Was John Wycliffe a friend of Geoffrey Chaucer or is there a connection between these two and in what way?

John Wycliffe is associated with Oxford University. Is Geoffrey Chaucer also in some way?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 00:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They were both Londoners. Also some scholars also think that the Parson in Canterbury Tales is a Lollard, and think that Chaucer portrays him in a highly positive light, possibly indicating that Chaucer was a Lollard. Wrad (talk) 00:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chaucer might have been living in Oxford after 1360, but much of his life is speculative at that time so it cannot really be determined if they ever met. They did apparently have a friend in common, Ralph Strode. meltBanana 03:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 11:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there someplace online to read the complete US criminal indictment against Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab? I have a reference question (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[1] -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify the main points of distinction between supermarket, hypermarket, department store, big-box store and shopping mall? I've read the articles and the definitions are:

1. supermarket supermarket is a self-service store offering a wide variety of food and household merchandise, organized into departments.
2. hypermarket hypermarket is a superstore which combines a supermarket and a department store.
3. department store department store is a retail establishment which specializes in satisfying a wide range of the consumer's personal and residential durable goods product needs; and at the same time offering the consumer a choice multiple merchandise lines, at variable price points, in all product categories.
4. big-box store big-box store (also superstore) is a physically large retail establishment, usually part of a chain
5. shopping mall shopping mall is one or more buildings forming a complex of shops representing merchandisers, with interconnecting walkways enabling visitors to easily walk from unit to unit, along with a parking area – a modern, indoor version of the traditional marketplace.

1. If so, then how to distinguish a hypermarket from a department store? 2. What is the difference between hypermarket and big-box store? 3. What is the difference between shopping mall and the first four types? 4. The articles say hypermarket is larger than supermarket. Is there any general standard to distinguish a hypermarket from a supermarket? --Qoklp (talk) 03:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple I can sort of answer. A shopping mall is a collection of individual stores, typically separately owned and which pay rent to the owner of the mall. Mall of America, for example. I'm not sure what a "hypermarket" is, unless a "Super WalMart*" or a "Super Target" would qualify. A regular supermarket is usually primarily a food store. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lets take this a bit out of order, but to clarify how these ideas are related:

• A supermarket is a food store that sells everything one will eat (prior to supermarkets, people bought bread at a baker, vegetables at a green grocer, meat from a butcher, etc.). Supermarkets are therefore one-stop-for-all-food-needs.
• A department store is the same idea, but for durable goods (i.e., not food stuff). Thus, in a department store, you can buy a shirt, a TV set, a set of dishes, a new lawnmower, and some jewlery. This is different from having to shop at different stores, like a haberdasher, an electronics shop, a pottery shop, etc. etc.
• A big box store is pretty much a synonym for department store now adays. It used to refer to a particular type of department store that specialized in "big box" items, I.E. furniture and electronics and that sort of stuff, but now its pretty much applied to any sort of department store.
• A hypermarket is basically a supermarket + a department store under one roof. The idea is you can buy almost anything at all you need in life. Imagine a store where you can buy a shirt AND get a butcher to custom cut some steaks for you, and get your car's oil changed all in the same store.
• A shopping mall is basically an apartment complex for retail stores. Just like in an apartment complex, there are rental units for people to live in, and all of the rental units are in one building, with hallways and a few entrances, a shopping mall is the exact same idea for stores. Its a big building, where stores rent spaces and sell their stuff out of the rental units. Shopping malls may have many different kinds of stores in them, it would not be unusual to have lots of little "single-industry" type stores (i.e. a woman's clothing store, a men's shoe store, etc.) and a few large "department" or "big box" stores in them as well.

Hope that all helps! --Jayron32 03:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That description of "hypermarket" is what Wal*Mart has strived to be. It's a department store with groceries as a department. A supermarket is a grocery store which sells other stuff also. Shopping malls are essentially "artificial downtowns", i.e. they are laid out in the way that the downtowns of cities used to be (and many still are) with one store after another. Sometimes a street in one of those old downtowns may be closed off and voila, instant mall, as with Lincoln Road Mall in Miami Beach. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are also places like Santana Row, which is an open mall with condominimums above designed to look like a quaint European downtown. Trouble is, you can't buy anything you actually need there, and if you buy something you don't need it will cost you a fortune. PhGustaf (talk) 08:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And if you have an interest in shopping malls you'll be interested in reading a bit about their history, their design and some of the considerations in their development. I can't find it now (at work) but there's a good article by Malcolm Gladwell that I think appeared in the New Yorker about it. There's a dude of some form (no idea of name but mentioned in the article) that was hugely influention in setting the 'standards' of shopping mall design. Sorry I know that's kinda not that helpful but it will be if you go off and investigate some more...194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confuse things, many department stores, at least in the UK, sell food items - for instance in the food halls of Harrods and Harvey Nichols, and arguably Marks and Spencer (which may or may not be reckoned primarily a clothes store or a department store). The difference between these and hypermarkets is largely that hypermarkets tend to be cheaper, aimed more at the budget sector of the market, whereas department store food halls sell luxury foods. Even in the USA, department stores generally seem to aim for wealthier customers than hypermarkets. --Finfindiscotheque (talk) 16:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not all department stores in the UK are expensive - T J Hughes, for example, is a discounter. I'd distinguish between hypermarkets and department stores by noting that food and drink forms a greater percentage of hypermarket sales (probably more than half), and also that most department stores are in town centres or shopping malls, whereas most hypermarkets are often stand-along out-of-town stores. Warofdreams talk 17:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding seems at odds with the article and with Jayron regarding "big box" stores. In my neck of the woods (SW Ontario), a big box store is any extremely large store, especially if the design inside is more like a warehouse than a "normal" store (i.e. concrete floor instead of tile, single level rather than multi-storey, exposed support structures, etc. We have a huge Wal*Mart down the street from us and I've never heard it referred to as a "big box". Matt Deres (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the NE United States and agree with Matt Deres on the meaning of "big-box". It is a large warehouse-like store, typically not in an enclosed shopping mall (though often in a shopping center with a shared parking lot or freeway access). Big-box stores are typically not department stores, but have a more specialized inventory. Examples of big-box stores in my area include Home Depot, Bed Bath and Beyond, Lowes, and Ikea. Target is a department store that is sometimes considered a big-box store. I avoid Walmart so can't comment on whether it qualifies. Marco polo (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having lived in the U.S. and Europe, I can tell you that "hypermarket" is basically the European term for what North Americans call a "big-box store." People who work in international retail might have specific definitions for those terms, but from my experience, a European hypermarket is the same thing as a North American big-box store. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to say idk too hard, thats why iam asking lolz. thank you. --72.87.59.111 (talk) 05:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One candidate would be watching the Chicago Cubs over the last century-plus. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lulz, man the cubbies come on baby, 2010. thanks bugs! lolz. --72.87.59.111 (talk) 05:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Watching replays of that home run by Bucky F. Dent can't be much better than having flaming splinters shoved under one's fingernails. PhGustaf (talk) 05:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More painful than watching the other "Buck", named Billy, boot that ground ball? Yeh, probably. It was only Game 6. In Love and Death, Woody Allen's character commented that there are things worse than death, "and if you've ever spent an evening with an insurance salesman, you know what I mean." Like there were insurance salesmen during the Napoleanic wars. Let's see if we have an article on the subject: Torture ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Red Sox Dented up enough times that game that it's hard to blame Billy for it. We had relief pitchers that didn't, and a capable defensive first baseman who didn't get to play at all. On top of that, I was playing a bridge tournament at the time, and only got to see the teevee between hands. My partner Dented up often enough that I lost that too. PhGustaf (talk) 06:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The last two games in '86 featured an ex-Cub (Buckner) and a future ex-Cub (Calvin Schiraldi). After the Cubs saw how Calvin did in those games, their management said, "We need that guy!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Cubs had to get rid of that millstone Smith somehow. PhGustaf (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble is, "worst" is a subjective term. Worst in what way? The most painful? The most disabling? The type that takes the longest before the victim dies? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Torture, will do fine thank you bugs, and others. --72.87.59.111 (talk) 05:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lingchi would kind of suck, I imagine. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Impalement? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blood eagle is a cool concept and I imagine it was moderately uncomfortable. Not sure how you define worst though. In one way, "worst" means "least good", so perhaps this is the correct answer? --Dweller (talk) 10:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From most people's point of view, things with a mental element, like Chinese water torture are much worse than physical ones. (Compare how you'd feel a physical injury with losing you mind.) Worth looking into, depending on why you wanted to know about this.- Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 10:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was tested on Mythbusters, all tongue in cheek believing that it can't be that bad, and Kary nearly had a nervous breakdown. --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 14:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some info about the episode. --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 14:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon anything involving searing heat has got to be pretty bad, but the Judas Cradle really hits a nerve too. Vranak (talk) 11:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Love ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bagpipes. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Along those lines, there's the Far Side split-panel cartoon: "Welcome to Heaven. Here's your harp." ... "Welcome to Hell. Here's your accordion." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being bound hand to foot and made to lie down and listen to other people being crushed by a steamroller, knowing that it was about to happen to you (North Korea) is pretty horrific mentally. --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 14:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One wonderful act I read about, some long time ago, that was apparently used by Dutch (?) colonists, was to tie someone down, and put an empty metal bowl on their belly with many large rats in it, and then you heat up the bowl. Supposedly this would drive the rats bananas and they would eat through your belly as a way of escaping the heat. Fun. The truth is, it's hard to say which is "worse"—humans have tremendous aptitude when its comes to thinking up extremely unpleasant ways to treat one another. The worst are probably the simplest, though: forcing someone to watch you rape and kill their loved ones, is probably high on the list. --98.217.71.237 (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has mentioned Crushing by elephant for a long time on the reference desk, and I think it deserves it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Electricity, carefully applied, can produce horrible pain without causing death. Next would come watching replays of Steve Bartman incident in the Cubs-Marlins playoff game from 2003. Edison (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hanging, drawing and quartering, Burning at the stake and Breaking on the wheel were pretty painful and gruesome ways to die. After every bone in the subject's body was broken on the wheel, he (or she) was usually not given a merciful release but left to linger as a tasty treat for the birds. After hearing a detailed description of the hanging, drawing and quartering of some convicted traitors, Queen Elizabeth I (not known for weak nerves) was so appalled that she ordered simpler executions of the remaining convicts.

The 20 July plotters against Adolf Hitler, after conviction, were hanged slowly with piano wire. The whole process of executing all the principal plotters was filmed for compulsory viewing by the entire officer corps, but it took five successive teams of cinematographers to complete the filming, as no one team had the stomach to watch it all. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you a reliable source for this Hitler tale, and where do we find the film on YouTube? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source saying the executions were filmed is in the article 20 July plot but doesn't mention the cinematographers. It does, however, say that it was 'shown to cadets at the Lichterfelde cadet school, but viewers supposedly walked out of the screening in disgust.' I doubt it would be allowed on YouTube. --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 23:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was probably more interesting than the footage of the Ceauşescus being shot.[2] And to add to the insult, I can imagine that Hitler walked along the scaffold and plunked those wires like a Nazi version of Harpo Marx. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But he never had the stomach to visit a KZ, at least not an extermination camp. so...(although he had been brave in WW1, I think).--Radh (talk) 08:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course, at the Reference Desk, we've been instructed to respond to such questions with one of our own: "Why do you want to know?". —— Shakescene (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one has mentioned the Rack (torture) yet? I think that would be up there. Vespine (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scaphism. Matt Deres (talk) 00:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By reading Papillon there are quite some horrific tortures described: one was tying someone to a tree in a jungle, cut some light wounds on the skin, and drop some ants on those wounds. The victim will be slowly consumed by the ants, and be alive for maybe days, as the ants consume skin and flesh at first, and vital organs only later. Based on the more or less autobiographical novel, the victim was still alive when he had nearly no skin and flesh left. Another one, from the same book: place someone in a bathtub, cover the bathtub leaving only a hole for the torso. Provide food and drink for the victim, but never clean the bathtub. The lower body of the victim will slowly and painfully rot away in his own bodily waste.

By visiting a former communist prison (now a museum) the most horrific methods I've seen there are a cell with a ceiling so low that you cannot stand up, or in extreme cases even sit upright, sometimes eternally dark and flooded by a few inches of water. Bonus points if you have claustrophobia. Another one was a cell carved in stone, so tight that you could only stay upright in in, like in a vertical coffin. The surface of the walls were very crude, so leaning to them while sleeping was painful. A strong light bulb was placed at face height, and permanently on.

Speaking about ancient tortures, crucification merits a mention too. --131.188.3.21 (talk) 07:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What Deistic religions or philosophies are most similar to Gnosticism? NeonMerlin 06:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in reading this The Gnostic argument for agnosticism The Ministry (talk) 12:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since Deism is basically the rationalistic idea that God determined the laws of the universe and set it going, but does not directly intervene in events afterwards (not in any way which violates said natural laws), while Gnosticism is the idea that a favored few have special divine mystical revelations into an elaborate supernatural cosmology (usually involving struggles between different divinities or aspects of divinity), in most respects Gnosticism and Deism would seem to be pretty much opposite. Some forms of Gnosticism posit a semi-evil demiurge, who is quite different from the true high God, and also posit that the true high God does not really directly intervene in events at this phase of cosmic history (while the demiurge does), but otherwise I don't see much similarity between Gnosticism and Deism. AnonMoos (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard this is a new subject offered in a few JCs like ACJC and CJC, and I might consider studying this subject. However, is this subject difficult to score in(achieve an A)? What is required of us (syllabus wise) and what additional readings/work do we have to do in order to do well? Thanks so much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.211.85 (talk) 10:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are JC1, JC, ACJC, CJC and H2? Thankfully, I know what an A is. --Dweller (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Junior College", maybe? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have a "Junior University" around here. Just ask the Leland Stanford Junior University Marching Band. PhGustaf (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely ask whatever college you are considering applying for. Syllabi and difficulty will probably vary. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who in the 14th century would have had excellent knowledge of ancient Roman, Greek, and Egypian leaders like Philip V of Macedon, Alexander the Great, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, Lysimachus, Seleucus I Nicator, Ptolemy II Philadelphus, Mithridates VI of Pontus, Ptolemy III Euergetes, Ptolemy IV Philopator, Augustus, Julius Caesar, Sulla, Pompey, Appius Claudius Caecus, Germanicus, and Cornelius Scipio?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any Renaissance humanist...Petrarch, Boccaccio, Dante, and probably dozens of others. Of course it depends on what you mean by "excellent knowledge". (The knowledge to forge Jerome's De Viris Illustribus?) Adam Bishop (talk) 15:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody who had access to a manuscript of Plutarch's Parallel Lives would have had at least a basic knowledge of a number of the figures on the above list... AnonMoos (talk)

Doug, I'm intrigued - what prompted the question? --Dweller (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Adam Bishop - thanks, thought maybe Petrarch and Boccaccio, but didn't think of Dante.

To AnonMoos - didn't think of that. Have any other names of the 14th century in mind besided those given by Adam Bishop?

To Dweller - I would like to hold off on your question for awhile (perhaps a year), but thanks for curiosity.

Thanks all.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 18:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the OP is Umberto Eco and we're helping him get unblocked. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not Dante, since he never learned Greek. The Ministry (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, true. There were Byzantine Greeks wandering around Europe at that point, when the Byzantines were begging for help against the Ottomans, and they never really lost knowledge of the ancient Greek literature. Gemistus Pletho is a famous one, although he is more in the fifteenth-century than the fourteenth. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, here's a good fourteenth-century one, Simon Atumano. He even translated Plutarch from Greek to Latin (not the Parallel Lives, but if he knew some obscure work of Plutarch he surely knew the Lives too). Adam Bishop (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good one. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hereby dub the Bishop an accolade.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 11:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is arguably the most famous metropolitan area in the world ??

Does any metropolitan area has a namesake product ( consumable) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.104.37 (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be hard to judge "most famous". There are lots of products named for cities, like Philadelphia cream cheese and Boston baked beans and Chicago-style pizza, just to think about the U.S. --Jayron32 15:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

London gin. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hamburger, Frankfurter, Wiener. Berliner. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Rice-a-Roni, the San Francisco treat". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OP may be interested in Appellation, a related idea where the name of a food is protected based on the region that produces it. --Jayron32 17:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which, btw, is not the name of the place where apples come from. :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would anyone think that? Everyone knows that they come from the Appalachians. Nyttend (talk) 01:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if the data exist for the most famous metropolitan area or not. Plausible candidates include Jerusalem, a central city in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam; Rome, the central city of the Roman Empire and the seat of the Vatican; London, famous throughout the former British Empire; and New York, probably the most famous city in the United States. Perhaps claims could also be made for Tokyo, Shanghai, or Beijing. John M Baker (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Milky Way bar - named after a place that holds the entire human population that ever existed. --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 17:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google Fight!

• "New York" -- 842 million results (including some for New York State)
• London -- 689 million
• Paris -- 658 million
• Jerusalem -- 49.1 million
• Rome -- 134 million
• Beijing -- 76.8 million
• Tokyo -- 142 million

Mwalcoff (talk) 23:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have to very seriously discount the hits for "Paris" because of the all-pervading influence of that ... that ... that woman whose name I still refuse to utter. You know who I mean. Jack of Oz = -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm well Paris -hilton finds 442,000,000 for me Nil Einne (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, but of course a Google count is a very unreliable measure of worldwide fame for a number of reasons, including its failure to take into account most non-English and all offline sources. Are any other data available? John M Baker (talk) 03:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course. My example of course excludes any discussions of the Hilton in Paris (I guess there is one), or anyone who mentions Paris, where Paris Hilton was conceived (or whatever, I'm not really sure why she's called Paris Hilton) and includes stuff like "OMG, Paris has a new bf" or "I so wish I had the looks of Paris!" or "So, like, my boyfriend, like, said I look, like, like, Paris, so I was like, OMG!!!! XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXO" Nil Einne (talk) 05:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And of course the New York results will be massively distorted by York. --Dweller (talk) 10:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget Paris, Texas..... --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 14:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a Paris, Illinois; and a London, Ontario. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And a Paris, Ontario, not too far from London...or from Cambridge, or Waterloo, or a city that used to be called Berlin. On the other side of London are Delaware, Wyoming, and Washington. We have no originality here! Adam Bishop (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And of course (more seriously) if you want the most famous in the world, you'd have to repeat the searches using characters from languages that don't use the same alphabet as we do. I imagine, for example, hits in Chinese characters might look rather different. --Dweller (talk) 10:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe although "New York" still produces 734,000,000 results Nil Einne (talk) 13:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not just other alphabets. Marnanel (talk) 15:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We really need to define "fame" before we can determine if ghits is an even remotely useful metric for it. I would probably define it more in terms of how many people know about the thing rather than how much they talk about it. I think it's likely to be either New York or London by that metric, although (as in many things like this) we mustn't forget that 1/5 of the world's population lives in China and 1/6 in India. That means Beijing and (New) Delhi can't be entirely discounted. --Tango (talk) 13:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my country every few months Reader's Digest send me an elaborate set of marketing material that offers me an entry in their prize draw even if I decline to subscribe to whatever they are offering. Why does Readers Digest want people to tell them if they do not want the subscription? Surely they could deduce that by looking at who never replied? If you decline the subscription, you return some bits of paper in their "No" evelope with free pre-paid postage and still get entered into the prize draw - this must be expensive for them. 78.146.234.221 (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is usually because of local laws pertaining to "sweepstakes" or raffles or prize drawings like this. Generally, if they require you to give them money first, then its "gambling", and heavily restricted. If they required you to buy the magazine first, that could be judged an "entry fee" and would make this "gambling". If the entry is free (often it is stipulated "no purchase required") then its just a free contest. What they are counting on is people who don't read the "fine print". Many people assume that you have to buy the magazine to enter the sweepstakes, or assume that they cannot win if they don't subscribe, so what they are counting on is that misperception in generating sales for them. --Jayron32 16:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They're also counting on most people not figuring the odds of winning in any case. That's how so many people get suckered into playing the Lottery. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because if they get an actual reply from you, then they know you are a real person at the address specified, and they will then keep sending you more advertising. Ignore them and they will go away - although in my experience not for four or five years. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The other thing they always do is to offer another prize draw, such as a free car, that is open only (they say) to people who subscribe. Does the above mean that they are obliged to enter you into the car draw even if you decline to subscribe? Cannot really be bothered to read their bumpf again, not sure if there is any kind of loophole regarding include the car-draw tokenm in the "No" envelope. 78.146.26.243 (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming is spamming, by whatever means. And they don't need many respondents, just enough to bite and make a profit. Kind of like carpet-bombing. Bomb the entire field, and you'll hit something useful. Or like fishing in a well-stocked lake. You don't have to catch all of them, just a few. Or like sperm seeking an egg. It doesn't matter how many sperm get sent out, as long as one of them hits the target. In fact, instead of "spam" they should call it "sperm". Well, maybe not. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I went on vacation for two weeks and when I came home my mailbox was overflowing with sperm." 218.25.32.210 (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely hope you are a cattle or horse breeder and that it was delivered in vials by a reputable source. Googlemeister (talk) 14:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between electronic spam and physical mail spam is the cost involved for the sender. Reader's Digest needs a much bigger "take" in order to justify its operations, financially, than does the e-spammer. Since Reader's Digest has to pay some not-insignificant price to send out their materials (printing, organizing, postage), I imagine they are just assuming that people aren't actually going to bother sending it back in unless they are going to purchase something. (I just toss such things in the trash—it's not worth my time to reply, if you consider time itself to be valuable.) --Mr.98 (talk) 02:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The clever part here is that the contest is done entirely straight, but they want you to think that it's crooked. For the legal reasons outlined above, they will treat the "no" envelopes exactly the same as the "yes" ones as far as the sweepstakes is concerned. But they emphasize this different envelope bit so that you think that they're going to show favoritism. This will make you more likely to subscribe. APL (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sign up to the UK's Mailing Preference Service and after some weeks you'll never hear from them again. And while you're at it register your phones with the Telephone Preference Service and you won't get people waking you with offers of double glazing or free trips to Spain (where you'll get days of timeshare hard sell). Astronaut (talk) 06:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm learning to play the drums and I'm putting together a playlist of songs with a faily straight 12/8 blues rythm, at various tempos, to practice along to. What music would ref-deskers suggest I include on it? AndyJones (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Related to my previous question (immediately above this one) I'm learning to play the drums and I'm putting together a playlist of songs with a faily straight swing rythm, at various tempos, to practice along to. What music would ref-deskers suggest I include on it? AndyJones (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sing Sing Sing by Benny Goodman. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(after ec)Listen to Gene Krupa doing Sing, Sing, Sing at Carnegie Hall. If you can learn how to drive the tempo like that, you'll be a very successful drummer. PhGustaf (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I second the Carnegie Hall version of Sing Sing Sing. I'd also add any of the early Beatles tracks (before they went a bit woo-woo), as Ringo Starr was competent rather than good, and his drumming may be nearer your abilities at the moment! --TammyMoet (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see in List of Roman dictators that many were not really Dictators. How many individuals were actually Dictators counting Lucius Cornelius Sulla. Julius Caesar counted himself as Princeps and Augustus was the first emperor of the Roman Empire. Was there no Dictators from Fabius Maximus to Sulla? I see a gap from 202 BC to 82 BC - what is the reason for this?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 15:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There were dictators between Fabius Maximus and Sulla (the last in 202 BC) but only a couple. The reason for the gap was that the main use of the dictatorship (to put out popular uprisings) became a non-issue. The popular uprisings of the earlier period were done so that the common people (plebs) could achieve political equality with the aristocracy (patricians). This was accomplished by around 295 BC. The next 90 were were dominated by 3 major wars, and the dictators during this century were mostly appointed to fight the wars. After the wars ended, and the plebs had long since achieved equality (in theory anyway) there was no real need for the office anymore. Plus, the popular assemblies had placed several popular checks on the office, and so its usefulness by the aristocracy in the senate (who appointed the dictator) to fight popular aggitation disappeared. Thus the use of the ultimate decree of the senate, which the assemblies (notably under Gaius Gracchus) tried to declare unconstitutional, but were unable.RomanHistorian (talk) 07:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Just for clarification on this page, Julius Caesar was in fact a dictator, by official legislation; Augustus was the one who took the title Princeps, hence the term Principate. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is covered in the Roman dictator article: "From 202 BC on, the dictatorship disappears altogether. It was replaced by the Senatus consultum ultimum, an emergency act of the Senate that authorized the two consuls to take whatever actions were needed to defend the Republic... In 82 BC, after a 120-year lapse, and the end of the civil war between the forces of Marius and Sulla, the latter was appointed by the Senate to an entirely new office, dictator legibus faciendis et rei publicae constituendae". The article also covers Julius Caesar and Augustus' titles. Warofdreams talk 16:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

O.K., then I see from the List of Roman dictators there probably were about 51 individuals that were actually Dictators that had a single term and additional 11 Dictators that had multiple terms. Sound right?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 17:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Roman dictator is not very well sourced, and misunderstands Roman constitutionality at several points. Like several other articles on Roman government, it is well intentioned, but errs because it digests its source material without making careful chronological distinctions, and is fascinated by fantasies of absolute power, which the dictator did not have until Sulla. The article assumes, for instance, that the powers seized by Sulla were powers of the earlier dictatores, when of course Sulla used a preexisting but long-abandoned title as a thin disguise for his monopoly of power. The dictatores of the Early Republic in fact were military commanders who had limited power, if any, in the civil realm. This has come up in the course of an article I'm working on: see Dictatores and Celtic Italy (in draft). It makes no sense to say that a Senatus consultum ultimum, or emergency act by the senate, replaced the dictatorship, which is an office; the two things are apples and oranges. The military office of dictator was created to deal with problems created by Roman expansionism and military actions abroad (mainly Italy) in the Early Republic and into the Middle; as Rome acquired more territory to police and govern, the number of praetorships eventually increased to handle this (see T. Corey Brennan's far-ranging book The Praetorship in the Roman Republic[3]), as did the frequency of prorogation, hence the awkward office of dictator was no longer needed. What Sulla and Caesar did with the title dictator is like what Octavian, Antonius, and Lepidus did with the formerly innocuous commission of triumviri — used a non-threatening name to cloak an extraordinary seizing of power. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I didn't take the time to count the entries at List of Roman dictators, but I can assure you that both Julius Caesar and Cornelius Sulla held the official title of dictator, and I also concur with Cynwolfe that the use of the Senatus consultum ultimum did not replace the office of dictator. Neil Clancy 02:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the way I see the amount of Dictators in the List of Roman dictators. There are 51 individuals that were actually Dictators that had a single term and additional 11 Dictators that had multiple terms. The 11 are:

1. Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus
2. Mamercus Aemilius Mamercinus
3. Quintus Servilius Priscus Fidenas
4. Marcus Furius Camillus
5. Titus Manlius Imperiosus Torquatus
6. cius Furius Camillus
7. Marcus Valerius Corvus
8. Lucius Papirius Cursor
9. Gaius Maenius
10. Fabius Maximus Rullianus
11. Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus Cunctator

Looks to me as 62 total Dictators to Sulla. Does anyone see something different than this in the List of Roman dictators? --Doug Coldwell ^talk 14:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You left a message on my talk page asking for additional input, but I don't think I've got anything to add. I haven't counted the list, but if you have, then that will be the correct number. Warofdreams talk 17:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This question is unanswerable. The sources don't agree, and there was no fasti of dictators like their was of roman consuls. Most dictators weren't even appointed during times of military emergency, but rather times of civil unrest. Many (most famously the legendary Cinncinatus) served for just a week or two, thus making it very hard to know the true number. They usually were appointed to put down popular uprisings (sessio). The last true dictator was appointed in 202 BC. Sulla and Caesar were appointed to the office, but their office was autocratic and thus not the traditional dictatorship. Sulla may have at least believed his office was the traditional dictatorship (notwithstanding the fact that he seized it, for an indefinate time period, by force) but Caesar probably wasn't so blind to think this for himself. His office, like the principate under Augustus, was little more than autocracy disguised in a cloak of constitutional legitimacy.

According to tradition the Roman Republic was founded in 509 BC and the dictatorship created in 500 BC. These dates are fiction, as 509 BC is conviently one year ahead of the founding of democracy in Athens, and the Romans believed they always had to be first on everything. The Republic itself probably wasn't actually even founded until sometime after 500 BC, which means that the office didn't exist as long as legend claims. All records were destroyed during a sack of the city around 380 BC so all recorded history before this year is probably legend. We don't even have some degree of confidence of actual events until around the year 300 BC, when the dictatorship should (per the sources) be about two thirds into its lifespan. So the question of how many dictators (historical and legendary) are claimed by the sources may be plausibly answerable but there is no agreement among them, and many simply mention the acts of specific ones in the context of the events of the day. The lack of a fasti means that most of what is mentioned of them is ancedotal. The question of how many (historical) dictators actually existed will forever be unanswerable. RomanHistorian (talk) 07:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the title of this [image], and who is the artist? 69.111.79.27 (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's by Norman Rockwell. See Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell). 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Encyclopaedia Britannica 11th. edition, and repeated here in Wikipedia, says "The whole question of the construction and arrangement of book-cases was learnedly discussed in the light of experience by W . E . Gladstone in the Nineteenth Century for March 1890". I expect the "Ninteenth Century" was the name of a magazine or periodical. Does anyone know where I can see this particular article on the internet please? 89.243.209.101 (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's an article at Nineteenth Century (periodical). 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I am looking for a particular article in that periodical, not an article about the periodical. 89.243.209.101 (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's on the Internet Archive, under its renamed title "The Twentieth Century" - here is vol. 1. Since there were two a year, March 1890 should be vol. 27, and of course Internet Archive has every volume except 26 and 27. You can search the index here, and the only article by Gladstone in 1890 is "The impregnable rock of Holy Scripture". Doesn't sound like it's about bookcases...Gladstone has an article in the next issue but that's called "Mr. Carnegie's Gospel of Wealth". Google Books also has most of the other issues, but vol. 27 is only a useless snippet view. Is there something particularly troublesome about bookcases that the Internet needs to censor? These resources are awesome when the stuff is available, but it always seems like the one little exact thing you need is the one they don't have. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the article in question ("On Books and the Housing of Them," p. 384). In the U.S. I get a Full View of that volume. Unfortunately Google may limit access in certain countries. --Cam (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That brings up the same snippet view for me. That's dumb. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! I found a transcription of the article which should be legible by all. --Cam (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For much more on the subject of books and bookcases, see Henry Petroski's 1999 book The Book on the Bookshelf. --Anonymous, 22:31 UTC, January 13, 2010.

if i am anglican and i switch from anglican church to methodist church, how similar/different are the beliefs, practices and songs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.62.174 (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you from? The Anglican and Methodist churches can be a little different in different places. Also, what kind of Anglican are you? High, Low? Do you have an opinion on the current disputes that might cause an Anglican schism? Adam Bishop (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

singapore. attended an anglican school for ten years. dont have an opinion on the disputes. am aspie btw if this helps. --59.189.62.174 (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you might start with our articles on Anglicanism and Methodism, but as noted above, both "Anglican" and "Methodist" encompass a wide variety. You can get a rough idea of the overall theology and beliefs of each, but "practices and songs" will generally devolve to variation at a congregational level, something that the Reference Desk simply won't be able to provide. I suggest you find local Anglican and Methodist pastors and ask them. Even if they're not able to personally walk you through the specifics, they'll quite likely be able to refer you to classes, lectures, texts, or other reference materials. Similarly, visit various services to see how the practices and songs work. I'd specifically suggest determining which services include communion, as the practice of that particular sacrament is often of great importance. — Lomn 17:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In England, Methodist and "Low Church" Anglican services have much in common. "High Church" or Anglo-catholic Anglicans are much closer to Roman Catholic and there are many degrees in between. Anglicanism and Methodism have shared roots; John Wesley was a lifelong Anglican priest and the Methodist movement had a great effect on the Church of England in the 18th Century. Generally I've found that there's much less ceremony and dressing-up in the Methodist way of doing things but the bare bones of the thing is much the same. The Church of England and the Methodists have had a good look at the issue of uniting the two, but came away with a formal covenant in 2003. See Methodist Church of Great Britain#Ecumenical relations. Alansplodge (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit Conflict) In the UK, unless you're contrasting particular congregations at opposite ends of their respective 'spectra' (e.g. High Anglican v Reformed Methodism), they're fairly similar, and indeed the two denominations debated union from the 1960's onward; obviously they differ on some, mostly minor, doctrinal and other issues, but the overwhelming majority of the beliefs, practices and hymns appear to me (from a position of disinterest) to be the same - I assume you've already read some of our articles on both traditions?

I (though not from a religiously practising family background) attended a Methodist boarding school in the '60s-'70s, where we had the option of an Anglican Church or Methodist Chapel on Sunday mornings, and like many pupils I alternated at will - the main difference seemed to me stylistic and decorative (e.g. a nice old stone church in the countryside v a modern-built, rather austere chapel in town. We were also taken to occasional special Anglican services in the local Cathedral en masse.

Bear in mind that both traditions contain a fairly broad range of sects/sub-denominations, and that the character of any particular church/chapel/congregation often has more to do with the selection of individuals leading or predominant in it rather than the broad tenets of its parent denomination. Since (as far as I know) most congregations of either denomination allow anyone to attend services, there's no reason not to attend a range of different chapel's services and see how they strike you. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest attending a couple of Methodist services and just see what it's like - nobody will mind you "gatecrashing". You can then catch the minister at the end and ask a few questions. --Tango (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the setting and liturgy: the Methodist chapels tend to be more austere even than Anglican churches. The convenor (person who leads the service) will sit at a table in the middle of one of the ends of the church. There might be a pulpit for the preacher. A choir may sit behind the convenor, depending on what service you attend. There will be no crossing yourself or genuflecting in the Methodist church. They never used to "greet one another with the sign of peace" when I used to attend, but then neither did the Anglican church I went to until it was made compulsory! The service will probably follow much the same format, i.e. hymn - prayer - hymn - notices - hymn - sermon - hymn. Prayers will be spoken rather than sung. Methodists don't recite the Creed, but they usually say the Lord's prayer. Some of the hymns may be the same: Methodists, of course, like to use Wesleyan hymns, and they also tend to use newer songs (such as those written by Graham Kendrick) more than Anglicans. Of course, this may vary according to the tastes of the congregation. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Wesley actually considered himself to be an Anglican... AnonMoos (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know if the text of this is available (for free) online anywhere please? Allport, Gordon. 1935. "Attitudes" in A Handbook of Social Psychology (pp. 798-844). Worchester, MA: Clark University Press. Allport died in 1967 so it may not yet be out of copyright. 89.243.209.101 (talk) 16:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does not appear to be available. You can see the copyright status here. I hope this helps. JW..[ T..C ] 19:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism?--ProteanEd (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How authentically motorcycle is an apple? The answer to the two questions is the same.--Jayron32 19:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the whole of the Pāli Canon is translated into English yet but that should give you a start for looking up the various thoughts expressed in that essay. ;-) Dmcq (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OP makes the mistake of calling a puerile essay a policy which it is not. Here is a summary of Buddhist teachings about Right Speech (Samma vaca). Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Is there any evidence saying how many people were executed wrongfully in the US? I've read a few articles but none of them answers exactly this question. 83.31.105.218 (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to contact the Innocence Project, their website is here. They specialize in this sort of thing. --Jayron32 20:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. They don't give such information on their website, so probably this number's very low. 83.31.105.218 (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrongful execution has some stats about allegedly wrongful executions in the US, right up at the top of the article. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps list of exonerated death row inmates might be of interest to you as well? A lot of the people on those lists would have ended up in "wrongful executions" if it had not been for the advancement of technology that would not have been foreseeable when they were convicted. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult, because you're probably looking for number of people who have been executed and since found innocent by the legal system. That is not necessarily the same thing as the number of people who have been executed and didn't do the crime, or who were executed but wouldn't have been if the law was strictly followed (or they had access to more money). For one thing, people interested in the accused's innocence are far less likely to fight for it in the courts after they are dead. For another, the people involved in the system that put the accused to death have an interest in them not being found wrongfully executed. As such, short of a time machine allowing one to witness each of the crimes, any number given for "how many people were executed wrongfully in the US" is either going to be "the number of people executed and since found innocent by a court" or an estimate. Which are you most interested in? 86.178.73.74 (talk) 15:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then there are the borderline cases, such as guy executed for the Lindbergh kidnapping, who some believe did not commit the crime, while others do. There's a flip side to this, which includes (1) the real murderer, in such cases; and (2) those who did the crime but were acquitted. The system is not perfect. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read The Airman and the Carpenter by the late Ludovic Kennedy and you will never again believe that Hauptmann was guilty. It was a colossal stitch-up done for purely political purposes. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He sure sounded guilty in Scott Berg's biography of Charles Lindbergh. On the other hand, Berg either missed out or purposely omitted the fact that Lindbergh had a second family in Germany, so he didn't necessarily get everything right or complete. Regardless, the case and its results were controversial. In contrast to someone like John Gacy, for example, where there was no serious doubt. There have been various times when highly publicized trials resulted in executions when it was argued that the convicted person was either not guilty or that the punishment didn't fit the crime. On the flip side are cases like O.J., where most folks were convinced he did it but the prosecution was unable to convince the jury. But those high-profile cases are relatively few. The many obscure cases would be nearly impossible to research and come up with a percentage. Probably the best that could be done is an estimate based on percentage of exonerations within a given recent population. And even then you're not necessarily going to know for sure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely in this modern world we can be sure to kill the right people. But changes are not only necessary in science, but in law, and the attitudes of those who practise it. I watched The Thin Blue Line, and read the related Adams Vs. Texas, and was struck by the incompetence of a system that seemed to bend over backwards to kill a man for nothing, partly on the word of the young teenage toe rag who had actually killed Officer Woods in 1976. As Texas has the death penalty, and we all know how keen they are to use it, which I agree with, they should at least make sure they get it right, instead of being more concerned with looking good than actually dispensing genuine justice. As for Hauptmann, I saw different documentaries about him over the years. The first made me think he might be innocent, the other convinced me he was guilty due to the ladder found at the crime scene being perfectly matched with wood found in his home, from floorboards, and the fact he had some of the money. What it also conviced me of though, was how strange Lindbergh seemed in the whole thing, and whether he had something to do with it too, with Bruno's help, but I am not accusing him as such. Also, I always thought Lizzie Borden got away with it, but the documentary on that case, if not clearing her, at least added a few more viable suspects. In that case though I don't know if the jury cleared her due to the facts, or because no one liked her parents. A lot of cases have this whodunnit quality to them, and since Jon Pertwee is no longer with us, a wee look at some we'd made up our minds about can do no harm. My only concern is that justice is done, meaning we convict the guilty and free the innocent - not the other way round as sometimes seems to be the case. The Russian Christopher Lilly 13:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a territory speaking a Romance language descended from Latin. Why isn't it considered part of Latin America?--AduioRear (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Latin_America#Etymology_and_definitions. Historically, the term used to exclusively mean French America, as coined during the Age of Napoleon. However, the modern term exclusively refers to "Iberian-speaking (Spanish & Portuguese)" parts of the Americas, or alternately Central & South America combined, or alternately all of the Americas except the U.S. and Canada. In modern usage, Francophone areas aren't usually included in the definition of Latin America, though technically French is a latin-derived language as well. So yeah, maybe you could make a case that it should be, but in real terms, it is not. --Jayron32 21:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why then is Haiti considered part of Latin America?--AduioRear (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, that would mean Belize, Guyana and Suriname are not part of Latin America due to English and Dutch, Germanic languages, being spoken there.--AduioRear (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See point #2 in the "Etymology" link that Jayron32 provided: many (and I would guess a large majority of) residents of the United States think of "Latin America" as meaning "Everything south of the US in this hemisphere". Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)The article says, firstly, that's there's various definitions involved and secondly that "Although French-influenced areas of the Americas would include Quebec, this region is rarely considered to be part of Latin America, since its history, distinctively North American culture and economy, and British-inspired political institutions are generally deemed too closely intertwined with the rest of Canada.[12]". In short, it's not considered Latin America because it's not. Matt Deres (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean that the majority of Americans think of the Islas Malvinas to be part of Latin America, rather than considering the Falkland Islands to be separate from it? Nyttend (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is not going to be a reference out there in which Americans at large have been polled about their geographic knowledge of the Malvinas, but I am going to guess, Yes, a large majority. (Once you do some location education for the number of Americans who cannot point to them on a map, of course.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Québeçois eat poutine. Latin Americans eat, for example, pupusas. PhGustaf (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilians eat pupusas? Nil Einne (talk) 10:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A large portion of English is Latin filtered through French, so you could make the case that the entire western hemisphere (except for the aboriginals) is "Latin" America, which would make the term kind of redundant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can transplant the arms and legs of a donkey onto a man, but that doesn't make him a donkey, any more than it can be said English is a Romance Language. --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 13:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But let's be honest; we all know those special jackasses that require neither fur nor hoof to well and truly qualify as best of breed. But I digress. :D Natty10000 (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The better metaphor might be a mule, i.e. a hybrid. Many Latin Americans are mestizo, but they would still be considered Latin Americans, right? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the OP. The best answer so far has been given by Matt Deres. These definitions aren't meant to be scrupulously internally consistant. Quebec isn't part of Latin America, but Belize or Suriname is, just cuz that's how it's usually defined. Most people casually consider "Latin America" to be everything in the western hemisphere except Canada and the U.S. The term generally comes from the fact that most of the people in Latin America speak some form of Iberian Romance language (Spanish or Portuguese). However, finding other Romance-speaking regions in the U.S. and Canada doesn't make those areas part of Latin America because it's not a strictly linguistic term. It's a Geographic term for "The Western Hemisphere except the U.S. and Canada". --Jayron32 04:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I`m sure St. Pierre and Miquelon will appreciate the distinction. :) Natty10000 (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Everything in the Western Hemisphere except Canada and the US" would include Spain and Portugal (if we just restrict it to Spanish/Portuguese speaking countries and not include others, like half of the UK, France, Iceland, Greenland, and a dozen or so African countries), and I doubt anyone considers them even remotely part of Latin America. --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 14:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try "New World". :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is Jamaica generally considered part of Latin America? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently not. Note the map for the Latin America article. It specifically omits Jamaica and some other islands, and also some parts of South America. How authoritative that is, I couldn't say. 20:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Hard to imagine why. Maybe somebody just doesn't dig spiders. PhGustaf (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooh, that bites. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(deindent) The article really needs to make up its mind:

• The lede says: " .. a region of the Americas where Romance languages (i.e., those derived from Latin) – particularly Spanish, Portuguese, and variably French – are primarily spoken" – which would include Quebec and exclude Jamaica.

• in Etymology and Definitions, dot point 1, we have: "Latin America is, therefore, defined as all those parts of the Americas that were once part of the Spanish and Portuguese Empires" – which would exclude both Quebec and Jamaica

• dot point 2 says: "Also, particularly in the United States, the term more broadly refers to all of the Americas south of the United States" – and specifically mentions Jamaica.

• dot point 3: "Latin America designates all of those countries and territories in the Americas where a Romance language … is spoken: Spanish, Portuguese, and French" – but then goes on to explicitly exclude Quebec.

• None of the tables include either Jamaica or Quebec, so it seems that, of the 4 definitions, the one in dot point 1 is being used, not the one in the lede. If that's the primary definition for the purposes of the article, it should say so. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Jamaica#History, it was part of the Spanish empire from 1494 until the British took it over completely in 1655, so it probably wouldn't count. Seems like there should be a way to synthesize those various definitions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Once part of the Spanish and Portuguese Empires"? Wouldn't that include some of the southern states of the United States? Correct me if I'm wrong here. --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 21:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Theoretically it would, but since those areas are part of a predominantly English-speaking country, then they're not part of Latin America, although they contain many Latin Americans and their descendants. Maybe the problem is the term "region". If you change "region" to "nation" it ought to work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, because 'nation' is used to refer to the Apache and other native American nations, too. --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 02:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of them speak Spanish natively? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, Bugs. Sorry, for my last few posts I have been referring specifically to the wording of the 'dot point one' section spoken about by Jack above. --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 04:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I take issue with the term "region", as it's a vague term and isn't exactly correct anyway. In the "region" of Miami, Florida, Spanish is widespread. That doesn't make Miami part of Latin America, because English is still the predominant language in the "nation" or "country" we call the USA. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what could compound the problem, in that case, is the fact that the USA doesn't have an official language, so I guess you would have to use political boundaries, but ones which clearly contain a majority of non-Spanish/Portuguese speakers, do define where non-Latin America is. Plus, what would it be called? Germanic America? --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 04:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There does not seem to be an article on this. My understanding of this ancient Roman law was that it was a sort of an umbrella law that put enforcement on the Lex Caecilia Didia law. Basically it is just improvements of the features acting as an umbrella on the duties of the original law of Lex Caecilia Didia. Would that be a fair statement? --Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Made new article.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 19:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds a fair statement to me, but I believe that the requirement to deposit proposed copies of legislation with the Aerarium was a new provision, apparently in part to address issues with the forgery of copies of existing legislation. Warofdreams talk 17:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference between socialism and communism, and which one is North Korea? --70.134.50.246 (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had added links to your post so you can read all about these topics. As with the USSR, etc., North Korea considers itself socialist, and is usually labeled communist. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A simple description of the differences between the two is that socialism is "communism-lite", in that it has many of the same ideas as communism, but is weaker. Lenin called socialism the intermediate stage, or stepping stone, from capitalism to communism. Reading both articles on the subject will give a much more detailed impression of the differences and similarites between the two, so I recommend that. North Korea is officially a Socialist republic, which would make it socialist. Many people, however, see it as Stalinist, which is a sort of modified, practical communism. The articles on the subjects will give much more detail. Chaosandwalls (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) The articles linked to give the answers to those two questions. They are a bit long, though. --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 22:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to textbook definition, under communism the workers control the means of production, while under socialism the state does. Both terms are used with much broader and widely overlapping meaning, to a degree that they have lost most meaning beyond their use as political fighting words. North Korea is officially democratic, socialist, and a republic. In reality it's a dictatorship. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an example the Nordic welfare states was created by social democratic parties, which labeled themselves socialists, but distanced themselves from communism (and communists distanced themselves from them). --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There have never been any countries that fit Marx's idea of "communism", in which an industrialised country has no government because there's no need for one. However, North Korea is a fine example of "communism" as that word is commonly used. Nyttend (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...as that word is commonly used in the United States, you mean. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend makes an important point which is worth fleshing out. The reason countries such as the Soviet Union described themselves as 'socialist' and not 'communist' was not that they were not committed to Marx's idea of communism, but that they recognised that they had not yet achieved it. They believed that as their state developed it would follow the path that Marx had laid out, and class differences would disappear so that the institutions of the state would fall away and there would be true communism. However, that had not yet happened; they were still administering a state, and so that state could not be communist but must be socialist.

This is not the position of democratic socialist parties such as the SPD in Germany after Bad Godesberg, the Socialist Party in France, or the Labour Party in Britain. They see socialism as the end in itself, and their definition of socialism is not a Marxist one. You might also want to compare Second International (later the Socialist International) with the Third International, better known as the Comintern (Communist International). Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The definition in the socialism article is better than any of the replies here, btw. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has more examples, but sadly it seems no better at defining the phenomenon than we are. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the statement above that North Korea is "officially" a Socialist republic. My understanding was that the current official guiding ideology of the country (as stated in the Constitution / party constitution) is Juche, which in simplified terms stands for "personality cult", rather than either Communism or Socialism. I believe the replacement of Communism and Socialism by Juche was (legally) complete by the late 1990s. As a result, it is technically neither a Communist nor a Socialist state, but a sui generis "Juche" state. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True. Also, socialism is sometimes defined as all forms of ideologies based more or less on Karl Marx's writings, of which communism is one, social democracy is another and syndicalism may be a third. So communism is a form of socialism. The Great Cucumber (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About Juche: I'm no expert, but as a theory, it doesn't seem to stand for "personality cult"; its basic tenets amount to some kind of banal nationalism (the three official principles being "independence in politics", "self-sustenance in the economy", and "self-defense in national defense", + "army-first policy"). What connects it to the personality cult is, AFAICS, only its rather amusing claim to the status of a major social theory, indeed of a universal teaching that supersedes Marxism and Leninism and that just happens to have been developed by the country's supreme leaders.

About socialism - it is not normally defined as solely Marx-based; there are many non-Marxist forms of socialism. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 00:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of calling Palaceguard out on that, as the word itself seems to mean something like "subject theory" or "subjectivism", at least according to how it's written in Chinese characters. But I think what Palaceguard meant was that Juche is not really a social theory or Communism/Socialism but basically just a personality cult. TomorrowTime (talk) 08:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for socialism and communism, the meanings of the words are extremely loose. 'Communism' comes from the Latin communis common, public, general, shared by all or many" and, in its loosest sense, is applied to any movement or state that subscribes to common property as a basis of society (the Mazdakites, for example); 'socialism' comes from the Latin socialis "united, living with others, social", from socius ("companion") and has usually meant the same as "communism" in the above-mentioned general sense, but in its loosest sense it may be applied to any movement that calls for society to somehow prevail over the multitude of struggling private economic interests in the name of the common good. Since almost nobody denies that at least some minimal degree of society and organization prevailing over private economic interest is necessary in at least some situations, the term "socialist" is arguably gradient/relative and subjective, like "big", "good", or "left" - people use it to apply to someone whom they perceive to preach a relatively large degree of social control over private economic interest - relatively large within the context of what is prevalent within the political spectrum at that particular time and place. Thus, Tony Blair's new Labour and modern social democrats have been permitted to call themselves "socialists" even though twenty years earlier the extent of social control they now preach would be described with the label "liberal". In that sense, even the American Right's claim that Obama is a "socialist" is not as absurd as it seems - after all, "socialist" means pretty much the same as "someone who seems pretty far to the left to me" or "who seems pretty inclined towards social control to me". The absurdity stems from the less loose and historically more common sense mentioned above, the one that equates socialism with common or "social" property.

Now the more specific senses of the words, those that have become common in the 20th century, come from the great split in the Marxist socialist movement in the end of World War I concerning the October revolution. "Communist" refers to any Marxist socialists that largely accept the October revolution and the ideas and practices of Lenin's Bolsheviks as they were at the time of the October revolution, at the time when they established the Third International, and at least during the first few years after that. In fact the Bolsheviks introduced the term as a self-designation specifically to mark their distinction from the other major socialist parties of the time, those that proved less radical, more conciliatory towards the status quo, less favourable towards the October revolution and remained in the Second International. "Socialist" then remains a less specific term that can stand for both pro-Bolsheviks and non-pro-Bolsheviks, but since a pro-Bolshevik will tend to call himself "communist", people who just call themselves "socialists" are likely to be either critical of or ambivalent towards the Bolsheviks, just like someone who merely calls himself "Christian" with no qualifications is unlikely to be a Mormon. A "Communist" in this specific sense will be at least to some extent a Leninist, and may be, among other things, a Trotskyist, a Stalinist, or a Maoist - depending on the precise point after the October revolution at which he feels things went wrong (1927, 1953, or 1953 AND 1977). A separate issue is that what people identify as may be different from what they objectively are: you may identify as a "Christian", as a "Marxist" or as something else, but to what extent your beliefs truly fit the teachings of Christ or of Marx is always open to external questioning. Nearly all of the above-mentioned groups of self-described socialists deny their opponents the status of true socialists or even true Marxists.

Yes, I know I'm writing for myself. I just enjoy writing short essays.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is broadly true, but don't forget that "communist" is also usually used for revolutionary socialists who do not support the October revolution (like the anarchist communists and impossibilists), and revolutionary supporters of the October revolution who are not Leninists, such as the left communists. Warofdreams talk 17:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last March, I photographed the U.S. Customhouse in downtown Denver, Colorado. What's the point of having a customhouse so far away from a border with a foreign country? The building (built in 1931) is in downtown Denver, nowhere near the current airport, and given the concentration of pre-1931 buildings all around downtown, I can't imagine that an airport has ever been in downtown Denver. Nyttend (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blame "boosters" - "Overlooking the fact that Denver lay hundreds of miles from any national border, boosters persistently lobbied Washington to designate Denver an official port of entry. Washington succumbed in 1882 and awarded Denver a customs house." (ref) That 1882 building was replaced with the 1931 building you saw because the old one (which was in "another location in the city") was "overcrowded" (ref). -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 23:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

France did the same thing, decreeing that all imports of [whatever] had to come through a particular customs house. Objective to limit imports. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, back in the early 1980s all imports into France of Japanese videorecorders had to pass through the ten-man customhouse in Poitiers (Time article, May 82) -- Arwel Parry (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised no one considered the possibility of . . . wait for it . . . here it come . . . air freight  ! DOR (HK) (talk) 04:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's mentioned right there in OP's question :) TomorrowTime (talk) 08:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

I don't think air freight was a great consideration in 1882, though. Marnanel (talk) 13:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the last leader of Malawi who precessor Bingu Mutharika was the leader from 1994 to 2004 and have to gave up his power after his age of 61 is two term rule going to apply to Mutharika too. Is this more likely if the two term rule have been affect to last leader it is more likely to be affect to the current leader. Malawi have been trying to make a 7 term election, is it more likely for Malawi to eliminate the two term rule?--69.226.34.161 (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many presidents/heads of state of other countries are buried in the United States?

In Miami there are 3:

1. Carlos Prío Socarrás - Former President of Cuba
2. Gerardo Machado y Morales - Former President of Cuba
3. Anastasio Somoza Debayle - Former President of Nicaragua

Are there any others?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salamanca34 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4. Ferdinand Marcos is buried in Hawaii, or so our article says. —Kevin Myers 04:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Marcos has be re-interred in The Philippines, per Find-a-Grave. ^[1]Salamanca34 (talk) 14:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5. Jefferson Davis, buried in Virginia. —Kevin Myers 04:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

6. Victoriano Huerta, buried in Texas. —Kevin Myers 05:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Liliʻuokalani of Hawaii, in Honolulu.--Cam (talk) 05:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do chiefs of Indian tribes count? Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them might. Native American chiefs of the distant past were not "heads of state", since they were usually one of several (sometimes many) leaders in a decentralized, non-state society. Native American societies began to centralize in response to European contact—tribe is arguably a concept imported from Europe—so post-contact "centralized" chiefs, like John Ross, might belong on the list, although chiefs with US citizenship (i.e. most of them after the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924) are not "foreign". —Kevin Myers 06:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some would dispute Jeff Davis, on the grounds that he was American and that the CSA was not a "legitimate" country. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of the former presidents of the Republic of Texas and governors of the Vermont Republic.--droptone (talk) 13:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering more along the lines of foreign nationals who are interred in the US. The sovereign Hawaiian Monarchs should count. Native American chiefs would be more tribal leaders than a foreign head of state, although they are recognized as nations. Republic of Texas and Vermont Republic leaders not so. Jefferson Davis is debatable.Salamanca34 (talk) 14:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ignacy Jan Paderewski was buried at Arlington Cemetery until he was removed to Poland in the 90s. Woogee (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However he appears to have been the head of government, but never the head of state which are seemingly two distinct roles in Poland, as they are in a number of countries and is usually the case for a Prime Minister. And the OP asked for head of states or presidents explicitly althought whether this was because of a lack of understanding of the terms I'm not sure. Nil Einne (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nil is correct, but Woogee may have been confused by the incorrect wording in the article Arlington Cemetery, which read: "The USS Maine Memorial served as the temporary resting place for foreign heads of state, Manuel L. Quezon of the Philippines and Ignacy Jan Paderewski of Poland..." I corrected it now to say "... foreign heads of state or government..." — Kpalion^(talk) 10:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From 1970 to the present, King Peter II of Yugoslavia had the distinction of being the only King buried in the United States (at the St. Sava Monastery Church in Libertyville, Illinois). It was announced in March 2007 that his remains would be transferred to the Karadjordjevic dynasty Mausoleum of St. George in Oplenac, Serbia, but as far as I know that has not yet occurred. - Nunh-huh 04:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare's Hamlet, as the Wikipedia article notes, contains clear references to Purgatory and other Catholic (non-Protestant) doctrines....Does anyone know what government and civil (and Church of England) responses were during the late 16th-19th centuries? By the 20th century, surely the public and government wouldn't really care what was in a play, but Protestantism was hugely powerful in British society at the time the work was written and through the 19th century, yet Shakespeare's works, including Hamlet, were presumably well received. --达伟 (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Puritans didn't go to the theatre - what the eye doesn't see.... Alansplodge (talk) 14:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hamlet,Prince of Denmark to give it its proper name - as the play wasn't set in England I don't think the authorities were that concerned. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But on the whole, how did the public react, since most of the populace was adverse to Catholicism and rejected its doctrines? --达伟 (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my opinion - at the start of the 17th Century, the Puritans were a small but vocal minority who had little political clout and were despised by the King and the aristocracy. It was the well-to-do London set who were the patrons of the theatre, and their affiliation was to the emerging High Church that clung to Catholic traditions of worship. I suppose these people and their plays would have been an anathama to the Puritans, so they would have avoided the whole thing like the plague, rather than try to reform it. When the Puritans finally came to power in the English Commonwealth, theatres were banned. Most people were quite pleased when they were sent packing at the Restoration and it was back to business as usual at the playhouses. Alansplodge (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly Protestantism is not the same as Puritanism. Protestants clearly did go to the theatre, or Shakespeare would have been playing to pretty small houses. Puritans were a pretty small minority at the time of Shakespeare (hint - some of them fled to America to avoid persecution).

Anglicanism in the time of Shakespeare was nowhere near the same as Evangelical Protestantism today. Purgatory, for example, is still an acceptable doctrine even today (you don't have to believe in it, but you can if you like). Actual doctrines even then wouldn't be nearly as far removed from Catholicism as you might think. Read the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion to find out what was considered Anglican doctrine. Most of the differences with Catholicism are about authority within the church.

In short it's a huge misunderstanding to think that over the course of a few years everyone in England went from believing Catholic doctrine to believing Evangelical Protestant doctrine. People's beliefs change much more slowly. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for everyone's help...that's very enlightening. --达伟 (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When Puritans (in their political as opposed to theological aspect) had power, either over the City of London or over the whole country, they banned or greatly hampered theatres, which is why even in the 16th century, The Globe theatre, The Rose theatre , the bull-and-bear-baiting pit, and other places of popular entertainment located themselves in Southwark on the South Bank of the Thames, beyond the city limits of London whose corporation and magistrates were dominated by Puritanical merchants. During the Commonwealth and Protectorate of 1649 to 1660, there were no legal plays, which is why English drama and comedy are divided into Elizabethan-Jacobean on one side and Restoration on the other. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of which is completely irrelevant to the OP, for reasons clear from earlier posts. The Puritans were a disliked minority, as were the Catholics. The officially sanctioned religion, accepted by the majority, was Anglicanism, and everyone to the "left" and to the "right" of it was condemned and got his share of persecutions. Since Anglican dogma was very similar to Catholic dogma, there is nothing strange in the fact that some notions in Shakespeare's drama may not appear entirely Protestant to some. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 01:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Ten Articles (1536) merely made Purgatory a non-essential doctrine. But the Thirty-Nine Articles (1563) quite clearly state "The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God." Protestants had been forcibly repressing rites and institutions referencing purgatory for 40 years before Hamlet appeared. Shakespeare's plays - as all others in Elizabethan England - had to undergo censorship before they could be mounted on the stage, and were vetted for religious and political statements detrimental to the government in power. So the state, and its puppet religion clearly cared, and clearly rejected the existence of purgatory. How, then, did the reference in Hamlet survive this censorship? It is a matter of debate; Stephen Greenblatt (in Hamlet in Purgatory believed that Shakepeare was pushing the limits of what censors would allow in his depiction of Hamlet's father's ghost; others have suggested that the text was modified by censors to change a serious presentation of a real purgatory into a jocular, literary presentation that would be less likely to be taken as factual - the ghost inhabits a secularized purgatory inhabiting the imaginative space left open by the Reformation's banishment of the religious Purgatory. Note that though the notion of purgatory can be found in Hamlet, the word itself never explicitly appears...that would have been censored. - Nunh-huh 02:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it perhaps relevant that the events in Hamlet are clearly set in a foreign country some time in the past (relative to Shakespeare's milieu) and could have been seen by, or be plausibly argued to, the censoring powers as both historically authentic and irrelevant to the contemporary situation? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the censors were not as enlightened in that respect as you wish they were. They were chiefly concerned with the effect of a play on the British audience, regardless of the setting or time period of the play. They would not have stood for sympathetic depictions of Catholicism even in a distant land long long ago. - Nunh-huh 04:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I access the Economist via an online academic journal like EBSCO Host, to which my school subscribed to allow students' free access to all the articles. My concern is that the academic journal doesn't follow the original (either printed or online) version's organization of topics/headings. For example, the original version categorizes all the articles into one of the following categories:

This week's print edition Daily news analysis Opinion World politics All world politics Politics this week Special reports Business and finance Business education Markets and data Science and technology Books and arts People Diversions

In contrast, different academic journals for the Economist have their own organization of the contents, different from the original table of contents. For example, one academic journal called Academic Search Premier organizes contents as follows:

UNITED States LETTERS to the editor GREAT Britain CHINA EDITORIALS CLIMATIC changes -- Prevention DEVELOPING COUNTRIES GREAT Britain -- Politics & government -- 2007- IRAN GLOBAL Financial Crisis, 2008-2009

Strangely, some journals don't even present an organization of contents, but merely lists all the articles alphabetically.

What I want to know is this: Do online academic journals provide certain features/options to change its table of contents to exactly match the original's? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.120.162 (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, you are not talking about academic journals, but about archival services. Academic journals publish original articles, they do not (usually) reprint popular press articles. And your archival services apparently do not offer complete publications, but only individual articles - because that is what is most often needed, and because it is a simple business model (you only pay for the content you need). They may or may not also offer access to complete issues of the newspaper. If not, you need to go to an archival library. The Economist is a fao prestigious publication, it will be archived at several places, either on microfiche or, nowadays, probaby digitally. It's almost certainly in the Library of Congress. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He is a Jewish poet, and I didnt find anything in google. Thanks! Imanuel.sygal (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might try looking under "yosef papirnikov" and "yoseph papirnikov". Woogee (talk) 20:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Internet Archive has many of his works in Yiddish. He is also known as Papiernikov and Papiernikow.--Cam (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He was born in Warsaw in 1897 or 1899 and died in Tel Aviv in 1993. [4] --Cam (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thank you all! I finally found it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imanuel.sygal (talk • contribs) 13:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a term where a hidden item is sneaked in a proposed bill where it basically is undetectable by the average person if they weren't keenly aware of the bill itself. In other words, the sneaked items are "shanghaied" (commandeered) into the law unbeknownst to the average person that the main law itself applies to. The hidden items are either probably not part of the main law or are a deceptive practice to the main law. Does this practice exist in today's legislature? Is there a "counter-law" that prevents this shady practice? Are there related Wikipedia articles on these items? --Doug Coldwell ^talk 15:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Rider (legislation). --Tango (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Often these things are known; sometimes they're not caught until later - like the time Senator Patrick Leahy slipped in a rider that would have had Congress declaring Lake Champlain as The Sixth "Great Lake". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the spelling. I had the lake confused with Champlaign, Illinois. :) That kind of rider is relatively harmless, i.e. it wouldn't cost the taxpayers much. Of larger concern are riders that are basically "pork", i.e. that add costs for projects that are of interest to particular legislators and may have little or nothing to do with the main purpose of the bill. That's a constant complaint about legislation, especially elephantine bills like the health care package. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a well known but apocryphal story from Britain about the situation in the 19th century when the only way to get a divorce was through a private Act of Parliament. The Town Clerk of Birmingham was responsible for drafting an extremely long and technical private Bill to permit some works in the city, which wasn't controversial. He was also in an unhappy marriage. His Bill passed through on a formality on what would in the 21st century be described as a 'tl; dr' approach. Only once enacted did people notice that one of the schedules at the very back included a provision declaring 'The Town Clerk's marriage is hereby dissolved'.

This story would be even more amusing if it was true. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This story has always made me wonder what would have happened had the next Town Clerk been married. Would his accession to the post have caused his immediate divorce? W.S. Gilbert would have loved the possibilities. Marnanel (talk) 23:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Edit:Aha! Hansard, 20 Feb 1969: "Section 87 of the Liverpool Corporation Act went through the House at a late hour. It said, "The town clerk's marriage is hereby dissolved". Thus, the town clerk got his own private Act of Parliament and I gather that succeeding town clerks of Liverpool took advantage of the provision for some years until the matter was put right in the 1857 Act."[5] (That still doesn't mean it's true, but it means that someone in 1969 thought it would automatically divorce any future Town Clerks.) Marnanel (talk) 23:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Love these stories. Please continue. I'm going along for the ride.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 00:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sen. Chuck Grassley inserted a clause into a tax bill – not during Senate debate, but in the conference committee between the House and Senate designed to iron out minor differences – that raised taxes on Americans living abroad by about 30%. The constitutionality of doing something like that, particularly when both houses had voted down exactly that provision, is in question.DOR (HK) (talk) 04:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You remind me of the Simpsons episode when Crusty is elected senator, and they sneak in their bill to force planes away from their homes. Such similar shenanigans were shown in Amazing Grace, where they trick MPs in favour of slavery away to the races or something so they can vote it out. Not bad, since the Commons wasn't really democratic nor representative in those days anyway. I do believe all law should be above board, and surely anything snuck in is not voted on, since surely the MPs have to know what they are voting about. The Russian Christopher Lilly 12:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher1968 (talk • contribs)

Taking out of the calculation maternity leaves, does anybody have data or know whether the productivity of women worker is equal or different from this of men worker at the very same position, seniority and so on? Especially I'm interested in information on the two sexes productivity rates in productive works. --Gilisa (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Measuring productivity is non-trivial -- particularly if you are talking about a job in which the units of output are not well defined. There are studies that show that there is no statistically significant difference in the average wage rate for males versus females when you control for education, years of experience, likelihood of work absence, etc. The bulk of reported differences in male/female wages are due to behavioral differences. For example, the average woman of age X has less experience than the average man of age X due to child rearing. This difference compounds over time because, the couple (on average) will tend to move to follow the male's career because (on average and due to child rearing) the male's wage is greater. This results in more numerous interruptions in the female's career and, correspondingly, a lower wage. Also, females (at least in the US) are disproportionately represented in college majors that lead to lower paying jobs (e.g., literature versus engineering). Critics rightly raise causality questions here, but if it is true that if one compares females with engineering degrees to males with engineering degrees (instead of females in general to males in general), the wage difference mostly disappears. Wikiant (talk) 16:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer, however the question remain. I specifically asked an answer that mind all of the factors you mentioned (e.g. controled work hours, seniority and etc)-you picked average wage as an indicator for productivity, and thats just dont answer it. I know that in many occupations it's hard to have good measure for productivity, but nevertheless there are enough work places which do have their own way to measure the productivity of each worker in good approximation (e.g. microsoft, intel). Mostly, these companies set a certain threshold of productivity for each worker in each department or team and who ever cross it may be rewarded in his/her salary-however, only if he/she signficantly crossed the threshold and even then it's mostly not guaranteed. So, overall, even it's probably practicaly impossible to measure productivity rates by sex in the entire market, there are probably studies that can give as a clue. As for the Hi Tec sector, it's mostly occupied by men so women employees in this sector may not be the best example as they are not very representative. On the other hand, the Hi Tec industry is one of the most productive.--Gilisa (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The work places that have their own measures of productivity aren't directly measuring productivity in the sense that economists mean "productivity." What they are measuring may, to varying degrees, be correlated with productivity. For example, one might count "lines of code written per day" as a software engineer's "productivity", but how does one measure the quality of those lines of code? As a rough approximation, one might count instead, "lines of code written per day that end up in the final product". But that also is flawed. It assumes that the project manager (who decides what lines of code appear in the final product) flawlessly chooses which engineer's code ends up in the program. It also assumes that the market research folk flawlessly determine and communicate to the project manager what features the customer wants. Wikiant (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It also assumes that the software engineer isn't padding his line count to increase apparent productivity -- something that's trivially easy for someone with a bit of experience. --Carnildo (talk) 02:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Equal pay for equal work, and no youth rates. Base salary on skill and output, not gender or youth. It is unfortunate that ladies' pay seems generally lower than that of men. I believe only in a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, and bosses would do well to look after their workers, since a happy workforce is a productive one. The Russian Christopher Lilly 12:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does Compton have any sister cities in Georgia, Florida, Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Kentucky, Tennesse, Virginia, West Virginia, North CArolina and South Carolina due to its African-American population and crime and does East Los Angeles have any sister cities in other parts of U.S. due to its Hispanic-American population? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.118.108 (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As both Compton and East Los Angeles are inner suburbs of Los Angeles, they do not have their own sister cities. However, Los Angeles does have sister cities, 25 to be exact, which are as follows: Eilat, Israel; Nagoya, Japan; Salvador, Brazil; Bordeaux, France; Berlin, Germany; Lusaka, Zambia; Mexico City, Mexico; Auckland City, New Zealand; Busan, South Korea; Mumbai, India; Tehran, Iran; Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China; Guangzhou, People's Republic of China; Athens, Greece; Saint Petersburg, Russia; Vancouver, Canada; Giza, Egypt; Jakarta, Indonesia; Kaunas, Lithuania; Makati, Philippines; Split, Croatia; San Salvador, El Salvador; Beirut, Lebanon; Ischia, Italy; Yerevan, Armenia; and Manchester, United Kingdom. Hope this helps! Laurinavicius (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I observe that the OP is asking about potential sisters in other states of the US, and and also talks about their demographics. I wonder if the OP has a different idea of 'sister cities' in mind from the more formal concept Laurinavicius refers to? --ColinFine (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inner suburbs in the United States can be, and usually are, independent cities with their own city governments. Compton, California is a city, not a neighborhood of Los Angeles. As far as I know, however, US cities don't have sister cities within the US, but only foreign cities. See http://www.comptonsistercities.org/ for a list of Compton's sister cities. Woogee (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

East LA is an unincorporated part of Los Angeles County and therefore would be unlikely to have its own sister cities. But see List of U.S. communities with Hispanic majority populations. Hispanic-majority suburbs elsewhere include Hialeah, Florida, Cicero, Illinois, Union City, New Jersey and South Houston, Texas. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 07:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From reading the Wiki's definitions and other dictionary's definitions, I have a general sense of the meanings of "controversy" and "issue", but I can't provide any specific examples (other than the kinds of examples like Evolution VS Creationism). I came across one source that gave a more systematic definition: Issue is defined as a set of positions or answers pertaining to a single question; controversy is defined as a set of issues revolving around a related set of questions. But I can't come up with precise examples that match these definitions. Any help would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ysk1 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if the line is always all that rigid, but an "issue" is something like "women's rights" or "drunk driving". It isn't necessarily controversial (who is for drunk driving?). In your case, "Evolution v. Creationism" is the controversy, "science in the classroom" or "religion in schools" is the issue. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, wikipedians!

I am trying to find out if a sentence or philosophical thought can be attributed to any one particular established line of thought. Ie, if it stems from/has been organized by Kant, Aristotle or anyone else. The basic rule is that if an action does not cause injury (perceived mentally and physically) to another being, then the action will be morally sound. An example (but not important to my question) is that inferred from this, is that to injure oneself is to cause stress in an acquaintance who would care for you. Therefore, self-injury is in turn morally not accepted. I would be much obliged if you have any knowledge about this particular thought, and whether it is established in a philosophy. :) Thank you in advance! 77.18.70.217 (talk) 00:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The list of topics in philosophy may be of use to you. I hope this helps. JW..[ T..C ] 01:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Golden Rule (ethics) is not quite it, but is related. Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Hazlitt made this idea the foundation of his philosophy in the appropriately titled Foundations of Morality. He called it the inverse Golden Rule -- do not do unto others what you would not have other done onto you. Which seems great in theory, but in practice it fails utterly because so many of us lack the empathy to actually give half a care about other people's experience of the world. Step outside and let the evidence pour in! Vranak (talk) 11:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are international court proceedings conducted in dutch in the hague?174.3.101.61 (talk) 02:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly what you asked for yet, but this ICJ link says (in Spanish) that the two official languages of the International Court of Justice, which is in the Hague, are English and French, and all documents are issued in those two languages. You may also be referring to the International Criminal Court; that link says that English and French are its working languages, and the accused has the right to an attorney who's fluent in at least one of those two. Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the clips from the hearings I saw were always conducted in English, with simultaneous translations in headphones for those who needed them. Must have been a tough day at the translation booth when one of the indicted (can't remember for the life of me who, maybe Vojislav Šešelj?) decided to tell everyone in court to go fuck themselves, in much more graphic and creative ways. TomorrowTime (talk) 08:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is this section? Can anyone send a letter to the editor and does everyone who sends it have the opportunity to have their letter published?

Also, why does every letter start with "SIR"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ysk1 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Letter to the editor. Anyone can send a letter to the editor; not all of them are published; it is a convention in many British periodicals that letters to the Editor start with "Sir" rather than "Dear Sir" or whatever. Marnanel (talk) 02:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Letters can also be edited for publication, so if yours doesn't start with SIR it will probably be edited so it does. DJ Clayworth (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We just had this question a month ago, actually. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They publish a lot more of the letters on their webpage, by the way. Jørgen (talk) 08:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The London Daily Telegraph has recently produced a book of unintentionally amusing letters that escaped publication[6]. Alansplodge (talk) 10:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's miscasting the book. An awful lot of those letters are absolutely intentionally amusing. They just weren't published. --Dweller (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes OK, I got the book as a Christmas present. I thought the funniest ones were unintentional though. Alansplodge (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that the letters tend to either be 1) from people of high standing (heads of state, academics or leaders of organizations that are relevant to a past article) or 2) merely extremely clever. Rarely both.NByz (talk) 08:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In World War Two, especially from reading The Eagle has Landed, I am aware there was a group known as the Britisches Freikorps, who were captured British soldiers that defected to join the SS, and serve for Germany. Was there an allied equivalent. I am aware that captured German spies were given the option of turning sides, rather than face a firing squad, and that Japanese Americans served the US in the war, but was there ever a unit of German POWs turned to the allied side, to fight against the Reich ?The Russian Christopher Lilly 13:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher1968 (talk • contribs)

Some details of the British SS corps are here[7]. Peak membership seems to have been 27. Alansplodge (talk) 13:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does this help[8][9]? Alansplodge (talk) 14:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, you may also be interested in the Free India Legion - Indian POWs originally from the Allies who then fought on the German side. --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 20:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some Germans who left the country prior to the war faught in Allied military units. They were of particular value in intelligence units and special combat units such as the British No. 10 Commando. I've read widely on the War and haven't seen any mention of the Allies forming combat units from German POWs though - they were never as short of manpower as Germany and didn't need whatever propaganda could have been gained from this, particularly given the likelihood of it backfiring and the significant resources which would have needed to be used to raise what would have probably been a very small unit. Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Excellent. The trouble with some of that was that Nazis were kept in power to run Germany post war, and some who had done filthy experiments got away with it, while some of their ( to borrow a legal term ) " fruit of the poisoned tree " research was used, as if it didn't matter how it had been obtained. I realised the number of the Britischer Freikorps was small, but not that small. I know they did sod all to help Germany anyway, but I understand one of them later settled in Australia, and was tracked down. I see there also some originally from Australia and New Zealand fought for the Nazis. I was also aware of groups like the White Rose, namely Sophie Scholl, who was executed after appearing before the same People's Court that later tried the bomb plotters. Speaking of white, there was the White Mouse, real name Nancy Wake, an Australian, born in New Zealand, who married a French man and joined their resistance. It appears that, as in any war, the lines were not clearly drawn, so you never knew whose side anyone was on. This is what makes it interesting. The Russian Christopher Lilly 12:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in Denazification with regard to "keeping Nazis in power". DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing the article Tax on childlessness has made me wonder how much chiildless people in the UK have to pay in tax to support other people's children - their free education, free health care, and cash benefits? In addition to childless people having to pay tax for other people's children, people with children also get given money by the state. How much is this? Thanks 92.24.99.15 (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno. A contrary question is, how much do these childless people benefit from the availability of able bodied people to assist them in their dotage (and, indeed, before). To think that you receive no benefits merely because you are childless is at best ill considered. The general view is that young people are a societal asset (not merely an individual family asset), and that society should invest in them and not leave the family as the sole source of investment. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) In thinking about this issue, you should bear in mind that general taxation in the UK (e.g. income tax and council tax) is not hypothecated, which is a fancy way of saying ring-fenced. In other words, it's not possible to identify how much anyone's taxes go into paying for education and so on. Nor is it possible to do that for taxes paid by people who don't have children. I sense a subtext to this question along the lines of "why should I, who have chosen not to have children, be forced into subsidising those who do? Shouldn't it only be parents who have to pay for children's health and education?" But that's not the way the taxation system works. It all just goes into the general pot. Similar arguments have been tried by people who are opposed to war and who try and identify how much of their taxes goes on supporting wars, and then refuse to pay that amount. In my opinion that argument is also without merit.

Now, if you're just interested in knowing how much is spent each year on health care and education, you could probably get those figures from any number of official government sources. But there's no way to relate those amounts to the taxes people pay. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If all the tax revenue goes into one place and then is split out among the various services, it seems reasonable to say that if 10 percent of it is going towards road-building, then 10 percent of whatever I'm being taxed goes toward road-building. And that's just the way it is, whether I drive a car or not. However, there's another way to look at it. I could pretend that all my taxes are going to public health while all of a warhawk's taxes are going toward advanced weaponry. I wonder if a survey has ever been done on what people would like their taxes to go toward (not being taxed would not be an option in that survey), and see how well the overall matches up with the actual percentages of the tax revenues. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UK Child Benefit is GBP20.00 per week for the eldest child and GBP13.20 for subsequent ones[10]. Alansplodge (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional considerations: Did the childless benefit from such taxes when they were children? If someone did hypothetically get taxed less because of their lack of children, do they have to pay it back if they end up having children? In the U.S., anyway, this isn't how one thinks about calculating taxes—you start from an assumption based on your income solely, and then start removing tax liability based on other "good expenses" you have. (You can pay less if you have a child, and you can pay less if you donate to charity, etc.) It's hard to think up a compelling reason for labeling childlessness a social good, and thus a tax deductible. (And I say this as someone who is happily childfree by choice.) --Mr.98 (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like a lot of the complaints about taxation are from people who have concluded that they don't benefit from those taxes. In effect, they're putting their interests ahead of society's interests. Some call that libertarian. But I think Tagishsimon has it right - that you often benefit one way or another, even if it's not perceived as a direct benefit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I mean it seems self-evident to me that society needs to ensure that its children are well fed, healthy and educated. Otherwise they won't ever grow up and be able to do and make things in the future that society as a whole will benefit from. I'd like to hear the countervailing argument to that, I could do with a laugh. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 15:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I am misreading some of the responses (User:Alansplodge and User:Richardrj being notable exceptions), but there appears to be a lot of lecturing in them. The OP asked two factual questions about the amount of such payments, with nothing I can find in them about whether or not such transfers ought to be made. What have I missed that has occasioned the amount of "justification" in the responses? Bielle (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You possibly missed the "have to pay in tax to support other people's children" element & tone, which gives rise to the supposition that the OP believes that the childless are merely forcibly subsidising someone else's hobby, rather than investing in societal renewal. A simple literal parsing of the question probably does call for a pounds, shilling & pence answer, but you'll just have to indulge the phenomenon that humans are not computers and will tend to read between the lines. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However much childless people pay towards financing the contribution that other people's children make towards the continued functioning of society, as a parent I can assure the OP and others that (in general) it's a damn sight less than the amount those children's parents pay, directly, towards maintaining the wellbeing of those children - [11]. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why indeed should you as a healthy person pay for the NHS? It makes no sense, unless of course there is such a thing as society. Marnanel (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, and the fact that in the case of things like healthcare, you are also paying out on the possibility that you yourself might get sick, even if you are not currently sick. (And of course, averaged over ones life, you will get sick, at some point.) --Mr.98 (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There may be some merit in means testing Child Benefit[12]; should someone earning GBP40,000pa still receive it? I have a feeling that you wouldn't get elected if you suggested such a thing. It has been suggested that it be included in personal allowances from income tax (as Baseball Bugs says happens in the US), but by popular demand it has continued to be paid direct to the principle carer - I suppose so that the old man doesn't spend it in the pub. Some of the issues are discussed here[13]. Alansplodge (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Putting aside the arguments for/against paying for children here's some figures from the 2009 budget report...Total managed expenditure £671bn. Social protection comes in at £189bn, Education at £88bn and health at £119bn (source: http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/news/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/22_04_09bud09_completereport_2591.pdf page 18). These are not child-specific so that's the whole budget on each area - but it shows you an idea of areas of expenditure that you mentioned. I suspect (with the exception of education) that the amount going to 'children' is nothing in comparison to the amount going to 'adults'. In terms of money to the people here's the BBC outlook on the pre-budget report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8011882.stm) though there's little on childcare. There's the HMRC Tax Credits site here (http://taxcredits.hmrc.gov.uk/Qualify/WhatAreTaxCredits.aspx). Then...Argument wise - it is nigh on impossible to separate out the spending to say 'this is spent for people with children' - there are too many things that are spent for 'everybody' that happen to include 'for children' too...Free entry to national museums are probably more used by families than non-families. Public Libraries are probably more heavily used by children (education) than by others, Public parks are probably more family-used than non-family. Where do you draw the line? If you're purely talking about child-tax-credits the info is available (links above) and education wise we could probably see the numbers, but how do you separate out the money coming in from families (and again about the income return to government when the child goes on to pay taxes)? It's all very difficult to 'price' because it's 2 very specific segmennts to separate out of quite high-level financial budgets (child-less people and money-spent-on-children). 194.221.133.226 (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paying for health care and education out of general taxes is a socialist policy (in the modern European sense, not the Marxist sense). The idea behind socialism is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". If you are vehemently anti-socialist then you won't like such policies, but you are in the minority in the UK - even the Conservative party has some strongly socialist policies (support for the NHS, for example). You should probably move to the US - they are far less socialist than anywhere in Europe. --Tango (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to find a pure libertarian even in the more-capitalistic USA. Bill O'Reilly is regarded as right-wing, but he has said there has to be some social safety net. And Teddy Roosevelt, the champion of many a Republican, had some ideas that are socialistic, some of which his distant cousin FDR implemented. It seems to be a matter of degree. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. That's why I said "far less socialist", not "not socialist". People with extreme political ideas (regardless of what extreme) rarely get elected in free and fair elections - this is related to Duverger's law. (Obviously, a few of them can get elected under PR, but not to the extent of actually having significant power.) It is difficult to put politicians on a spectrum in a meaningful way, but to the extent it can be done I think an average Democrat in the US (considered left-of-centre by US standards) would be further right than an average Conservative in the UK (considered right-of-centre by UK standards) and both would be far to the right of the Union for a Popular Movement in France (their centre-right party). --Tango (talk) 17:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Soviet tax the OP linked to does seem extreme and unfair. As for you subsidizing other people's children in the UK and elsewhere, however, I don't see it as being particularly different than any tax disparity. Rural people pay less and require more spending per capita to sustain roads and emergency services. I read recently that some homeless people run up staggering emergency health care bills that the public pays for, even in the US. And individuals will require different things throughout their lives, you may not have or want children now, but in 10 years it could be a very different story. When you get old, it's likely the state will spend much more on your healthcare than you provide through your taxes. For practical purposes, I think it is necessary for governments to tax and provide services holistically, as someone mentioned above; there's no way to separate out all the costs and tax each person appropriately. The government is a system, it's meant to all work together to the benefit of its citizens. It provides different things to different people, and many of the things it does we can say "oh I don't need that". But without the system as a whole, chances are we'd be uneducated, unhealthy, isolated and unproductive.
For child tax benefits in particular, there's a bit more to it. The government believes a stable or slightly growing population is important to maintaining a prosperous society (Japan is looking at a troubling demographic/economic future because its population is aging so rapidly). The tax benefits are a way of encouraging reproduction, and increasing the chances of children growing up to be productive members of society. That is thought to be of benefit to society as a whole, and so to you as a member of society, and is no different to other policies the government pays for but you may not benefit proportionately from (which runs the gamut of all sorts of things - NASA, the wars, research funding and so on). TastyCakes (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tired of my tax dollars going to the National Helium Reserve! I've never once ridden in an airship! APL (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but don't you feel warm and fuzzy inside knowing your children and maybe even your children's children will be able to make their voices sound funny whenever they want? TastyCakes (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

More even than the benefit of children who grow up to be productive members of society, imagine the loss that comes from children who grow up in deprivation (physical or emotional) and become unproductive members of society. It is better and cheaper (even just from an economics point of view) to provide better conditions and help when they are children, than to deal with the adults they will become. This is on top of the benefit to society of most children, and the moral element. 86.178.229.168 (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind the ranting, what about the facts requested please? 89.242.107.166 (talk) 11:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We've already answered that. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 11:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reading my question again perhaps I was at fault in not precisely specifying that I meant the amount paid per single childless adult, not collectively. The former has not been answered. The later has been answered vaguely but I appreciate it may be difficult to estimate. 89.242.107.166 (talk) 12:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's bl@@dy difficult to understand the cost 'collectively' don't you think it might be even more difficult to say it down to an individual person level? Nobody knows how much tax you (or the individual you have in mind pays) and costs will vary hugely between person to person. A 'normal' person can expect to pay around 45% tax on their money (including VAT on purchases etc. etc.) but as noted it's difficult to estimate how much of that is directly for 'children' and how much is indirectly. . 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since I live below a Metro in orange county, I only been able to see few black people and over 60% of the black people I know is born father being black and mother being white. If I want to go tho a place to see all kinds of mix, then where should I go to see the truth. yes, I know my sample size is 1/100, will San Francisco and Downtown Los Angeles make me see all kinds.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the data i want the map shown in blue or dark turquoise is the most populate in the USA. Once largest multiracial group is Glendale, CA, about the place the NBC is. Also KCAL is in Hollywood, CA If I contact Lisa Sigell by e-mail, she might have all the informations about multiracial peoples.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of all of the places and unincorporated communities in California with a column for % "two or more races." The highest percentage of multiracial people among communities of at least 1,000 people is in Hilmar-Irwin, California and the lowest is in Belvedere, California. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does international law allow civilian police forces to take prisoners of war? NeonMerlin 19:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking with the recent airline bombing attempt in mind? I haven't heard anyone bringing that issue up, I assume it's not a problem and I don't really see why it should be - the circumstances of the "crime" or act should determine if it's dealt with in a civilian court or a military one, not who makes the arrest. TastyCakes (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two requirements: 1) the prisoner in question was a combatant; and 2) was captured in an armed conflict. An attempted bombing of an aircraft is not likely to be an armed conflict except by a very strained interpretation of the term. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorists aside, the answer seems to be yes. I have read a number of accounts of WWII Luftwaffe airmen being arrested by the local policeman after being shot down over Britain. The film Hope and Glory depicts this scenario. This account [14] tells of two Home Guardsmen detaining German airmen pending the arrival of a police inspector. Alansplodge (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if that's the end of it. The actual Geneva conventions treat civilian police forces quite differently depending on whether or not the country's at war. I don't know much more beyond that, but I think that civilian police in a war scenario might change legal status under the conventions. I cannot be sure about that, but using wartime examples to prove a general point I know is probably not completely accurate. Shadowjams (talk) 08:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely there has to be a war before you can have Prisoners of War? Alansplodge (talk) 09:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the diffs between unmarry couples (cohabiting without beign marry) and fully marry couple. isteve.com intro when black/white/asian coupld be marry or unmoarry partners. It is the first time I've hear about cohabiting unmarry. What is that?--209.129.85.4 (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cohabitating means "living together". So, you have people who live together because they are married, and then people who live together without ever being officially married. In some jursidictions, this may qualify them as being common-law married; that is sometimes people who live together as though they are married may be considered legally so even if they never went through the ceremony. --Jayron32 21:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between a married cohabiting couple and an unmarried cohabiting couple is that the married couple has gone through a wedding ceremony. Marnanel (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is blue link said 82% of black-white couples cohabiting is males, it is probably meant unmarry couples. When I earlier try to make conclusion, people thought I misunderstood by thought this meant to marry couples.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, the correct phrase is "married couple", not "marry couple" (and, likely, "unmarried couple"). --Tango (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually what the link says is: "In fact, 82% of blacks cohabiting with whites are male." It is a confusing sentence, but the author is talking about male-female couples that are unmarried but live together and are in a sexual relationship, so she means to say that out of the interracial black-white couples in the study, 82% were "a black man with a white woman", and 18% were "a white man with a black woman". Caution: The paper she links to is not a peer-reviewed study; it is an unpublished conference paper. On Wikipedia, we prefer better sources. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage confers certain legal benefits that cohabitation does not. That's part of the reason some have pushed for same-sex marriages to be legalized. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on the jurisdiction. In some places a cohabiting couple, after a certain time, are considered exactly the same as married. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any difference between the Modern Judaism's founding legal and ethical religious texts and the Old Testament of the Bible? Do they consist the same stories? 174.114.236.41 (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking of the text of the Torah has changed since ancient times? Or are you asking of modern Judaism has "founding legal and ethical religious texts" besides the Torah? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Judaism really took form after the Destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. As a religion, the focus changed greatly since the center of worship (what religious scholars call its axis mundi) was destroyed, it changed the fundemental nature of what Judaism was about. Jews don't sacrifice goats anymore, and there are no more priests in Judaism as there were up until the 1st century AD. While there are threads in Judaism that go all the way back to the Patriarchal age, it has changed greatly over 3000 years, and is a very different religion than it was even 1000 years ago. --Jayron32 01:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Old Testament of the Bible is merely a fraction of the legal and ethical religious texts of Judaism, though your premise reveals what is a common misconception. The Old Testament (and, more specifically, the Five Books of Moses) presents an almost incomprehensible array of law snippets (i.e. Written Law) that cannot be understood without the missing details provided by the Oral Torah. I can give you an exceedingly long list of examples if you'd like (in a different forum, though). But, no, there is no difference, assuming you modify your question to read, "Old Testament + accompanying Oral Law." To contest Jayron's assertions, Judaism is not a different religion than it was 1000 years ago -- it is merely a truncated religion, being that only 270/613 of the traditionally enumerated biblical laws are applicable today in the absence of the Temple in Jerusalem. And the fact that the Temple was destroyed doesn't mean that the founding legal and ethical religious texts differ at all. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite true. The texts still exist, as do the oral traditions. However, a large part of a religion is in the interpretation of and the enactment of those texts and traditions, and I'm not sure that modern Jews and, say, those from the time of Solomon or even from the time of the destruction of the temple would necessarily recognize each other all that well. They'd easily all consider eachother Jews, but they would certainly recognize fundemental differences in the way they practiced their Judaism. That the texts do not change does not mean that the religion does not change. The religion is not equal to the texts alone. --Jayron32 02:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your response hardly seems appropriate, seeing that the OP did not ask about the modern practice of Judaism vs. that of years ago, but rather if the founding texts of modern-day Judaism differs from the OT, which can be reworded to say, I suspect, "Is modern-day Judaism based on the Torah?" (my modification suggested above being worked into this rewording). And your supposition that Jews from various ages would not recognize each other -- I see no real problem of recognition after a sense of perspective settles in. Sure, Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai wasn't on Facebook, but would he not recognize me as doing my best to keep the laws in the absence of the Temple, as he was forced to modify his life (he lived on the cusp of the destruction)? And would Moses not recognize RYbZ -- for there was but a wandering Mishkan? Sure, there are temporal and social and technological differences that change the way Jews lived over the ages -- even between now and in Europe in the 1800s -- but a different religion? Certainly Judaism will still be Judaism when the Temple is rebuilt and sacrificial offerings recommence -- the religion doesn't change, even if the relative availability and appropriateness of practice does over time from Sinai to Israel to Exile and back. The focus may change, but the religion will have sustained a theological and theoretical (the latter in the absence of practice) continuum. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at it this way; I have changed in the past 10 years of my life, but I am not a different person, and yet I am different than I was ten years ago. I am still me, but a me that has changed after ten years of experiences in the world. Likewise, Judaism has changed in the 3000 years since the wanderings in the desert. It doesn't make it a different religion, but it does make it different. --Jayron32 05:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron said "there are no more priests in Judaism as there were up until the 1st century AD". That's only partially true. Less orthodox strands of Judaism have done away with priests altogether. In orthodox Judaism, the Kohen retains some of his ritual duties (such as Pidyon Haben, and all of his traditional status in Jewish society. --Dweller (talk) 07:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To the OP: yes, there's a massive difference. For one, the Bible does not contain all of the traditional stories - many are in the Midrash and texts derived from it. Orthodox Judaism would view a large proportion of those Midrashic stories as original and as old as the Bible. (Eg the Bible tells us virtually nothing of Abraham's life before he's an old man. The Midrash does.)

As you're also interested in "legal texts", you also notably omit the Oral Torah, that traditional Judaism says was given to the Jews at Mount Sinai. A Jewish teacher might say - on Mt Sinai, Moses was handed the two tablets of stone. That took maybe 2 minutes. So what do you think he was doing for the remaining 40 days and nights? He was studying the Oral law. --Dweller (talk) 07:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there are differences. But that is because the world is different. The old testament, or the torah, remains unchanged, or at least that is an important intention. In fact even interpretation of it remains unchanged. But application of it requires adaptation to an ever-changing world. Everything is a story. When you read the newspaper you are reading stories. Their reality and importance is not diminished by their being merely stories. Obviously, different people derive different meaning from the same "story." The Jewish "meaning" derived from the torah is the same now as thousands of years ago, or at least that is an important intention. The significance of those stories is applied today to some additional circumstances than existed in times long past. Judaism requires informed participants due to the need to remain true to the "...legal and ethical religious texts and the Old Testament of the Bible." Thus the emphasis on scholarship and worship in Judaism. Judaism is said to be an "action" religion. (Christianity and Judaism: "Judaism places emphasis on actions…") Thus the real crux of the matter is not only the existence of the same texts, containing the same stories, but the constant application of the lessons derived from those stories to modern day lives. Modern day Judaism is supposed to be the same as that practiced a very long time ago for the important reason that it is practiced by real events and actions (by positive and negative injunctions) in everyday life. That is the relationship between "Today's Judaism Torah and the Bibical [sic] Old Testament." The question may be ultimately unanswerable. But I think it is important to note that the intention of observant Jews is to adhere to the directives of the torah now as then. Bus stop (talk) 12:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To the various responders: there seems to be an odd sort of phenomenon here in the sense that questions dealing with religion in general that drum up focused debate on Judaism tend to elicit questions of "how is this relevant," but a focused question here on whether the founding legal and ethical religious texts and the Old Testament of the Bible differ conjures up a wide ranging discussion on Judaism throughout the ages -- something about which is not being asked. If there is no Temple now, there certainly cannot be Temple service, but that doesn't undermine the founding text. The issue of "Bible" versus "Torah" is an important one, and certainly forms the basis for the OP's question and any appropriate answer -- but digression onto any and all other topics in Judaism seems ill suited for this discussion. I mean, we don't blow shofar and trumpets on fast days anymore, but that has nothing to do with the founding text remaining the OT (and related/associated texts to modify the "Bible" into the "Torah"). DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, which is why my response to the OP focussed on texts. In summary, the OT hasn't changed, but it's not the only text to consider in terms of "founding legal and ethical religious texts" --Dweller (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then to you was the focus of my comment on was not on your posts :) DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On what grounds can the federal (United States) government criminalize marijuana (medical or not), if a state chooses to have it legalized/decriminalized? I don't understand where Feds have the delegated power to overrule states (in this case about Marijuana), if the power is not assigned to them in the first place (Constitution). Isn't that the point of the tenth amendment? If federal legislators (US Congress), chooses to pass any law, how can the State exercise its own sovereignty?

My question is essentially, how can the 10th amendment and the supremacy clause coexist? The mandate to outlaw marijuana is not in the US Constitution.

So if Congress passes a law that is clearly tyrannical, unfair, and unjust, by what means can State(s) challenge the law? Wouldn't all states be bound to following it by the code of the supremacy clause? One would obviously say the State could merely choose not to follow the statute imposed, but this led to the Civil War. And speaking of which, wasn't the Civil War an infraction of the 10th amendment by the Union (Lincoln)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxefremov (talk • contribs) 01:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One possibility is the regulation of interstate commerce, which the federal government is constitutionally authorized to do. However, there is probably an article on this subject somewhere. Start with Marijuana and see where it takes you (article-wise, I mean). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, that's exactly what it is - Interstate Commerce clause, as discussed in Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to keep in mind is that the Supreme court has very rarely ruled laws unconstitutional based on the Tenth Amendment. In fact, the only times that it has ruled laws unconstitutional based on the tenth amendment has been when "the federal government compels the states to enforce federal statutes". So if the federal government, for example, forced states to pass their own laws criminalizing marijuana, then their might be a reasonable Tenth amendment arguement. However, as our article on the Tenth amendment mentions, and Bugs alludes to, the federal government does have the ability to "pre-empt state law" through the commerce clause (in fact, reading the cannabis in the United States Article, I see that this is how the federal law criminilizing marijuana was passed).

So it certainly appears that criminilizing marijuana (as a federal statute) is OK, and as long as it's federal officers going after offenders, there should be no problem. Of course, marijuana is illegel in most states too, so it's generally state or local troopers who are catching marijuana offenders. But if a state decriminalizes marijuana, I don't think that the federal government could compel state cops to help them bust users. Buddy431 (talk) 02:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the commerce clause only covers interstate commerce, so the Feds can, for example, throw you in jail for transporting marijuana across state lines. However, where drugs are legalized on the state level, the Feds generally cannot interfere if there is no "interstate" nature of the drug trade. For example, I am pretty sure that, if its legal to smoke pot in a state, as long as the pot so smoked is grown and transported entirely within the state, the feds have no say what goes on with it. That being said, most states consider marijuana fully illegal, so what the federal gov't has to say on the matter is moot; it is state laws that come into play in most cases. Even with so-called "hard drugs", most offenders are taken care of on the state level; the Feds really only become involved in taking down large interstate or international drug trade operations, not on street level dealers or users. --Jayron32 02:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Gonzales v. Raich. According to the decision, "Congress' power to regulate purely local activities that are part of an economic "class of activities" that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce is firmly established." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. Before 2005, it appears my assertions were correct, but I was not up-to-date on recent Supreme Court rulings... --Jayron32 03:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, not exactly. Since Gibbons v. Ogden the federal government's power has expanded, and really since the 1930s most currently illegal drugs (that existed then) were illegal. Somewhat recently the federal power has quit expanding, the example being United States v. Lopez, which was the first SC case since the 30s to actually restrain the commerce clause. But BaseballBugs perhaps underplays the importance of the 10th amendment. The 10th actually gets mentioned more than you might think, perhaps to little effect, but it's still around. If you really want to get into state sovereignty see Hines v. Davidowitz. You should be running away screaming by now. Shadowjams (talk) 08:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, Buddy's absolutely right too. For a good example of that see Printz v. United States, which is exactly the issue he's talking about. Shadowjams (talk) 08:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What could be tyrrannical about wanting to rid the world of filthy drugs ? Some claim these things expand their mind, forgetting that if anything, it controls them even more than any government, repressive, or otherwise. I guess suggesting the US get rid of its federal system is a big no no. In principle, if your Founding Fathers gave you laws, which your federal government claims to live by, they must obey them. I wasn't aware though that individual states could legalise Marijuana. I hope each individual state legislature sees sense. One drug leads to another, and the little spider monkey of cannibis grows into the King Kong of Heroin. Just Say No. The Russian Christopher Lilly 12:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just say no to alcohol and tobacco also, while you're at it. Their being legal is not important, they're still bad for you. Medical marijuana at least has some theoretical benefit (as with "medicinal use" of alcohol during the Prohibition era). The issue really is whether the government has the "moral" right to tell you what to consume. Drew Carey said it in this pithy way: "I don't think the government has the right to limit the ways I can hurt myself!" But the other side of the argument is that these laws theoretically emanate from we the people, and if we want them changed we have to get the Congress to change them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that no air conditioning manufacturer sell air conditioning unit that the owener can turn on from the internet? 139.130.1.226 (talk) 02:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Sounds like an opportunity to me. Maxefremov (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is - this one is controllable using the X10 system, which in turn can be controlled over the Internet. I'm sure there are other X10 enabled devices for the home, and similarly many office/factory HVAC systems are controlled via LonWorks, which again can be bridged over, or controlled via, the Internet. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 02:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know 10-20 of the most popular Songs during the Harlem renaissance and there names??? thanks everyone :) !!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvgofishband (talk • contribs)

This site seems to be an excellent source of information. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear folks: Its almost 3 in the morning and for 3 hours have been reading page after page and link after link on the Weather underground, Only because I was looking for info on the Weather ie rain, snow, clouds and things like that. I got caught up in the 60's 70's and 80's holy cow! I'm trying to find out how or what the link is between a hostile radical orginization (fighting the Gov't) called the Weatherunderground turned into a Weather station called the Weatherunderground ? 72.74.212.20 (talk) 07:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From Weather Underground (weather service): "Based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, it was founded in 1995 as an offshoot of the University of Michigan's Internet weather database. The name is a tongue-in-cheek reference to the 1960s militant radical leftist student group the Weather Underground, which also originated at the University of Michigan." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 12:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the radical organization Weather Underground Organization took its name as a metaphor from a Bob Dylan song that spoke of a change in the weather (as in the political climate or whatever). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The History Channel aired this presentation on the eighth anniversary of 9/11. It was called, "Hotel Ground Zero." Some surviving guests who were staying at the Marriott World Trade Center Hotel told their stories about what happened on that fateful morning. Those surviving guests were in a reinforced section of the hotel when the towers collapsed. (That particular section was reinforced after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. The bomb went off beneath the hotel ballroom.) Shouldn't any of this be mentioned in the article about Marriott International?24.90.204.234 (talk) 08:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should discus it on that specific talk page. Shadowjams (talk) 08:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What proportion of the Vatican Library, the Vatican Secret Archives, and similar libraries have been catalogued in modern times? Could there be for example classic works of literature waiting to be discovered? 89.242.107.166 (talk) 13:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to think so, ever since the Alexandrian Library was destroyed so long ago. Shame us normal people aren't allowed in, but even a Protestant like me would be interested to find out. Scandals. Murders. Conspiracies. And after them, all the real interesting stuff, like the proof to his theorem that Fermat couldn't fit on his margin. I suspect they have done a bit. I saw the documentary that Brit did on the Sistine Chapel and its link to Waco. He got in there, and also got to read rare books, but whether any in the Vatican for his research I know not. Shame for them to keep all that stuff to themselves, especially if they got it from someone else. The Russian Christopher Lilly 13:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming that Christopher Lilly's comments are meant ironically - or else he's been reading too much Dan Brown. The Vatican Library is open to properly qualified researchers. Is there any reason to think it is not fully catalogued? Some museums have backlogs, and backrooms, that they haven't got around to processing yet, but I don't know of any reason to suppose there is anything significant yet to be discovered. The Secret Archives are not secret in the modern sense, and documents up to 1939 are available to outsiders. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Vatican Library has most likely been fully catalogued long ago. The Secret Archives may also have been catalogued, but depending on the method of cataloging, the actual knowledge of most of the documents in the archive may be more or less unknown. Because of the sheer number of documents in most archives, they are rarely catalogued individually, instead bundles or collections of documents are usually catalogued based on donator, year or area of origin or even just its location in the archive. Of course this means that the Secret Archives are liable to contain a lot more interesting discoveries for the future. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a documentary not that long ago on the Nuremburg executions. The Wikipedia article says John C. Woods may have " accidentally " botched the killings, but the documentary says he did it on purpose. Now although I support what they did, considering these men butchered millions, such that not killing them would seem to devalue those lives they took, I do not approve of making them suffer. I see no point in that. They are going to die, that is enough. But what then is the truth, and why does the wiki article differ from what was claimed on TV ? The Russian Christopher Lilly 13:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What was the TV show's source for their claims? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Your premise that they should not have suffered is not universal. You may possess an emotional/moral drive for A, while someone else may possess a drive for B, and for those who contend that morals are subjective, your disapproval of their suffering is not a concern. This is not my position, just my critique of your comment. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He did ask what the truth of the matter is, and what I was trying to tell him is that "the truth" from wikipedia's standpoint must come from valid sources. Somebody making an assertion on a TV show is not necessarily a good source, since for all we know they could be making it up. But if reliable and independent sources make that claim, there could be something to it and it could be considered for the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what is solar system —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.254.205.202 (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Solar System --Jac16888^Talk 15:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The term comes from "sol", which is the Latin word for the sun. That root appears in other terms, such as solar eclipse and the summer and winter solstices. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's also one of our broader featured topics - especially when you include the Dwarf Planets. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To cut a long story short: A friend and I were persuaded by our teacher to sign up to an anti-discrimination project at our school. The aim is to create a project that will put the participants into the position of the person or group of people being discriminated and thus help them understand the problems this person/group of people have to deal with. My friend landed himself 'Discrimination of the pysically handicapped' so he is going to have the participants tie one hand behind their back, and then get them to open bottles etc with only one hand. I was wondering if anyone had any ideas as to something I could do to demonstrate a similar point, only in relation to my project 'Discrimination of Homosexuals'. I'd really like to help make a difference, but I can't see how I could make my project as memorable as that of my friend. I'd be grateful for any hints or tips anyone could give me. Thanks in advance! ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.227.83.88 (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This does not look like an altogether serious question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disappoint, but it really is...--217.227.83.88 (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. The obvious forms of discrimination would be impossible to simulate properly in a classroom setting - not getting a job, for example, due to one's homosexuality. The marriage issue is an obvious one, but again, how do you simulate that? Unless you sit down and have the group work out how much they save if they're married (healthcare, taxes, etc), and then tell half the class "You can't get married, so you don't get this money". But it's pretend money and a pretend marriage - not really an effective or memorable lesson. Might want to trade it in for color-blindness or tone-deafness. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I can come up with is to wear a sign that says "GAY" and to instruct others to treat those with the signs differently than if they didn't have the sign. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That might work, actually. The awkward bit would be ensuring that, while you create fake hostility toward fake gay students, you don't end up stirring real hostility toward real gay students, out or otherwise. It's touchy. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps 217's teacher had something in mind like the exercise that Iowa teacher Jane Elliot did with her students. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]