Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/H

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.

September 26

Muslim dominated neighbourhoods in Europe

I read a book called Apart: Alienated and engaged Muslims in the West and the author conducted his research in two European neighbourhoods: U.K.'s London's East End (Most of them are Bangladeshis) and Spain's Madrid's Lavapies (most of them are Moroccans). Is there other neighbourhoods of Europe that are Muslim-dominated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.42.135 (talk) 00:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tatarstan --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Islam in France indicates that the largest concentrations of Muslims in France may be in the département of Seine-Saint-Denis, a small département outside of Paris. That article reports that the entire département has a population of 1.4 million, and also has 500,000 muslims, so undoubtedly some of the neighborhoods there will have a Muslim majority population. France doesn't really have an official or unoffical designation equivalent to "neighborhood" in most contexts (though some large cities have unofficial neighborhoods), in France the lowest subdivision is the commune, which outside of the big cities, many of which are "neighborhood sized". So, looking through the arrondissements and communes of Seine-Saint-Denis, you should be able to turn up many muslim-majority areas. --Jayron32 02:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] Surely the majority of neighborhoods in Albania and in Bosnia and Herzegovina are Muslim-majority, since those countries are. Otherwise, I'd suggest that you read Islam in Europe and country-specific articles linked at {{Islam in Europe}}. Nyttend (talk) 02:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably cheating, but the cities of Ceuta and Melilla in Spain are clearly Muslim majority; though they are part of Spain they are also on the African continent, so it's not really "Europe" I suppose. --Jayron32 02:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not Europe at all. Spain is one of those countries spread over more than one continent. Most people aren't aware of that. See List of transcontinental countries for the others, which include Italy, France and the United States in addition to the well-known cases like Russia and Turkey. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 03:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on Bosnia and Herzegovina says that only about 45% of the population are Muslims, and many areas of the country are dominated by Christians, such as, I imagine, most of the Republika Srpska. 130.88.99.231 (talk) 12:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Britain, the information is collected in the Census and you should be able to find tables and maps. 2001 Census, for now, the results for the 2011 Census will appear later this year. Parts of Bradford, that is well known. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For England, you could start with the information at Islam in England#Demography and ethnic background. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Parts of Groruddalen have 'immigrant populations' of close to 90%. Similarly, Grønland has a high percentage of immigrants (though not a majority, though that might change from neighbourhood to neighbourhood). There have been cases of Muslims exerting social control here, primarily on other Muslims, but also on non-Muslim Norwegians, such as the gay couple that was attacked and told that 'Grønland is a Muslim neighbourhood', where no expression of homosexuality is accepted.

In Sweden, Malmö's population is 40% immigrant, in the neighbourhood Rosengård, close to 90% of the population is immigrant, most of them coming from Muslim countries. V85 (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lockouts in general

Regarding the concept of a lockout (industry), I'm somewhat confused by the following text:

A lockout is generally used to enforce terms of employment upon a group of employees during a dispute. A lockout can act to force unionized workers to accept changed conditions such as lower wages. If the union is asking for higher wages, or better benefits, an employer may use the threat of a lockout or an actual lockout to convince the union to back down.

If I'm the employer, and I'm trying to get my employees to accept lower wages, I can understand why I'd use a lockout; "you're not allowed to work until you accept lower wages" is an effective tool if the employees submit. But why would I use it when the workers want higher wages? Unless I submit to their demands, or unless they persuade a government to raise minimum wages, they're not going to get higher wages when working for me. Why would I refuse to let them work for me at a certain wage when I'm trying to convince them to work for me at that exact wage? Further explanation in this section (as well as sourcing; there are no citations) would be appreciated. Nyttend (talk) 02:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why not. The employees may be asking for better wages during contract negotiations; management could use the threat of lockout to force them to lower their demands. --Jayron32?

Still confused. Wouldn't a lockout hurt both parties in the short term? And wouldn't "you're going to work on my terms if you want to work" get the point across without hurting me as much? The worst that the workers can do (as long as they obey the law) is to go on strike, and I'm left with a situation marginally better than a lockout. Nyttend (talk) 02:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it is a lockout or a strike is probably largely dependent on which party thinks the other party needs them more. If labor thinks that management can't hold out longer then them, they srrike. If management thinks they can manage without the union, they lock them out. Labor actions like this aren't concerned with the short term pain. It's all a game of "chicken": whichever side can take more "pain" without crying "uncle" wins. --Jayron32 03:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They balance the short term losses with potential long-term savings. A lock-out may be necessary if dissatisfied union workers might sabotage equipment or perform a slow-down (where employees are still paid, but don't get their work done). And, seeing the gates locked also has a psychological effect, making employees think about the possibility they could lose their jobs permanently (if the factory hires replacement works, moves, or just shuts down). StuRat (talk) 03:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Employers normally have a greater potential to accumulate capital, either by delaying realisation (stockpiling output), by scheduling preventative maintenance using an alternate workforce, by using "staff" employees to operate machinery while the day wage employees are locked out, or by hiring scabs—than workers have the capacity to save wages necessary for purchasing the useful things of life. My belly empties before my bosses' coffers do, which is why a lockout can break union solidarity. As Jayron32 notes, some industrial disputes are chosen by both workers and their boss and it is largely a technicality as to whether it is a strike or a lock-out. Employers usually face much laxer laws regarding illegal lock-outs than employees face for illegal strikes. Businesses live on sales, sales depend on stockpiles, and stockpiles depend on production. One can halt production and as long as one has a sufficient stockpile one can stuff the workers. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some employers may also find it infeasible to operate when the union has a strike mandate but has not yet called a walkout - for instance a steel foundry or airline needs a stable operating schedule to function, so it is better for management to initiate a controlled shutdown rather than hope the workers keep showing up for the lower pay rate. Franamax (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, unions can call for a partial strike that would still disable most of a factory (e.g. only the people who put wheels on cars in a car factory - very soon, the unfinished cars on the assembly line will block the whole line). The employer may want to avoid paying the non-striking workers, especially if they are part of the same union, as a way of depleting union funds and putting pressure on the union. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How effective such a strategy would be depends on how big the union is. In Belgium, there are three, the socialist, the christian and the small liberal union (maybe some others, but these three represent at least 95% of union members). As far as I know, the funds they have are not split by sector, so depleting them would be hard to do. Ssscienccce (talk) 09:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UK wealth tax proposal

Regarding "Lib Dem conference: Clegg promises to push for wealth tax," 23 September 2012, BBC and "A 20% wealth tax on the mega rich would raise up to £800bn," 25 September 2012, New Statesman, would someone with insight into the workings of the UK coalition government please say whether this is ~~notable~~ noteworthy enough to include as a proposal in Wealth tax yet? —Cupco 02:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reference desk is NOT the venue in which to discuss issues of notability or other matters properly discussed on an article's talk page, on an admin board or workshop, or in an RfC. If you are looking for articles, sources, or references we can help you. Otherwise, please discuss this at the article and see Wikipedia:Notability. μηδείς (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've raised the question at the article's talk page and don't expect to hear much back because it doesn't get much traffic. What I'm really interested in is the prospects for the proposal by someone who is familiar with the practicalities of the UK coalition government. I.e., will we ever hear of it again or will it be making the news. As a technical matter, I believe I am asking about noteworthiness rather than notability in the sense those words are used in Wikipedia, and if there is some rule which excludes questions regarding noteworthiness, please let me know about it. —Cupco 04:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a question about editing, not a search for info, so outside the scope of this desk. Try the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard, WP:NPOVN. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but I just thought there would be more people familiar with the ins and outs of the UK coalition processes here. I'm sure that the answers to editing questions can depend on the answers to subject matter questions as in this case. —Cupco 07:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't receive adequate replies at "Talk:Wealth tax#Nick Clegg/UK" (and, personally, I would wait at least a week or so), you can always bring it up at "Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board". Gabbe (talk) 08:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, you don't need anyone's approval beforehand to edit an article. As long as you are prepared to discuss the issue should anyone object. Gabbe (talk) 08:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The answer's no, as I've said on the article talk page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. —Cupco 10:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relative frequency of male prostitution

What proportion of prostitutes (preferably globally, but otherwise at some national level) are male? --149.135.146.2 (talk) 09:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find this online. I recommend asking for the full text of http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J082v53n01_02 at WP:RX. —Cupco 10:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean male-to-female transsexual prostitutes, or male prostitutes? Astronaut (talk) 18:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you assume or suspect the former? AlexTiefling (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. A more apt split would be males providing sexual services for women, vs males providing sexual services for other males. -- Jack of Oz (Talk) 20:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Free speech vs fair elections

On the issue of free speech vs fair elections, democratic countries can be broadly classified into two camps:

Countries where you can run political ads anytime without restriction - Australia, Canada, US
Countries where political ads are tightly regulated during election season

Is there a WP article, website, or book that lists the countries in each category? So far I'm just googling "election law of X" for each country so I'm wondering if there's a source that compares the various election laws, especially with regards to campaign advertisements. This question is inspired by this recent election story[1] from Brazil.A8875 (talk) 11:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a restriction in Australia. "Under Schedule 2 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, which is administered by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), election advertising in the electronic media is subject to a 'blackout' from midnight on the Wednesday before polling day to the end of polling on the Saturday. This three-day blackout effectively provides a "cooling off" period in the lead up to polling day, during which political parties, candidates and others are no longer able to purchase time on television and radio to broadcast political advertising." - http://www.aec.gov.au/faqs/election_advertising.htm --TrogWoolley (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I read both Australian_constitutional_law and Australian_Capital_Television_Pty_Ltd_v_Commonwealth and I still ended up with the wrong impression. Hence why I'm looking for an authoritative source that summarizes each country's campaign advertising laws. A8875 (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Australia, and its states, possess common law and relative judicial independence—so you're effectively requesting legal advice. The response would be: contact an Australian Commonwealth or State based solicitor who specialises in constitutional law or elections. Australia has relatively heavily regulated election funding rules by the way, which also acts as a limit on the freedom of the bourgeoisie to shit down the airwaves. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And fwiw, your question title is somewhat misleading, or contains probably bogus assumptions. You appear to be suggesting that free speech (defined in the context of your question as the ability to run ads without restriction) is necessary for fair elections. I tend to think that there are at least a couple of objections to that: 1) so long as all players face the same restrictions, the playingfield is level and 2) if we look at the USian example of SuperPACs and corporations as people, I think any disinterested observer would come to the conclusion that despite "free speech" the playingfield has been tilted enormously to the advantage of the monied classses. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't show it's not necessary - it would show it is not sufficient. However, I think a person can reasonable argue that when one corporation is granted a broadcast license or a cable franchise, while many other people are not permitted to express their views on television even if they cobble together a transmitter, that this in fact was never properly free speech in the first place. Wnt (talk) 16:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

how dual licensing works

This question has been removed as soliciting legal advice. We cannot advise users on legal specific legal matters including copyright law. If you wish to contest this, please discuss the matter on the talk page here. μηδείς (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First African Woman Novelist is from Imo state

My name is Henry Agbasoga, I would like to ask this question, Why is it somebody like Flora Nwapathe first African Woman novelist is not amoung the name mentioned as accademia or Hero? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.202.119.190 (talk) 13:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to others: the relevant article is Flora Nwapa -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 13:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added her to Imo State#Notable people under "Arts". With regard to why she wasn't there, it's perhaps because no one had though to add her before now, perhaps because the state didn't exist when she was born in Oguta. (She does seem to qualify among "notable people from Imo State", though, as some others in that list predate the establishment of the polity.) Deor (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ndlovukati

Is there a title (or a concept) traditionally employed in parts of West Africa that compares to the Ndlovukati of Swaziland? Agyen Kokobo, who lived on the Gold Coast some centuries ago, would benefit from the introduction of such a term, if it exist. Nyttend (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ohemaa, literally 'female ruler'. Google: "ohemaa "queen mother"", or do you need some references?—eric 20:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a good books link.—eric 20:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charitable contributions

Let's say that a person wants to contribute money online, via the web, to some charitable cause (e.g., cancer, AIDS, abused kids, abused animals, whatever). When one visits the various websites that would come up in a Google search, how would one know if the organization is "legit", before donating any money to them? I'm not referring to "big names" that are no brainers, like the American Cancer Society, the Red Cross, the Humane Society, etc. But, I am referring to "lesser known" diseases/causes and organizations that don't have such high visibility and name recognition. Any suggestions or advice? Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In England and Wales, the Charity Commission is the registrar and regulator of charities. All registered charities are required to submit an Annual Report and Accounts every year. You would go to their website, type in the name of the charity and then you would be able to check the status of the charity. Smaller local groups are often not required to register however, and campaigning groups such as the Campaign for Real Ale and Amnesty International can not become charities because of the campaigning nature of their work. There may be a similar regulatory framework and organisation in your area (wherever that is). --TammyMoet (talk) 16:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sorry if my post was unclear. I am referring to the United States. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The IRS website says "you may verify an organization's tax-exempt status and eligibility to receive tax-deductible charitable contributions by asking to see an organization's IRS letter recognizing it as tax-exempt. You may also confirm an organization's status by calling the IRS (toll-free) at 1-877-829-5500." Though that doesn't necessarily imply that the charity is "legitimate" (I imagine there have been cases of charities losing this status because of fraud). Obviously, a separate problem is checking that the website is actually associated with the charity in question, and that the payment method is safe. 130.88.99.231 (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For a number of websites that rate, reviews and evaluates charities, see Category:Charity review websites. Gabbe (talk) 21:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's the International Committee on Fundraising Organizations (which I'm surprised we don't have an article about) which is an association of national agencies that monitor fundraising for charitable purposes. There are links to the national agencies (among others the US Better Business Bureau). Sjö (talk) 08:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance in Buddhism

I know that Buddhists are not indifferent, even if some accuse them to be, or pretend to be. They have preferences but know that things won't always work out as wished. You simply don't have to cling to your expectations. But what's the opinion regarding notability (not in the wiki sense)? Is the eruption of a thought extinct volcano equally notable than a rainbow over a tropical forest? All these are things that exist, that are part of reality. hey are equally expression of Earth being like it is. Ptg93 (talk) 22:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking about official dogma, or about what people actually do? Looie496 (talk) 23:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose people do all sort of things, so, I want to know something about scriptures. Ptg93 (talk) 12:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I understand your question, but does Equanimity (Buddhism) help?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's something like that, but more in the sense that everything are things flowing, the bad and the good, the big and the small. Ptg93 (talk) 12:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like Impermanence?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism touches this topic through several concepts. Shantavira gave you two, and Buddhist terms and concepts) gives you a systematic list. OsmanRF34 (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ptg93—you say:

"Is the eruption of a thought extinct volcano equally notable than a rainbow over a tropical forest? All these are things that exist, that are part of reality. hey are equally expression of Earth being like it is."

Can you expand on that, or state it a different way? Bus stop (talk) 14:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I heard something like everything is just a flow of nature, the volcano, the tide, a man stabbing other man, or the rain falling. It's just how things are. Ptg93 (talk) 18:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are some variations among sects, but the most fundamental Buddhist doctrine is that all existence is suffering, and that the only escape from the wheel of suffering is to become indifferent to earthly events, whether good or bad. That's a rather loose formulation -- our article on the Four Noble Truths will give more information. Essentially the first Noble Truth is that all existence is unhappiness; the second Noble Truth is that the root cause of unhappiness is craving; the third Noble Truth is that to cease being unhappy people must cease craving; the fourth Noble Truth is that to cessation of craving can be achieved by following the Noble Eightfold Path. All these again are loose formulations; see the articles for more precise statements. Looie496 (talk) 16:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say you have to be indifferent, you have to be independent of them, not cling to them, not attach to them, but that's make yo indifferent. Ptg93 (talk) 18:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 27

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahada

I do not agree with what is going on here. Not only do I disagree, many people do not agree with. We would like to see a change in this topic. There is a picture of it made and puts out what is needs to be changed. Because this is a fact, and we like to see the change. You still want a perfect Wikipedia? You would just have to adapt this topic. Sincerely, C.R U., from The Netherlands.

]http://i47.tinypic.com/i53h3l.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.194.231.122 (talk) 00:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at Talk:Shahada. You might want to be clear about what exactly you think the problem with the article is. Assuming the problem is with the article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Classic content dispute. It has been BRD'ed with no resolution. Disputed translation, and the real problem isn't in the article but in: MOS:ISLAM#Translation which judging from Talk:Shahada and archives, is a contentious choice. C.R.U. - the best place to request changes would be in the talk page for the Manual of style for Islam-related articles. If there is a consensus for leaving that term untranslated (as some editors think that it should) then perhaps the MOS can change to reflect this, and then the Shahada article can be updated, too.--Robert Keiden (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible to buy New York Times in Seattle in 1910?

The following discussion is marked as answered. If you have a new comment, place it just below the box.

I don't really know how newspapers work. I've noticed various newspapers in 1910 (on Google's news archives) will sometimes have stories printed verbatim, which I guess is how the mysterious AP "wire" works (like I said, I'm 100% ignorant on all this)—and something that's made fun of in modern times by Conan O'Brien and perhaps others. So maybe my question is irrelevant. I would like to know if someone in Seattle would could pick up a New York Times before boarding a train to read on his voyage. I'm asking because I cannot find the Seattle Times archived on Google, but I can find other papers (and the NYT isn't necessarily the best, but I'm picking it because it's well known), and I need to reference newspapers available in Seattle in 1910, but obviously not ones that I can't, literally, reference! I hope all this makes sense. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can get The Seattle Times, provided you don't mind forking over a few bucks[2] or have a valid Seattle library card[3]. If it's free you want, how about the Seattle Star? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reuters, AP and UPI are common news agencies. At that time, they would have used the telegraph to send stories around the world (earlier methods included carrier pigeons !). So, Seattle papers might have had stories identical to the New York Times. However, getting the New York Times itself in Seattle would be more difficult. You could have it mailed to you, in which case it would be delivered most of the way by train, and would be maybe a week old when it arrived. You might not think anyone would do this, but quite a few people who were homesick or wanted to keep up with local events back home seemed to have distant newspapers delivered just like this, at least until the Internet allowed for a better way. StuRat (talk) 08:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times#History says: "In 1910, the first air delivery of The New York Times to Philadelphia began." I don't know how widely such deliveries took place or how quickly other cities were included, but it looks like it was possible to get the NYT some distance from NY by at least the end of 1910. It might have taken a little longer before it got all the way to Seattle. --Tango (talk) 11:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those of us who remember the pre-Internet era will remember newstands that sold out of town newspapers. However, of course, they would be several days old. Research in the Seattle city directory might reveal if there were such establishments. Yes, the idea would be to cater to the homesick or those who sought local political news. There was, after all, no other way to do it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful! Thanks for all the replies! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome. StuRat (talk) 05:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

European Defence Agency - estimated savings

Hi all, as you may or may not know, there is a European Defence Agency (EDA), which is an agency of the European_Union. The EDA does work on joint procurement, coordinated research & development etc. It is, I think, an uncontroversial claim that the EDA has allowed savings on military spending to be made amongst EU Member States and indeed such savings are an explicit part of EDA's aims. However, it is very difficult to find any kind of ballpark figures of how large these savings have been or are estimated to be. Marsh and Rees provide a figure of €6bn per year, but don't really explain that calculation (The European Union in the Security of Europe, 2011, p. 44). I seam unable to find much else...does anyone have any other clues? Thanks --European Snowleopard (talk) 13:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Google Scholar finally started providing me with at least useful percentages... But if anyone finds backup or opposition to the 6 billion figure above, I'm still grateful! --European Snowleopard (talk) 13:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ recipient

(Unsure if that belongs here, or Linguistics, or Computing, or even Entertainment. It's touching four topic areas.) Does anybody know where the shortcut "@ recipient" evolved from? The usage like if there are several answers, and, say, the 4th user is replying not only to me but to one of the other users participating. They could then write something like "@Ouch:" before replying to me and "@StuRat:" before replying to StuRat. I found an example here, in Marketdiamond's reply to two replies.

For one part, I'd guess that it's the electronic equivalent of "To recipient". Is it connected to the stupid trend in the media to introduce @ as a symbol of the internet, even if someone is referring to the WWW rather than mail? - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 14:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't come across it before Twitter. Your Twitter user name is preceded by an @ symbol. From there it's easy to see how people use it to indicate they're answering someone directly. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about this: Origin of the @reply – Digging through twitter's history. That's a description of how it came about on Twitter, and mentions that ""@[name]" is a common referencing protocol on Teh Internets, and has nothing to do with Twitter." There's a follow-up post from Garrett Murray, one of the pioneers: The Real History of the @reply on Twitter. He says "I got the idea from seeing people do it over at Flickr, where it had been happening for more than a year."

We have an article, Mention (blogging), which gives the Twitter history, but doesn't elaborate on anything previous. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! Here we go. From a comment on the first article I posted: "Both the @ and the : came from conventions already established on IRC, where you would direct a public response to a specific person using @username:. In IRC clients like Colloquy, you can type the first few letters of a username, then hit Tab and the software fills in the rest of the name for you, appending a colon automatically.

This convention migrated to Twitter, but without the autocomplete and the automatic addition of the colon, that bit of punctuation got dropped as it didn’t really help and sometimes you needed every character you could get." - Cucumber Mike (talk) 16:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody has yet mentioned it, let me give a pointer to our at sign article, which contains most of the information here and more. Looie496 (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. I'm still puzzled how I could miss it at the At page. It was in there, linked as @, and that's a redirect to At sign, the page mentioned by Looie. Oops.

The emythology of "@ recipient" is given as "Attention" shortened to "At" (I've read the same about the AT commands of the Hayes standard - long ago) and written as "@" to make it stand out like a capital letter. I always thought it was an acronym, maybe "Applies To"... - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 07:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how relevant this is in terms of historical accuracy, but I found it fun nevertheless, and now I see this topic, so I thought I'd throw it out there. While re-reading the 1995 novel (so let's say it was written throughout 1994), Relic, there are a few intranet communiqués between museum staff, et al., which are basically emails addressed to personnel with (examples) "margo green@biotech@stf" and "roger thrumcap@admin@systems" and "george moriarty@exhib@stf". I was wondering if this was accurate for the time for inter-department computer messages. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 08:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the article doesn't give the entymology as attention. It just says '@ is used for "attention" in email messages originally sent to someone else' which is a rather different thing. It may be the entymology is simply the same as the name of the symbol, i.e. at. This is the way I've always thought of it as. I.E. This message is directed at person X. No need for any shortening, acronyms whatever. But I doubt any theory can be demonstrated in any way, there's a very good chance there's no real historical record and it could easily have been 'invented' multiple times. Nil Einne (talk)

Entymology: The study of the origins of the names of insects. Lovely word; thanks for coining it. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]

What exactly does pragmatism states of logic?

In a more intricate explanation, what does pragmatism or "practical philosophy" states about logic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.205.88.247 (talk) 15:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read through Pragmatism#Logic? --Jayron32 15:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infanta Mariana Francisca of Portugal and Infanta Maria Doroteia of Portugal

In Joseph I of Portugal it mentions the potential suitors of his daughters Infanta Mariana Francisca of Portugal and Infanta Maria Doroteia of Portugal, but Mariana Francisca's article mentions nothing about her betrothal or marriage proposal to Louis, Dauphin of France. While her sister Maria Doroteia's article mentions that she was potential bride for [[Louis, Dauphin of France (1729–1765) |Louis, Dauphin of France]] and nothing about Louis Philippe II, Duke of Orléans, which contradicts what is said in Joseph's article. My question is who are the actual matches and marriage proposals for these two sisters?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 16:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do the sources say? --Jayron32 17:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would be what I want to know.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 01:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Wikipedia article unreferenced on these facts? --Jayron32 03:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No references at all (in Joseph I anyway). Zoonoses (talk) 04:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the articles on Portuguese royals lack any citations or references.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 08:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added some references to the articles on Joseph and also Maria I but can’t seem to find any sources on Maria’s younger sisters that aren’t in Portuguese or Spanish (so says Google translate). Is there a Portugal project or ref desk where you could ask, maybe? Taknaran (talk) 15:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peace, man

Why does the dove represent peace in some cultures? All I can think of is it (supposedly) brought back an olive branch to Noah in the Ark - but what does that have to do with it? Rcsprinter (babble) @ 17:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever seen a dove killing anyone? --Jayron32 17:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on doves as symbols ascribes the origin of this to the Noah story. Looie496 (talk) 17:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) See Peace dove and Doves as symbols. My favourite explanation is from the peace dove article, that the Olive branch is a Pagan symbol of peace, and became associated with the dove through the story of Noah. This makes sense, since when doves are used to denote peace, they are often depicted with an olive branch. Another explanation apparently comes from equation of doves with the Holy Spirit. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 17:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Book about bees

Hi, I recently stumbled upon a (I think) early 20th century book by a French author about bees, but stupidly forgot to bookmark it. It looked interesting though, and was written from a non-technical and possibly slightly romantic perspective. The author just really liked bees. What could it have been? --Iae (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A quote from a book about bees was posted on an RD in the last few months, talking about how one set of bees (drones?) were, to their great surprise, killed by other bees at the end of the foraging season. Does that ring a bell as the source? --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could it have been one of the works of Jean-Henri Fabre by any chance? --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 20:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of which can be seen on Google Books. Alansplodge (talk) 20:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That does ring a bell Tagishsimon, thanks, it's quite possible I got it from here. I'll have a search of the desks. It's not Fabre sadly. I think the author began with 'M', thinking about it. --Iae (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it was on these desks, then I know for sure it would have been some time in the weeks leading up to the 25th July (as that's when I went on holiday and lost it as a 'saved tab' in my browser). Searching brings up nothing, but how do I look at the archives for a specific date, rather than by keyword? --Iae (talk) 20:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I worked it out eventually: [4]. The author was Maurice Maeterlinck. Thanks all. --Iae (talk) 20:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 28

Math

What is the difference between USAMO and USAJMO beside the obvious fact that USAJMO is for 10 grade or below and USAMO is for anyone who capable of doing it. The USAMO and USAJMO I'm talking are the American Mathematic Contests. I know the top 6 smartest scorer in the USAMO will get to represent the USA in International Mathematical Olympiad. So what do top 6 in USAJMO get? What is the point of doing USAJMO? Just for the sake of practice for USAMO or something?65.128.190.136 (talk) 04:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For those strange people who need spoon-feeding, USAMO is United States of America Mathematical Olympiad. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of winning the World Junior Chess Championship? It's not like it gives you the right to challenge for the World Chess Championships? Just for the sake of practice for the World Champs or something?

I'll answer your question and mine: see our articles on prestige and (loosely) sport. --Dweller (talk) 11:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency dispatchers

So twice now I have called a local police department and both times the dispatcher has seemed to get off the phone as quickly as possible. The first time I called 911 (UK's ~~112~~ 999, Canada's 112) to report a funnel cloud and the second time the non-emergency line to report possible drug activity. The first time basically the moment I told the dispatcher about the funnel cloud I got a response of "We are aware of it and have people monitoring the situation" and a prompt end of the call. The second time I reported my suspicions and the dispatcher said they would have someone check it out then promptly said "Alright, I have to go" and hung up. I was under the impression that generally the dispatchers would want to be more thorough in collecting details than that (with the first case asking if I was a spotter, etc, and in the second collecting information about the people involved), so why would they rush to get off the line? Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 06:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean 911 is the US's 112 not the UK's which is 999. You will have to ask the local authorities or local politicians who set the priorities for the service. Here in UK we get the same complaints and one reason given is the increase in 'emergency' calls being made as a result of people carrying mobile phones. Sussexonian (talk) 07:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, yeah, my bad. I don't know why I remembered 112 for the UK, it's Canada's. 999 for the UK. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 07:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

112 is European, of course, and is an alternative to 999 in the UK. In my only experience of using the emergency number, the operator remained on the line much longer than I expected, in fact, until the police arrived. I think it all depends on the content of your call and an estimate of the danger someone might be in. Dbfirs 07:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Canadian, and this is the first I've ever heard of "112". The 112 (emergency telephone number) article even claims that 112 redirects to 911, so i would hardly call 112 a Canadian number. We are decidedly a 911 country. Mingmingla (talk) 18:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like they were overloaded with calls, so, as soon as they determined that nobody's life was in danger, they went on to the next call. StuRat (talk) 08:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sussexonion & StuRat are right IMO. There seem to be quite a lot of negligence calls, usually because the 9 button of the phone is jammed against some object while the phone is in a pocket or backpack (so the owner doesn't even notice). Holding 9 down for 2 seconds will cause a 911 on many mobiles. On the local radio I've heard that these calls are more frequent than real emergency calls. - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 08:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OTOH, it might simply be the case that the funnel cloud may have already been reported to the very same operator, possibly by multiple callers. Same possibly with the drug users. Just a guess though. It might be as well that you actually beat others to the call, and the operator saw his call queue fill up, so he hurried through your report in case there was a more severe emergency among the queued callers, - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 08:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some refs back up the above re the need to work quickly and the decision-making process: This article gives some interesting statistics on the volume and nature of 911 calls in a small U.S. county (pop. 21062). Dispatchers field 911, numerous other calls. See also What does a 911 dispatcher do. Taknaran (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify why you were calling 911 about "possible drug activity"? Was someone being forced to buy drugs against his will? What made you suspect immanent physical danger? μηδείς (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you can call 911 when a felony is being committed, even a victimless one. StuRat (talk) 23:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like embezzlement? Yeah.... My understanding of the emergency responder line is that it is for emergency responses. Last time (and only) I called 911 was when I heard my neighbor's wife shoot him. μηδείς (talk) 23:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean immanent before? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, no, for the funnel cloud (imminent threat to life/property from the weather if it were to touch down) I called 911, but for the suspected drug activity (not much urgent, just a group of people which appeared to be dealing/using drugs in a parking lot right my my university's residence halls) I called the non-emergency line since there was not imminent threat of damage or injury. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 09:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, 911 is supposed to be for emergencies only. Call your local police department or sheriff's office to report possible illegal activity. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 02:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In case there remains any confusion, the OP clealy specified from the first post ([5] in case there's any suggestion it was modified), they called the non emergency number to report the possible drug activity: "the second time the non-emergency line to report possible drug activity". Nil Einne (talk) 18:55, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I missed the non-, sorry for the confusion. μηδείς (talk) 19:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, when my neighbor was shot, and I called 911, I said "I'm at XXX MY Avenue, fourth floor, someone's been shot" they said "it's already been reported, stay in your apartment" and hung up, five seconds or less. The police were there within 30 seconds. The response was breathtaking, impressive, and though I have been very critical of the NYPD, very reassuring. μηδείς (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've called 911 twice to report medical emergencies (never a police emergency) and I never was left with the impression that they were trying to get me off the line quickly. I was the first reporter in both cases. I suspect in your case, and the case just above, that it's about whether they already know about something and don't want to clog up the line redundantly. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it was both obvious nothing more needed to be communicated and they probably still had calls coming in since there were around 100 apartments in that building. μηδείς (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Property Rights Question

I have a question--if hypothetically, say, someone had an expensive autographed baseball that was his property which he accidentally threw past his neighbor's fence, and the neighbor refuses to give the autographed baseball back, does the owner of the baseball have a right to demand and even take legal action to get his baseball/property back? Has there ever been any similar scenario to this and is there any knowledge or speculation about how courts might rule in such a situation? Futurist110 (talk) 06:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Doubtless this will turn into a ~~squabble~~ debate about legal advice, despite the use of "hypothetically", but a non-advisory answer is possible. And that answer, as usual, is it depends on the jurisdiction. As an example of a similar scenario, under the law of England and Wales, deliberately keeping someone else's property that has accidentally ended up on your land when the undisputed owner has requested its return is theft, and here is a newspaper article showing how the police handle such situations when a complaint is received. For other jurisdictions you would have to check what the applicable law says. As for speculation about how the courts might rule, this would be inappropriate on the RefDesk and not a whole lot of practical use in the real world, either. I'm hoping we can, between us, demonstrate how to handle this question per policy without provoking a removal or a hatting, but I'm not holding my breath. - Ka renjc 08:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup... it depends on the Jurisdiction... consider the situation where someone's cow wanders off and ends up in someone else's field. Who owns the cow? The answer has been different in different places (and even in the same place at different times in history). Blueboar (talk) 14:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of a cow on someone else's field usually arises because one can identify the field, but not the cow. That's not the case if the cattle are branded. This is not some generic ball. I would love to see a reference to a legal case where a uniquely identifiable item was deemed someone else's property because it was inadvertently misplced on someone else's land. μηδείς (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Detinue, Replevin, Trover and Conversion (law) are all relevant to the question to an extent, and make interesting reading for the historical perspective. - Ka renjc 21:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bart Simpson's grossest foods

Hello L.H. ! . I am trying to add on the § « Références culturelles » of the french version of The Food Wife , & I see that among the grossest foods Bart boasts in his blogs of having tasted are : "leech cheeks, bear oysters, charlie’s trotters, duck butter, krustyburgers" . For "bear oysters", I discard Acanthus mollis, & rather think of testicle (food) , since they are a lot of bears in the Rockies. For "charlie’s trotters", I think of Viet Cong hams (certainly not too fat…) …. For ""duck butter"", I can’t find anything on WP, but I remember in june 2009 I read somewhere that a widely known just-deceased star had the expression « duck butter » ready as an explanation for the young ones he was so fond of when they questionned him. But I can’t find the reference. Can you help me ? . Thanks a lot beforehand. T.Y; Arapaima (talk) 10:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Charlie's Trotters" may be a reference to Charlie Trotter, according to a quick search. Would duck butter be foie gras? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're barking up the wrong tree. I think they're just joke names. Guessing what the scriptwriters intended (if anything) is always going to be WP:OR unless you have a source. --Dweller (talk) 11:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They're so surreal you might as well go for the direct equivalents. Joues de sangsue, huitres d'ours, pieds de Charlot, beurre de canard, krustyburgers. Makes absolutely no sense at all, but then it doesn't in English. The hunches about oysters and Charlie Trotter could well be right, but you can't capture everything in translation. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trotter would usually be pig's feet. Rmhermen (talk) 16:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arapaima, have these episodes aired in French yet? You could just use the translated terms. There are transcriptions of most of the French episodes at SimpsonsPark (although not this episode, not yet). Adam Bishop (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find assorted definitions of "duck butter" by entering those words in double quotes plus "urban dictionary" in your search engine of choice. It's something particularly vulgar and might be a regional term rather than "urban" per se. Remember that "Bart Simpson" is a cartoon character in a series written by - and, arguably, for - adults. There's a long tradition among scriptwriters and their ilk of slipping stuff past the editors and/or over the heads of the intended audience. -- Deborahjay (talk) 14:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks awfully to all ! Of course, as we say here, "tout est pur aux purs" ("everything looks pure to the pure ones") , but I maintain that, if you really look for it (slow motion, image freezing) , you’ll find The Simpsons are a most unexpected outlook on US culture. Especially if you read the titles of the books on the shelves, the shop posters, scrutinize the pictures hanging from the walls and the "things to do" lists etc… Listen, for exemple, in Wacking Day, to Marge asking Homer, in her hoarse voice, how he is going to use this new bludgeon he is taking out of its sheath. And in The Food Wife , we see Homer about to sniff meth from a properly heaten glass balloon in a lab the Spuckler family ( parents and their whole dozen of children) patrons… T.y.Arapaima (talk) 05:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Handly's Lessee v. Anthony

Where is the peninsula in question in Handly's Lessee v. Anthony? From the description given in the article, I can't figure it out, because there are many places that fit the general description, and I don't myself know about any meanders that have streams as described here. I've tried Google but found nothing. Anyway, a modern map might not help, because dams built for the Ohio River canalization process have raised the water levels in many places and changed the shorelines accordingly. 2001:18E8:2:1020:60FB:F516:1E7C:B1D3 (talk) 16:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Green River Island.—eric 14:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

United States electoral college system

As a citizen of the United Kingdom I don't claim to know much about the American electoral system. What I do understand is that states are granted electoral college votes based on their population, and that when a democrat or repubican candidate gets a majority all of the electoral college votes are awarded to that candidate. What I dont understand is in states like California, New York and Florida, where there are a lot of electoral college votes to be obtained, why are the votes not evenly distributed between the two nominees. For instance, lets assume theres 50 million people in California; if 26 million people voted democrat and then 24 million voted republican, why would the democrat candidate get all of the 55 available votes? Surely it should be averaged out between the two candidates. Doesn't make much sense to me but it doesn't seem particularly democratic. --Toryroxy (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can read more about it at "Electoral College (United States)", specifically the "Criticism" and "Support" sections. Gabbe (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of Maine and Nebraska, you are perfectly correct. It does not make much sense and it is far from democratic. Many Americans realize how antiqued and broken the system is and are working towards fixing it. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will effectively abolish the electoral college and it's already 49% to its goal despite being only 5 years old. A8875 (talk) 17:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Partisan answers aside, the reason that it works that way is that the Constitution permits each state to decide how its electoral votes are cast, and most state legislatures have chosen to use a winner-take-all format. Note that all interstate compacts require the approval of Congress in order to become law. Nyttend (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This American is disgusted that the NPVIC would hand a landslide to a plurality winner, not only to a majority winner. —Tamfang (talk) 05:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the standard argument is that splitting the seats like that would reduce the influence of the state, since most of their seats would just cancel each other out (looking at the 2008 results, apart from DC and a few states with only 3 or 4 seats, the largest majority was 65%, which means only 30% of that state's seats would actually count for anything, and it's far less for most states). The only way to implement a more democratic system without weakening your own position is if everyone else (or, at least, a very large proportion) goes along with it too, which is the point of the interstate pact mentioned above. --Tango (talk) 18:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The system may not be perfect, but it was a lot more democratic than having a King and a Parliament dominated by the House of Lords determine things... which was how things ran back in England before the Americans declared their Independence. It is also important to remember that, in 1787 (when this was all set up), each State was essentially an independent nation... and they did not fully trust each other. New York, for example, was not about to agree to something that might give more political clout to Virginia. So each State insisted that it set its own rules on how to choose Electors. And it was in each State's interest to have all its Electors form a solid block (all voting for same Presidential candidate), rather than a a divided slate that was split proportionally between more than one candidate. Thus, the preference for "Winner-take-all" in most states. Blueboar (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surely now though its time to rethink that as it happened two and a bit centuries ago and now the United States is a more stable political entity. Also the explanation you provided seems to refer mostly to historic states choosing the winner takes all system, I don't see why the western states would adopt this policy. I think it would be better if in the US election you forgot about all the states and the nation voted as a whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toryroxy (talk • contribs) 19:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except, you came here to ask why it is the way it is - which we have answered. Not to argue for why it should be changed - which would be a debate, which we cannot accommodate. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree 100% with Nyttend, Tango, Blueboar, and 141.59% with JackofOz, whose pretty yellow signatures I miss. μηδείς (talk) 20:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It ain't happening. You'll survive. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]

The notes are missing. Has the music died? :(

OK, every time a U.S. Presidential election comes around, a few folks here and there will question the somewhat bizarre setup we call the Electoral College. It may be "undemocratic" in some sense, but there's no serious move to change it. It would require a constitutional amendment, and it is extremely unlikely any of the "red states" (Republican) would go for it, so, to coin a phrase, "It ain't happening." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "compact" thing actually has a chance of working. I'm almost sure it's constitutional, without any need for an amendment. I'm almost equally sure it's not enforceable without an amendment — if some state decides to back out after the election, things could get entertaining. --Trovatore (talk) 05:13, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with the Electoral College is that it certainly isn't any less democratic than how other recognized democratic governments elect their leaders. In the UK, the voters have no direct control over who gets to be in The Government. They elect their MPs, who in tern put forward a Prime Minister nominee who the Monarch rubber stamps. That Prime Minister then selects everyone else in The Government, who the Queen then rubber stamps. The British Electorate has no more say in who gets to be Prime Minister than the U.S. electorate does in who gets to be President. In many ways, the U.S. system is more direct, as people at least choose the slate of electors who is pledged to vote for the President. It's a step removed from selecting the President directly, but not nearly as removed as the British system is. At the British system still allows people to directly elect their legislator who represents their single-member district. Other western democracies use proportional representation systems, whereby people vote for the parties primarily, and have little say over which candidate directly represents them. It doesn't make one system or another better, or one system or another more or less democratic. They all have their benefits and their faults, different does not equal worse. --Jayron32 05:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't arguing against the Electoral College. I was just saying that the compact idea is probably constitutional (at least, with the consent of Congress, but that's easier to get than an amendment), but probably not enforceable. --Trovatore (talk) 05:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I indented one too many. I hadn't meant that as a response to you. My answer was meant to be a response to Bugs's assertion that the Electoral College (because it isn't "direct democracy") was, in his words "may be "undemocratic" in some sense". I was just trying to correct that misconception by showing it as being as democratic as any other system used to elect leaders. --Jayron32 06:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's "undemocratic" in the sense that we don't vote directly for the President. But it's the system the founding fathers devised, that states elect the President, and there's no serious move to change it. With a very short list of exceptions, the President has usually been the one the majority (or at least the plurality) voted for anyway. Although it would be interesting to see which party would gain the advantage if the electoral votes were apportioned in every state instead of being winner-take-all in most states. I suspect the results would be worse than the current system, i.e. that the popular vote minority would be more likely to win consistently. And that would certainly not be "democratic". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the Federalist No. 39 (text here) James Madison describes at length how certain parts of the government under the Constitution have a "national" character and others a "federal" character. Congress, he says, has both—the lower House is "national", that is it represents the people rather than the states, while the upper Senate is "federal", with each state having equal power (2 senators each) regardless of population. The election of the president, he argues, also has mixed national and federal aspects. Although he doesn't explicitly mention the Electoral College in this essay it is clear that that is what he is talking about with regard to the "federal" aspect of the election of the president. Throughout this essay he tries to explain why it is important for the government to have a mixed national/federal character. It is interesting to contrast with Federalist No. 68 ([6]), in which Alexander Hamilton explains the Electoral College as essentially a buffer from the "heats and ferments" of the people at large. This argument of Hamilton's would not convince many people today. Madison's thoughts, on the other hand, I have always found interesting and fairly convincing. Pfly (talk) 22:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It also may be worth pointing out that, originally, electors were not intended to be rubber stamps, committed to a particular candidate. They were to be chosen by the state legislatures (who in turn were chosen by the people), and then to vote as they thought best. Hamilton's idea, whether you agree with it or not, is at least coherent in that context.

Today, electors' individual judgment counts for (almost) nothing, legislatures do not choose electors (though they still could if they wanted to), and so what we have is not so much indirect election as it is a form of direct popular election, just with a complicated way of deciding who won. In that context, it's hard to see how it provides any significant buffer against popular ferment. --Trovatore (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Hamilton's argument was certainly coherent at the time, and yes, things have changed since he wrote that essay. Also at the time there was some fear that too much democracy would lead to mob rule and tyranny of the majority. No one knew how much "buffer" was needed (if any), nor how "dangerous" democracy would turn out to be. Hamilton is known for having been concerned about this, but Madison (and others) were too. An example I found interesting was how Madison advocated that new states be created with little regard for natural or social terrain. Unlike Jefferson who wanted new states to be small and more or less culturally cohesive, Madison wanted new states to be "large and rectangular" and take in disperate social and cultural patterns if possible—arguing that forcing differing interests/factions to work together helped avoid the tyranny of the majority—a "checks and balances" kind of thing. Looking at a map of the US today it is obvious that Madison's idea was the one adopted.

In any case, yes, things have changed and Hamilton's writing about the Electoral College doesn't apply so well to the system today. Madison's writing still does, I think, even though things have changed. When he wrote of the Senate being "federal" rather than "national" he was not only thinking of there being equal representation among the states in the Senate, but also that, at the time, state legislatures, not the people, elected or appointed senators. That, and the changed nature of the Electoral College, undermines his arguments somewhat, but the general logic of a hybrid national/federal system still holds. Other than in Maine and Nebraska all electors in a state vote for the same candidate even if that candidate only won by a small margin. So the president is still chosen through a mixed national/federal system. I'm not personally arguing that this is for the best, just that it seems to be what Madison was arguing for: The "national" (the people but also the mob) checked and balanced against the "federal" (the states). Pfly (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please remember that the electoral votes are not automatically cast. There are actual people voting in the Electoral College. They are almost always loyal party members, who are certain to vote for their party's candidate. However, once in a while one of these electors bucks the system and votes for someone else. See the article on "faithless electors". → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 02:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One very basic consideration was that given the geographical scope of the U.S. and the state of transportation and communication ca. 1787, some were worried that people in one state simply wouldn't know enough about politicians from other states to have a truly informed opinion. As late as the United States presidential election of 1824, there were several regional candidates for president, but no real national candidate. Also, each state set its own voting qualifications. It would have required much more federal-government-imposed standardization and uniformity than most people would have been willing to accept at that time in order to make it feasible to lump votes from different states into one big vote pool... AnonMoos (talk) 03:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting reason for indirect elections is hidden in the wording of the (original) procedure of the Electoral College: "The electors shall ... vote by ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves." This provision, intended to dilute local preferences in favor of candidates with wider appeal, would be harder to enforce with direct elections. (I suspect this rule is why the office of Vice President exists at all!) —Tamfang (talk) 05:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose for having a Vice President is so that there is someone theoretically able to take over the job immediately if something happens to the President. As regards the different states, it would be easy to enforce: If a Presidential candidate selects a VP candidate from the same state, he's not allowed to be elected, no matter how the popular vote turns out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even when there's no Vice President, there is a list of officers designated to take over the Presidency. Note by the way that even with Amendment XII the Constitution does not formally recognize that candidates for President and Vice-President run jointly. —Tamfang (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I thought it would have been fun in 2000 if Dick Cheney's slightly iffy claim to have re-established Wyoming residency had been rejected by the courts, meaning that Texas's electors could not have voted for both Bush and Cheney. If they had stuck with Bush (he needed them all, I think, or at least almost all), and picked someone else for veep, then the VP election would have been decided in the Senate, which I think was Democratic at the time. Can you say Bush–Lieberman administration? I knew you could. --Trovatore (talk) 21:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic religiosity

Can anyone explain to me the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity? What does it mean 'to be religious to an end'? Psychologically speaking, why is intrinsic religiosity better than extrinsic religiosity or irreligiosity? How does a person become religious? Are some people just born that way? What does that say about apostates (people who leave the faith) and religious converts (people who enter the faith)? My former psychology textbook talked something about intrinsic religiosity vs. extrinsic religiosity. My impression was that being intrinsically religious was better than extrinsically religious or religious to an end. No idea what that meant. If an atheist who embraces secular humanism disguises himself or herself as, say, a Christian and attends a traditional Christian church, then would that count as extrinsic religiosity? What happens if that atheist uses Jesus's teachings to the philosophy of religious humanism? Meanwhile, the Christian who is so-called "born-again" is intrinsically religious, even though he may be explicitly hateful and bigoted and arrogant and selfish and greedy? That does not make sense. 140.254.226.242 (talk) 20:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd guess that the answer to your initial question is: how heartfelt is it? Are you convinced of the religious principles that you hold, or are you just claiming to hold them in hopes that it will further your nonreligious goals? Imagine that you're an atheist in Saudi Arabia — you're still going to be extrinsically religious (i.e. you go through the rituals, even though you reject them at heart), because you'll face severe penalties for abandoning Islam. You're "religious to an end" here, because your end is survival. Note that this use of "end" does not mean "finish"; this is a sense for "end" in which the OED's definition of "An intended result of an action; an aim, purpose" applies. Nyttend (talk) 01:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you using these terms intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity on your own, or is this coming from some source or article? I'd like to see how the terms are being used. μηδείς (talk) 19:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

British royals and languages

Has any British royal ever master or attempt to master all the languages of the British Isles? That is Scottish Gaelic, Welsh, and English (I skipped Lowland Scottish because it is just English with an accent in my own opinion). The Tudors spoke some Welsh but not Gaelic; has any monarch since Elizabeth I of England learn or attempt to learn this language (this part is restricted to actual reigning monarchs sense I now know Prince Charles speaks Welsh)? James IV of Scotland was the last Scottish king to speak Gaelic; has any royal since learn or attempt to learn this language? Also has any British monarch learn or attempt to learn Irish?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to The Old Man of Lochnagar "He (Prince Charles) has also read it in Welsh and Scottish Gaelic translations on television; he is not fully fluent in either language." He does take an active interest in Scottish Gaelic according to BBC: Prince Charles comments on row over Gaelic in Caithness. You forgot to mention Cornish, Manx Gaelic, Irish Gaelic, Ulster Scots, Guernésiais, Jèrriais and Sercquiais for traditional languages, and British Sign Language. I would imagine that these minority languages are far exceeded numerically by those who speak Urdu and other languages of immigrant communities. Alansplodge (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really an answer to your question, but Karen Blixen reported Edward VIII speaking Swahili to some Kikuyu Chiefs (in Shadows on the Grasss). Our article doesn't seem to mention much about his linguistic ability, other than learning a few words of Welsh. Zoonoses (talk) 02:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an Englishman who lived in Lowland Scotland for several years (and who thus unconsciously acquired a Scottish accent, though my use of Scots language idioms when in Scotland was partially deliberate) I have to take issue with your opinion, Spy, that "Lowland Scottish . . . is just English with an accent."

Scots is, in my extended experience, a similar but nontheless distinct language from English – the two are sisters that diverged from their common roots many centuries ago, though in the modern era Scots is becoming more Anglicised. To be sure most Scots can, and when speaking to – or in the presence of – a non-Scot usually do, speak Scots-accented English, perhaps larded with a few Scots idioms. When not consciously or unconsciously doing so (as a form of register-adjustment) however, their vocabulary and grammar differs from standard English a lot more than one might realise if one has not oneself become, as I did, an "apparent Scot", to the extent that a listener with only native or acquired standard English would be unable to follow much of it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 10:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scots has indeed acquired the kudos of a "separate language", though, in reality, there is a continuum of dialects of northern English from the Midlands to the Lallands. Scots shares most of its vocabulary with neighbouring dialects of English, some of which are closer to Scots than to standard English. This is not surprising, because they all developed from Northern Middle English. Dbfirs 15:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I meant fluent not knowing a few words.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 18:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A fairly rigorous Google search suggests that the Prince of Wales is the most linguistically capable member of the House of Windsor in terms of Celtic languages, and that in a rather limited way. Note that appreciation of the merits of Celtic languages by Anglophones is really a 20th century phenomenon, if you exclude enthusiasts like George Borrow. Whether the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are using their time in Ynys Môn to acquire a smattering of Welsh, I don't know, Alansplodge (talk) 12:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have missed Prince Williams learns Welsh and Duchess Kate Learning Welsh. Another report says Prince William learns Swahili, a useful language in some parts of London. Alansplodge (talk) 12:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 29

Mizrahi and sephardi jews neighbourhoods in Israel

Which cities of Israel has neighbourhoods where there are significant numbers of Mizrahi and Sephardi Jews regardless they are Haredi, Hasidic, Modern Orthodox, Reform/Progressive and Masorti/Conservative Jews? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.151.92 (talk) 01:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC) --65.92.151.92 (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)Don Mustafa[reply]

I would assume that there would be more Mizrahi Jews in Israel cities which are poorer and more conservative, such as Jerusalem. Mizrahi Jews are on average less educated and more conservative than Ashkenazi Jews. Futurist110 (talk) 02:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that I was wrong. Based on table 2.23 here (http://www1.cbs.gov.il/reader/), the districts in Israel where a majority of Jews (excluding those whose fathers were born in Israel) were originally of Asian or African origin are the Southern District, but Jews of Asian and African origin (Mizrahi Jews) are also close to a majority (45.00+%) (excluding those whose fathers were born in Israel) in the Northern and Central Districts of Israel. Futurist110 (talk) 02:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest evaluating cities by age (i.e. how many generations have passed since founding), and consider that flourishing locales with employment opportunities and available housing would attract internal migration of all demographic groups, while stagnating locales would suffer exmigration (not necessarily to elsewhere in Israel, but abroad). More recent immigration would have been directed towards underdeveloped, underpopulated locales, particularly the "development towns." Studying patterns (often called "waves") of immigration is highly relevant. Note that small or communal settlements such as moshavim and kibbutzim founded by ideological groups are more likely to be and remain demographically homogeneous, particularly in requiring membership or acceptance by a screening committee. Also, some later immigrant groups don't fit the conventional definitions of Sephardic or Mizrahi but parallel and compete with them for socioeconomic niches, including housing. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the table that I linked to, keep in mind that it might not be completely accurate since more Mizrahi Jews have fathers born in Israel than Ashkenazi Jews (most Asian/African migration into Israel occurred before 1975, while there were hundreds of thousands of Jewish immigrants from the USSR and former USSR after 1975). Futurist110 (talk) 00:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

candidates Israel election Shas and Meretz Parties

Is there a website where I can find the candidates of Shas and candidates of Meretz for 2009 Knesset elections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.151.92 (talk) 01:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC) --65.92.151.92 (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)Don Mustafa[reply]

You mean the whole candidate list or just the ones that successfully managed to enter the Knesset? Futurist110 (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page List of members of the eighteenth Knesset lists the members by faction, evidently in the order they appeared on the slate. For those in lower positions (if that's what the OP requires), check the individual faction's official website appearing under External links on its Wikipedia page here (or in Hebrew if possible), using its Contact Us feature if you don't find information on the site. You might otherwise try sending a query to the Knesset's English-language website, or check the archives of Haaretz in English by dates. -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:55, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the whole candidate list of Shas and Meretz.--65.92.152.148 (talk) 01:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)Don Mustafa[reply]

candidates each political parties last elections Sweden Norway Denmark Belgium Netherlands Italy Spain Portugal

Is there a website that shows the candidates of each party (e.g. Social Democrats, Moderate, Sweden Democrats etc) in Sweden's last election and the name of the seats they were contesting in? Is there a website that shows the candidates of each party (e.g. Labour, Conservative, Progressive etc) in Norway's last election and the name of the seats they were contesting in? Is there a website that shows the candidates of each party (e.g. Social Democrats, Danish People's, Liberal etc) in Denmark's last election and the name of the seats they were contesting in? Is there a website that shows the candidates of each party (e.g. Labour, PVV, VVD etc) in Netherlands' last election and the name of the seats they were contesting in? Is there a website that shows the candidates of each party (e.g. Socialist, New Flemish Alliance etc) in Belgium's last election and the name of the seats they were contesting in? Is there a website that shows the candidates of each party (e.g. the people of Freedom, Democratic Party etc) in Italy's last election and the name of the seats they were contesting in? Is there a website that shows the candidates of each party (e.g. socialist workers party and peoples party) in Spain's last election and the name of the seats they were contesting in? Is there a website that shows the candidates of each party (e.g. Socialist and social democratic) in Portugal's last election and the name of the seats they were contesting in? This is not a homework question. I am just curious about who were the candidates of the political parties and what were the name of the seats. Thank you.--65.92.151.92 (talk) 01:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)Don Mustafa[reply]

Just for future reference, there was a way to ask that question, with no loss of meaning, that would have required about 95% fewer words. This advice is in your own interest. The longer the question, the greater the chance people will just switch off and ignore it (TLDNR). -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question has 279 words (including "Thank you"). I'm sure we'd all love to see your 14-word version. —Tamfang (talk) 05:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Is there a website that shows the candidates of each party for each European country" has 15 words. So perhaps Jack's math was of a percentage point or two. --Jayron32 05:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maths was never my strong point. I only have a Bachelor degree in it, unfortunately. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]

(edit conflict) Wikipedia has some information for you. Start at "Politics of XXX" (where XXX is the country you are looking for). From there you can usually find a link to the most recent general election. For example, Politics of Sweden has a link to Swedish general election, 2010 which lists the results by party. Many of the countries you are asking about don't use the First past the post election system, instead using some form of proportional representation, whereby the parties are allocated seats in parliament based on the percentage of votes that party, or its slate of candidates, received in the election. For the Sweden example, Elections in Sweden covers some of the details: In Sweden, voting is done by Party-list proportional representation: voters select a party, and have the option of selecting which candidates of their prefered party they wish to serve, but they are only required to vote for the party. Many voters may not be directly aware of which candidates they are directly voting for, just the party. After the election the Sainte-Laguë method is used to allocate the number of seats to each party. The parties allocate their seats to specific candidates after the election, using in part the voting preferences of those voters who chose to give a preference. Back to Sweden, the specific "constituencies" are listed at National apportionment of MP seats in the Swedish Parliament. For the list of members of the Parliament, you can find it at List of members of the parliament of Sweden, 2010–2014. --Jayron32 02:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look, the question is long, but not impossible to answer (at least in part). For Sweden, go to http://www.val.se. If you are interested in the last parliamentary election, you will find the ballots/candidate lists (not only those elected) at http://www.val.se/val/val2010/valsedlar/R/rike/valsedlar.html . Information about who got elected is and from which constituency found at http://www.val.se/val/val2010/slutresultat/R/rike/valda.html . As Jayron32 pointed out, there are cases were the order candidates elected differ from the ballot due to personal vote. You might also be interested in http://valpejl.se, where detailed biographical info on 2010 candidates is presented (however, they removed the data on unelected candidates following the election). --Soman (talk) 07:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For Norway, see http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/krd/kampanjer/valg/navn-pa-alle-valglister-og-kandidater-ti/valglister-og-kandidater-20071.html?id=647367 , where all candidate lists of the 2009 parliamentary election (grouped by constituencies) are listed. --Soman (talk) 07:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For Denmark, you find all candidates for the 2011 parliamentary election grouped by constituency and party listed at http://valg.im.dk/Valg/Folketingsvalg/Kandidater.aspx --Soman (talk) 07:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Government opposition to a private member's bill in the Parliament of the UK

Lord Dubs proposed the Succession to the Crown Bill to adjust British royal succession some years ago, but he withdrew it after the government told him that they would block it. Imagine that he had decided to be stubborn about it — how would they have blocked it? Simply by ensuring that there were enough votes against it, using whatever means they use to ensure that government bills pass? By refusing to bring it up in committee or otherwise ignoring it, so that it couldn't be voted on? Some other way? Or is there no single method that's typically used to suppress obnoxious private members' bills? Nyttend (talk) 02:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not all that familiar with Parliament, being an American, but in the U.S. the party in charge has a lot of power in seeing what bills come to the floor. Of course, lots of bills from the minority party do make the floor eventually, but only after a lot of horse trading. However, the Majority power in Congress controls how and when bills get to the floor, so in America they weild a lot of power and could very easily prevent such bill from ever seeing the light of day. As to the UK, see Filibuster#Britain which could be one method, but I would imagine that the Government could just stonewall the bill in Parliament by any number of methods. Private_Member's_Bill#House_of_Commons_procedure mentions some options for limiting the success of such proposals. --Jayron32 02:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In a parliamentary system, the government is based on the parliamentary majority, and in a first-past-the-post system, as the British, it is easy for the government to achieve an absolute majority in parliament. If the government then doesn't want certain legislation to pass, given that they have the majority, it's just a matter of the voting the bill down. Jayron32 also provides an interesting comment that, potentially, the government could even block debate on the bill by preventing it 'coming to the floor'. Not knowing exactly what the procedures are for these things in the UK parliament, I am not sure how it works. To me there seems to be a contradiction in that the Speaker is chosen from the parliament itself, but is expected to be neutral/impartial. Given that s/he's been voted into office on the ticket of one party, s/he is still a partisan with certain views, even if s/he's meant to be non-partisan. First of all, given that the House of Commons votes on its speaker, it is overwhelmingly likely that the Speaker comes from the same party as the government. V85 (talk) 05:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what all that comment on the Speaker is about. It seems absolutely irrelevant to the question here.

At the end of the day, the government can vote down any bill it doesn't like (or indeed, support any bill it does like), no matter who proposed it. That's what "having the numbers" means. But it can also effectively block undesirable bills from ever being debated at all, because it controls what business the House deals with. This is part of the reason there so few private members' bills to begin with; and why such a small percentage of them ever go to a vote; and why such a vanishingly small percentage of them ever become law. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point about the speaker is whether the speaker, in order to support 'his/her' government could block a bill from being discussed, or could block the sponsoring MP from arguing in support of it. V85 (talk) 15:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The non-partisanship of the Speaker of the House of Commons (United Kingdom) is taken very seriously. On being elected, the Speaker severs all ties with their former party, and in subsequent general elections, the major parties traditionally do not field candidates in the Speaker's constituency. The Speaker (or one of the Deputies if they are presiding) only votes in the event of a tie, and this is bound by conventions (they generally vote for more debate, against amendments, and against the final passage of a bill). If a Speaker was seen to consistently favour one party over another, it could seriously damage the functioning of Parliament and might lead to some kind of constitutional crisis, so MPs are unlikely to elect a rabid partisan. Note that the current Speaker, John Bercow, was a Conservative but elected Speaker under a Labour government, while the one before last, Betty Boothroyd, was a Labour MP elected when the Conservatives had a majority, so it isn't necessarily seen as desirable to have a speaker from your own party. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

V85, thanks for clarifying. The connection wasn't obvious until you explained it. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ability of the majority party in Parliament to effectively control every aspect of the governance of the country to its own liking is what is often called Elective dictatorship; the lack of checks on that majoritarian rule has been a criticism of Westminster-style Parliamentary democracys for centuries: it forms the core of what the U.S. constitution framers saw as Tyranny of the majority, see Federalist No. 10 where Madison argues against the sort of government that allows what he calls "majority factions" to rule by fiat without any checks and balances, a concept later revisited in Federalist No. 51. Which is not to say that, in practice, that the U.S. system we have today works any better or worse in terms of serving its people than the U.K. system does, but the criticism is in the scholarship, and in this case the derogatory "elective dictatorship" epithet comes from within the British system itself. --Jayron32 05:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the US Senate, ONE Senator can say "I don't want this bill to be brought to the floor" and they will, by courtesy, not introduce the bill. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 00:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The key here is "Lord" Dubs proposed it. It would therefore not be debated in the House of Commons, rather, in the House of Lords. If and when that House passed it, it would then go to the House of Commons for debate - but the powers that are responsible for scheduling debates in the Commons could schedule 15 minutes for debate on it, or schedule it late on a Friday. I don't think they could refuse to schedule it at all. The House with the Power in the UK is the House of Commons, the elected house. As was seen earlier this year during debates on the Welfare Reform Bill and the Health and Social Care Bill, the House of Lords can pass all the amendments and vote against Bills passed by the House of Commons they like: at the end of the day they will be ignored. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine that the reason the government felt the need to block this particular proposal is that changes to the rules of succession need to be agreed by all the Commonwealth Realms rather than the UK alone. The Statute of Westminster 1931 forbids changes to the succession without the agreement of all 16 countries of which the Queen is Head of State. See Succession to the British throne. Changes have indeed recently been agreed at a Commonwealth summit; see Girls equal in British throne succession. Alansplodge (talk) 13:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WHAAOE: 2011 proposals to change the rules of royal succession in the Commonwealth realms. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pain in babies

Up to the end of the 1980s, babies underwent surgery without any anesthetic. This came to light in 1985:

Hospitalized newborns, from preemies to babies up to 18 months of age, have been routinely operated upon without benefit of pain-killing anesthesia. This has been the practice for decades but was unknown to the general public until 1985 when some parents discovered that their seriously ill premature babies had suffered major surgery without benefit of anesthesia. Up to this time, babies were typically given a form of curare to paralyze their muscles for surgery, making it impossible for them to move or make a sound of protest.

Jill Lawson reported that her premature Baby, Jeffrey, had holes cut in both sides of his neck, another in his right chest, an incision from his breastbone around to his backbone, his ribs pried apart, and an extra artery near his heart tied off. Another hole was cut in his left side for a chest tube, all of this while he was awake but paralyzed. The anesthesiologist who presided said, "It has never been shown that premature babies have pain."

The article Pain in babies seems to present this as a reasonable assumption at the time, due to the difficulty of assessing how much pain a baby is experiencing. Is there any record of a medical professional testifying as expert witness in a case of child abuse involving babies before 1985 making such claims? Has any doctor ever made such a statement under oath? It seems unlikely that they really believed this, yet kept it a secret for so long. Was there a general policy to keep this fact hidden, and if so, what was the motivation? Ssscienccce (talk) 05:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That argument does seem rather weak. I've heard similar arguments that "animals don't feel pain", but see no reason to believe them. Of course, there may be good arguments against using anesthetics, such as the difficulty in getting the dosage right and therefore possibility of causing harm, and the presumed lack of ability for the baby to remember the pain later. StuRat (talk) 08:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please show up at my house by tomorrow. I will torture you for 6 months using the most painful methods possible. At the end, I will repeatedly knock you on the head until you suffer amnesia, so that you won't remember anything. Your post-traumatic stress disorder might also help to deepen your amnesia. --140.180.242.9 (talk) 08:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I certainly don't remember the pain I felt after breaking my clavicle during birth, but apparently I just wouldn't stop crying. - Lindert (talk) 08:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find it remarkable that given the number of babies undergoing medical procedures all these years, and some parents presumably asking questions about anesthesia related risks, this never came out. I hoped to read a transcript of a cross examination, I just realised cases that old won't be online. Maybe there are interviews from the time the news broke. I guess that in case the baby didn't make it through the procedure, you'd want the parents to know (think) that at least it didn't suffer during those last minutes. Ssscienccce (talk) 09:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An example of the research that changed everyone's mind is Infants Feel and Remember Circumcision Pain - Study from 1997. Alansplodge (talk) 13:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having attended a bris once, which was more than enough, I can tell you the baby was screaming throughout, and I'm reasonably certain it wasn't because it was hungry or something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pretty interesting historical question. I don't have the time to hunt around for actual references at this point, but I wonder whether part of this wasn't a balance between the negative effects of anesthesia (which can be unpredictable and difficult on small children, much less babies) with the fact of infant amnesia. The notion that babies feel no pain seems unlikely to me — it's obvious that they respond to pain stimulus. But I wonder what the actual line of thinking really was. This should be something reconstructable based on medical sources from the time. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Back at the beginning of the 90s it was still a contentious issue. This article of the NY Times discusses it. Doctors were afraid that anesthesia could suppress the blood pressure and thought that babies experienced pain differently. As a consequence, babies were just slightly anesthetized during surgery. OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me start by saying that I'm totally in favor of anesthesia for babies that undergo painful procedures. That being said, it's worth mentioning another point here: until recently, even people who were unclear on whether babies experienced pain were generally convinced that they would not remember it even if they did. That has a substantial effect on the ethical considerations. Suppose I told you that for the next hour you were going to undergo hideous pain, but afterward you would not have the slightest memory of it. That would make a big difference to you, wouldn't it? Also, for what it's worth, I think it would be reasonable to discuss some of these points at Talk:Pain in babies. Looie496 (talk) 15:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but the problem of pain is more than just remembering how horrible it was. From the article I linked above: " bodies feel pain and react to it" and

“

The doctors found that the 30 babies who received deep anesthesia recovered much better. All survived, while 4 of the 15 babies who received light anesthesia died after surgery.

The babies who got light anesthesia produced high levels of stress hormones. They were more prone to infections, their blood made unnecessary clots and acid built up in their muscle.

The researchers theorize that the hormones, while useful in brief bursts when people need them to cope with danger, are unhealthful when high amounts are produced for days.

”

OsmanRF34 (talk) 16:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, right. But until recently those facts were not known. I was trying to explain the way doctors thought about it during the days when anesthesia was mostly unused in neonates. Looie496 (talk) 23:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still puzzled by this discussion. There's an awful lot of speculation here. Where are the reliable sources telling us that babies weren't anaesthetised during surgery until around the 1990s? (I'm not interested in the other issue of whether they feel pain. From many visits to wards for premature babies, I simply know they do.) HiLo48 (talk) 23:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article I linked to in my last contribution. Not a primary source, but it's still the NY Times. At 1992 it was still a topic open for debate. OsmanRF34 (talk) 01:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See PAIN AND ITS EFFECTS IN THE HUMAN NEONATE AND FETUS which states; "One result of the pervasive view of neonatal pain is that newborns are frequently not given analgesic or anesthetic agents during invasive procedures, including surgery. Despite recommendations to the contrary in textbooks on pediatric anesthesiology, the clinical practice of inducing minimal or no anesthesia in newborns, particularly if they are premature, is widespread." Although this is on the website of a pressure group, the article comes from THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, Volume 317, Number 21: Pages 1321-1329, 19 November 1987. One of the sources quoted is "Shearer M H. Surgery on the paralysed, unanesthetized newborn. 1986". Alansplodge (talk) 01:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That helps. But not being American, I'd be interested in the situation outside the USA too. HiLo48 (talk) 01:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) One more: Fetal and Neonatal Physiology: Expert Consult - Online and Print, 2-Volume Set By Richard A. Polin, William W. Fox, Steven H. Abman. It says; "Until the 1980s, newborns frequently underwent invasive procedures, including surgery, with no analgesic or anaesthetic." Alansplodge (talk) 01:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That last one was also a US source, I'll have another try at a more civilized hour. Alansplodge (talk) 01:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No luck on that I'm afraid. Alansplodge (talk) 14:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the original question, the full text of the article that the OP quoted from is Standards of Practice and the Pain of Premature Infants, by Jill R. Lawson. She relates that after baby Jeffrey died, she "consulted with two attorneys. They concluded that there are no laws extant requiring doctors to mitigate pain and that unquestionably the doctor involved met 'standards of practice'." Alansplodge (talk) 14:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a 1987 article in The Lancet (a British journal, at least historically) on the subject. I'm supposed to be able to access it through my university's subscription, but it doesn't seem to be working, so I have no idea what it says... --Tango (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be still a view in the medical profession that pain or other unpleasantness, such as the horror of being paralyzed by a drug and unable to breathe for some time while being intubated, or pain from procedures, is ok as long as the patient doesn't remember it after the operation. They routinely administer Midazolam, which makes the patient sleepy and causes amnesia. It does not particularly block pain; that is done by local anesthetics or opiods. I've had operations with Midazolam in which I remember nothing for some time before the operation, and others in which I remember getting on the table, and much of the sounds, discussion,and twinges from cutting, with Fentanyl and local anesthetics preventing the experience being worse than getting a filling by the dentist. I may be more resistant to Midazolam than the average patient. I suppose the vibration of cutting, sawing or drilling on their bodies would bother some folks in retrospect and make them less likely to go in for surgery at some later date, if there was any way to avoid the needed operation."The baby felt pain, but he will not remember it as a child or adult" or "You were in pain and distress, but you don't remember it, so it's ok" does smack of "We waterboarded you to get information, but we gave you a date rape drug so you don't remember it, so it's ok." An anesthetist told me that decades ago they were afraid of babies or small children dying under general anesthesia, because there was less of a margin for error than with adults, so pain during the operation was far preferable to explaining to the parents the child had died. They might give a small child just enough ether in the old days to keep the child from moving, even if some pain was to be felt pain was felt. I had abdominal surgery as a preschooler, and remember dreaming of getting electric shocks to the abdomen while I was under and being unable to get away. No fun at all. Edison (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 30

Soviet Census

How come it took the Soviet government 20 years to conduct a census after 1939, when it generally conducted censuses after a decade or so (1926, 1937/1939, 1959, 1970, 1979, 1989)? 1959 was the big exception, but I can't quite figure out why. WWII was over in 1945, but the USSR took 14 years after the end of WWII to conduct a new census. Futurist110 (talk) 00:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect political reasons. Two that come to mind is that they didn't want to admit how many people were killed in WW2 and/or how many people Stalin had killed. StuRat (talk) 01:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or practical reasons: they were killing lots of people until 59, and thought it didn't make sense to count them while they were killing. OsmanRF34 (talk) 01:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of these are terribly compelling "theories", as both misunderstand the mindset of the Soviet bureaucracy. The Soviets had no trouble making censuses in the 1920s or the 1930s, when they were purging left and right. I doubt this sort of thing had anything to do with it; faking data would have been easy enough, and World War II created enough Soviet casualties to massage any numbers if one wanted to. My suspicion is that there are probably far more banal reasons. But there doesn't seem to be anything written about this. It would be an interesting thing for someone to investigate, but it is a non-trivial thing to try and figure out over the Internet and in English alone. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Stalin was dissatisfied with the results of the 1937 Soviet census so he simply ordered a new one in 1939 and then rigged its results to show a larger population than it should have been. If the USSR would have wanted to manipulate some data it would have been very easy for them to do this. Also, even though the USSR was busy diverting resources to Communist takeovers and takeover attempts in Eastern Europe, China, and Korea, it would have probably still been able to have enough resources for a new census in the late 1940s/early 1950s if it desired to implement one. You're right that the reason for a lack of a Soviet census around 1950 might be something very basic, simple, and obvious. I wonder if Stalin planned to do a new census after he planned to deport the Soviet Jews to Siberia (if he had such plans in the first place). It would have been stupid for Stalin to do a new census in the late 1940s and early 1950s and then (assuming that he would have lived longer) to deport Soviet Jews to Siberia and then get blamed for a large further Jewish death toll. Of course, Stalin died before he could implement any such plans, if he had them, but had Stalin lived and done a new census after deporting the Soviet Jews to Siberia, then he could have used Hitler as a complete scapegoat for the decline in the Soviet Jewish population even if some of it would have been his fault. I speak Russian fluently, and I can read it fluently as well but very slowly. However, I speak "common" Russian, not "literary/academic" Russian, so even if I tried a search in Russian about this I won't know where to look or what search words/key words to use. Futurist110 (talk) 02:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The official website suggests they were busy counting other things like equipment, materials, cattle, and crops. Don't forget they had a terrible WW II, and were fully expecting to fight WW III. Zoonoses (talk) 06:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The Soviet Union lost ~13.5% of its population. A large part of that from the military (i.e. from working-age people). They probably were quite busy just getting the country running again. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was my initial thought, but would they really have been in such dire straits that they couldn't do a census by 1949 or 1950? It's possible, it just doesn't seem like it's obvious enough to be definitive without some evidence of them saying, "we don't have time for this." They had enough resources in the 1945-1949 time period to build an atom bomb, you'd think they could fit in a census if they were really desiring of one. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This Russian article suggests that the post-WWII famine caused the death of about a million people, and "[since] the data for that period could not be used for propaganda purposes, Stalin rejected statisticians' proposal for a new census in 1949". In any event, doing a census just may not have been viewed as a high enough priority for the country at the time. (Theoretically speaking, the USSR would not need to have decenial censuses at all, if other population counting mechanisms (birth and death registration, records of arrests and forced relocations, residential address registration) had been working 100% perfectly - although of course it was exactly the WWII period that had all these registration systems break down to various extent for several years.) -- Vmenkov (talk) 17:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

name for a research paradigm

I'm doing qualitative research, and to satisfy various people, it is highly desirable (perhaps not essential) that I classify it as something that sounds good. It's closest to in-depth interviews, but not quite as involved. Basically I'm just finding out whether some software I've done is any good for education, and so the basic question I want to ask participants is "does it work?" It's not rocket science to assume they have a reasonable idea of its benefits, if we are talking about education (it would be different if we were talking about the effect of a drug on blood clotting, for example, or a retrospective study on pain in babies, etc etc). So it makes sense to ask people what they think, and just let them tell me, but I want to know what's the closest thing to this among official "named" research methods. I've done some searching, and every named thing I can find is quite detailed, and usually borrowed from psychology (or some other more theoretical area) and requires a lot more than just asking people for their opinions. More rigorous research will follow; this is just for a pilot. IBE (talk) 04:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of the term "focus group", but that's used more in marketing, and involves group interviews, not one-on-one. How about just "Educational software user assessment analysis" ? StuRat (talk) 05:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That might in fact work, but it's safer to use an existing paradigm with a fancy sounding name and its own Wikipedia article. The corollary to whaaoe must be that if we don't, it doesn't exist. IBE (talk) 05:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles on educational software, end-user, assessment, and analysis. Put them together and you have "Educational software end-user assessment analysis". StuRat (talk) 05:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try ;).... assessment is a disambiguation page, and in any case, I said "an" article. Four is a bit too many. Good trick though, didn't see it coming. IBE (talk) 06:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that an editor like StuRat was trying to "trick" you, and I'd recommend being more cautious of throwing around these terms on Wikipedia. --Activism1234 06:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's an evaluation. Good evaluations use a mix of methods. In the pilot phase you used simply interviews, perhaps they were semi-structured interviews, but if you only asked one or two questions then that would be too much to claim. Now as you go into the main phase you need to choose your methods carefully, not just to sound good, but to give you valid results. The most important thing you need to think about is the independence of the research from you as the software developer. Ideally you would commission an entirely independent team to do the next phase. If you can't do that, can you involve some users in designing and carrying out the research? Itsmejudith (talk) 07:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I can go that far, but wouldn't it be nice .... sadly, that counts as work, and I have to do it (PhD, not major software company stuff). Thanks for the terminology: nice and simple. IBE (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then at least make the questions objective ones, like "How would you rate the ____ from 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest possible rating ?". This way, assuming you don't lie about what they said, it's not possible to "put your own spin" on the data. StuRat (talk) 16:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Considering how general the research method is, I'd be surprised if there was a term more specific than "survey", "poll", or "market research". Note that if you plan on asking people "does this work?", those people had better be the children who will use your software, because why would a 50-year-old know what the best way to learn elementary algebra is for a 12 year old? --140.180.242.9 (talk) 22:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish independence

If Scotland becomes independent, would anyone from any part of the UK be allowed to move to Scotland and become a Scottish citizen, or would only people born in Scotland be allowed?

Will people from the rest of the UK wanting to jump ship and leave with Scotland be blocked from doing so?

Are there any historical precedents? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.25.156.221 (talk) 12:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no concrete proposal, so you'd have to guess about what the post-independence arrangements would be. The arrangements for the referendum seem to be only people living in Scotland at the time could vote (so people born in Scotland but living in say England wouldn't be); whether that applied for citizenship, no-one knows, as no-one has decided. There isn't much law about how a divorce could be conducted (the Acts of Union don't cover this eventuality) - one might look to the Dissolution of Czechoslovakia as a guideline about how amicable divorces of unified countries could be conducted (or perhaps Dissolution of the union between Norway and Sweden in 1905, although that article has less info about the internal and external legal outcomes). -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 13:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems very unlikely that an independent Scotland would isolate itself from the rest of the world to the extent that British people couldn't move to Scotland. It would depend on the laws that a future independent Scotland enacts: all countries have rules regarding immigration, and there are rules about naturalisation of foreign citizens. Depending on what Scotland decided would be its relationship with the EU - whether it will be a full-blown member, or just a member of the European Economic Area - it might still have to let citizens of other European countries (including the UK) enter and work. If that's the case, then people from the UK wanting to live in an independent Scotland, that is a member of the EU, probably could move there. The only 'problem' (and I don't know if it really would be a problem for people moving to Scotland) would be whether they could find work there. Even if Scotland choses to be neither an EU member nor an EEA member, it could still choose to have lax immigration laws for UK citizens. (To me, that seems the most likely, at least in the short run.)

There are several examples of (current) states that have had referendums to break away from a larger state. One could include the East Timorese independence referendum, 1999 or the South Sudanese independence referendum, 2011, just last year. V85 (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Scottish National Party (which is the only plausible agent for Scottish independence at present) is very Euro-enthusiastic. Whether the European Union actually wants an independent Scotland as a member is not a foregone conclusion, as they've already been told that membership won't be granted automatically, they'll have to apply like everybody else. Alansplodge (talk) 14:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than Scotland being outside the EU and the (rest of the) UK inside, the reverse situation is a more likely scenario. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For another possible blueprint of scission and its aftermath, consider Ireland–United Kingdom relations#Co-operation. This covers citizenship, the Common Travel Area, and various kinds of cross border cooperation and institutions. One might analogise the issue of the Treaty Ports with that of HMNB Clyde. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 16:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good comparison. Irish Citizens who are resident and on the electoral register can vote in UK elections where other EU nationals cannot.[7] I believe this has been the case since the founding of the Irish Free State in 1922. Alansplodge (talk) 23:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you consider the Dissolution of the Soviet Union to be a relevant historical precedent, it seems most (perhaps all) post Soviet republics gave citizenship to USSR citizens resident in their territory at the moment of their independence. That's the primary factor of citizenship for at least Belarus, Ukraine, Lithuania, Estonia, and Russia. Some republics, like Lithuania and Latvia have a "law of return", and some have clauses where having grandparents from that republic is grounds for citizenship. Few allow dual citizenship (Russia does, a bit). -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 17:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What happened when the Republic of Ireland became independent? Did people have to decide that they wanted to stay UK subjects, or was everyone living in that part of Ireland automatically considered an Irish citizen? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Irish nationality law#Historical provisions goes some way to answering this. It doesn't seem that people in the UK but not on the island of Ireland, who may have felt themselves to be "Irish", became or had rights to become Irish Republic nationals. It does seem that everyone involved did have the right to remain a UK national (which is quite unlike the USSR case, where people woke up one morning and found themselves solely the citizen of a country that hadn't existed the previous night, entirely without their having decided that). -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 01:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising Model of Cable and Satellite TV

How exactly do Cable TV and Satellite TV companies make money off of the advertisements for the programing that goes on television? Do they sell or lease out their channels to media companies who provide the content who then sell ad-space? Or do they do it some other way? Bakmoon (talk) 23:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The various television networks make money off the television advertisement that appears during the shows that they run. Some periods of broadcasting time may be dedicated to "local affiliates" which can be the local carrier, so it's complicated. These networks have various licensing agreements with the cable and satellite distributors that carry them. Premium networks like HBO negotiate higher fees which are subscribed to by the customer individually through the carrier. Other channels become available to the customer as part of a much cheaper package. All of this is negotiated between the carriers and the networks, meaning occasional changes in what is available to the viewer. But commercial revenue largely goes to the network, not the carrier. μηδείς (talk) 01:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

October 1

Sir Anthony Knyvet

He was Governor of Portsmouth in 1544 and supervised the construction of Southsea Castle. Is this the same man that we have an stub article about: Anthony Knyvett (Black Rod)? Alansplodge (talk) 00:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They appear to be two different gents both named Sir Anthony Knyvett.[8][9] Clarityfiend (talk) 00:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! Many thanks - I was getting very confused. Alansplodge (talk) 16:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have now created a stub article, Anthony Knyvett (1507-1554). Many thanks Clarityfiend. Alansplodge (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, Alansplodge. And you too, Alansplodge. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Views on the afterlife

The ancient Greeks believed that death was horrible, eternal, and inevitable, which seems to be an odd combination shared by nobody else (not even atheists, who probably believe death is neutral rather than horrible). How did the Greeks not go insane with such a pessimistic view, since death was very common in the ancient world? Is there any other religion that views death in this way? --140.180.242.9 (talk) 05:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just curious. Where did you get the idea that "The ancient Greeks believed that death was horrible, eternal, and inevitable"? If you can tell us that it may give us a lead to their other thought processes (before they went insane). HiLo48 (talk) 05:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone had to go to Hades, some made it to the Elysian Fields. StuRat (talk) 05:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, where they invented baseball. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball was invented by dead Greeks? Who knew? --Trovatore (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Well, the scene in the Odyssey where Odysseus calls up the ghost of Tiresias does present a pretty negative view of death. What I question is the belief that nobody else held similar views. The Navajo, as I understand it (mainly from reading Tony Hillerman books) traditionally hold a very negative view of the afterlife. Looie496 (talk) 05:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why we're talking as if death and the afterlife are synonymous terms. There's a lot more to a house than just the door, which is what death is in relation to the afterlife. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no house. Just the door. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The building inspectors will never approve. The makers of Blazing Saddles seem to have cottoned on to the general idea, though. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC) [reply]

I was remembering Odysseus' conversation with Achilles in the Odyssey:

"In book 11 of Homer's Odyssey, Odysseus sails to the underworld and converses with the shades. One of these is Achilles, who when greeted as "blessed in life, blessed in death", responds that he would rather be a slave to the worst of masters than be king of all the dead. But Achilles then asks Odysseus of his son's exploits in the Trojan war, and when Odysseus tells of Neoptolemus' heroic actions, Achilles is filled with satisfaction."

Hades also seems to be a gloomy place in general. From our article: "In older Greek myths, the realm of Hades is the misty and gloomy[19] abode of the dead (also called Erebus), where all mortals go. Later Greek philosophy introduced the idea that all mortals are judged after death and are either rewarded or cursed." --140.180.242.9 (talk) 06:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The early Biblical notion of Sheol seems very similar to the Greek Hades. --Nicknack009 (talk) 09:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In what way? Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the sense that it was seen as an underworld of gloom and semi-oblivion, that made no distinction between the good and the evil, and that people like Samuel could be called up from. --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They do seem strikingly similar. I wonder if the Greeks could have influenced the Hebrews or vice versa in their views of the afterlife. --140.180.242.9 (talk) 23:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never give a sword to a man who cannot dance

One of my friends told me that this was a quote by Confucius, as a number of quote sites online mention. I feel that this is spurious however, and I couldn't find anything in the Analects that says anything to this regard. What's the origin of this quote, or is this just the work of some fortune cookie hack? bibliomaniac 1 5 07:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never take a quote from a man who cannot provide the source. ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I checked two different translations of the Analects[10][11] and the words "sword" and "dance" do not appear in both of them. For what it's worth this Chinese guy[12] made the exact same observation as you. A8875 (talk) 07:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The digging I did on the interwebs suggests this quote is from a work of James Macpherson, although the sites I found this claim on were too unreliable to the point of even being worth mentioning. Specifically this quote was supposed to originate with Fionn mac Cumhaill as written by Oisín and translated by Macpherson, although it's worth noting that Macpherson made up pretty much everything he "translated". Someguy1221 (talk) 08:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be surprised if you can find it recorded much earlier than modern mythologizer Robert Bly's Iron John (book) who says "Michael Meade reminds us of the old Celtic motto: "Never give a sword to a man who can't dance."" meltBanana 13:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw this topic in the TOC I immediately thought of Scottish sword dances before I even scrolled down to read this. Roger (talk) 14:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From memory, there's some sort of famous "sword dance" written by Scriabin or Rimsky-Korsakov or Kabalevsky or someone like that.--Shirt58 (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cancel that. Was thinking of the "Sabre Dance" from Khachaturian's Gayane.--Shirt58 (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of sword dancing too, but I think the point is, that if you're not coordinated enough to be able to dance properly, then you're likely to be a worse-than-useless with a sword. I'm probably stating the obvious though. Alansplodge (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

anti-zionism

If people in Israel are anti-zionist, why don't they leave Israel instead of staying there? as a matter of fact why doesn't Israel kick out the zionists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.16.44 (talk) 14:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any idea what the words you're using mean? -- AnonMoos (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that last word in their post was meant to repeat "anti-Zionist". StuRat (talk) 22:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Oxford Dictionary of English, 'Zionism' means a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. The opposite (anti-zionism) would be to oppose the existence of a Jewish nation, which is in essence what Hamas strives for (the annihilation of Israel). It makes sense to me that Israel would not consider that ideology particularly constructive. - Lindert (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what argument the OP is trying to make. Roughly, and very much generalizing, you could divide anti-Zionists in Israel in three categories: 1) Palestinians who hold Israeli citizenship, who have roots in the land and who have no intention of leaving. Many of them would prefer a secular state, a state with equality for all citizens. They were there before the State of Israel was conceived, and any expulsion would be fiercely resisted 2) A minority within the Jewish left, who likewise would prefer a secular state. Most of them would be children or grandchildren of migrants to Palestine/Israel. They generally thread a fine line balancing themselves between anti-Zionist and the fact that their own families are residents of Israel through Aliyah (a pillar of Zionist doctrine). 3) some ultra-orthodox Jews (like Neturei Karta), who don't support the notion of a Jewish state. The latter two categories are very small. Any draconian expulsion (as the OP seems to want to imply) would have no benefits and create many, many problems for Israeli policy-makers.

And @Lindert, no anti-Zionism is not about 'annihiliation', it is a critique of a chauvinist doctrine. --Soman (talk) 16:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And what 'chauvinist doctrine' may that be? If someone can support 'the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel' (zionism) and at the same time oppose some 'chauvinist doctrine' (supposedly anti-zionism), does that mean that one can be a zionist and an anti-zionist at the same time? - Lindert (talk) 17:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Soman is saying that Zionism is the chauvinist (bellicose patriotism) doctrine. I don't see any way you can be both Zionist and anti-Zionist at the same time. You're either for an officially Jewish state or you aren't. Opposing some parts of it, but still wanting an officially Jewish state, is just another form of Zionism. It isn't anti-Zionism. Soman is correct in pointing out that there are plenty of anti-Zionist critiques which aren't based on "annihilation of Israel".--Mr.98 (talk) 18:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The annihilation of a Jewish nation could simply mean the annihilation of the state's discrimination against non-Jews. I oppose "the development and protection of a Christian nation in what is now America", but only because I think American policies (including immigration policies) should not discriminate against any religion, not because I want New York to go up in flames. --140.180.242.9 (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The term "annihilation" is obviously one loaded with violent connotations — it means "complete destruction." There are no doubt some groups out there who want Israel and the Jewish people annihilated, but they should be considered the exclusive definition of what anti-Zionism means. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What makes a country "independent"? (e.g. Curacao)

This Associated Press article about the Caribbean island of Curacao says near the bottom Curacao is an independent country [emphasis mine] within the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the governor is the representative of the Dutch monarch. That sounds to me pretty close to saying that, say, Australia is an independent country that is a Commonwealth realm within the Commonwealth of Nations, with a shared queen. But I looked up Curacao in Wikipedia, and it seems to be more complicated than that. It says in the Politics section The Dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles came into effect on 10 October 2010.[32] Curaçao became a country within the Kingdom of the Netherlands, with the Kingdom retaining responsibility for defence and foreign policy. The Kingdom was also to oversee the island's finances under a debt-relief arrangement agreed between the two. The article Politics of Curacao says Curaçao has full autonomy on most matters, with the exceptions summed up in the Charter for the Kingdom of the Netherlands under the title "Kingdom affairs". Here and elsewhere Wikipedia conspicuously avoids calling it an "independent country". And Curacao does not appear in Member states of the United Nations, which says "In principle, only sovereign states can become UN members".

So how does one decide whether to refer to a country like Curacao as "independent" (or for that matter "sovereign"--"sovereign" is especially vague since it is used in referring to American Indian tribes and American states--there are degrees of sovereignty.) The statement with the Kingdom retaining responsibility for defence and foreign policy [of Curacao] sounds to me just like this statement from our article associated state in the table with reference to Palau, Federated States of Micronesia, and Marshall Islands, all of which are in the UN: United States provides defense, funding grants and access to U.S. social services for citizens of these areas under the Compact of Free Association.

So given that there presumably is no official definition of "independent country", where does one draw the line between "independent" and "autonomous", or "independent" and "not independent"? And where does the UN draw the line between sovereign enough to be a member and not sovereign enough? Duoduoduo (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A starting point when it comes to defining an 'independent state' is the Montevideo Convention which states that a country must have a 1) population, 2) territory, 3) government, and 4) ability to enter into diplomatic relations with others. From my own studies, my teacher emphasised that the country would have to have control of its territory, so an occupied country won't be seen as independent. When it comes to the UN, the other countries have to vote on them becoming members. This is why Taiwan is unlikely to become a UN member, as the PRC will block it (and when Taiwan held China's UNSC seat, it blocked Mongolia's membership, as it considered Mongolia to be part of its traditional territory). Similarly, the problem for Palestine is that the US will block its independence from Israel (so long as Israel doesn't give the go ahead). Although the list of members of the UN is usually seen as the list of sovereign states, there is no legal requirement for states to be members of the UN. The famous example is Switzerland that for a long period chose not to be a UN member, although no one would contest the fact that it's an independent state.

I think that when it comes to actually assessing whether a state is independent or semi-independent, one has to look at the facts on the ground: Is it self-governing and in charge of its own territory, even if that territory is claimed by someone else? In a case such as Curacao, I guess that we just accept the treaty between the Netherlands and Curacao, i.e. so long as they consider themselves to be independent, but with the same King, we accept that as being their relationship. V85 (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another factor, not unrelated to UN membership but still separate from it, is recognition by other countries. That is, recognition of the "Government of Curaçao", whatever that means, as legitimate and separate and autonomous and different from the Government of the Netherlands. Does Curacao claim this status, and does any other country recognise it? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Britain has a consulate there, rather than an embassy, which I think means it doesn't recognise it as an independent sovereign entity. Our article says: "Curaçao became a country within the Kingdom of the Netherlands, with the Kingdom retaining responsibility for defence and foreign policy." so that isn't surprising. --Tango (talk) 21:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the deciding factor, when a country's defense is in someone else's hands, is whether the country can unilaterally cancel that defense agreement (as say Palau could) or whether it cannot do that unilaterally (as perhaps is the case with Curacao?). Duoduoduo (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]