your suggestion is that New Zealand casual academic staff, ie: doctoral student tutors, are not paid for work like the US system, I'm appalled and the TEU needs to kick the employers in the knee cap. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I never said unpaid. I just said get paid less. And note this doesn't just include PhD students but Masters or 4th year Honours students as well depending on the requirements. (Even 3rd year students may be able to get demonstrator hours for first year courses if they are good enough.) Note also I'm not referring to lectures or course development which AFAIK does usually fall to permanent staff and occasionally temporaries (possibily with a PhD but occasionally just people with Masters and decent teaching experience who have a fixed term contract, who I think are hired more to fill a temporary gap then because of cost reasons). My knowledge primarily relates to science and engineering, but it would seem surprising if humanities is any different, Nil Einne (talk) 13:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

There isn't a significant skill barrier (though there may be a quality or perceived quality barrier) against non doctoral candidates conducting lectures. From the point of view of the employer, in Australia, the life situation of the tutor doesn't particularly matter as long as they can get a sufficient number of casuals. The complaints about precarious working lives from permanently casual academics seem to be spread across the full spectrum of disciplines, including professional disciplines where the professional market is relatively "hungry" for labour. Also, a side effect of the pricing structure for casuals here is that one poor bastard doing 12 tutorials a week is cheaper than three poor bastards doing 4 tutorials—there are incentives not to hire your doctoral students for this. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I'm not sure if I understood your comments correctly, but if it's true even non PhDs like postgraduate students performing tutoring (which I believe in NZ usually includes marking including of exams) work in Australia earns $38, then I guess that's a significant difference. The rate in NZ is I believe closer to $20 + 7% (holiday pay) for postgraduate student tutors. (Demonstrators are I believe less, but I'm not sure of the current rate.) Median, average and minimum wages are lower in NZ, and I'm pretty sure this extends to academics, but I'm resonably certain the difference is greater then $38 vs $50. Of course it's not just the lower cost that makes it necessary to hire students, for large classes like some biological sciences ones, you can have 1000, possibly even more in a course. A large lecture theater may be able to accomodate this or alternative 2 lecture streamds, and it's usually considered acceptable for first year students. But of course for labs, 500 in a lab isn't remotely feasible. If you have labs alternate weeks with 50 students per lab for 3 hours, that's still 10 lab streams of 3 hours or 30 hours a week not counting preparation time and marking. P.S. In case I wasn't clear, the positions are not only paid but generally completely voluntary. Nil Einne (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the NZ situation (I was shocked, but with Rogernomics, almost any abuse is believable). If we look at the University of Sydney instrument at schedule A (PDF). For full course development duties with lecturing, casually, a rate of "$235.23" an hour face to face for 4 hours of work total, or an hourly of $58.81. For tutorials, with course coordination or a PhD, $150.47/3 hours or $100.35/2 hours both of which equal the flat hourly rate of $50.16. For non PhD the flat hourly is $41.96. All of this is before on-costs. OP was talking about cheapening education through "The low salaries of post-docs." This isn't possible under current industrial instruments in Australia. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Pattie Boyd's Bio

I just got finished reading a book written by Pattie Boyd about her relationships with both Harrison and Clapton called "Wonderful Tonight", but I believe that there is an error on her page. She DID NOT HAVE ANY CHILDREN BY...either men. She has never had any children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbverrall (talk • contribs) 16:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Where does it say she has children? Adam Bishop (talk) 17:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It's right there in the article: In 1967 she and George flew to San Francisco and gave birth to a baby boy. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Unless she actually did have children by either man, that statement is not an error. It does leave open the implication of having children with other men, and if that's not the case, then the wording could be better. But it's not an error. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's an error. Saying she didn't have any children by either men means just that. I don't see how it could possibly lead to misunderstanding.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see it now, just some vandalism from yesterday morning. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Kudos. That's the type of question that could have also been posted to her article's talk page, although it might get a broader audience here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

History and Origin of Pasta

Dear Editor of Wikipedia,

I was reading an interesting article of new discovery on origin of noodles and followed by another similar article from National Geographic that suggested noodles were found in China 4000 years ago. This was well before Marco Polo re-discovered it in China and brought over to Italy.

I think that you need to update this evidence in your article on "pasta" which I believe are read by many around the world.

The link of the referred article by National Geographic: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/10/1012_051012_chinese_noodles.html

Thank you.

Best regards, SKY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.153.128.84 (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC) 58.153.128.84 (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The National Geographic article is already referenced in Chinese noodles#History and Noodle#History. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Syrian uprising 2011-2012

There is some contradictions here. The al-Qaeda is obvious a very radical crazy Islamist's group. In the "Support for the opposition" section of the 2011–2012 Syrian uprising article, it states that the al-Qaeda is supporting the opposite against the government of Syria. Why would the al-Qaeda wants to do that? The opposite group wanted to overthrow the government of Syria and create a democracy government but the al-Qaeda wanted a total dictatorship. I don't understand how could the al-Qaeda possibly support the opposite?Pendragon5 (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The Syrian government is generally fairly friendly with the USA (Looking through the pages on Bashar al-Assad, it looks like I overstated Syria–United States relations, which are generally poor - Syria has been under US sanctions since 2004). Much like what happened in Egypt, bringing in democracy means there's a chance for Islamists to gain power. They'd prefer an Muslim Brotherhood-run democracy to a pro-US secular dictatorship. Smurrayinchester 21:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It is likely Al Qaeda thinks spreading further disarray throughout the Middle East might drag the US into further conflicts. That gives them even more chances to call for jihad against what they will amost certainly claim are infidel crusaders. We've seen and heard it all before: drag the US into war then claim the US are only there to destroy Islam. Perhaps China and Russia have actually done the US a favour using their veto in the UN security council, though that haven't done the opposition in Syria any favours at all. Astronaut (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

"We've seen and heard it all before" is certainly an understatement. The sad part is that we don't seem to get any smarter about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Also note that just because Al Qaeda want a dictatorship that doesn't mean they want the current dictatorship. They may want to bring it down and then try and bring a new one up in it's aftermath. For example, Bin Laden for many years wanted to replace the ruling House of Saud with his family in Saudi Arabia. He wanted a dictator, him, so he had to get rid of the current one (obviously, he was unsuccessful). 130.88.172.34 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC).

The Assad government is secular. Al Qaeda prefers theocratic dictatorships of their own design. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

A couple points:

1) Syria is friendly with Iran, which is a Shiite nation. Al Qaeda is a Sunni terrorist organization, so they hate each other.

2) They may think that a temporary alliance with democratic forces until they defeat the current government could work in their favor, after which they will then just murder anyone who opposes them and take over. This is similar to how the Taliban and Al Qaeda sought US help to overthrow the communist government installed in Afghanistan by the Soviet Union, then killed off most of the opposition to set up their own government there. StuRat (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• StuRat is the closest to the truth here. Syria is a largely Sunni nation (its populace) run by Alawis (its leaders). Sunnis support Sunni. Bringing the Sunnis to power will necessarily increase Al-Qaeda's reach, as well as be a triumph of their ideology.
• The Shias in Syria and Iran do not get along well with the west (many people thought the Bush administration was going to invade Syria after Iraq). And in this case, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, until our mutual enemy is gone. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Old style to Gregorian date conversion

We currently show the birth date of Dimitri Alexandrovich Obolensky as "19 March (old style) 1882". What's that in the Gregorian calendar? Is there an on-line tool or look-up table I can use for other conversions? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

See Conversion between Julian and Gregorian calendars. 19 March 1882 old style corresponds to 31 March 1882 new style. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Article duly updated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

USA/MEXICO

Why is Mexico standards ( society, econimics, etc ) so far below the USA's way of life, when they are cross boader neighbours. Should they have not greatly benefited being so close to the world's most advanced country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ready4u2c (talk • contribs) 22:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The instability of the Mexican government is one factor. Unlike the US, which only had one civil war, they had several. Another point is the differences in the British and Spanish colonial models. The British focused on building the economy of the colony (and taxing the results), while the Spanish focused on extracting wealth, such as from gold and silver mines, and sending that wealth back to Spain. After the colonial period, these two systems left the US with a good infrastructure and left Mexico with little more than played-out mines. The British also left their colonies with a democratic tradition, while the Spanish did not (which might account for all the civil wars in Mexico). Note that these effects aren't limited to the US and Mexico; former British colonies elsewhere tend to be better off financially, and more democratic, than former Spanish colonies.StuRat (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

From the Marxist side, Hilferding and then Lenin on Imperialism thus through to Trotsky on uneven and combined development. Follow this up with some development studies proper, in particular world-systems theory. Basically: Mexico has been, and continues to be, a semi-colony of the United States. Or, rather, Imperialist Capital in the United States and Mexico has maintained different rates of growth and sectoral development both between the US and Mexico, and within the US and Mexico. Some of the reasons for this are to reduce labour's power, others to avoid periodic declines in the rate of profit by moving less capitalised industries to areas of cheaper labour. StuRat is also right: to the extent that the Mexican state had economic autonomy, the Mexican state has been less interested in the development of human conditions than comparable elements of the US state. (I'd argue class war had a role to play here, especially the wildcats of the 1940s in the war industries). Fifelfoo (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

(to OP) In what way Mexican society is below US standard? --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 01:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The ones who want to come here obviously have high standards. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with StuRat above. Fifelfoo, on the other hand, has some odd rant about class warfare which doesn't appear to be based on reality and which never addresses why the US was powerful enough in the first place to be able to create a so-called empire over the Mexicans (and which ignores examples like Korea and Taiwan, which for decades were as much in the US sphere of influence, and which are no means subjugate to the US, given that they are first world nations). Here is the more likely answers:

• The US has a lot of arable land. This helps.
• The US is located further to the north. You will notice that countries which live in cold climates usually have better economies; there is a reason for that: that have to be harder working in order to survive in the first place. That's why Norweigen countries can have partially socialist economies, and it works, whereas it fails miserably in the Mediterranean nations. That is my haughty opinion, but it is my opinion.
• Protestant work ethic.
• The US is made up predominately of descendants of whites who were ambitious enough that they left everything in their home countries for a land thousands of miles away. As such, their genetic makeup may (or may not) leave them predisposed to more ambition. Mexico's genetic makeup is mostly indigenous.
• The Latin American system of power from the top encouraged corruption more than the English system of devolved powers. In the English system, everyone is accountable to each other and to the populous at large; in the Spanish system, people are only accountable to their higher-ups (who they can lie to more easily than lying to an entire people).

Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

What the hell are "Norweigen countries"? Anyway, I suppose you mean Scandinavian. In this case: since the recent past, Norway is wealthy due to its oil, but so is Kuwait. Finland is so wealthy like Spain, both are over the average world-wide, but just average within Europe. That just leaves Sweden, but you'll still need a better explanation regarding differences between it and other "Norweigen countries". (More about this wealthy because at the North nonsense at the bottom) XPPaul (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I refer you to Hilferding, Lenin, Trotsky, and Wallerstein; I also suggest to you that phrases such as "odd rant" and "doesn't appear to be based on reality" very strongly resemble personal attacks. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Not every negative comment is a personal attack, and those two are definitely not. They are about the words you used; they do not attack you personally, which is what a personal attack would be. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Another part of this question is answered yes, Mexico does benefit from the U.S. Mexican workers in the U.S. sent over $22 billion back home in 2007. (See Remittance#Latin America and the Caribbean) And a substantial number of Mexicans live in the U.S., 12 million, (half legally, half undocumented) while Mexico has a population of 112 million. 75.41.109.190 (talk) 05:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I think Magog's tone was a bit harsh, but his criticism was spot on; when the only tool you have is a hammer, all problems start to look like nails. Fifelfoo, you are known for answering every single question regarding history and politics and economics from a solely and purely Marxist perspective. It's certainly one way to look at the world, but I'd prefer if answers came from an entire toolbox and not just from the hammer (and sickle :) ). The story of Mexico is complex, as with any country, but it does come down to the lack of a stable government for a long time. Mexico, for the first 100 years of its existence as an independent nation, averaged something like a new government every 15 months. Things have been more stable in the 20th century, but the U.S. had quite a lead time with a stable national government over Mexico, and that counts for a lot. Mexico is still quite well-off, on a world-wide scale. It ranks comparitively high on the List of countries by Human Development Index, third among Latin American countries after Argentina and Uruguay, and higher than Brazil, which is more often than Mexico cited as one of the major developing powers. It's not the U.S., but it isn't a failed state either. Mexico is a stable, western democracy. Sadly, if it can't get the Mexican Drug War under control, it will continue to hamper its development. --Jayron32 05:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Porfirio Díaz's apocryphal "Poor Mexico, so far from God and so close to the United States!" sums it up well. On Fifelfoo - Heh, if anything I usually differ from the left. Guess I wield a sickle too. In any case the ref desk should not be about personalities. At times Mexico has perhaps benefitted from proximity, when the USA behaved less criminally than usual, e.g. under FDR, and Mexico was better governed than usual, under Lázaro Cárdenas say. Genetic predispositions toward ambition sound amusing. But even with no Mexican genes, I feel disposed to sacrifice such notions atop pyramids though. John Z (talk) 06:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If we look at your primary assertion of political systems instability as deterministic in history, can you explain the French GDP and standard of living in 1900? Correspondingly, instability in Greek and Italian governments during the Cold War era were rife, and perhaps, the Greeks experienced superior stability (on some measures), yet the Italian and Greek economies were remarkably different in early 1980s, even though both experienced systematic armed class warfare in the period. Finally, for state stability we need glance no further than the period 1945 to 1989 in countries Germany and Eastwards; yet, despite short periods of heavy industrial output growth and an immediate boost in human development terms, these experienced systematic stagnation in both output and human indicies (and in some cases, precipitous declines in human indicies when comparing 1946 to 1950).

In the field of long term comparative historical development, I'd have a hard time of thinking why imperialism focused elements of Marxism wouldn't be relevant. As indicated by Wallerstein, they're fundamental to the arguments in the area as practiced. You might also note that I contribute with reference to literature that others can follow up, and only where there is a relevance, and further, by noting that this is a theoretical perspective of some interest to the reader rather than a totalising world view that must be adhered to. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a note about Magog's statement about people from cold climates being (usually) harder working than those from warm--first, there's more to a strong economy than hard working people. I'm reminded of that Internet meme going around saying that if hard work was enough, women in Africa would be the richest people on the planet. Second, for what it's worth, this kind of theory is called geographic determinism, and the theory has a spectrum between "hard" and "soft". In it's soft form it is clearly useful, but in it's hard form can be used as justification for dismissing whole peoples just because of where they live (eg, "Africans are poor because the heat makes them lazy"). Not to say Magog is doing this--just something to keep in mind when the theory comes up. Pfly (talk) 05:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Oop, just noticed our page Environmental determinism is better. Pfly (talk) 05:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd almost hate to bring it up, because it always gets cited when discussing economics and geography, but the canonical, seminal work on this topic is likely covered in Guns, Germs, and Steel, which is a must-read for anyone interested in this topic in broad terms. --Jayron32 05:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Heh, yep...and as our environmental determinism points out, his work stands out for deliberately avoiding or even seeking to disprove "racist and eurocentric theories of development", which are quite common in earlier works in environmental determinism. Pfly (talk) 05:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

An excellent follow-up work to GG&S is the much more recent 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus, which takes the non-racial premises of GG&S even further; that even our scholarly opinions of pre-Columbian societies are skewed by Eurocentrism, and that it is likely that pre-Columbian America was far more developed than even the most generous historians have granted. In some ways it complements GG&S, by trying to dispell Eurocentrism, but in other ways it goes even farther, and in someways contradicts the basics of it, by taking even more radical views than GG&S, trying to show how even judging such societies as inferior (which GG&S does, even though it attempts non-racists way to explain the inferior) is faulty, and that in many ways, pre-Columbian societies were very advanced, just advanced in different ways, than European ones were. The three books which I always go to, in these sort of discussions are GG&S, 1491, and The Columbian Exchange. Of course, we've gone a bit astray from the OPs question, but for anyone genuinely interested in why some countries and societies have "come out on top" of history, those all provide an excellent set of understandings of the topic, and they are all imminently readible for the lay person. --Jayron32 06:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If you haven't yet read Mann's 1493, give it a whirl. It's pretty great as well, a good facelift for Crosby plus a lot of new stuff. A gripping read, very well done. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I intend to. It hasn't been out a year yet, but when I learned about it, I intended to pick it up! Just kinda lazy about getting to the bookstore... --Jayron32 17:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Back on the topic of Mexican history (I agree about 1491!), there's an interesting take in the book The Comanche Empire. Hämäläinen argues that turbulent politics in Mexico City in the early-to-mid 19th century engendered, or went along with the central government dismissing the threat of northern Indian tribes--especially after 1835 when "political power in Mexico City moved from liberal federalists to conservative centralists" (see Siete Leyes). Central Mexico was unwilling or unable to counter massive Indian raids in northern Mexico (see Comanche–Mexico Wars), which continued for decades and devastated the country. Hämäläinen argues that the damage caused by the Comanche, Apache, and other raiders at this early, pivotal era for the Mexican Republic had major, lasting effects: "The decades of Comanche raiding in Texas and northern Mexico...had a lasting hemispheric legacy. The escalating violence left Mexico dangerously weakened during critical years in its history...The consequences were disastrous to the fledging republic..." [3] He puts the Mexican–American War in a new light, writing, for example, "If Mexico's collapse in 1847 was quick and complete, it was because the nation had to fight two invading powers at once..." pp. 234-235 Anyway, all this is just one example of how Mexico's early, post-colonial history was really rough--far far harder than the US's early post-colonial history. Pfly (talk) 06:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

About Magog: I do not notice that countries located to the north have better economies. The whole Mediterranean region was quite developed for a long, long time. And right now you can still go on with the comparisons: California vs. Lithuania, Hong Kong vs. Siberia, Singapure vs. Ireland, NYC vs. Eartern Germany. Incidentally, these theory only has value when you indeed believe in some implicit racist idea, which seems Magog's case, since apparently white are more ambitious than native Mexicans. Obviously, privileged people will always claim that their privilege is based on some intrinsic characteristic of them, and disregard how much the situation (in a very broad sense) makes us what we are. XPPaul (talk) 11:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

StuRat has given the best answer so far. A couple of other points. First, Britain and Spain were very different places in the 18th century. Britain was a comparatively liberal, less authoritarian, better-educated and wealthier society. Spain is still one of the least-wealthy Western European countries. Because of Britain's relatively liberal tradition, its American colonies were settled by independently minded entrepreneurs and what we would now call civil society groups, buttressed by individuals seeking a better life, who wanted to actually develop America. In contrast, Spanish America was more about exploiting the human and natural resources (like the colonization of Africa) and forcibly converting the natives to Catholicism. Although most of today's U.S. population is not of British descent, those that came later assimilated into that culture created by the colonists. Secondly, to follow up on what Magog said, the near-destruction of the Indian population of the American East Coast through disease and war, coupled with large-scale immigration and high colonist birth rates, meant the British colonies basically started as a blank slate to be filled with European wealth and culture. The European population of New Spain was tiny in comparison. There's nothing inherent in those of American Indian ancestry that makes them unable to create a developed economy. But they started from much farther behind in terms of wealth and education. In other words, the U.S. started as a "first world" country, while Mexico started as a Third World country. It's always been that way. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually the reason is because the USA was almost empty of population compared to Mexico, not because of Spain's or Britain's colonial model, but because most of the population in the US is of European descent and European off-shoots tend to be much richer and look much more European than former colonies whose population is mostly of native descent. Just have a look at the extreme poverty of Britain's former colonies --excluding Canada, the US, New Zealand and Australia (and maybe some tiny archipelago or island); all of them European off-shoots-- which are very poor even by Latin American standards. The exception to the European off-shoot rule-of-thumb appears to be Argentina, which is a formerly developed country and was one of the richest countries in the world in the 1930s but became an average income country afterwards --which is something quite incomprehensible. --Broadside Perceptor (talk) 13:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

February 27

Christopher Hitchens conversation with Chris Hedges at UCLA

I WAS WATCHING THE INTERVIEW WITH CHRIS HEDGES WHICH RECENLTY AIRED ON CSPAN2. IN IT HE TALKED ABOUT THE DEBATE HE HAD WITH CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS AT UCLA AND ANOTHER ONE HE HAD WITH RICHARD DAWKINS AT EITHER THAT LOCATION OR ANOTHER. MIGHT THERE BE ANY WAY THAT WIKIPEDIA COULD FIND THOSE CONVERSATIONS AND CREATE A LINK TO THEM AND INSTALL THEM ON THEIR RESPECTIVE WIKI PAGES? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.193.72.10 (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Please avoid SHOUTING with all capital letters; it breaks internet decorum and it's very hard to read. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried googling "christopher hitchens and chris hedges". You can do that and it will give you a lot of results through which you can look to find the one you want - if it is there. On a slightly different point Wikipedia is you and me and some other folks. If the video is notable as opposed to interesting to some people, (that's important) and there are no copyright issues then somebody, and that could be you, may get around to linking it to an appropriate page, either Chris Hedges or Christopher Hitchens, because I have a tiny feeling that this discussion will not merit its own page. Richard Avery (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If you think that debate was tough, you should have seen Benson and Hedges. I tell ya, they were smokin'. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Assembly of Experts

There are contradictions about this, it is said that the assembly of experts can overcome the power of the supreme leader of Iran and they were elected based from popular vote. Then that's basically like democracy, the citizens of Iran vote for some people that have power over the most powerful man in the nation. Which it is not the case, i know for the fact that Iran is a dictatorship country where the supreme leader can basically do anything he wants. So the assembly of experts are just like the puppets to appease the people of Iran? And it is there is just to make the people of Iran think that they actually have human rights but in reality they don't? So it's a big trick?Pendragon5 (talk) 03:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

And as i read about Iran's government, i see all of the important figures in the government are based from popular vote except the supreme leader but who is supposed to control by assembly of experts, which were elected by the people of Iran. So as i can see it's all in check so the Iran's government as far as i can tell they have a pretty fair system basis, why a lot of countries around the world say that Iran is a dictatorship country? Does the supreme leader just fake everything up to trick the Iranians?Pendragon5 (talk) 03:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Only cleric-approved candidates are allowed to be on the ballot in the first place. They may be democratically elected, but not democratically nominated. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 04:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

That's the same thing in the United States. Each party nominated their own candidate then everyone will vote one those on the ballot. That's fair enough. Unless there is a big cover up behind this otherwise i think Iran is a pretty fair country with no dictatorship.Pendragon5 (talk) 04:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Not the same thing at all. The people vote for candidates in the US primaries. You may have heard of the current four candidates for the Republican nomination for President and multiple others who were running? No party bosses or clergymen put them on the party ballot. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 04:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Still, according to what i have read, the party in Iran was elected by the people. It's ultimately the same thing, you elect for the people in the party then they will nominate their own candidate and people vote on it. It's like the people decided A and A decided B. They all connected somehow, the people can always elect someone that will favor their choices.Pendragon5 (talk) 07:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a rather persistent analysis of primary selection and success, and access to finance capital funding. This is a persistent analysis across a variety of theoretical backgrounds. The connection between presidential candidates and "market" machine funding does go back to the Gilded Age in the documents I've read. Causative explanations of this link vary from class analysis through to a liberal "corruption" of democracy analysis. Under these, or the more stringent analyses at least, Pendragon5's supposition that at a particular level of analysis Iran has a similar democratic structure to the United States bares out. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

What i don't understand is Iran's government seems to be fairly base off from the popular vote then why so many countries in the world considered Iran as a total dictatorship country?Pendragon5 (talk) 07:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Since all candidates are selected by clerics alone, this guarantees that you will never get a secular or reform government, as clerics would never nominate them. To continue the comparison with the US, that would be the same as if there was only one legal party, and the party selected it's own nominees, rather than having primaries to elect them. The result would be that this party would have total control over the nation. Iran also lacks Freedom of the Press, so people aren't even aware of problems in the government. Due to new social media, they became aware of some of them recently. When this resulted in protests, the protesters were shot. See Death of Neda Agha-Soltan for one example. StuRat (talk) 07:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

One complementary (but possibly also contradictory) analysis would also point out that the freedom of election in the United States is for two parties that share the broad programme of Anglophone and American-European capitalism. Iranian capital, often in alliance with the hegemony of a particular group of clerics, tends not to want to open the Iranian economy to untrammelled access by Western capital. In these circumstances, within such an analysis, Iranian media would portray the US as undemocratic (which I believe they do?) and the commercial US media would portray Iran as undemocratic. As StuRat notes, two key differences are: 1) there is more political, but not commercial, space for dissident media voices in the US; 2) far fewer people are shot dead in US protests than in Iranian protests. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Also note that people in the US are free to vote for other parties, and sometimes a third party makes a major impact in the outcome of an election. If people were so dissatisfied that they stopped voting for the Democrats and/or Republicans, those parties would either reform or cease to exist. In Iran, if nobody voted for the clerics, nothing would change, they would just vote for themselves. StuRat (talk) 08:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

This tends to be more of a "formal" than a substantive right... I'm reminded of the existence of Peasants and even Petits-bourgeois liberal parties in the soviet-style societies. Of course you're right. The US party system does have a tendency to "reconfigure" itself, even while remaining a two-party system. The party-system before the New Deal, and After Reagan were remarkably different to the party system in the intervening years—even though the names remained the same. Similarly, a Third Party could become a Second or First Party if the US political system reconfigured. The same is not true regarding the Iranian political system. Perhaps the example of a large political population experiencing significant disenfranchisement in the substantive process of politics, is the example of the British working class prior to the final development of the Labour Party in the 1920s. Even without a Party, the political working class used mob-violence, the charter, and the Lib-Labs to force a measure of power onto the system. The best hope for more substantive, than formal, democracy in Iran without a major change in Iran's constitution would be a similar process of an existing force mediating an unexpressable demand. Correspondingly, I have high hopes regarding electoral reform charters in the US particularly around electoral voting system change. Change within the dominant party systems seems more etherial as regional variations have been increasingly smoothed over. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

There are certainly important differences between the political systems of Iran and the United States, such as the robustness of the party system in the United States, the fact that there is a real contest in many elections for statewide or national office (less so in elections for legislative seats other than US Senator due to gerrymandering), and the relative lack of violent repression (people can attend demonstrations or write pieces sharply criticizing the government without too much fear of serious injury). However, there are important similarities between the two systems. In both systems, a small elite effectively controls the mainstream media and the political process. In Iran, it is the clerical elite, perhaps in alliance with elements of Iranian capital (including the Revolutionary Guard). In the United States, it is the rich and especially what are sometimes called the superrich, that is, people in the top tenth of the top percentile of the income distribution, and especially those in the top hundredth of that percentile. It is essentially impossible for a presidential candidate to win a party's nomination without substantial backing from the superrich, and very difficult for a candidate to win other top offices such as U.S. senator or state governor's offices without that backing. Most legislators also depend heavily on the backing of the superrich, both through direct donations and through corporate and other lobbying groups, for campaign financing. As a result, policy in the United States almost without exception favors the superrich, just as policy in Iran favors the interests of the clerical elite and their allies. It simply isn't true that if people in the United States stopped voting for Democrats and/or Republicans, they would reform. In fact, people have already stopped voting for Democrats and Republicans. Turnout in most elections is below 50%. Even in presidential elections, where turnout occasionally exceeds 60%, people grumble that they don't have much of a choice and cast a resigned and unenthusiastic vote. However, neither party has acknowledged low turnout or a lack of widespread enthusiasm for their candidates as a reason for reform. The lockhold of the superrich on both the political process and the media (which they of course own) practically guarantees that no real reform to the U.S. political system can occur. Marco polo (talk) 15:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, the 40-50% that don't vote for Republicans or Democrats would have to vote for another party, in order to reform the two older parties. StuRat (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Since this is a reference desk, let me say that Democracy Index places USA in the lower end of the highest of four categories, Full democracy. Iran is in the lower part of the lowest category, Authoritarian regime. See also Iranian Assembly of Experts election, 2006#Candidates and Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

However, Democracy Index is a project of the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), an entity whose controlling owner is Pearson PLC, a multinational corporation based in London but deriving most of its revenue from the United States. The EIU also depends on corporate customers for its revenue and is unlikely to explore topics that would cause discomfort to the superrich who own and run those corporations. Not surprisingly, the index largely measures formal democracy and systematically ignores structures of power behind the formal arrangements. It is these structures of power that the original question seemed to concern. Marco polo (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The answer to the question "Is Iran's democracy a sham?" is not "American democracy is a sham." That's a separate question. The questioner didn't ask for a comparison. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If you're opening this up to normative or historically materialist analyses then: Iran is not a democracy, workers do not control the means of production or society generally. All societies claiming to be democratic while economically governed by the action of value form will be sham democracies. In particular, Iranian democracy is more of a sham than other democracies due to particular features of the formal and substantive system of political elections, and due to the extremity of limits placed on workers' self-organisation at work. There appears to be no major disjuncture, or structural difference, between the sham of Iranian democracy and the sham of other democracies; except if these are viewed from a normative framework of Western bourgeois imperialism. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The OP tried to compare the governments and elections of the US and Iran, and is apparently not open to listening to disagreements with their proclamation. The discussion of the US system was an attempt to explain how their protestations are incorrect, but I gave up a couple of days ago when it appeared to be worthless to try to explain to them. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 04:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Can fair use apply to trade secrets or computer code protected by copyright?

I'm not sure if this will qualify as legal advice or not, but anyway, I know that many programs have their source code protected by copyright and trade secret laws. But in this case, can fair use or fair dealing be used? For example, a person reverse engineered a computer program to copy a short piece of code to demonstrate how this program can work (but not copying the entire code), or publishing part of a secret recipe of a food product for the purpose of reporting its effects on health. Is this allowed by law? They probably wouldn't do it anyway, but can they do it in the first place? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

You'd need to consult a lawyer if ding anything like that in practice but yes that's the sort of thing that's meant. The code example I believe they'd be allowed even in a commercial setting if it was necessary for interworking. Dmcq (talk) 13:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair use only applies to copyright. That's a completely separate body of law from trade secrecy. So there's no connection there. Now you can "re-discover" trade secrets on your own, or derive them from published products. Nothing against that. What's illegal is industrial espionage — paying someone to give you secrets, or breaking into a place to get them, for example — not reverse engineering (which may violate terms of use, patents, and/or copyrights, but doesn't violate trade secrecy protections). Even then, if you're revealing the secrets in order to show abuses or wrongs, it can fall under whistleblowing protections. (This isn't legal advice so much as it is a clarification of basic legal concepts. As with everything legal, the devil's in the details. And I speak with assurance only of a US context.) --Mr.98 (talk) 13:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

However, the question also involves copying a piece of original code from the program, and the code itself is definitely copyrightable. Nyttend (talk) 03:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Statues of British PMs in the U.S.

How many statues of British Prime Ministers are there in the United States? I just saw a mention of one in Margaret Thatcher's article, apparently next to Hillsdale College, and a quick Google search turned up a mention of one of Winston Churchill next to the British Embassy in Washington. Are there any others in the U.S.? Mark Arsten (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

There are several Churchill statues in Missouri (site of the "Iron Curtain" speech), including this and this. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 17:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

There's a statue of William Pitt the Elder in Charleston, South Carolina (though I cannot find one in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, his namesake city). See here for the one in Charleston. --Jayron32 17:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

This page says that there's one of him in the Pittsburgh City-County Building. I'd be surprised if there weren't others of him scattered about. Deor (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I sorta figured there would be; but my preliminary google searches turned up mostly statues in the UK, the only American statue of him I found was the one in Charleston. --Jayron32 17:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Right-wing university Hillsdale College has put up a statue of Margaret Thatcher: [4]. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

That was stated in the OPs remarks. Dismas|^(talk) 02:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Huh, interesting, thanks. I hadn't realized about Pitt. I half expected to see a statue of Tony Blair go up during the Iraq War, since he was so popular in the U.S. then. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Good research on social network analysis of cell phone networks?

Is there a good survey of the field? I'm particularly interested in social graph analysis from Cell phone provider data. Ryan Singer (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

George Bancroft and Alexander Bliss

Hello,

By Chance I was reading the page on Alexander Bliss (1827 - 1896). A statement is made by the author as follows: "His wife Elizabeth Davis was married to George Bancroft, the eminent American Historing after Alexander's death"

The problem is that George Bancroft's dates are (1800 - 1891). In this case, Elizabeth Davis would have been marrying a man who had been dead for 5 years.

A couple possible resolutions seem obvious: 1.) Elizabeth Davis and Alexander Bliss divorced and she married George Bancroft. 2.) Elizabeth Davis was originally George Bancroft's wife and then married Alexander Bliss, after George's death.

Any idea on how to solve the chronological inconsistency?

Andrew. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.165.188.130 (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

There's a third possibility, which seems to be the correct one: Elizabeth Davis wasn't married to the Alexander Bliss our article's about; she was married to his father (also named Alexander Bliss) and was in fact the younger Alexander's mother. See this page and this which say that she married the elder Alexander in 1825 (he died in 1827) and then married Bancroft in 1838. Deor (talk) 20:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Antipope Clement VII

I notice our article says Robert of Geneva murdered some 4,000 Cesena citizens in 1377. Then he was promoted to being a Pope in 1378 by the French cardinals. Why would a Christian religious group promote an executioner to such a high position? Why wouldn't they select someone with much higher morals?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Back then the pope was a political leader as much as anything else (and politics in general was a lot bloodier back then, since the concept of human rights and such hadn't been fully worked out). He had a large army and control over significant amounts of territory. So you wouldn't expect the pope to be any more moral than any other medieval political leader. Meelar (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

When the Church was the unquestioned authority, they were often downright evil, promoting the Crusades, sale of indulgences, execution of "witches", the Spanish Inquisition, persecution of scientists and those with differing religious views, supporting bloodthirsty conquistadors, etc. Only when they were cut down to size did they start behaving in a more "Christian" manner. Other religions with that level of control over society (like Islam in Iran) also behave just as immorally. StuRat (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The people he had killed were rebelling against papal rule. This sort of massacre was very common in medieval and early modern warfare; there wasn't the modern concept of human rights or protecting civilians. The Papal States were involved in a lot of wars, as you'll see if you read that article; and read about Pope Julius II, "The Warrior Pope". Today the Vatican tends to promote pacifism and oppose war, but that wasn't always the case: read Just war theory: you could be a warlike ruler like Louis IX of France and still be a saint, as long as your battles were in defence of Catholic Europe. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

He also didn't kill them all himself, he was just in charge of organizing the people who did. Another example is Arnaud Amalric, who is the origin of the "kill them all, let God sort them out" story. Anyway, for more background about what was going on in the church at the time, see Avignon Papacy and Western Schism. As usual, it's a lot more complicated, and a lot more interesting, than the StuRat's simplistic "the church was evil". Adam Bishop (talk) 10:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I did say "often". I suppose there must have been times when the medieval Church did something that they knew would decrease their power, just because it was morally the right thing, but I can't think of an example, offhand. StuRat (talk) 06:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Landlords in the USA

Do American homeowners who rent their homes out typically (in practice) tend to reserve the right to sell to a buyer who can then have all rights to kick out renting tenants and move into the house that they now own and don't want to rent out? 69.243.220.115 (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but they have to give some notice to the tenants. Depending on the lease, this could be a long or short period. If near the end of a one year or month-to-month lease, the notice could be quite short (state laws may limit how short). If at the start of a one year lease, then presumably they can't break the lease, meaning they can only sell the house if the new landlord agrees to honor the existing leases. StuRat (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It depends on the lease, as StuRat says. In general any buyer would have to honor a fixed-term lease until the next renewal, but obviously a clause can be written into the lease agreement that permits a sale to an owner-occupant, with appropriate notice. This can happen when a seller has moved into another place and needs to rent the old place to cover expenses, without encumbering the property more than they have to for a sale. There are a wide variety of local regulations that may influence such an event, particularly in major cities, and I doubt that there is any jurisdiction that countenances less than a month's notice under any circumstances. Acroterion (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

As a California Real Estate broker owning many houses my experience on this is like StuRat has said. IF there is a one year lease, the new buyer has to agree to honor the lease and can not kick the tenants out - however they could "buy" them out, if the tenant agrees on the money. IF on a month-to-month "rental", then all that is needed is a 30 day notice (in California).--Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

StuRat says yes but basically means no to your original question. In most cases the subsequent buyer would take the property subject to the lease... of course they're probably under no obligation to renew the lease... but that'd be a separate contract. I suppose you could write a contract that worked whatever way you want... but I suspect that's unusual. Shadowjams (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

And then of course there are rent controlled properties, where all sorts of Byzentine regulations come into play. New York City is probably has the most well-known rent control policies in the United States. George Will wrote an editorial a couple weeks ago about a case in New York City, where one James Harmon is arguing that the process to evict his tenants (so he can let his Grandson live in one of the apartments) is so onerous that his property has effectively been taken from him without just compensation. A couple courts have dismissed his claim so far, and it looks unlikely that the Supreme Court will take the case. Buddy431 (talk) 04:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

George Will isn't at the top of my list of scholars when I ask for politically charged legal opinions... though in this case he's probably right about Rent control, as are most modern economists... rent control is largely a form of rent seeking either directly or through proxy. It's good if you can get it, but everyone else is more worse off for it than you are better off for it.... and OH YES, we can quantify these things.

The Supreme Court's Takings Clause jurisprudence is downright disgraceful, and I mean that from a rather apolitical position. But since the Hawaii decision, the rest seems to follow, for better or worse. Shadowjams (talk) 09:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

February 28

Why are demons/devils/The Devil depicted as having features of sheep or goats?

Question as topic. Is it something from the Bible? --95.150.167.181 (talk) 00:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

It's probably not from the Bible (though see the article on Azazel) but more likely from a later period in Christianity. See the articles on Christian_teaching_about_the_Devil#Middle_Ages, on Horned God, and on Baphomet for some thoughts and theories. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the standard illustration of Baphomet which gets endlessly repeated (including by Satanists), is by mid 19th century French occultist Eliphas Levi, and appears to owe a lot to his personal imagination... AnonMoos (talk) 07:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the frivolity of this reference and for not following up this reference's references, no time; but in this article George Lucas is quoted as claiming that he or his minions researched Hindu and Greek mythology when designing Darth Maul, and he is quoted as saying that "A lot of evil characters have horns", so it may be from earlier than the Bible. Though our Darth Maul article also claims that the original concept was that he had feathers, so I'm not sure where that leaves us. Comet Tuttle (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Aha, I just found Demonization of horned deities which refers to the Book of Revelation. Sorry about my careless quick reply above. The examples of Moloch or Shedu are not evil in their own mythological narrative. Most of the earlier horned deities mentioned in that article, including Hindu (Pushan) and Egyptian/Greek (Amun) are powerful non-evil (often solar) deities. The faun, however, is certainly not an unambiguous force of good, and there are all sorts of hybrid creatures in Mesopotamian mythology (e.g.), so you make a good point. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Also see Goats in religion, mythology, and folklore. It probably comes from two sources: the tradition of the Scapegoat and (as Sluzzelin mentions) from Christian demonization of pagan horned deities such as Pan and Faunus. Lithoderm 01:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

This dictionary of symbols is an interesting source: the Goat's main symbolic attribute is virility- which can be positive (the Yule Goat) or negative (the Scapegoat) depending on your religion's moral outlook. Lithoderm 02:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

There's a bizarre reference in Plutarch (I think) where Pan actually dies, and this was interpreted by Christians as a victory of Christianity over paganism. Maybe that is linked to this somehow. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was Plutarch. Our page on Pan gives the reference as Moralia, Book 5:17, but it also comes out against any ancient connection between Pan and Satan. --Antiquary (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

To give a counter example, Moses is sometimes depicted as having horns when he descends from the mountain with the Ten Commandments. This was due to a mistranslation in the Vulgate. See here for Michelangelo's statue. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

There was also the Golden calf, the manifestation of everything bad about the Jews, according to the Bible. StuRat (talk) 09:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I spent a day pondering what this was supposed to mean, and I give up. According to where in the Bible is the golden calf "the manifestation of everything bad about the Jews"? What does that even mean? That if the Jews got rid of their cloven hooves and cud chewing they would be perfect? That all the bad in them became manifest in the golden calf, and hence destroyed at the beginning of the Exodus? Surely the golden calf was just the Israelites looking for an easily comprehended god to worship, seeking to make an idol of God? Put me out of my misery, please. 86.164.69.124 (talk) 10:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

According to our article "The calf was intended to be a physical representation of the God of Israel, and therefore was doubly wrong for involving Israel in idolatry and for ascribing physicality to God". In short, it was the opposite of everything God (or at least Moses) wanted the Jews to believe. StuRat (talk) 22:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I see. So you meant, "it was the opposite of everything God wanted them to believe", which sounds quite different to me. It still isn't really accurate though: that's only the opposite of what he wanted them to believe about God's physicality. The Bible is full of messages that what God wants is for the Israelites to show charity and justice and mercy to at least the other Israelites, as well as worship God in specific ways, and other things too. Even just the ten commandments are not all "I am a God without physicality, so the worst thing you can do is make an idol of me". There are loads of other things which are not the opposite of the golden calf. 86.164.69.124 (talk) 12:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The Second Commandment ("Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth") makes it clear that this was very important to God (or to Moses, at least, if we assume he actually wrote it). Noting that there are no commandments against rape or slavery, it would be fair to say that God/Moses even considered this to be a worse crime. Yes, this seems very odd according to modern morality, but they apparently saw things quite differently then. StuRat (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Also regarding your original question: it's definitely just goats, not sheep. Sheep have a very different symbolic meaning in Christianity- see Agnus Dei, sacrificial lamb, Good Shepherd, Parable of the Lost Sheep, and especially The Sheep and the Goats. Lithoderm 20:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

But other horned animals, including random "beasts", also tend to be seen as evil. StuRat (talk) 06:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a thought -- the general depiction of Satan with hooves and horns and all that may be related to the identification (fairly ancient) in Judaeo-Christian theology of mythological beings like satyrs with evil spirits and demons. I can't find any sources on that right now, but I know it was present in Hellenistic Judaism probably toward the beginning of the Common Era. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 02:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Literature dealing with Multicultural Britain

Is there any fiction dealing with multicultural Britain like a fiction that has a main character who is a South Asian, regardless he is a Pakistani, Indian, Bangladeshi and Sri Lankan? Same thing with Arab, African British-both Caribbean and Africa, Malaysian, Afghanistani main characters? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.41.68 (talk) 03:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll start the list with White Teeth. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

There are plenty of these. See Half a Life (novel), The Enigma of Arrival, Anita and Me. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 06:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You might find some ideas at Category:Postcolonial_literature. BrainyBabe (talk) 06:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

My Beautiful Launderette was one of the first of this genre ISTR. --TammyMoet (talk)

Brick Lane by Monica Ali is one of the best known, being set in the Bangladeshi community in London, though it's controversial (some people have accused it of portraying people from Sylhet in a bad light). Smurrayinchester 14:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Many more recommendations from the British Council here. --Antiquary (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

East is East, Bend it like Beckham, Anita and me… CS Miller (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I Proud To Be An Indian was a 2004 Bollywood film about Asians living in London. (I've just read the question properly and realised that it was about literature - hey ho!) Alansplodge (talk) 10:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

George Wallace delegates in 1972 election

How many delegates did George Wallace have at the 1972 convention? His artcle mentions some of the primaries he won, but not how many delgates he got total. RudolfRed (talk) 03:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

1972 Democratic National Convention#Delegate vote for presidential nomination says 382. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Impossibilty of feeling or conveying sorrow

We sometimes hear people saying things like "He wasn’t sorry for what he did, he was only sorry for being caught". That may be fair comment in some cases. The question then arises as to whether there’s some sort of threshold beyond which it is impossible either to convey to others your feelings of sorrow and remorse for your actions, or maybe even to have such feelings at all. The thinking might be, if they have the capacity to sink to such depths of depravity and vileness, then how could they also have the capacity to understand what it would mean to be the victim of such actions or a member of a grieving family?

Are there actions that are considered so bad, so evil, so inhuman, that would place the doer in a position where, even if they really did have feelings of remorse or sorrow for their actions, nobody would ever believe them?

To take a concrete case: if Hitler had been captured, and sometime down the track he said he was sorry for all the atrocities he ordered or were committed under his name, could anyone ever believe he meant it? Could he ever truly communicate to other human beings his feelings of remorse and sorrow, even if they were genuine? And if not, would that have more to do with an innate incapacity on his part to feel genuine remorse, or with the (understandable) total lack of trust on the part of others? They'd likely figure that he didn't exterminate 6 million-plus people in order to inflict pain on those left over. No, he did it to get rid of them because they were (in his mind) fundamentally inferior, pure and simple. It was as clinical and black-and-white as that, and the feelings of humans didn't enter into his world view at all, so there's no way he could ever comprehend the enormity of his own actions. Therefore, any expressions of regret should be totally discounted as the machinations of a master manipulator.

Longish question, and I'd be surprised if there are any immediately relevant references, but any pointers to thinking about this sort of subject would be welcome. Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 03:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Concepts such as Conscience and Empathy (and the lack thereof) come to mind. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Surely also contrition and penance. Whether one is a theist or an atheist, these concepts are central to much or most of Western thought on such matters in the past couple of millennia. The Christian view is also, in its way, not entirely impractical: whether the remorse is genuine is ultimately between the penitent sinner and God.--Rallette (talk) 06:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The question must be asked, If someone still lacks a conscience by the time they reach adulthood, how likely are they to somehow get one? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

My suspicion is that "having a conscience" is not a binary "yes-no" condition, but has complex structure and degrees, and is subject to modification over time. Of course, without working telepathy or telempathy, we can never be sure about another's internal mental state. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.193 (talk) 13:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I have Asperger's and I have an empathy disfuction, it's not to say that I can't just that I'm bad at it. Although, I've created a kind of supplemental artificial detection system. Sometimes, I forget to use it and I come across as rude or insensitive. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a really tricky thing. When we hear of someone's tale of woe and misery and their life in ruins, we might feel genuine empathy for them but still find ourselves thinking "If that had to happen to anyone, I'm glad it wasn't me". It's not the same as "I'm glad it's your problem and not mine", but it's a close second. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The phrase "There but for the Grace of God goes I" is a common way to explain that sentiment. One can be both empathatic with the sufferer, and relieved that onesself is not also suffering. I'd fathom such a combination of emotions is rather common in humans. --Jayron32 18:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

"Please walk a mile in my shoes before judging" - "No thanks, I'm happy just looking. Lovely shoes you've got there.". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

FBI-Spanish refugees incident in the '40s.

Hello learned humanitarians ! I've read (& can't find again where) that in the early '40s, Hemingway, among others VIP, signed a petition against the ways of the FBI : G men had stongly repressed an ex-Spanish-republicans refugees protest march in the center of the USA (anyway in neighbour France our then socialist gvt didn't do much better at the time, & by far...). Can someone give me some references about that incident ? Thanks a lot beforehand. Arapaima (talk) 10:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way, Hemingway didn't seem to show the slightest concern about the fate of José Robles... AnonMoos (talk) 19:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually "Hemingway condoned the killing, as "necessary in time of war" , says WP en. Thanks AnoonMoos. But what about the later USA incident ? Arapaima (talk) 11:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

If you read the book ISBN 0-02-918730-3, it's pretty clear that Hemingway was personally nasty towards Dos Passos (for being persistent about the case of the disappeared Robles) in a manner which destroyed their friendship for ever. It was really not one of Hemingway's finer moments (unless you think that extreme measures in defense of the NKVD is no vice). AnonMoos (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, without actually hitting a library I can only dig up these two references at the moment that even mention it. The incident (whatever it was) took place in Detroit in 1940, and that's all I've got. Tangentially (re: Hemingway/Robles), this New Yorker review has put this book by that same author on my upcoming reading list. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 21:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot to both Arapaima (talk) 10:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The nineteen propositions of John Wycliffe

Our article on Pope Gregory XI talk of the "nineteen propositions of John Wycliffe." However I can not find them in the John Wycliffe article. What are they?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 14:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

They were nineteen sentences scattered throughout Wyclif's writings that were condemned by the Pope. Actually there seems to be 24 but I suppose it depends on how they are split up. Here is the papal bull condemning Wyclif, the 24 sentences, and Wyclif's response. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you give me more details on There were nineteen sentences scattered throughout Wyclif's writings that were condemned by the Pope. I am interested how the initial editor came up with 19 instead of what appears to be really 24 .--Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I do believe I found the answer to my question here.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I also noticed that sometimes they are counted as 18 rather than 19. But apparently I found a different list than the original 19? These 24 were a separate condemnation? Hmm. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

the thirteen articles of the Sachsenspiegel

Our article on Pope Gregory XI talk of "the thirteen articles of the Sachsenspiegel" were formally condemned by Pope Gregory XI in 1377. However I can not find them anywhere in any article. What are they?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 20:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Evidently these 14 limited the rights of the Pope in and provided for "unchristian" means of reaching a verdict. The German wiki article on Gregory XI repeats the "13" error, but see de:Johannes Klenkok, here and here and here. The best explanation is [here, at least at first glance. I'll try and translate a bit. 74.131.181.240 (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Whoops, that was me. I was logged out somehow. Lithoderm 20:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

For those who can read medieval Lower German in Fraktura, the Sachsenspiegel has been digitalised and can be can be perused here. --Incognito.ergo.possum (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, here we go. "... The Sachsenspiegel... maintained the predilection of traditional Germanic law to prevent the alienation of family property by granting inheritance rights to the extended family." and "...Germanic particulars of the Sachsenspiegel- the use of ordeal and oaths; the denial of rights to illegitimate children subsequently brought, with the mother, into a legitimate marriage; limitations imposed against testators; and the ability of monks and novices to receive inheritances." Lithoderm 21:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore: "... the freedom of testators to act without the consent of their heirs... the problems of inheritance frequently vexed friars, whose penitential work often left them witnesses in and executors of testaments, and whose cloisters were recipients of inheritances. The matter of monastic inheritance is similar, for the property would accrue to the cloister, not to the individual friar... The Sachsenspiegel merely hoped to prevent the alienation of estate property to the coffers of the church..." (p. 65) Lithoderm 21:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Could it be 16 total articles? --Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

All my sources say 14... I can't find the papal bull anywhere online, either, and the book I'm quoting from never gets around to listing them. "1374 verdammte Gregor XI. in der Bulle Salvator humani generis 14 der von Klenkok kritisierten Artikel des Sachsenspiegels..." NDB Lithoderm 21:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The ADB says: "14 von den 21 durch Klenkok hervorgehobenen Stellen" - that is to say, 14 of the 21 articles opposed by Klenkok were formally condemned. There were plenty more articles- we were never talking about a total. The erroneous "the 13 articles of the Sachsenspiegel", as if there were only 13, seems to date back to the 1902 Britannica. Lithoderm 21:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, these texts say only that 14 articles were condemned. If you look at the original manuscript, you will see that the articles appear to be numbered with little Roman numerals. There seem to be seven series of Roman numerals (each series probably corresponding to a section of the document). According to my count, there are a total of 216 articles. Marco polo (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've looked and looked, but I can't find the papal bull or Klenkok's writings anywhere online. So we don't know their exact contents, but the main point of contention seemed to be that it prevented the Church from inheriting money or land that mendicant friars were heirs to. It's not clear whether the inheritance would have gone to the next closest relatives instead, or to the feudal lord, or what. Whatever the condemned articles were, this article indicates that the Bull had little to no effect: " Doch hatten diese Bestrebungen nur geringen Erfolg, indem nur wenig Spuren erhalten sind, daß man die Articuli reprobati auch wirklich als solche behandelte...". Lithoderm 22:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the extensive research and detailed answers.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The Latin text of the bull seems to be in this book. As mentioned, the Sachsenspiegel is rather large, and only specific parts of it were being condemned here (as with Wyclif's writings, in the previous question). Adam Bishop (talk) 08:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Company sizes

I'm looking for turnover data on companies that have existed 10 years or more. How many of them have become huge (Google-like), how many have done very well with a turnover of 20 million, and how many have about the same turnover they had after 5 years which at the time payed also the bills but didn't allow for that swimming pool. To me it feels logical that you'd either had a very good idea for a company and it would keep on growing (2%), or a bad idea and go bankrupt (the other 98%) and the market would have settled that after 5 years. My impression is however that most (95% or more) companies that live after 10 years remain in between: earning enough profit to stay in business, but somehow not being able to grow to a size that would make the owner wealthy. Is such data available? Joepnl (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't address your question about turnover (revenue) data, but I would note that not all companies, especially not all small businesses, that close actually do so by declaring bankruptcy. Lots of small businesses just close their doors and the owners get jobs without owing anybody any money, hence no advantage in declaring bankruptcy. I also have to point out that a "very good idea" is not the most important part of any company's success, but I'm sure you know that; time and chance happeneth to them all. This link has a lot of statistics that may help. This US census page about businesses, too. (Sorry.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the links! Joepnl (talk) 21:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Not all business are scalable, so they don't have the potential to become the next Google, however well things go. A small shop, say. It's probably successful because it is owned by the person that runs it and does most of the work, so they are motivated to work really hard and come up with and try new ideas. It also has that small, personal feel that customers like. There is no way to turn that into a multi-billion dollar business because any attempt to do so would make it lose the things that make it a success, but it can still be a very successful small business that can keep going for decades. --Tango (talk) 00:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, true. But that's only partly true for for instance for the software and hosting industry. There are a few obvious winners, but from personal experience there are an amazing number of companies that have just enough clients for their CMS or hosting solution which are very scalable. Another example is the number companies that design web sites and have grown big enough to have a sales person and a few designers. There are very few of those that have grown to be big (or actually, the big ones used to be the old advertising firms). Joepnl (talk) 21:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

February 29

Memphis, USA and Memphis, Egypt

There are several cities named Memphis in the US, the most famous being Memphis, Tennessee. I recently stumbled across our article on Memphis, Egypt and assumed that it was purely coincidental that the name is identical, however surprisingly the US cities are named after the ancient Egyptian city [5]. Apparently Memphis, Tennessee was named after the Egyptian city for "obscure reasons". Anyone have any idea as to what these "obscure reasons" are?

I thought usually cities in the New World are named after European cities or native American loanwords. I can't imagine there being a lot of middle eastern, let alone Egyptian, settlers back in 1826.99.245.35.136 (talk) 00:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Which is why we don't have cities named Cairo, Illinois or Thebes, Illinois, nor any number of Alexandrias. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Huh, guess my geography knowledge is worst than I thought. I've honestly never heard of these two places before. We even have an article explaining this exact phenomenon: Little_Egypt_(region)#Origin_of_.22Little_Egypt.22_name99.245.35.136 (talk) 00:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I've been to Cairo, Illinois. It's not exactly a teeming Metropolis. (Nor, for that matter, is Metropolis, which is less than an hour's drive away.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe they're all in BFE - no wonder you've never heard of them. ;) Lithoderm 02:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh God, I'm gonna have to spend the next 30 minutes trying to figure why it's Egypt in BFE instead Greenland or the Falkland Islands.99.245.35.136 (talk) 02:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Because Greenland or the Falklands don't start with E? --Jayron32 04:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

And it's not biblical in origin either. Memphis is mentioned in the bible multiple times, but not in a very favorable light[6].99.245.35.136 (talk) 00:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Egypt became fashionable during and after the Napoleonic Wars, resulting in a spate of Egyptian-influenced buildings: see Egyptian Revival architecture. It also resulted in Egyptian place names (Memphis, TN was founded in 1819,, right in the middle of the craze). Acroterion (talk) 02:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

There was a fascination with Egypt at the time Memphis, Tennessee, was founded. Like the original Memphis, it was founded on the banks of a mighty river. Founders may have hoped that it would someday be as powerful a riverine metropolis as its ancient namesake on the Nile. The existence of Cairo, Illinois, suggests that settlers drew parallels between the Mississippi and the Nile. Marco polo (talk) 02:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I also thought Memphis and Cairo were named that because the Mississippi River was known as the "American Nile". Googling on that term brings up lots of hits about the Mississippi, but also the Colorado River. I'll check some other sources... Pfly (talk) 03:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Here we go; my 'go to' book for US place names, George R. Stewart's Names on the Land, pp. 238-239: "Various imaginative people had not failed to compare the Mississippi with the Nile. Analogies were obvious enough. Both were great and muddy rivers, given to inundations, highways for travel. The hope was also expressed that a new and greater civilization, surpassing even that of ancient Egypt, might soon develop along this "Nile of America". Such analogies and hopes soon suggested the transplanting of Egyptian names." Such as Cairo, and "Because of Cairo...all Southern Illinois came to be known as the Land of Egypt, or merely Egypt..." "Father down the river...another town was laid out, shortly after Cairo. Its founders too cherished hopes for its greatness, and were conscious of the Nile of America. They remembered the great city of ancient Egypt, and called their new venture Memphis." Pfly (talk) 03:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The reasons are obscure no longer. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 05:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I've added this cite to the Memphis, TN page. Pfly (talk) 06:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

See Southern_Illinois#Origin_of_.22Little_Egypt.22_name. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I was surprised to read the link above about BFE. When I was growing up the phrase was "some place 'way to hell and gone, near Bum Fuck Iowa." Bielle (talk) 06:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

For me it was always Idaho. I guess Idaho is sufficiently exotic for us in Ontario! Adam Bishop (talk) 13:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a Mecca, Ohio, presumably named by people who wanted to make it a "mecca" for settlers. The founders of a town to the west wanted to call their settlement Mecca, but since the name was taken, they chose Medina, Ohio. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Leap Year...Today's

What would tomorrow's date be had leap year never existed? Quinn ^{░ RAIN} 01:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

March 1st. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

See this discussion. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 02:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

TOMORROW would be march 2, because today would have been the q1st ;)Lihaas (talk) 05:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Rubbish. That would be the case if only 2012 wasn't a Leap year. But what about 2008, and 2004 .... and 1764, and 1760 ... and 1288, and 1284 ... all the way back to 45 BC. Read the link above. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 05:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

If 'leap years had never existed' they would have been invented - or some other fix to the calendar would have been found. The 'year' is something we've constructed to explain the regular passing of seasons, and if we'd been getting it wrong long enough, we'd have noticed, and done something about it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

As Bugs said, March 1st. Either we would have corrected for it, by skipping a whole bunch of days, or let it be, like the Islamic calendar and now it just would be in the middle of Summer. Mingmingla (talk) 06:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Those are two very different scenarios. The first one might have lead to the same outcome as we have now (or it might not have, depending on exactly what the correction was). But the "let it be" option definitely wouldn't have. If late Feb/early March turns out to be in the middle of (northern) summer, then now would most definitely not be late Feb/early March. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 07:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Why not? They're just names. If we had a lunar calendar it wouldn't matter what seasons the months actually occur in. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they're just names, but now is always now. Now would still be late winter/early spring, but the date would be very unlikely to be 1st March. "Let it be" could result in now being called all manner of dates, but the season would be the same. Using SupernovaExplosion's link, and adding today's leap day, there have been 513 leap days since they began, thus we can pretend that today would be 3rd October 2013 (may have made a counting error, feel free to correct me). 86.164.69.124 (talk) 08:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Close enough to make the point that it's nowhere near "1 March 2012". (The OP did not want us to assume any other correction.)

Btw, tomorrow is the 300th anniversary of the one and only February 30. How do you say "Happy tercentenary" in Swedish? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Grattis på trehundraårsdag, I think - Cucumber Mike (talk) 13:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

You would need the definite form (dagen): Grattis på trehundraårsdagen. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 22:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

My reasoning was that if the year was exactly 365 days, there would never have been such a thing as "leap year", and hence never a February 29th, and hence the day after the 28th would be March 1st. If the year were still 365 1/4 days but the concept of leap year had never been invented, it would still be March 1st, except it would be a different time of year climate-wise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

But the OP didn't ask for the date after 28 February, they asked for tomorrow's date. --Tango (talk) 13:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the debate we are having here is simply one of perspective. Bugs and I are clearly assuming by today, he meant February 28th. In the universe without a leap year, maybe it is February 28th in the middle of summer. Time is relative, and maybe in that universe, he would have asked what if there was a leap year to correct for the ~365.25 year, what season would it be now? Since he asked about tomorrow, not today ("What would today's date be without a leap" year, rather than "What would tomorrow's date be?" like he actually said. This question could ask about any random date if that was the case), I figured that was a reasonable assumption. Mingmingla (talk) 20:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The editor appears to be American, in which case when he wrote "today" it was still the 28th. If he could come here and explain exactly what he meant by "had leap year never existed", that would help. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Organization Type For Pooled Funds?

Hello. I'm sure pooling funds for business ventures and things is a fairly common situation with lots of business precedent, but I don't know what it is. What I want is a combined account that could hold group funds, but with no one owning the money directly and no one being able to run off with all of it. I presume that that will be under some kind of organization, and don't know how to set such a thing up. I was guessing that there would be some financial officers that had to agree to withdraw from the account (what's to stop them from agreeing between each other to split the money and run off?). Trust is the backbone of participation and I have to ensure that no fraud or embezzlement can take place. Thanks for reading (and forgiving the confused structure of the question, I'm in the dark here! :) --66.188.85.15 (talk) 16:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

That would be a private corporation, wherein people deposit an amount of money (share capital), and the administration and distribution of profits/assets/etc are specified in a contract (known as the articles of association, articles of incorporation, or similar names). The law about incorporation varies greatly from country to country, and we can't give legal advice about the specific details. Find a lawyer. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

What type of incorporation? And is incorporation the best answer? Like, would an LLC be easier, cheaper, or in any other way advantageous? And is it appropriate for the very small scale (sums less than $50,000)? --66.188.85.15 (talk) 19:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Public vs. private laws in the USA

Public Law 94-67, passed by the U.S. Congress in 1975, posthumously restored full rights of citizenship to Robert E. Lee. Since it only dealt with one individual, why was it a public law, rather than a private law? Nyttend backup (talk) 20:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Speculation on my part, but possibly because citizenship is a public matter. Mingmingla (talk) 20:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Your linked Private bill states: "private bills were common between 1817 and 1971. Now federal agencies are able to deal with most of the issues that were previously dealt with under private bills ..." Clarityfiend (talk) 21:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but how is that relevant? Legislative changes in 1971 made it so that private bills were less frequently requested: they didn't change how laws were designated upon enactment. Nyttend (talk) 21:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Are "private laws" confidential? If so, maybe they made it a "public law" so they could publicize it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

No, they're not confidential; they're private in the sense that they don't apply to the general public. Even the texts are publicly available — during that period, people were occasionally writing letters to Birch Bayh (whose papers I'm helping to archive) about various private bills, and the texts of such bills currently in Congress are online through the Library of Congress; for example, H. R. 193. Nyttend (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Private bills/laws are meant to do real things for real, living people, like allowing an immigrant to stay in the country. This bill was clearly symbolic (or a publicity stunt) and meant to get attention, so it would not work as a private bill. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

UK employment law

Please settle a dispute. In the UK, does your employer have to give you a printed pay slip? If the answer is yes, please can you point me at the Act which says so? (it's not legal advice, it's more a pub quiz question) --TammyMoet (talk) 21:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

It would seem not. [Edit: more like "probably have to on demand, but only on demand.] Can't vouch for that site, but it looks trustworthy, and it was some things to follow up (the implication of the HMRC quotation seems most concrete). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Good site - I'll bookmark it for future reference.--TammyMoet (talk) 21:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

March 1

Chychkan State Zoological Reserve / Chychkan Wildlife Refuge

WP has an article named Chychkan Wildlife Refuge, but I can't find any other references to this entity on WP or in fact on Google. On the other hand, I've found g-hits and WP-mentions of a "Chychkan State Zoological Reserve". Is anyone here familiar with Kazakhstan? Are these the same? Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 00:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Chychkan Wildlife Refuge points to here: [7], while googling "Chychkan State Zoological Reserve" points to here [8]. So yes, they are the same place.Anonymous.translator (talk) 01:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Any idea which name is more accurate? Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 01:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no idea. I do know that "Chychkan Wildlife Refuge" is the more commonly used name online though (at least according to Google). That might be biased because WP uses "Chychkan Wildlife Refuge".Anonymous.translator (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Next we have to confirm if the "Chychkan Game Reserve" is also the same... Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 20:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

In this document the Russian name is given as "Чичканский зоологический (охотничий) заказник" ("Chychkan Zoological (Hunting) Reserve"). The areas with the "Zoological (Hunting) Reserve" designation in that pdf all correspond to those called "Game Reserves" in the Protected Areas of Kyrgyzstan template.--Cam (talk) 06:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Nautical superstitions

This web page gives a list of superstitions believed by seamen. Very interesting, however it doesn't give any sources. Could anyone recommend a good book (preferably still in print) on the subject? Thanks. --BorgQueen (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I've seen good reviews for Seafaring Lore and Legend: A Miscellany of Maritime Myth, Superstition, Fable, and Fact by Peter D. Jeans (Amazon link) - Cucumber Mike (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, and yes, the book looks good! --BorgQueen (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

If you look at http://worldcat.org/ you can search by "nautical superstitions" and find a whole list of books on this topic, and then search by location to find them for free in a library near you (or take the ideas of the titles and purchase them through amazon.com, if you prefer.) Here are a few more books: Don't Shoot the Albatross: Nautical Myths and Superstitionsby Jonathan Eyers --(coming out this month)

http://www.worldcat.org/title/dont-shoot-the-albatross-nautical-myths-superstitions/oclc/758980020&referer=brief_results

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=don%27t+shoot+the+albatross&x=0&y=0 Superstitions of the Sea, James Clary http://www.worldcat.org/title/superstitions-of-the-sea/oclc/31361214&referer=brief_results

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.188.189 (talk) 01:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC) 

Using the database Books In Print, we found a title that will be published this month (March 2012) called Don't Shoot the Albatross!: Nautical Myths and Superstitions by Jonathan Eyers. It looks to be informative and entertaining, if that's what you're looking for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.188.8 (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Viktorin Hallmay(e)r

What's his name? en.wp calls him Hallmayer, vaticanstate.va Hallmayr. --88.66.203.93 (talk) 19:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

vaticanstate.va also spells it "Hallmayer". -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 19:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Top5 Libraries in the world by stock?

Which are the five largest (national) libraries in the world by stock/holdings/collection/resources? 1.LoC, 2.British Library, 3. Russian State Library, 4.National Library of France, ... ??? -- Cherubino (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Just a stab in the dark, but the Vatican Library is regularly cited for the size of its collection. --Jayron32 20:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it is more known for the numerous rarities in its holdings that for the size of its printed collections. For example 1,100,000 books is a relatively small collection when it comes to national libraries. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Looking at numbers of holdings, I think the next two on your list would be the National Library of China and the Boston Public Library. Just another guess tho, as I'm picking randomly through articles at this point. --Jayron32 20:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

(e/c)It also depends on how you define largest. Some libraries has figures for total number of items (books, manuscripts, etchings, pictures, sheet music etc), while others only lists number of books or printed volumes. From a brief survey of some of the articles in the "National libraries"-category: Royal Danish Library holds 32,400,000 items, National Library of China holds 26,310,000 volumes, Biblioteca Nacional de España holds 26,000,000 items, German National Library holds 25.4 million items. Bear in mind that some of the articles, like Imperial Library (Japan), doesn't contain any information on the size of their holdings. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The Library of Congress article says it has 32 million books "and other printed documents", plus other holdings. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

He has already mentioned that as no. 1 on his list. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Try this but my 2011 copy of Top Ten of Everything[9] (also giving number of books) gives LoC, BL, Russian Academy of Science, National Library of Canada, Deutsche Bibliothek, Russian State Library, Harvard University Library, Boston Public Library, National Library of Russia. Thincat (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Then, of course, there's the The British Library which "is the world's largest library in terms of total number of items". Fair makes yer proud dunnit? Alansplodge (talk) 00:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

How does it come that Boston has such a good public library? (and invests 1% of its budget in it). XPPaul (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

A lot of that is legacy. Boston's moneyed class (mostly Harvard educated) has traditionally valued education very highly, and supporting the public library has been a favorite cause, particularly for bequests. The library has an endowment of more than $50 million, which gives it a considerable income beyond appropriations from the city budget. See here. Marco polo (talk) 00:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, here is a list of the US-Largest Libraries http://www.libraryspot.com/features/largestlibraries.htm -- Cherubino (talk) 02:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It is also on Wikipedia: List of the largest libraries in the United States. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Internet Archive? --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 15:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Do the various lists pointed to so far account for State or National library systems?... these are conglomerates of multiple individual libraries that have inter-library loaning systems in place. Each individual library by itself may not have a large collection, but taken together - they do. Blueboar (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2

Telemann vs Vivaldi

Hello. Is it easy for a common, non-musically trained person to mistake Telemann for Vivaldi? I recently heard Telemann's Sonata 3 for 2 violins and my friend (who was not aware of the piece) said it reminded him of Vivaldi; I understood that Vivaldi is better known than Telemann but as a musician I don't know how common people viewed it. 24.92.85.35 (talk) 00:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

They are both composers from the baroque period. I think that a person not used to classical music would be likely to find them similar. Marco polo (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Persons who are used to classical music would also be likely to find them similar. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 07:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

...arguably more so, because they could recognise the similarity of style. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, they were exact contempories. The Baroque musical period is rather a long one, but both of these were doing their best work in and around the 1720s. Whether they actually heard each other's music is another issue. Alansplodge (talk) 09:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

passing along ideas

I recently sent some ideas to the WB Shop and The Price Is Right online store. The ideas I sent to the WB Shop are three different versions of Donna Troy plush dolls. The idea I sent to The Price Is Right online store is a key ring. When I got replies from both stores, they stated they'll pass my idea along. What does that mean? And does it also mean the ideas might be acted upon?24.90.204.234 (talk) 08:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It means they will forward your communication to the people responsible for deciding which products are produced and sold. Don't hold your breath though as far as your ideas being acted on. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It might also be a lie and they have no intention of passing your ideas along. That seems more likely, to be honest. --Viennese Waltz 10:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

In many cases, companies (especially production studios/publishing houses like Warner Bros.) will have an official policy of not even reviewing suggestions that are sent in. Since you received a reply, I assume this is not the case, Regardless, though, the chances of anyone choosing to act on your suggestions on a corporate level are very slim. However, I don't think there would be any kind of corporate policy of lying to those who mail in suggestions. It is entirely possible that it was passed along, but don't get your hopes up. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 10:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Companies and individuals who create things are wary of receiving the "great ideas" others want to send them, because even if the great idea is obvious and trivial, or has been done before, if the receiver later markets their own independently created work which is in any way similar, the submitter may claim that "his idea was stolen." Sometimes a trusted intermediary (such as an agent) is the only way to submit your ideas for consideration. If The Price is Right people "accepted" someone's idea for a "talking keychain," a "flashlight keychain" a "glow in the dark keychain," "floating keychain" a "keychain with a 3d image," a "scented keychain" a "keychain with bluetooth connectivity" or a "keychain with a camera" then any such product they might independently develop in the future would be cursed with demands for payment from the unsolicited submitter of the obvious or trivial idea. "Ideas" are cheap. Fully researched ideas, with prototypes, production cost estimates, suppliers, and market research, are not cheap. Edison (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, companies often claim to release products "due to customer demand". There's a difference between submitting an idea for something that might be copyrightable/patentable (like a screenplay or invention) and a more mundane request for e.g. them to release merchandise for your favourite show or put more nuts in your favourite cereal. Hence companies may be more willing to act on the latter. Analyzing customer comments, requests, etc, is an important tool for marketing, so some companies may well keep records of what people are writing about. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Economist building, london

So, this is fun, suddenly turns out I have an entire university coursework assignment I hadn't heard about before that is due in on monday, I am supposed to be working in a group to produce a short presentation on the above mentioned building, but noone thought to contact me until just recently, and whatever information they have managed to acquire, all I get is these instructions: 'If you would like to analyse the technical and the key characteristics and send me them' Somehow, then, I have to work out what these instructions actually require, find information on the building, which seems rather sparse to me so far, and write up an analysis, in spite of the fact that they are withholding what seems to be a substantial amount of research from me and implying that I am trying to get out of doing any work at all.

Anyways, if anyone here can sort of point me in the right direction regarding where i can find out about this place or what these rather vague instructions mean, that would be very helpful.

148.197.81.179 (talk) 12:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I expect that you've already found this, this and this. The Grade II Listed Building text is here, and the plaza outside is apparently, a rather nice outdoor art gallery. "The Economist Building provides the only outdoor public exhibition space in Central London committed to a continuous programme of sculptural works by contemporary artists". There's some geeky technical stuff here, but you have to subscribe to see it. Alansplodge (talk) 12:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Christian Values

I was reading a Wiki article on Gothic architecture, which led me to the page on Christian values, as if Christian values influenced the architectural style. Anyway, as I was reading the article on Christian values, I drew a blank in my head, because the "historical" Christian values were the teachings of Christ, and then the article reports that the current "21st century Christian values" are censorship, censorship, and more censorship. I am not sure if I am interpreting this correctly, but it seems that Christian values have changed from something desirable to something undesirable, many of which are political and positions made by Fundamentalist Christians. My question is: so, is the point of the article trying to persuade me to think that modern-day Christians are not following Christ's true teachings, thereby rendering them as unchristian and immoral by the judgement of the Christian God? Or is the article trying to say that modern-day Fundamentalist Christians are misusing the word "Christian values" to fit their own worldly appetites for restrictions on sexual norms? All I can is, the article does not really paint a very bright picture of Christianity, but rather a sexually oppressive religion that rules through fear. WTF? SuperSuperSmarty (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

1. love of God: "You shall love the Lord your God with all of your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind" ,
2. fidelity in marriage: "Whom God has joined together let no man put asunder"
3. renunciation of worldly goods: "Gather not your riches up upon this earth, for there your heart will be also",
4. renunciation of violence: "If a man strikes you on one cheek, turn the other cheek",
5. forgiveness of sins: "Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us",
6. unconditional love: "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you".

censorship of sexual content, especially in movies and on television the desirability of laws against induced abortion sexual abstinence outside of marriage and abstinence-only education the promotion of intelligent design to be taught in public schools and colleges as an "alternative" to evolution the desirability of laws against same-sex marriage and support for laws against the acceptance of homosexuality into mainstream society the desirability of re-instituting faculty-led prayer in taxpayer-funded schools — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperSuperSmarty (talk • contribs)

It is important to note that there are many many types of Christians on this planet, with extreme variances in accepted doctrine. For any Christian theological interpretation that you can take, you will find many Christians who believe something completely different. For example, I see the Prosperity Gospel promoted sometimes, but a lot of Christians feel that the Prosperity Gospel is decidedly against the teachings of Jesus. For the purposes of this conversation I'm not saying "one group is wrong, the other is right", but naturally each of the two groups of people that I mentioned believe pretty strongly that the other group is not on the right track. The only way to really answer your question is for you to research what Jesus meant (you can read the texts, look at theological positions, etc), and decide if modern-day Christians are acting according to Jesus's teachings. With my interpretation of things, I see many Christians acting in ways that I find decidedly opposed to Jesus's teachings, as well as many Christians who are working toward what I believe we are called to do. But really, this is a very very subjective question. To get even a half-decent answer, you must first establish what Christian Values are. Falconus^{p t c} 16:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I see that it was you who proposed the listed Christian values (I took the liberty of reformatting them; feel free to undo if you don't want them numbered). By the values that you proposed, do you think that modern Christians are following them? I know many who are following them (making an effort anyway), and I know many who are not following those six examples, per my interpretation at least. Falconus^{p t c} 16:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)