Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities: Difference between revisions

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

December 6

World War Three

Assume that a war of Iran vs. USA starts next year. What are the chances that China and North Korea will ally with Iran, and take advantage of the situation and attempt the reaquisition of Taiwan and South Korea, stating WWIII? Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

We have zero way of predicting the future on here. But North Korea is a poverty state at this point. China will probably get Taiwan back from just sitting around long enough. Neither really has any incentive to start a proxy war with the US. China is unlikely to risk the crippling sanctions that would follow if they took Taiwan by force. If either had wanted to take advantage of the US being militarily overdrawn, they could have done it anytime during the last decade. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I do sincerely hope you're wrong about your third sentence. Unless, of course, sitting around long enough, they'll become a liberal country; then that would be fine. --Trovatore (talk) 03:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Probably not, but I suspect it would look something like the situation in Hong Kong (see One country, two systems), which isn't so bad. But I'm not a Sinologist. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It isn't so bad for now. That deal is only good for fifty years, of which what, eleven or twelve are already gone? I very much hope that, long before that time expires, China will be a very different place — but if I were Taiwanese and had kids, I wouldn't want to bet on it. --Trovatore (talk) 02:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

If I were an American (which technically I am) and I had kids (I don't and won't), I wouldn't bet on it being a great place to live in 50 years, either. Just an observation. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, there are lots of ways the whole world could get less pleasant, but that's kind of orthogonal to the point. I'm much more confident that America will have a liberal political system fifty years from now than I am that China will. --Trovatore (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

China: 0.000000000. Losing its second biggest export market, presumably followed soon after by its largest (European Union), would wreck its economy and destabilize the regime. Besides, even if China were nutty enough to try it, the U.S. Navy wouldn't have a whole lot to do, so it would still be a bit of a bother getting across the Taiwan Strait in one piece. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Look at Europe! I think the next World War will be ignited where all major wars seem to start, in Europe. And it will start because of the "peace and prosperity bringing" Euro. I'd rather have a "great and benevolent leader" than this dictatorship in disguise. This will be ridiculed a lot in history books, because it was released just months before the world really understood what the consequences of a forced idealized world invented by politicians could be. Joepnl (talk) 03:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe a WWIII could otherwise be started thus: Israel launches a preemptive strike against Iran. Russia has good relations with Iran, so it joins Iran in retaliation. USA and UK which is an ally of Israel, joins the conflict and goes to war with Russia. China and North Korea are inturn allies with Russia, they see opportunity for territorial expansion, North Korea with the help of Russia invades South Korea. Enter the other nations. Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

BTW there's no alliance between the UK and Israel. Alansplodge (talk) 13:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It could also be started by mermaids invading Japan and tricking them into attacking China, then space aliens step in and get China to attack Hawaii. Finally, the hedgehogs turn out to be super-intelligent and figure out how to down all the military spy satellites, causing everyone to point fingers at one another - oh, and the worms have machine guns. Why not? We're not discussing something that is referenced on a reference desk. We're just making childish banter about make believe. -- kainaw™ 04:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? My speculation is based on existing political relations and attitudes. Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

You are speculating. That belongs on a message board, not on a reference desk. In case it isn't obvious, this is a reference desk. -- kainaw™ 04:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I did say that I was speculating, I was just pointing out that China's involvement isn't key in initiating a world war. Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Russia is never ever going to risk World War III for Iran. Kainaw's scenario is just as likely. Hedgehogs ... and gophers. Yeah, that's it. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Otters. 20.137.18.53 (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Why then did Russia's foreign minister just give a warning that an attack by Israel on Iran would be a "serious mistake" with "unpredictable consequences"? What are their intentions then? Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this almost how WWI started? Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

This is the story you're referring to and it's clear that Lavrov was not saying that Russia would retaliate against Israel. As Clarityfiend says, that is never going to happen. --Viennese Waltz 10:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The scenario under discussion was, I believe, Israel taking unilateral action against Iran without the support of its allies. If that happened, and you ended up with a war between just Iran and Israel (with everyone else staying back for fear of escalating the conflict), then the consequences would be unpredicatable. Israel could only guarantee victory with US help, and it's hard to say whether the US would get involved or not - it has relations with Russia and China to think about (they wouldn't go to outright war with the US over it, of course, but have other ways to influence US policy). --Tango (talk) 12:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, but I don't understand why you seem so sure of yourself that Russia won't enter the conflict. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Because why would they? Why would they risk international condemnation by getting involved in a protracted and expensive military conflict? What would they get out of it? --Viennese Waltz 11:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

To put in another way... This is a REFERENCE DESK. Instead of asking "Would Russia enter some imaginary conflict in the future?", you should ask "Has Russia demonstrated that it would enter a conflict under some specific set of events?" Then, we can reiterate that Russia has not demonstrated anything like that and the discussion is over. -- kainaw™ 15:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Also note that while Russia may have good relations with Iran, that doesn't mean they want a new nuclear power that close to their southern border, especially since all of Iran's neighbors would then start their own nuclear programs, so they could defend themselves. The net result of a nuclear Iran is a far more dangerous situation for Russia. StuRat (talk) 16:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The advantage to Russia for a nuclear or quasi-nuclear Iran is that it ties up the United States and may complicate the Middle East (which raises the oil prices that the Russian economy is rather dependent on). I'm not sure Moscow perceives Iran as being terribly close to its borders. I'm not sure it's that worried about blowback from a regional Middle Eastern war. I suspect its worst fears of such an eventuality come from the possibility of loose nukes getting to Chechnya, but that's not a guaranteed or necessarily likely thing. I don't know. If I were Russia I wouldn't mind a nuclear Iran. If I believed in deterrence at all I wouldn't necessarily believe it increases Russian risk very much. It's a long way from Tehran to Moscow. The idea that nuclear weapons necessarily make things difficult for everybody is primarily held in the United States, because the United States enjoys the greatest freedom of action around the world. For other countries, though, a hampered United States is actually a boon, because it grants them greater latitude in their respective regions. A US involved in the Middle East is a US that is reasonably pliable with regards to Russia, especially if Pakistan can't keep a lid on its own troubles, which gives Russia an opportunity to be Very Good Friend to US. But this is just blue skying of things (though you can see pretty similar sentiments in the NY Times editorial pages the last few weeks). I just wanted to point out that there are a lot of different ways to analyze the strategic situation of a nuclear Iran other than "everybody would be unhappy." --Mr.98 (talk) 22:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe Russia is closer to Iran than Israel is, and within range of missiles which Iran possesses. I'd think of it like how the US would view a nuclear Mexico (or Guatemala, if you prefer). We have no reason to fear a nuclear attack anytime soon, but who knows what governments those nations might have in the future. Iran could very well be the next in line for the wave of revolutions in the Muslim world, and a pro-US nation might emerge. And, if not, don't forget that Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and even Afghanistan might well feel threatened enough by Iran's nukes to get their own, either by developing their own or by having US nukes stationed there as a credible deterrent. StuRat (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Russia cities and industrial centers (and nuclear facilities) are spread over a wide geographic area that is quite far from Iran. It's not comparable with Israel. Neither is the state of the Russian deterrent. There's no way in hell that it would ever be in Iran's interest to get into a shooting war with Russia. I think a Russian strategist could see this as a very unlikely outcome. I don't think a nuclear Iran would particularly worry Moscow. I'm not sure a nuclear Saudi Arabia would either — this is a regional nuclear arms race, not one with much threat of expanding to be much more international. Iraq is unlikely to get into the WMD business anytime soon; Afghanistan utterly lacks the infrastructure and expertise, much less the motivation (a nuclear Iran would not change their security situation, except making them even more important for Americans; the US does not need to put nukes in Afghanistan to have a credible deterrent, it's one of the pluses of having ICBMs, SLBMs, cruise missiles, and B-2s). Comparing Russian attitudes with American ones is misleading — Russia has lived with nuclear states on their borders for decades, and there is really no possibility that they will ever live in any other state of things, as long as there are nukes. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

(Lest you suspect that it is too outrageous for an existing nuclear state to think that regional nuclear acquisition could work in their interest, note that this is exactly the reason that France helped Israel get the bomb in the 1960s — to tie up the Egyptians so they couldn't interfere with French interests in Northern Africa — and exactly the reason that China helped Pakistan get the bomb in the 1980s — to tie up India and the United States. It's not far-fetched for regional nuclear development to be strategically advantageous for other nuclear powers. The only country that never benefits from such an outcome is the USA, because the USA is the one who always stands to lose freedom of action, because they're the only country, these days, who tries to have the ability to project power everywhere.) --Mr.98 (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

US nukes aren't a credible deterrent because nobody believes they would be used against a nation with nukes of it's own, unless the US was nuked first. As far as Afghanistan goes, if it returns to being controlled by Pakistan via their Inter-Services Intelligence agency and the Taliban, then Pakistan may very well arm them to prevent an Iranian takeover. And just as the Taliban felt it was bad manners to refuse hospitality to al Queada, they would also not want to be rude in refusing to sell nukes to Chechen rebels. StuRat (talk) 04:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you know what "deterrent" means? Your first sentence suggests not. And the idea that Pakistan would give Afghanistan a nuclear program is just silly. They like to play with fire but they aren't stupid. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes I know what a deterrent is, and if everybody knows the US won't use it's weapons, then they cease to work as a deterrent, say if Iran chose to nuke Iraq in a repeat of the Iran-Iraq war. The problem with Pakistan is that nobody appears to be in charge, and the ISI, in particular, does whatever it damn well pleases with no apparent accounting to anyone. I don't know if they have access to nukes, but it's not out of the question. If the ISI saw Afghanistan about to fall to Iran, you bet they would do anything in their power to stop it. StuRat (talk) 14:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

...Why? Presumably Iran would be as ineffective at taking over Afghanistan as everyone else who has ever tried to do that. And why would Iran want to take over Afghanistan in the first place? This whole thread makes absolutely no sense. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

If people believe that the US will use its nuclear weapons in the event of a nuclear attack, and thus decline to nuke the US, then it makes the US in possession of a credible deterrent. I think you're getting mixed up on that point. The fact that the US (probably) won't use the weapons first doesn't get rid of the fact that they are a credible deterrent. If you mean that they will not deter all forms of attack, that's clear, but that's not what deterrence is really about. Now if you mean that the US nukes are not a deterrent against Iran nuking other countries — it depends. In the past the US has expanded its "nuclear umbrella" to include various other nations it considers important enough to risk nuclear war. (What would actually occur is of course unknown. I suspect, as did many Europeans in the 1980s, that the US would be willing to lose quite a lot of good friends if it avoided a real nuclear exchange in the process. Fortunately we never had to find out. The uncertainty in such a proposition, though, probably does have a deterrent effect.) I don't know whether it would do so in the case of Iraq; probably not. But I don't see why it would move missiles to Afghanistan as a result of that — it wouldn't be changing the strategic calculus at all. (The US would certainly not give nukes to Afghanistan.) The ISI is indeed a pretty rogue group but they are still not a stupid group. Everything they do is pretty calculated. I don't see them ever coming to the conclusion that a nuclear Afghanistan is in their interests — the country is just too unstable. I also don't see the ISI and Iran as being necessarily opposed to one another — they have a lot of shared interests. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

You're finally starting to understand, I think, that US nuclear weapons are no deterrent against Iran nuking it's neighbors, unless they are placed in those nations. As for Afghanistan being terribly unstable, well, so is Pakistan, but it didn't stop them. And Iran seems very interested in controlling it's neighbors, and has for decades now. StuRat (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The US would still control said nuclear weapons, so there's no difference in basing them closer or not. It would still be the US using them. The US would not (and has never done so) give another country nuclear weapons under their own control. And there's a world of difference between Pakistan developing its own nuclear weapons and Pakistan giving them to another country. And Iran is of course interested in controlling (certain) actions of its neighbors, as is Israel, Saudi Arabia, the United States, the United Kingdom, and any other nation that has enough organization for an active foreign policy. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

From a strategic standpoint, I don't see any advantage for Russia in going to actual war with Israel over Iran. Warning Israel that preliminary attacks would have unpredictable consequences is not exactly limited to Russia (frankly it is kind of obvious). I don't think Russia wants (more) actual war in the region, but I don't see them as a participant. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Awesome answer 98, that is exactly the kind of answer that I'm looking for. Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Been there, didn’t do that. Let’s say, just for argument’s sake, that the United States launches an unprovoked war of aggression against Iraq. I mean, Iran. Wouldn’t China take advantage of this elective war to launch its own? Well, they didn’t so we can probably concluded that they won’t. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Stalin speaking Georgian

Is there any recording of Stalin speaking Georgian? LANTZY^TALK 06:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

According to this site, "it is reported that in his last years his ability to speak Russian deteriorated, and he spoke only in Georgian". They don't seem to give a reference for this, though. 130.88.99.217 (talk) 11:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The second chapter of the book Stalin: A New History says that Stalin "never became a Georgian nationalist, although he was Georgian by birth, language, and the formative culture of his childhood." Gabbe (talk) 12:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought it just barely possible that he had made a radio address or something in his native language. LANTZY^TALK 21:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I need to find the cheapest community college in Kansas.

Unfortunately, Google doesn't do a price-search on community colleges, and there's no known interface like autotrader.com where we can sort colleges in a given state, by price.

Therefore, what community college offers the lowest cost per credit-hour (and fees, perhaps, so maybe overall as well)?

(If you'd like, you can list the cheapest 5 or 10 community colleges in Kansas.) Thanks. --70.179.174.101 (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

First off, are you sure that prices vary at all ? Since community colleges often receive state grants, it wouldn't surprise me if they insisted on regulating the price per credit hour in return. StuRat (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The prices apparently do vary. Visiting the websites for Allen County and Barton, I discovered that for Kansas residents, the former costs $75 per credit hour, the latter $84. Repeating the process for the remaining 17 Kansas CCs would yield the least expensive. Not the most elegant approach, I realize. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me influence my future choices. They're a possibility, but probably won't be within 1 1/4 hours of Lindsborg. (In this case, what cheapest colleges would be? Thanks.) --70.179.174.101 (talk) 05:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

If Kansas is similar to Pennsylvania, its community colleges will have three levels of tuition:

• Lowest, for in-county or in-region residents
• Middle, for residents of other Kansas counties or regions
• Highest, for non-residents of Kansas.

If I'm correct, the cheapest one for you will likely be the one closest to you. Nyttend (talk) 01:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

While not apparently equal to some other states, the Kansas Lottery appears to have funding specifically for community colleges. That should be taken into account as it is not a loan so it is clearly a reduction in fees paid. -- kainaw™ 02:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

This page by the Kansas State Dept. of Education lists all CCs in the state, and has a map indicating where each is located. It provides links to each college. By visiting the website of the community colleges closest to Lindsborg and entering the word tuition in the search box on the front page, you can determine which is the cheapest per credit hour. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 13:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Josef Bühler's foot

In his (post mortem) appearance in the alternate-history novel Fatherland, Josef Bühler has a porcelain prosthetic foot. Did the real Bühler have one? I can't find any source that says he did, suggesting the foot is alternate not history. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 17:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Other name on the second term's ballot

When, if ever, has a two-term US President run with another vice president running mate on the ballot for the second term? 20.137.18.53 (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks like FDR had a different running mate on the ballot for each of his three terms, but I asked for two-termers that had different running mates on the ballot the second time around. 20.137.18.53 (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Abe Lincoln had Hannibal Hamlin for his first term and Andrew Johnson for his second. Johnson acceded to the presidency; Hamlin missed out. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I wonder what happened to Hannibal Hamlin ? Was he busy driving elephants across a mountain range or employed to lure rats out of town, only to feast on them with chianti and fava beans ? StuRat (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

FDR was elected four times, not three. He had the same running mate, John Nance Garner in 1932 and 1936, Henry Wallace in 1940, and Truman in 1944. Thomas Jefferson had Aaron Burr for his first term and George Clinton for his second. James Madison had George Clinton for his first term and Elbridge Gerry for his second, but Clinton had died, so Madison couldn't keep the same running mate. Andrew Jackson had John C. Calhoun for his first term and Martin van Buren for his second. Ulysses S. Grant had Schuyler Colfax for his first term and Henry Wilson for his second. McKinley had Garrett A. Hobart for his first term and Teddy Roosevelt for his second, but again, Hobart had died. Pais (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

(EC) William McKinley - his first VP died in 1899 before the 1900 election. (Then McKinley was killed in 1901.) Rmhermen (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I see Grover Cleveland had Thomas Hendricks his first time and Adlai E. Stevenson his second. 20.137.18.53 (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

He wasn't elected the second time, but Theodore Roosevelt had a different running mate, Hiram Johnson, when he ran in 1912 than he had for vice president from 1905-1909, Charles W. Fairbanks. --Jayron32 20:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

¶ This one happens to be right up my alley, since I've gone over it in a completely amateur way so many times (and the tickets that stuck together is one of the only two Sporcle quizzes I ever created, although one that only a hundred people have tried.) An asterisk (*) and strikeout type indicates a lost bid for re-election.

1. John Adams 1796 Thomas Pinckney (Federalist); 1800* Charles Cotesworth Pinckney (Fed.)
2. Thomas Jefferson 1800 Aaron Burr (Democratic-Republican); 1804 George Clinton (D-R)
3. James Madison 1808 Geo. Clinton (D-R) (died April 1812); 1812 Elbridge Gerry (D-R) (died Nov. 1814)
4. John Quincy Adams 1824 (D-R) John C. Calhoun (D-R); 1828* (National Republican) Richard Rush (N-R)
5. Andrew Jackson 1828 John C. Calhoun (Democratic) (resigned Dec. 1832); 1832 Martin Van Buren (D)
6. Abraham Lincoln 1860 (Republican) Hannibal Hamlin (R); 1864 (Union Republican) Andrew Johnson (Union Democratic)
7. Ulysses S. Grant 1868 Schuyler Colfax (R); 1872 Henry Wilson (R) (died Nov. 1875)
8. Grover Cleveland 1884 Thomas Hendricks (D) (died Nov. 1885); 1888* Allen G. Thurman (D); 1892 Adlai Stevenson (D)
9. Benjamin Harrison 1888 Levi P. Morton (R); 1892* Whitelaw Reid (R)
10. William McKinley 1896 Garret Hobart (R) (died Nov. 1899); 1900 Theodore Roosevelt (R)
11. Theodore Roosevelt 1904 (R) Charles W. Fairbanks (R); 1912* (Progressive) Hiram Johnson (Prog.)
12. William Howard Taft 1908 (R) James S. Sherman (R); 1912* James Sherman (R) (died Oct. 30, 1912), then Nicholas Murray Butler (R)
13. Franklin D. Roosevelt 1932 & 1936 John Nance Garner (D); 1940 Henry A. Wallace (D); 1944 Harry Truman (D)

The inevitable notes: (1) As the runner-up in Electoral Votes (before they were divided into Presidential and Vice Presidential ballots), Thomas Jefferson (D-R) was John Adams' Vice President, although he ran for President against Adams in both 1796 and 1800; (2) John C. Calhoun was unopposed for Vice President in 1824, so all four candidates, including J.Q. Adams and Andrew Jackson, could be classified as his running-mate; (3) Martin Van Buren ran with Richard M. Johnson in both 1836 (successfully) and 1840 (unsuccessfully); in 1848 Van Buren ran as the Presidential candidate of the Free Soil Party with Charles Francis Adams, Sr. as his running mate; (4) James Sherman was renominated for V-P at the 1912 Republican convention, but died on October 30, days before the general election on November 5; the Republican National Committee named Nicholas Murray Butler as the GOP Vice-Presidential candidate after many ballots had already been printed; (5) Had Lyndon Johnson sought and won renomination in 1968, his vice-presidential nominee would most likely have been sitting Vice President Hubert Humphrey; however when Harry Truman first sought renomination in 1952, he was running against his own Vice President, Alben Barkley; (6) Nelson Rockefeller was Gerald Ford's appointed Vice President (although neither had run in a general presidential election), but Ford chose Robert Dole to be his running-mate in 1976.

If the thrust of your question, however, is how unusual would it be for Barack Obama to run next year with a Vice Presidential candidate other than the incumbent Joe Biden (for example, Hillary Clinton), then the answer is it would be very unusual for the 20th and 21st centuries; the main exceptions (besides 1912) are the quite unusual circumstances of 1940 (when FDR's indecision on seeking a third term prompted John N. Garner to seek the Presidency for himself) and 1976 when neither Gerald Ford nor Nelson Rockefeller had ever been elected to national office.

1. [1789 & 1792 George Washington–John Adams (no party or Federalist)]
2. 1816 & 1820 James Monroe–Daniel D. Tompkins (D-R)
3. 1836 & 1840* Van Buren–Richard M. Johnson (D)
4. 1908 & 1912* Taft–Sherman (R) [then Taft–Butler (R)]
5. 1912 & 1916 Woodrow Wilson–Thomas R. Marshall (D)
6. 1928 & 1932* Herbert Hoover–Charles Curtis (R)
7. 1932 & 1936 FDR–John N. Garner (D) [then 1940 FDR–Wallace (D) and 1944 FDR–Truman (D)]
8. 1952 & 1956 Dwight D. Eisenhower–Richard Nixon (R)
9. 1968 & 1972 Nixon–Spiro Agnew (R) [Nixon had lost in 1960 with Henry Cabot Lodge as his running-mate]
10. 1976 & 1980* Jimmy Carter–Walter Mondale (D)
11. 1980 & 1984 Ronald Reagan–George Herbert Walker Bush (R)
12. 1988 & 1992* George H.W. Bush–Dan Quayle (R)
13. 1992 & 1996 Bill Clinton–Albert A. Gore, Jr. (D)
14. 2000 & 2004 George Walker Bush–Richard Cheney (R)

Note: Washington was unopposed in 1789 and 1792, running with no particular Vice-Presidential candidate.

—— Shakescene (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It's unusual for a party to renominate a losing candidate, but when that happens, it's usually with a different vice-presidential candidate. Here are some selected, hurried major-party examples:

1. Jefferson 1796* & 1800 Aaron Burr (D-R); 1804 George Clinton (D-R)
2. Andrew Jackson 1824* (D-R) Calhoun [but see note above] (D-R); 1828 (D) Calhoun (D); 1832 (D) Van Buren (D)
3. Henry Clay 1824* (D-R) Calhoun [but see note above] (D-R); 1832* (N-R) John Sergeant (N-R); 1844* (Whig) Theodore Frelinghuysen (Whig)
4. William Henry Harrison 1836* Francis Granger (Whig); 1840 John Tyler (Whig, ex-D)
5. William Jennings Bryan 1896* (D & People's Party) Arthur Sewall (D) and Thomas E. Watson (People's); 1900* (D) Adlai Stevenson (D); 1908* (D) John W. Kern (D)
6. Thomas E. Dewey 1944* John W. Bricker (R); 1948* Earl Warren (R)
7. Adlai Stevenson, Jr. 1952* John Sparkman (D); 1956* Estes Kefauver (D)
8. Richard Nixon 1960* Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. (R); 1968 & 1972 Spiro Agnew (R)

Note: Jefferson and Burr each received 73 electoral votes (undifferentiated between President and Vice President) in 1800, so the U.S. House of Representatives decided between them and gave the Presidency to Jefferson. The 12th Amendment, ratified in 1804, gave one presidential and one vice-presidential ballot to each Elector.
—— Shakescene (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Yah. One cannot properly talk about "running mates" until after 1804. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

To be pedantic, one cannot properly talk of "running mates" before 1804, but one can speak of them in 1804 and subsequent elections. The 12th Amendment was ratified in June 1804, early enough to allow separate votes for President and Vice President in the Electoral College of 1804. Perhaps the closest metaphor to at least the formal situation before 1804 would not be equine or canine running mates pulling the same sleigh or wagon, but a nation's human runners in an Olympic event: they compete against each other for gold and silver at the same time they compete together against every other nation's runners. Similarly, Democratic-Republicans were campaigning in 1800 for both Burr and Jefferson to receive the most Electoral Votes. ¶ Of course, the framers of the Constitution in 1787 wrote Article II on the assumption (or feigned assumption) that political parties, or "factions", would not be a factor, certainly not one to be encouraged (see The The Federalist Numbers 9 and 10) while the Electors would exercise some degree of independent judgement based on acquaintance with the candidates, their records and their reputations. The one who received the second-highest number of Electoral votes seemed be most likely be the best fit for Vice President.—— Shakescene (talk) 03:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

December 7

Gay stereotypes

To what extent are gay stereotypes true? The one I'm most familiar with is that gays are effeminate. In China's underground youth culture, there's a surprisingly positive stereotype of gays as smart and handsome. How accurate are these, and if they're not accurate, why did they appear in the first place? --140.180.15.97 (talk) 04:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, the effeminate stereotype is because effeminate men stick out like sore thumbs, while you never notice masculine gay men. I think the stereotypes of gay men being more into the arts and more affluent might have some truth to them. The additional affluence might just be the result of a gay couple with two working men and no children ending up wealthier because they have two incomes, at the higher incomes of men, and fewer expenses. StuRat (talk) 04:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

That particular way that gay men seem to talk in the movies isn't true to life, for one. Nor are many of the classic "quirks" that they're given in the movies, or particular artists a gay person is supposed to like, etc. I've heard people say gay men are usually shy, and others that they are flamboyant, so clearly neither can be too true since they're contradictory! Stereotypes are an interesting thing. They stem from "many of the [x] I've met are like this", and become viewed as the norm. At this point it's possible for them to work in reverse, for a gay man to become more effeminate because it's expected of him. Anecdotally, I often got a "but you can't be lesbian because you have long hair/ you're wearing a dress". (I'm bi, but the same people who stereotype "lesbian= short hair" are the ones who class "attracted to women = lesbian"). Recently, I decided I wanted a new look, and cut my hair and modified my dress style slightly. Not only have the questions stopped, but I've had a lot more girls approach me since, showing stereotypes even have an impact on those within the group itself. sonia♫ 05:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

In short: every group of people is far more diverse than you think. In every group, some people conform closely to stereotypes about that group (see Camp Gay on TV Tropes) sometimes leading others to say Stop Being Stereotypical, some defy it entirely (in many different ways; see Straight Gay), and many are in the middle. Some people who conform to the stereotypes are not members of the group (see CampStraight). Some stereotypes are statistically more frequent than others in the population (I'm not aware of any studies on this), but there is usually great variation in these statistics between locations and subgroups. In fact, some men frequently have sex with men and still are not gay! See men who have sex with men, Down-low (sexual slang). And many gay men have had sex with women. There is almost nothing about a person's behavior that will completely reliably tell you what their sexuality is. Dcoetzee 06:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

To the OP: Get out of your cave and meet some, and make your own mind about them. Seriously, they won't hurt you. --Lgriot (talk) 09:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I have plenty of gay friends, thank you very much. However, if I make judgments about a whole group of people based on the relatively few people I know, I'd be just as guilty of confirmation bias as the creators and propagators of harmful stereotypes. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 07:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

And you think anonymous people on the internet don't have any bias ? --85.119.27.27 (talk) 09:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

At least, not unless you're into that and ask them to! ;) In my experience, there's something of a bell curve among gay men along the butch<->femme spectrum. A few gay men are so "butch" even the most finely tuned gaydar would never guess they weren't straight, and a few gay men are such flaming queens you can burn your retinas just looking at them, but most of us fall in between: "gay-acting" enough that you can tell they're gay, but still basically "guy-ish". The trouble is that TV and movies have trouble finding that happy medium where most of us live, and portray us as being on the extremes of the spectrum instead (basically, either Will or Jack). Pais (talk) 10:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you mentioned gaydar, Pais. This is not just some latter-day Hollywood-created myth, but a real feature of human communication, which same-sex attracted people have been using for millennia to help identify possible sexual partners, long before it ever had a name. I agree with Dcoetzee's "There is almost nothing about a person's behavior that will completely reliably tell you what their sexuality is" (my highlighting), but gaydar is very often the next best thing. Sometimes the cues and clues are extremely subtle, but a well-tuned gaydar will still pick up on them. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

If I'm reading your comments correctly, someone who is "obviously gay" will be obvious to pretty much everyone. Carson Kressley comes to mind - he seems more girlish than the average girl. Those who are much less flamboyant, or not flamboyant at all, might well be overlooked by straight folks. Some of Kressley's colleagues on Queer Eye for the Straight Guy come to mind. And Rock Hudson. However, if I read you correctly, other gays would likely be able to identify all 5 of the Queer Eye regulars as such. (And Rock Hudson). Is that correct? Also, someone mentioned Will and Jack. As I recall, even Jack's character was much more subtle than the Hollywood stereotype is. It was his dialogue that "gave him away." Some of his pals were closer to the stereotype. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It's hard with actors because mostly our experience of them is when they're on screen, playing a role, and not being themselves. I'd like to have met Rock Hudson when he wasn't "on". I only ever saw Queer Eye once or twice so I can't comment. Carson Kressley took on a life of his own, though. He even became an essential element of the hype around the Melbourne Cup for about 5 years in a row - no idea exactly why he was needed so badly for that event. Jack (Sean Hayes) of Will and Grace was closer to the other end of the flamboyance spectrum, but there are still lots of cues with him. He has a sort of understated flamboyance which he can't really hide, and in that role he's not required to. Will (Eric McCormack), on the other hand, tries valiantly to portray a gay character but fails because it's all an act, there's nothing real about it. It was not a surprise to me when I first looked him up and read he was happily married to a woman. Gale Harold (Brian Kinney on Queer as Folk (2000 TV series)) was another whose on-screen behaviour and personal sexuality don't seem to line up. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The only other characteristic that gay people used to have (thinking about the older generation) was that the ones who were "out" were more likely to have been persecuted by others, and/or stressed for a long period. This might be noticeable. Polypipe Wrangler (talk) 12:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

A gay stereotype can only exist in a cultural representation of a gay person. "Stereotype" does not apply except in that artificial presentation. There is something called "artistic license" which allows for wide variability in the representation of gay people as well as in the representation of anything else. Styles in artistic representation evolve with time, so whatever stereotype would apply today would unlikely apply tomorrow or in the past. Bus stop (talk) 14:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Royal republicanism

Are there any members of royal families (or extant lines of pretenders, such as Charles Napoleon) who espouse republicanism? --130.216.172.44 (talk) 05:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha? (At least officially, while Prime Minister of Bulgaria.) Adam Bishop (talk) 07:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Michael Abney-Hastings? 130.88.99.217 (talk) 11:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Do they have to be alive today? I hope Charles Joseph Bonaparte was a republican. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

1990 Canterbury vs Wellington

Some time in 1990, Canterbury hosted Wellington in a Shell Trophy match at Lancaster Park. My brother in law was there, as he told us at the time, but not able to ask him about it, as I have no way to contact him easily, I understand there was some controversy about the game which gained world notoriety and criticism, but after all these years I cannot recall the exact details.

All I recall is that some of the Wellington bowlers were instructed to deliberately bowl no balls at our heroic Canterbury batsmen, but I cannot get why. I also understand that the scorers could not keep up, as the Cantabs were smacking these badly bowled balls all over the park.

Now I also understand that due to this the scoreboard at the ground - the old one they used to have at the southern end before we got the electronic one, could not keep up with the exact score in real time, and it turns out the last ball was bowled when time ran out, that is, the required number of overs, and this last ball was just fended off.

Later it turned out, that if it had been hit for four, Canterbury would have won the Shell Trophy for that year, since those four runs, after all the no balls and runs hit were finally added up, would have given us victory, but when Wellington went on the next week to get enough points against Central Districts, they won the competition instead. It seems for want of only four runs is what Canterbury Cricket had in common with Don Bradman.

If anyone can give me the exact reasons for why this game was so strange, and or also a link to see if there is any site for Cricket controversies, this would be good. Thank You. Chris the Russian Christopher Lilly 05:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It might have been helpful if you had mentioned that you were talking about New Zealand, and mentioned that you were talking about cricket. Yes, we can easily work it out, but you are the one asking for help! --ColinFine (talk) 08:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I know practically nothing about cricket, but here's an article about the match. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't see anything at Category:Cricket controversies, but if there's enough coverage, it may be worthwhile to write an article at Wikipedia about it. --Jayron32 06:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It's an odd example of what (these days) commonly takes place earlier in a match - known as declaration bowling (I'll address that redlink asap). Odd because this wasn't trying to prompt a side to declare, but to make them try to win a match they could previously only lose or draw - and thefore make them less conservative... and in turn more likely to lose. A bit Byzantine, perhaps. --Dweller (talk) 10:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I had exactly the same thought. The linked article says that Wellington won the championship in the end not through the result of this match but because of "a couple of other very fortuitous results". With two overs to go and eight wickets down, most fielding captains would just go for the most aggressive bowling and fielding possible – and they could reasonably expect to win from that position. In this case, though, it sounds like the batsmen were pretty well entrenched. A complete gamble, though – and very hard to decide when to stop chucking runs at the batsmen and when they would feel that they were sufficiently close to a victory to start becoming wayward. Also, the article doesn't address this point, but presumably Canterbury had nothing to gain by winning, so they might have just not risen to the bait. (EDIT: Oh sorry, I've just re-read the OP's post which says that Canterbury would have won the title as well if they'd won the match. The article doesn't mention that aspect, though, so I'm not 100% convinced it's the case.) --Viennese Waltz 11:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Firstly to Colin Fine I must apologise, since I made the assumption that people from NZ and Australia would know what I was talking about, and my question was primarily addressed to those in the cricketing world. I realise now that everyone is paying attention, and even though I would not expect most people from countries outside of Cricket to be able to answer this, I should at least make the exact nature of the question clear, so that they might ( or might not ) realise that they need not concern themselves about such a question.

To those who did answer, thank you so much, and now the situation has been made very clear to me, and surprises me, since even without this knowledge I might not have thought any bowling team would want to give away precious runs - even when leading by 94, I believe the article said it was, when this began, since if they are only bowling no balls the whole time, the only way Germon and his partner could be out is by leaving their crease.Chris the Russian Christopher Lilly 04:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

When is consent given to be governed?

For a person in the United States, at what point in time is consent to be governed considered given? Is it when that person is born, when that person is issued a social security number, or is it when that person becomes of the age of majority? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.226.153.142 (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Is it ever given? The discussion on "types of consent" in Consent of the governed may make things a little clearer, though it's not a comprehensive article. The answer certainly depends on your definition of consent, which is a nebulous concept (e.g. the distinction between overt or tacit consent; and it's not clear whether voting is equal to consent). It's not clear whether adult Americans actually give consent to be ruled, and most Americans don't believe the government has the people's consent[1][2]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It is considered implicit in the sense that freedom of travel is granted (if you don't like it, go somewhere else) and the ability to change the form of government (through the tortuous locutions of representative democracy) is granted. But other than those there is no formal consent, and there is no way to decline to be governed other than going somewhere else (and in most cases, being governed by someone else). If you explicitly refuse to be governed, without leaving, you'll run into difficulties very quickly (and the ultimately coercive nature of all government will become pretty clear). --Mr.98 (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I suppose you could live in a self-sufficient way, isolated from the rest of society and won´t be payint taxes or serving the army (if you are in the US). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.34 (talk) 17:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The statement "if you don't like it, go somewhere else" doesn't really apply to United States though, since IRS will collect taxes from you even if you leave the country. In fact if you disavow your citizenship IRS will still collect taxes from you for another 10 years. "if you don't like it, go somewhere else" applies to around 192 countries in the world, just not the US. 99.245.35.136 (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The IRS does impose a filing requirement for citizens living abroad, but the US "expatriation tax" upon renunciation of citizenship is only imposed under certain circumstances.[3] Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Um, if I renounce my US citizenship, and move to Canada, how would the US government have any ability whatsoever to enforce what I do outside of the US? If I'm not a citizen, and I am not within a country, that country has no right to enforce anything against me (other than International Crimes, I guess). Why would I, after having declared that I have cut off all ties with the US, even bother even opening a letter that the IRS sends me? Falconus^{p t c} 21:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

If you move to Canada then the US collection agency will transfer your debt to their Canadian counterpart, and the Canadian collection agency will sue for wage garnishments. If you are within Canada then Canadian laws apply to you, regardless of your citizenship status. Canadian laws allows for wage garnishments. 99.245.35.136 (talk) 22:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's always extradition, the feasibility of which in tax cases is discussed extensively here. Past that, it is more about the matter hanging over your head should you ever wish to return to the US (even to visit), or to receive income from a US entity, etc. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The are some issues with the presumptions in your question. "The governed" consists of every American from the founding to today. So we aren't talking about a census-like activity of getting people's consent individually. In principle, the consent of the governed occurs with a 50%+1 vote to authorize a committee or officer to do something. If that committee or officer appoints other officers or committees, THOSE committees and officers are considered to be duly authorized with the consent of the governed. AND IF THOSE committees or officers appoint....etcetera. The exact phrase from the Rights of Man is "DERIVED from the consent of the governed." So what matters is that a genealogy (of sorts) can be traced back to some event where the people gave their consent.Greg Bard (talk) 21:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It might be noted that if you are really trying to trace the consent back that far, universal suffrage has only been possible in the U.S. since the early 20th century, and even then it was not uniformly enforced/guaranteed until the late 20th century. It's not a minor point that for the majority of US history, far less than 50% of all American citizens were able to participate in political life. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. There are all kinds of holes to be poked into the theory that the US government has the consent of the governed. Even today, the voter turnout is pathetic, but we interpret the election as an opportunity to give consent, which was passed on --therefore consent is given. There are all kinds of interpretations of things. The members of congress presently were elected, and therefore their authority is derived from the consent of the governed --even if that genealogy I mentioned is somehow invalidated by something in history long ago. The members of congress could always introduce legislation to change the form of government if they thought that it wasn't derived from the consent of the governed. (It appears that they will stick with it, however.)Greg Bard (talk) 23:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The key thorn is all of this is that of course it is the currently elected who make the rules and system for all future elections, and are often pretty structurally required to perpetuate whatever the existing system is, however unrepresentative it might be. (Campaign finance reform comes to mind.) There is no "none of the above" option, there is no even viable third party option. When the choices are just apples and oranges, it's impossible to tell if people actually would prefer strawberries. I think there are probably quite a lot of people at the moment — heck, I know there are, of all different political stripes, for different reasons — who doubt the legitimacy of the current American government and doubt the ability of the elections to actually establish true consent. (And voter turnout rates are significant. If far less than a majority of eligible voters can be stirred to actually participate in elections, how legitimate are the elections as sign of popular will?) Anyway as you can tell I find it to be quite a flimsy idea. I would perhaps qualify it as enough consent of the governed that they don't chop your head off in frustration but that's a low bar. ;-) --Mr.98 (talk) 01:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding if you think there's universal suffrage today amongst the governed. Do children and teenagers get to vote? How about permanent residents of the United States? How about criminals? In what ways are these groups of people not "governed" by the United States, and in what ways have they consented to a government that they had no role in creating? --140.180.15.97 (talk) 02:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The hidden question no one is asking is whether universal, permanent, and irrevocable consent to be governed is a good thing. What I mean by that is whether it would be good for society if every person was allowed complete and total freedom to do whatever they want, without bounds, from birth to death. Does that mean I have the freedom to kill another person without cause and without reprocussions? If I kill another person, and if that person didn't consent to being killed, am I not taking from them the very freedom I claim I have a right to? If am not allowed to kill you, then my freedom is not total. If I am allowed to kill you, then your freedom is not total. So what decision do we make as a society in allowing consent to be governed? Freedom is a good, but is it a complete and universal good? How much of a good thing is too much? Jean-Jacques Rousseau had a lot to say on this topic, see social contract. --Jayron32 03:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

None of this have anything to do with universal suffrage. How is allowing everyone to vote the same as allowing "complete and total freedom to do whatever they want"? --140.180.15.97 (talk) 07:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Teenagers can vote, provided they've reached the age of 18. Those under 18 cannot vote. But that's a decision made by consent of the governed, not by a dictator. Currently the US is engaged in a protracted discussion to determine our next leader. That leader will be chosen by consent. Compare that with a place like Libya or Syria, where the only way to get "consent" is by violent overthrow of the current leader. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

No, that's a decision made by the consent of some of the governed, excluding those under 18. In the same way, blacks and women were excluded from the vote by the consent of some of the governed, namely white males, often using the same reasons that justify excluding teens: namely, irrationality/immaturity of blacks/women/teens. It's amazing how, the moment people start declaring "universal rights", they start making exceptions--a process that continues to this day. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

True about the minorities, but it's not a fair comparison. Those who are under 18 are normally considered legally incompetent for lots of things, only one of which is voting. Maybe the voting age will be lowered again someday (it used to be 21), for example maybe to 17 or 16, but that's not a decision to be made lightly. Parents are responsible for their children's behavior, which is why typically juvenile criminals are treated less harshly than if they were adults. It's a two-edged sword. For example, if you lowered the voting age to 12, you would also require sending a 12 year old to prison for shoplifting, as one example. With rights come responsibilities. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Just wondering. If a child breaks a window, his parents are responsible. Wouldn't it be logical that if a child has "grown up" responsibilities, even though his parents are the ones who will have to pay for the window, that a child also gets the "grown up" rights, where the parents get to vote extra on their behalf? (Not that I would like such a thing to be implemented, I happen to dislike democracy already and it would get even worse) Joepnl (talk) 02:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I've always assumed that consent was implicitly granted through not rioting or revolting (or, I suppose, engaging in more minor forms of civil disobedience). If the governed (as a whole - it's not an individual thing) withdraw their consent to being governed by a particular government, then they simply stop doing what that government tells them to do (and either don't do what anyone tells them, which is a riot, or start doing what someone else tells them, which is a revolution). The concept that a government can only govern with the consent of the governed arises because there is no way to force an entire population to do what you want if they object strongly enough to it (as several dictators have recently learned the hard way). --Tango (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It is through elections (and through employing the bill of rights) that we express our consent. We Americans have a peaceful "revolution" every couple of years in November, and we express our displeasure in the interim, if necessary. The people of Libya and Syria have had no such option. There choice was "obey or die". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

How does there being an election indicate that people give consent? I don't see the connection. --Tango (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Tango. Let's assume Facebook, having a population slighty bigger than Europe and more than twice the US, would let people vote on one of their four brand new, easy and cheap pay-per-like plans. They even didn't lie before the elections and implemented the new payment policy exactly according to the outcome. There would be no consent at all by people who didn't vote, even if they knew they had the right to vote. Even the users voting for the least evil option of the four provided by Facebook could have done so because the other three were even worse (and getting all friends to switch to MySpace wasn't really an option). IANAL, but I guess that by law, the questionnaire should have the option "Forget about me and my creditcard details immediately" and that all non-voters should be counted as having chosen that option. Every organisation has to let people opt-in, not opt-out if they don't want to do business with them. Organisations that don't even have an immediate opt-out option are usually considered mafia. The only reason Facebook has to abide by these rules is that they don't have the police force the US has. If Facebook had that, everyone would be "consenting" every four years to having Facebook phasing out incandescent light bulbs. Joepnl (talk) 03:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you need faith to live?

I don't mean, religious faith in some after life or divinity, but faith that things work in a certain predictable way. In the most extreme case, you need faith in the sun going up and down, in nobody starting a nuclear war, and no terrorist bombing you, and so on. You could also claim that from previous experience, these things are non-existent or extreme uncommon. But then we come to the reign of the faith that common tragedies won't happen to us. Your partner could have a STD and have lied, she could be a gold-digger, your bank could go bankrupt and you could lose your job. Wouldn´t we, without faith in some kind of order, get nuts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.34 (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The most important thing you need to have faith in is your own senses and your own perceptions. There is no way to ultimately prove to yourself that your entire experience is not an elaborate hallucination, or that your perceptions match reality. You need to operate under the assumption that they do, because it isn't possible to operate in the world without first proving that the world exists to yourself. That requires faith, perhaps the biggest leap of faith of all. For people who have that faith, but whose life really is an elaborate hallucination, they've got scizophrenia. In many ways, that level of faith, which operates at such a base level, is the most important thing you have. --Jayron32 18:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

"But then we come to the reign of the faith that common tragedies won't happen to us."

This is precisely the type of faith that prevents people from preparing adequately for common tragedies. If you didn't have faith that you're somehow immune from tragedy, you would use protection when having sex, examine your partner's personality before committing to a relationship, get deposit insurance, and get employment insurance, respectively, to protect against the tragedies you mentioned. --128.112.203.94 (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

How about using knowledge, logic and rational thought instead of faith? The first three tell me that the chances of nuclear war or terrorist bombing where I live are very low. It would tell me that I can take inexpensive precautions in relationships. It tells me that the sun will come up tomorrow. No faith is required. HiLo48 (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

How do you know, for certain, that you are typing stuff in Wikipedia right now, and not in a hospital bed, drooling on yourself, and just imagining that you are? Logic and reason are absolutely necessary to operate constructively in the world, but what good is logic to a hallucination? At some point, you have to accept that your very knowledge of the world rests on your brain's interpretation of it, and you have to have faith that your brain works right. You don't experience reality, ever. You experience a perception of reality, and you can only take on faith that your perception matches reality well enough to allow you to interact reliably with that reality. --Jayron32 19:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Problem of induction may be relevant in this context. 128.232.241.211 (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

HiLo, I contend that faith absolutely is required, even for mundane (or solane) things like the Sun rising every morning. Sure, it's risen a billion times before, but does that mean it will necessarily rise again tomorrow with 100% certainty, no possible shadow of doubt? No, it doesn't. It is possible that it won't rise tomorrow. No scientist worthy of the name could ever dispute that. (Likely? That's a different question entirely.) Hence, for you to operate in the belief that it will rise tomorrow, you need faith. We all exercise faith a thousand times a day without ever giving it any conscious thought. Every time you sit in a chair, you have faith that it will support you and not have you sprawling all over the floor. Every time you turn on a tap, you have faith that water will come out. And so on ad nauseam. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Moreover, one puts faith in people daily - who are not bound by the laws of physics in a relevant sense. Faith not to have poisoned your lunch, faith to stop at the crossing. Sure, those things might be unlikely, but people do not think - oh, it's probably not poisoned - they do not consider the possibility. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

"Faith" is a problematic term. If you mean that humans must make a number of inductive and deductive conclusions based on sparse evidence and the testimony of others, then yes, that's the case. Neither form of inferences are perfect, but they're not the same thing as "blind faith." --Mr.98 (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

When I fly, I have faith that the mechanics and the flight crew know what they're doing and will get the plane to its destination safely. My faith could be misplaced, but it does serve the purpose of my not worrying, i.e. of not being afraid to fly. Faith is also based on experience. The more things happen routinely, the greater faith you will have that they will continue to happen routinely. When they don't, of course, that's where "news" can come from. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Faith - 1) Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

When you get on a commercial flight, you don't "have faith" in the pilot, you "trust" the pilot, the flight crew, and the airline company based on how many times it has flown safely in the past. When you go out every morning to watch the sunrise, that is trust based on the number of times the sun has rose in the past at that specific time, the fact that the Earth rotates, and that it orbits the Sun.

When you get on a rickety plane that has not flown for 50 years with your 90-year old grandmother on the cockpit (whose only vehicle-related experience is with a bike), that is having faith. When you go out in the middle of the night to watch a sunrise because your neighborhood witch-doctor told you there would be one at 12:00 AM, that is having faith on the witch-doctor.

Trust is earned, faith is given.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 00:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The difference between trust and faith is just semantic. Both cannot be reached from axioms + deductions + induction, so, both are somehow irrational (in the sense of not rational, not in the sense of crazy). 88.8.76.138 (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

"Faith" doesn't seem to be the right word to describe my feelings about the sun rising tomorrow, or water coming out of a tap. Rather, I just "assume" it will, based on experience plus knowledge plus logic plus..... Its a linguistic thing, I guess. (Maybe this thread should be at the Language Ref Desk.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

In the most extreme cases, HiLo48, you can discard doubt, but there are thousands of cases of trust/faith/whatever, even by people who define themselves as rational. 88.8.76.138 (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

And not a single reference was provided! --Cerlomin (talk) 00:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

In the most extreme cases, HiLo48, you can discard doubt, but there are thousands of cases of trust/faith/whatever, even by people who define themselves as rational. 88.8.76.138 (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes their meanings overlap in colloquial usage and faith is technically a kind of trust. But it's a kind of trust that does not require prior evidence in its most predominant use. As we grow up, we learn that the world works in certain ways, it follows logical patterns barring unforeseen events, and that there are some things we can expect based on certain precursors. You don't go around trying to hug lions for instance. Bertrand Russell from our article on faith: ""Where there is evidence, no one speaks of 'faith'. We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence."

The only way you can live entirely on faith is when you stop making decisions altogether. Everytime you come across a choice, you pick one at random or from a predetermined approach without considering the current circumstances (e.g. always pick the left path, always choose the red one). I don't exactly call that living.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 00:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

And @ Cerlomin, oh ye of little faith. :P A few of us have linked articles, which have references. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 00:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The question is not living with faith alone, but with living without faith at all, in a pure rational way. Apparently, you'll always have a weak point in your system, when being rational it's too much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.8.76.138 (talk) 00:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Then yes. Every now and then you do make a "leap of faith", I guess. But certainly not in the examples others have given above. I will never board a plane based on faith alone.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 00:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The difference between the sunrise and the plane flight is that the sun always rises in the east, whereas planes do crash sometimes. When I board a plane, I have faith that it won't crash this time. There is an element of fact involved, i.e. that crashes are rare, especially in large commercial aircraft. But unlike with driving a car (where the probability of an accident is higher), I have no control over the mechanics and the flight crew. I have put my faith (or trust, or belief, or whatever) in their hands. By doing so, I have no fear of flying. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

See http://mlbible.com/hebrews/11-1.htm.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

have anyone checked the credentials of a doctor before an operation? Or of the pilot? Sometimes if things go wrong it's too late to learn, so why trust/faith/whatever? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.8.76.138 (talk) 00:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

You're mistaking direct proof for proof. How many times have you flown with an unlicensed pilot in a commercial airline? How many times have you been treated by an unlicensed doctor in a respectable hospital?-- Obsidi♠n Soul 00:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know because I don't check such things. I have faith that it won't happen to me, LOL. On the other hand, I'm sure that some taxi driver was drunk as he drove me around, however. Anyway, your argument still does not excludes Jayron's scenario: what if everything is just an illusion? What if I'm just still connected to the matrix? 88.8.76.138 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC).

Nobody can deny the possibility that everything is just an illusion. It's irrational to believe, with 100% certainty, that the world is not an illusion, and certainly irrational to have "faith" in that belief.

Also, the number of times that passengers failed to take basic precautions because they had faith that their car/plane won't crash, and paid for that mistake with their lives, is hard to count. --140.180.15.97 (talk) 02:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

A race car driver pushing the limits of man and machine does not have faith per se, I don't think, unless we are going to call faith in self a form of faith for the purposes of addressing the topic here. A race car driver doesn't have the time or the leisure to have faith because he is in control of a situation that could spin out of control at any minute. Faith, in such a scenario, is replaced by caution, judgement, and the will to perform at a high level. So, the answer to the section heading for this thread ("Do you need faith to live?") is: yes, sometimes you need faith to live, or sometimes you can and probably will employ faith in the course of daily living, but no, you do not always need or employ faith in life. Bus stop (talk) 01:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

To address an earlier distinction: trust can, and usually is, be based on induction. The problem is that induction is itself limited. I trust my morning cereal won't kill me because it hasn't in the past, not because I believe it is infallible. Of course, I might get the bad batch tomorrow — past experience does not guarantee future outcomes. That's the problem of induction in a nutshell. It's not the same thing as blind faith, faith in the absence of evidence. I would suggest that most of our experiences as described above are less cases of faith than they are induction — they are based on experience (and perception of experience), not belief. There's an important difference there. Nobody is saying that this is entirely logical — it's not, and there is plenty of room for logical fallacy (induction is itself a form of logical fallacy, but a useful one) and errors in perception. But it's not the same thing as faith. One doesn't have complete trust in any of these things outside of experience, and when experience (or, again, perception) argues against it, people stop trusting pretty quickly. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I think "blind faith" is really what the OP is asking about. And it's not exactly the same as how we colloquially define trust or faith.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 03:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

In some respects, people who suffer from 'proper' OCD (not someone who likes to keep their CDs in alphabetical order, but someone with the real condition that can devastate lives) suffer from a lack of faith. The regular population enjoys many faiths that OCD sufferers may not: faith in oneself, faith that disease and contamination isn't rampant, faith that others will behave predictably, faith that terrible accidents don't occur without certain knowledge, and, a metaphorical phrase I once heard, faith that there's no monster living under the stairs (because you can't prove there isn't one). Without these faiths, life can be anything from difficult to tragically intolerable. --Dweller (talk) 10:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Presumably, a symptom of OCD could be frequent hand-washing. In such a case, the person has to have faith that the water and the soap are not contaminated. Right? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes - but many (almost all?) OCD sufferers have an unwarranted faith in some ritual to help. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Handwashers don't necessarily have faith in handwashing - it's typical that they'll continue washing for a very long time and/or repeat the ritual within moments because they lack faith that it's done the job. --Dweller (talk) 10:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

So, summarizing: we have the induction problem (pointed by Mr.98) related to trust and the 'is everything an illusion' of Jayron? But is there any additional problem to have a world view entirely based on logic, reason and hard facts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.39.16.11 (talk) 13:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

You can't have a "world view entirely based on logic, reason and hard facts". Are there not explorers in this world? People try to do things in which they are anything but assured of success. We are adventurers on some level or another. In the midst of an "adventure", can you pause to recalculate all metrics that might be applicable? If you define your "world view" narrowly, this might be possible. Bus stop (talk) 14:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Logic, reason, and facts are all part of an inductive approach to the world. They aren't incompatible. The problem it that there is always a loophole of the unknown, and the fact that prior experience doesn't guarantee future experience. But for practical purposes an inductive worldview works pretty well if it is truly always taking in new information, trying to process it, and aware of its own biases. There's always going to be problem that you're not omniscient, so having an air-tight understanding of the world is never going to be possible. It's not necessarily even desirable. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Is it faith we use to get by? Or is it rough-and-ready risk assessment? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

If by "rough-and-ready risk assessment" you mean, "inductive logic" (that is, judgments about the present and future based on experience with the past), that's what I've been arguing. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you, and moreover I think people use the key questions of formal risk assessment: how likely is it to happen, how bad would it be if it did happen. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. To use one of the OP's examples, I don't have faith that no-one will start a nuclear war tomorrow. I have concluded, based on evidence and reason, that the probability of someone starting a nuclear war tomorrow is sufficiently low and the harm from me making plans to have lunch tomorrow rather than planning to build a bunker sufficiently low (particularly given that really, whatever preparations I make, if a nuclear war does kick off I'm screwed anyway) that I don't need to take it into account when planning my day. "Faith" doesn't come into it, it's just a standard risk assessment of the type everyone makes all the time (I crossed a road in order to get to work this morning - I concluded, based on evidence and reason, that the chance of me getting hit by a car was sufficiently low that the harm from missing work outweighed the possible harm from getting run over). --Tango (talk) 12:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

December 8

Languages of Belgium, Luxembourg and Switzerland

I am confused. Which language is the first official language of Belgium-French or Dutch? Which language is the first official language of Luxembourg-French or German? and which language is the first official language of Switzerland-German, French or Italian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.17.243 (talk) 04:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

There are explanations at Languages of Belgium, Languages of Luxembourg (and Multilingualism in Luxembourg), and Languages of Switzerland. Why do you think that any of them would have a "first official language"? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Whereas, as you may imagine, individual speakers have their own preferences, for example the creator of en:Multilingualism in Luxembourg translated from the Luxembourgish Wikipedia, but rearranged the order of languages at will. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 09:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Luxembourg is confusing, as Languages of Luxembourg explains - French and German are "official languages" and Luxembourgish is the "national language". Most people speak Luxembourgish as their native language, so Luxembourgish is first in that sense; but it's also the last to be recognised officially, so it's last in that other sense.

If by "first" you mean "most popular", then it's Dutch in Belgium, German in Switzerland, and in Luxembourg either Luxembourgish (counting only native speakers) or French (counting native and second-language). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

On official documents from the Belgian government, which are written in three languages, the order is French, then Flemish (Dutch), then German. Alansplodge (talk) 11:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

In Switzerland, for example, the languages should have equal standing from a national standpoint - even to the extent that the Latin "Confoederatio Helvetica" (Swiss Confederation) is sometimes used to avoid having to favor one language over another. The paper money is printed in all four (yes, there is Romansch, a fourth, but very minority, official language, which in fact does not have an equal standing in the government), but the text on the coins is only the Latin "Confoederatio Helvetica". Where you will find that one language is clearly favored over another is in the Cantons and towns; while there are some that are officially bilingual (Canton of Fribourg, Fribourg, Murten, for example), in probably the majority of places, people and signage, generally operate in one language or another. That being said, one can still often find things pretty much anywhere in Switzerland that have French, German, Italian, and sometimes Romansch translations. Falconus^{p t c} 13:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit: I thought that Murten was officially bilingual, but now I'm not sure. It definitely is bilingual, but I don't know what the official status is. Falconus^{p t c} 13:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand that the former Biel District is officially bilingual, whereas in mostly German-speaking Murten there are some activists in favor of a bilingual statute. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for answering my questions because Belgium is very confusing. I thought that it was a Francophone nation and the I thought the majority of the Belgians were Francophones. I thought Luxembourg is a 99% Francophone nation like Belgium. Switzerland now I understand is a German-speaking nation. 70.31.17.243 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.35.16 (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Belgium makes more sense if you consider that it is, in fact, two nations brought together artificially - Flanders and Wallonia. There's a German-speaking enclave in the south-east of the country. Brussels, although it is in Flanders, has more French speakers, but its historical language was Bruxellois, which is the language used by the Toone Puppet Theatre still. However, wherever you go (and this is definitely OR), if you speak English you will be welcomed. (If you speak German you will be ignored - at least in Flanders and Wallonia!) --TammyMoet (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Let me put this in doubt. Flanders and Wallonia share a long common history. They can separate, or remain together, who knows. In Brussels they spoke Marols and German is not ignored in Flanders. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Belgium is the remnant or "rump" of the Burgundian/Hapsburg/Spanish Low Countries. During decades of fighting during the second half of the 16th century, those who embraced Protestantism or were unwilling to be ruled by Spain usually ended up in the northern 2/3rds of the Low Countries (modern Netherlands), while those who remained Catholic ended up in the southern third (modern Belgium). It's not as if two pre-existing nations were artificially stitched together -- rather, Belgium was defined as a territorial unit before 19th century style concepts of linguistically-based "Romantic" nationalism became important (as was also the case for Switzerland). It was something of a historical accident that Belgium ended up with somewhat equal numbers of French and non-French speakers (determined by the military balance of power between Spanish armies and Dutch rebels 500 years ago, more than anything)... AnonMoos (talk) 10:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The modern state of Belgium dates only from 1830, when Romantic nationalism was very important. It's correct that the wars between the Hapsburg rulers and Dutch Protestants had a major effect on which parts of the Low Countries were predominantly Protestant and which parts were predominantly Catholic, but there were a variety of states and political arrangements between then and the 19th Century, some of which included most of the Low Countries in a single state, others where it was split into several states. Template:History_of_the_Low_Countries is a handy summary. The modern Netherlands includes some areas - notably Dutch Limburg - which are predominantly Catholic and were never really part of the Dutch Republic set up by the Protestant rebels. Valiantis (talk) 14:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

There have been many minor adjustments down the years, and several wars and changes of sovereignty, but the basic Netherlands-Belgium boundary was established towards the end of the 16th century, and lasted about 200 years before the the wars of the French revolution, so it would be somewhat pedantic to trace Belgium as a territorial unit back only to 1830... AnonMoos (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

You say pedantic. I say factually correct. I'm fairly sure I acknowledged the general correctness of your comments, but nonetheless there wasn't a place generally called Belgium in existence from the end of the 16th Century. A person reading your comment who had little knowledge of the history of the region might well have inferred that there was. I felt a few comments (and references/links) might cast additional light on this subject. I'm sorry if providing additional information is considered pedantry! Valiantis (talk) 03:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC) (Edited my own comment) Valiantis (talk) 04:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't called "Belgium" then, but it's relevant that a territorial unit with borders substantially similar to those of modern Belgium existed for about two centuries prior to the nineteenth century. I wouldn't have bothered to reply, except that your remarks of "14:35, 9 December" seemed to give the impression that things were in a chaos of constant flux before 1830... AnonMoos (talk) 09:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the words "a variety of states and political arrangements" and a link to a chart that shows what they were could create an impression that things were in "a chaos of constant flux". Even if someone did choose to interpret my words in that way, the link would disabuse them of this misunderstanding. I don't plan on commenting further on this in this section. Valiantis (talk) 14:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Partial globe

Imagine that one has an oversized globe that is too large to fit in a room, say two meters in diameter. And imagine that one removes from its surface a small circle encompassing only Europe. The resulting lens-shaped object is flat enough to hang on a wall, but it is free of the distortions of a map projection. Has this cartographic method ever seen use, in lieu of globes or flat maps? Is there a term for it, other than "partial globe", "global section", etc? LANTZY^TALK 04:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

How is it free of distortions? It is still a segment of a sphere. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

That's why there are no distortions. I'm talking about something curved, like a giant contact lens. It's not flattened or projected onto a flat surface, so there are no distortions. LANTZY^TALK 06:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

You mean a spherical cap, correct? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. That's what I mean. LANTZY^TALK 09:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

There is map projection. But I don't know if it covers them all, or indeed if it covers the exact projection you are looking for (there is a lot of them). --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

What Lantzy is suggesting is not a projection (which necessarily requires some distortion), it is a model. I have found no information that such a model has ever been produced, at least not commercially. Perhaps you could patent it? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

There's "gore" (probably not exactly what you're asking). AnonMoos (talk) 08:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if it has been used or even if it has a name. However, if ever made, such an object derived from a 5,500 km diameter circle around Europe (approximately the distance from Portugal to the Urals), would be approximately 85 cm in diameter and would (if hung on a wall) project about 10 cm from the wall. Such a map would have a scale of 1 cm = 64 km. Astronaut (talk) 13:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like something that might have been useful in the past. However, now, with computers, you can have a virtual sphere on the screen and zoom in or out as much as needed, and take exact measurements, without distortion. StuRat (talk) 17:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It may not have a practical 21^st century use, but I can visualize it as an interesting art object. — Michael J 18:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

While it's not being projected in order to go on your wall, it is still being projected in order to form an image on your 2D retina, so the distortions are still there. The benefit is that you can minimise the distortions to the bit you are interested in at the time by changing the angle at which you view the cap. You get to chose what projection you use at any given time (in the same way you can with a computerised virtual sphere of the type StuRat mentions). --Tango (talk) 12:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The retina is not flat like a table top, and how we see things in the brain is hardly merely a raw unprocessed map of how light falls on the retina (otherwise we would see everything upside down!). You also seem to be overlooking stereoscopic vision... AnonMoos (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Stereoscopic vision isn't as clever as you might think. Remember, the baseline is only a few centimetres (ie. the distance between the eyes). Wikipedia has, for once, let me down and I can't find any numbers, but I don't think you would be able to perceive a depth difference of 10cm from several metres away (which, I would think, would be the typical viewing distance of such a map, at least if you want to view all of it) using stereopsis. The way you would actually perceive the shape is through the shadows, I would expect. --Tango (talk) 19:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The rule of thumb for stereophotography is that to pick up reasonable variations in depth, you want the distance to the subject of your photograph to be around 30 times your baseline. For a baseline of 6.5cm (normal eye spacing), then, the subject distance should be about 2 meters. A 10cm depth will be quite perceptible in any reasonable-sized room. --Carnildo (talk) 02:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Syria vs France

I understand the terrible relationship between France and Algeria because of the Algerian war of Independence but what about Syria? Why Syria don't like to keep relationship with France in terms of Syrian immigrants to France and Syria not being the member of La Francophonie? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.17.243 (talk) 04:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't know that there's a "terrible relationship", but some Syrian nationalists consider that the Sykes-Picot agreement was a kind of underhanded stab in the back, and that France thwarted Greater Syrian aspirations, by splitting off Lebanon (an area much larger than the traditional 19th-century definition of Lebanon) and giving Alexandretta away to the Turks, etc. Some people think that both Lebanon and Syria probably would have been better off in the long term if Lebanon had not been extended beyond its traditional Maronite-Druze core to include so many predominantly Shi'ite and Sunni areas (not to mention a direct border with future Israel)... AnonMoos (talk) 07:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the French presence in Syria was much shorter than in Algeria - only a couple of decades between the end of World War I and the beginning of World War II. There was also no policy of encouraging the settlement of French citizens in Syria as there was in Algeria. It took much less traumatic events to break the link with France than was needed in Algeria. Since Syria's independence, it has been largely governed by leaders with a pan-Arabic ideology, who consider the period of French rule as a time of national humiliation (and one during which the national territory was carved up, as pointed out above). As a result, there has been little interest in being part of la Francophonie, even though some segments of society are still quite Francophile. That may or may not change depending on what type of government emerges from the current chaos. --Xuxl (talk) 09:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Ottoman Sudan?

Up to the Ottoman entry into World War I, was the future Anglo-Egyptian Sudan officially Ottoman? I'm quite confused by Khedivate of Egypt and by various websites that I found through Google: obviously Egypt was officially Ottoman, but judging by the significant autonomy enjoyed by Egypt (it's quite the rare province that attempts to conquer other provinces of the same empire, and when beaten isn't squished out of existence) I'm wondering if the actual situation were otherwise for the Sudan. Was it perhaps somewhat like the Duchy of Prussia, which was ruled by a suzerein of the Holy Roman Emperor but wasn't part of the HRE, or England during early Norman times, which wasn't part of France even though it had been conquered by one of the French king's dukes? FYI, my Google search is primarily giving me websites that are attempting to sell me furniture, perhaps made with Egyptian cotton. Nyttend (talk) 05:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

This book appears to address the subject. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't have access to the book. Could you answer my question? Nyttend (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Demographics South Africa

Hi, the article has a graph that indicates the population of South Africa which, I am sure, is not accurate. In 1959 whilst I was at school in form 1 the population of the country was posted in the media as 12 000 000. This was compared to the population of London, also 12 000 000. This may seem insignificant but in the context of population growth, and an ANC in exile resistance to a Nationalist Party family planning initiative at that time, we have a situation where the natural resources of the country are not sufficient to sustain the present population. In this light the population figure becomes extremely relevant to those seeking such reference for research purposes. Cfjiwi (talk) 07:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

What's your question? Nyttend (talk) 07:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Cfjiwi: If you believe an article is inaccurate, the appropriate place to discuss that is the "discussion" page for that article. This is a reference desk. Gabbe (talk) 08:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Demographics of South Africa has a graph that shows the population in 1961 as being around 17,500,000 (it doesn't go back any further). South_Africa#Demographics has a table that puts the population in 1960 as 16,385,000. The data in the graph matches the figures from UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO)[4] so it's almost certainly a reliable estimate. The figures you were told at school may have been out of date or incorrect at the time, or you may have misremembered them after more than 50 years. That's why Wikipedia publishes facts from reputable and verifiable sources.--Colapeninsula (talk) 11:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The population of Greater London has never been as high as 12 million, either, although there may have been figures based on a wider geographical area circulating 50 years ago. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Very likely as Greater London wasn't defined until 1965. Alansplodge (talk) 11:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

... as an administrative area, although the term "Greater London Planning Region" was in use well before then, covering a much wider area than the GLC, and in 1961 had a population approaching 11 million - [5] Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

¶ A Google search for "South Africa census 1951" and "South Africa population 1951" is remarkably fruitless for someone who isn't plugged into JSTOR; the Google Book snippets cut out anything useful. However, going through the old reference books I've hung onto much longer than most people would consider rational yields me this. Be warned that the usual Reliable Sources are not necessarily so: Leonard Thompson's A History of South Africa (Yale 1995) cautions that "South African statistics are particularly poor before World War II and at all times suspect concerning Africans." ["Appendix: Statistics", page 278] Here are some numbers going into 1970 to supplement the series mentioned above.

year	Total South Africa	White (European)	Total Non-White	Asian (Indian)	[Cape] Coloured	African	source
1904	5,174,827	1,117,234	4,057,593	122,734	445,228	3,491,056	Smuts, SYB
1911	5,972,757	1,276,319	4,696,438	200,000	500,000	4,000,000	SYB, HSA
1921	6,927,403	1,521,343	5,406,060				SYB
1936	9,619,000	2,009,000	7,610,000	221,000	772,000	6,617,000	EYB
1946	11,449,000	2,380,000	9,068,000	286,000	931,000	7,851,000	EYB
1951	12,716,000	2,647,000	10,068,000	368,000	1,108,000	8,594,000	EYB
est 1956	13,915,000	2,907,000	ca. 11,000,000	421,000		9,306,000	WA
1960	16,002,797	3,088,492	12,914,305	477,125	1,501,000	10,880,000	EYB; SYB
est 1964	17,457,000	3,323,000	14,134,000	520,000	1,699,000	11,915,000	EYB
est 1966	18,298,000	3,481,000	14,817,000	547,000	1,805,000	12,465,000	EYB; SYB
1970	21,402,470	3,726,540	17,675,930	618,140	2,021,430	15,036,360	SYB (1977-78)
Sources: EYB = The Europa Year Book 1969, vol. 2, p. 1286; HSA = A History of South Africa by Leonard Thompson (Yale 1995), p. 278; SYB = The Statesman's Year Book 1967-68, p. 1405 and 1977-78, p. 1296; WA = The World Almanac & Book of Facts 1957, p. 389 Smuts = Smuts I: The Sanguine Years 1870–1919 by W.K. Hancock (Cambridge 1962), p. 219

I have left the precision or rounding as in the original sources. I actually have some sympathy for the original enquirer, as I was avidly collecting stamps and studying foreign countries' capitals, flags and populations for myself in London in 1959 (when I was in classes 5 and 6 of primary school), so it's sometimes hard for me to remember (though well I know it) that Malaya's population isn't 10 million or Mexico's 30 million any more.
¶ As for London's population's perhaps the media were comparing the population of the Home Counties, whose definition varies. If you take the 1951 or 1961 populations (from p. 69 of the 1967-68 Statesman's Year Book) of the County of London, Middlesex, and the counties which abutted them in 1961 (Surrey, Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire, Essex and Kent), you get just about 12 million; add Berkshire and you're comfortably over 12 million, and add Oxfordshire and/or Bedfordshire, you're well over 12 million.

county (1950's)	1951	1961
County of London	3,347,956	3,200,484
Middlesex	2,269,315	2,234,543
Surrey	1,602,509	1,731,042
Buckinghamshire	386,291	488,233
Hertfordshire	609,775	832,901
Essex	2,044,964	2,288,058
Kent	1,564,324	1,701,851
subtotal	11,825,134	12,477,112
Berkshire	403,141	504,154
subtotal	12,228,275	12,981,266
Bedfordshire	311,937	380,837
Oxfordshire	275,808	309,452
total	12,816,020	13,671,555

—— Shakescene (talk) 07:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Difference between generic and brand-name guidelines for biologics

I've read that in the US, Congress has been dragging its feet since about 2001 regarding the codifying of guidelines for generic production of insulin. Granted, the point is presently moot as the patents for Novolog, for instance, aren't set to expire until 2014, but that day is getting closer and closer. So from what I've read, even if the patents expired today, generics would still be unable to start selling affordable medication to actually help human beings because of this. Well, my question is, by what certification is Novo Nordisk actually doing it now?? I assume that in this day and age where we have regulations up the wazoo for every single thing, they must have some already-codified set of standards by which they showed the government that their manufacturing process produced safe product, so why couldn't generics use that as a standard? Standards are not the intellectual property of drug companies, I hope. Otherwise they'd have incentive to lower standards so they can start selling their products. So what certification did the manufacturing process of Novolog go through, and why can't that be the hoop for generics to use when the patent expires in 2014? 20.137.18.53 (talk) 13:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Novo Nordisk has FDA approval to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus[6]. Generic versions of drugs also require FDA approval, although it's less stringent than for new drugs - see Generic drug#U.S. generics approval process. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

One kink in the legal labyrinth that no doubt many a player uses to their advantage is that there is a legal difference between "drug" and "biologic" in the US legal system. Man-made insulin is categorized as a biologic. 20.137.18.53 (talk) 15:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Standards can be the intellectual property of drug companies. Of importance is what is proper patentable subject matter? As federal law states, "Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title." (35 USC 101, emphasis added). Drug manufacturers do create standards and methods, but it is national standards associations which set them. I don't know the process incredibly well as that facet isn't in my practice area. I'm more concerned with what the standard is and its use in establishing a standard of care in negligence suits. I attended an hour long student seminar taught by a medical doctor who was a law student about the FDA process for approval of a new drug and generic drug. It was highly complicated. I would recommend a book on the subject as even a rudimentary explination of what is involved took an hour to explain in a confusing manner. If you do a search for the terms "fda drug approval process" you will find a bunch of books with a couple hundred pages. Your local library should have one for free. Finally, if there is a patent for the development of the drug, it makes manufacturing easier for the generic, because this process will be disclosed with particularity in the patent. You can patent a process for development of a biologic under US law. Gx872op (talk) 15:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Both drugs and biologics are handled in the US by the FDA. Within the FDA, drugs are controlled by CDER and biologics by CBER. The main difference is that CBER wants to ensure that no harm comes to those who receive or those who help produce the biologics. Drugs are chemically produced, so CDER doesn't worry about things like homeless people donating blood plasma three times a week. Also, you have implied that Novolog is not doing anything at all to "actually help human beings". Really? -- kainaw™ 15:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that Novolog didn't help. Barring generic companies from entering the market once the patents are up because the standard by which to measure the safety of their manufacturing process has not been stated, is what is not helpful. 20.137.18.53 (talk) 15:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason to believe that generics will not be on the market immediately, but I am very jaded in this area because I work with medication data all day and I see what is available, what is being prescribed, what is being purchased, and how much is being paid for it. What I see rarely lines up with what the press reports. Also, the initial generics are often available right away and identical to the namebrand because the same company produces both. Then, to cut costs, the generic goes off on a cheaper production path. Do you have a source that is stating there will be a delay in generics in this case? -- kainaw™ 15:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't find a single generic version of Humulin insulin, whose patents went out in 2001 and 2002 (source) see the section entitled "What about Generic Insulin?" The next section "Insulin is a Biologic, so the rules are different" includes the following statement: "According to Karen Riley of the Food and Drug Administration, insulin is a biologic drug, and that manufacturing process is different than other drugs. Therefore, insulin is not afforded the same privileges as other generics under the Hatch-Waxman Act." The next paragraph includes "In an interview with dLife, Andrea Hofelich, a spokesperson for the Generic Pharmaceutical Association (GPhA), says the FDA has yet to put forth a guidance for the approval of generic insulin." The FDA has yet to put forth guidance for approval of generic insulin, but there exists guidance to approve brand-name insulin? Nice. For brand-name companies, at least.20.137.18.53 (talk) 15:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I will read that now and I think I have a meeting with the FDA soon so I can ask about anything that seems a bit fishy. -- kainaw™ 15:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Before I got to read much, I already got replies from questions I sent to others. There is a lot of finger-pointing going on. FDA is pointing at Congress because FDA is bound by the laws of Congress. Congress is pointing at FDA because the FDA is obeying the laws instead of doing what the people want them to do. The brandname companies are pointing at the generic companies and claiming that they want to produce untested insulin that could be harmful. The generic companies are pointing at the brandname companies and claiming that they are paying off Congress to keep the FDA from allowing them to put drugs on the market without a complete FDA testing process. Note: It is normal for generics to have an abbreviated (not complete) testing process because they are copies of already tested medications. Biologics are different because a very tiny difference between two biologics could have severely bad outcomes. What I get from all of that is that if Congress really wants this to go through, they just need to subsidize the FDA testing process for the generic companies. Of course, try and sell that to the public - it will come off as a bailout for already rich drug companies. -- kainaw™ 16:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

That's sad because if diabetics are left with no choice but to pay higher prices, not doing anything kind of already is a bailout of sorts for rich drug companies. But of course the public wouldn't care that the per-taxpayer cost of the testing process (which for the most part is a one-time-thing, not very recurring, at least as recurrent as buying insulin is, right?) would be less than the per-diabetic difference a diabetic's cost is for brand name insulin over what generic could be. 20.137.18.53 (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that, with name-brands, the FDA just decides on a "case-by-case" basis whether each drug is produced safely, without having a predefined standard for what is acceptable. The realty, though, is that the big pharma companies have enough clout (bought by political contributions) with Congress to pressure the FDA to approve anything not obviously dangerous. Generic drug companies, though, don't have the same clout, so might find the FDA rejects their application and they lose their investment. Therefore, they don't want to invest in producing a generic product until there's a set standard, so they can then prove that they've met the standard and deny the FDA any wiggle room to reject products from companies that haven't paid them (or the Congressmen who control them) bribes (political contributions). StuRat (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

An apparently effective way of keeping an unwanted out. "Sorry, you don't meet the qualification standards that we haven't even made or that if we had made have an exam fee of more than you have." 20.137.18.53 (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It does sound reminiscent of poll taxes and literacy tests formerly used to keep minorities from voting. StuRat (talk) 21:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Afghanistan time

How many hours different between New York and the time in Afghanistan?
Noon (12 P.M.) in New York is what time in Afghanistan? --Doug Coldwell ^talk 16:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

You can figure out the answer using List of time zones by UTC offset. Afghanistan is UTC+4:30; New York is UTC-5:00. So the difference is nine and a half hours (leaving out Daylight Savings Time, which is not currently active). Looie496 (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems that Afghanistan does not observe daylight savings time, while New York does. So, that means the time difference will sometimes be an hour more than at other times. This means Afghanistan is only ahead by 8.5 hours in the summer. StuRat (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

See also this map, which takes into account which areas observe the daylight saving time and which don't. The figures make it very convenient to calculate the offset between any two given points in any time of the year. --Theurgist (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Current times are given for, for instance, New York City and Kabul, Afghanistan, here. Bus stop (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec)You don't have to figure out. It's 09:30 PM. See this site. Oda Mari (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It's no longer 09:30 PM because the Earth has rotated on its axis. In fact it is now 10:55 PM. Bus stop (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Rubbish, Mr Stop. The question is: "Noon (12 P.M.) in New York is what time in Afghanistan?" - the answer is 9:30 PM. It has nothing to do with whatever time it may happen to be when someone is answering the question. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

My mistake. I stand corrected. Bus stop (talk) 05:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

There is, however, no such thing as 12 P.M. --Trovatore (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

And yet everyone knows what it means. So while technically true, it doesn't matter. Mingmingla (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, not true. Yes, there is a fairly large preponderance of 12 PM == noon, 12 AM == midnight, but the opposite convention is also attested, and has some logic behind it. --20:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

My long case clock would disagree that there is no such thing as 12:00 noon. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see where anyone said that there was no 12:00 noon, just that there is no 12:00 PM. And technically, I agree. PM after all stands for post meridian. And exactly 12:00 is neither post nor ante meridian. It is the meridian. Dismas|^(talk) 14:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

At the meridian my clock strikes 12. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

But, by the time you hear the clock strike, is post meridian. -- kainaw™ 14:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Pedanticism warning: A.M. and P.M. stand for ante meridiem and post meridiem, "before midday" and "after midday". Deor (talk) 17:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The correct fix is of course to refer to noon as 0 PM, which it is; it's 0 hours post meridiem. Midnight would be 0 AM. If there were a 12 AM, then it would equal 0 PM, or noon — this is perfectly natural, just as today is September 6674, 1993. That consideration is actually the basic reason that I object to referring to noon as 12 PM, which ought to equal 0 AM.

There's a parallel confusion about whether "midnight Friday" means the midnight at the end of Friday, or the midnight at the start of Friday. 24-hour time deals neatly with this (0000 Friday = 2400 Thursday), but there's no reason 12-hour time couldn't do it just as well; you just have to call it 0 AM on Friday, which equals 12 PM (midnight) Thursday. --Trovatore (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I would not like it if my clock struck 0 twice a day. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

All my clocks strike 0 continuously. Doesn't bother me much. You get used to it after a while. --Trovatore (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I've got a watch like that. It is (not very) useful twice a day. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't follow. Striking zero, as far as I can tell, is the same as not ringing a bell. All my clocks are not ringing bells all the time. In fact they never shut up about it. My coffee mug also seems to be striking zero; should I be concerned? --Trovatore (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Not unless your mug is designed audibly to indicate the time. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

All this makes me very glad that I work in an environment where we refer to 1200 and 2400...

ALR (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't 2400 be 0000? and by the way, I've never seen a didgital clock that referred to 12:00 noon as anything other than PM. Is 12:35 after midday not PM? It's certainly not noon. Mingmingla (talk) 02:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

0000 Saturday is the same instant as 2400 Friday. Yes, 12:35 after midday is unfortunately called PM, because it is post meridiem, after noon, but this is the source of the whole confusion. In any sensible mixed-radix number system, increasing the hour "digit" by one, and leaving everything else the same (including the AM/PM "digit"), should result in a time one hour later. So one hour past 11:35 AM should really be 12:35 AM, or better, 0:35 PM. --Trovatore (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Huh? 12:35 AM signifies a moment in the middle of the night, eleven hours before 11:35 AM, not one hour after it. AM means "before noon", so how can any point after noon be "before noon", unless it's before the noon of the following day? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you're going to go by the literal meaning of the Latin words, then the whole AM scale is backwards. What we call 11 AM is only one hour ante meridiem, one hour before the middle of the day, so it should really be called 1 AM. On the other hand, that time in the middle of the night is indeed 12 hours and 35 minutes after noon, so 12:35 PM would make perfect sense.

[sarcasm warning] Oh, I get it. We could use "12:35 PM" and "11:35 AM" interchangeably to refer to the exact same moment in time. Not much room for confusion there. Also, these would not refer to a time within an hour of noon, but to a time within an hour of midnight. Not much room for confusion there, either. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I was not proposing that as a good system (btw it would be 12:35 PM == 11:25 AM, not 11:35, but in any case it's not as redundant as you make it sound, because it's 12:35 PM Friday == 11:25 AM Saturday). I was using it to point out that, if the argument is that 12:35 PM should be in the afternoon because PM stands for post meridiem, that's not a very good argument. --Trovatore (talk) 10:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

But being less literal-minded about the etymology, the system that makes logical sense is to treat AM/PM as a digit in a mixed-radix system, so the time in the middle of the night would be 0:35 AM, and the time 12 hours later, in the middle of the day, would be 0:35 PM. Then we could have noon unambiguously as 0 PM, alternatively represented as 12 AM, and midnight as 0 AM == 12 PM. --Trovatore (talk) 08:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your first sentence but not your second. The precise moment of noon is neither before nor after noon, and it is an agreed convention that we call it PM. It could just as easily have been AM, but there's no point upsetting one arbitrary convention only to replace it with another. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's actually not so totally agreed. It is the predominant one, but you can find the opposite convention.

Every moment is both before noon and after noon. In fact it's both before and after a lot of noons. You understand, I hope, that today is December 10, but it's also November 40? And that thirty-twelve is the same as forty-two? I hope it's clear why this is relevant to the current discussion. --Trovatore (talk) 09:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Not really. Times are intimately connected to the dates on which they occur. By my clock, it's currently 9:19 PM on Saturday 10 December 2011. You could say it's also 33:19 PM on Friday 9 December and 57:19 PM on Thursday 8 December and so on - but to what end? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 10:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

You're looking at it from the wrong direction. Time just is. It's the underlying noumenon, the real thing. The names we put to it, those are secondary. Therefore the right question is not, "given a certain time, what do I call it?" but rather "given a name for a time, what actual time does it represent?". And to the question "what time is 2700 hours on January the 67th?", I hope it's clear that there is a single right answer, no ambiguity about it.

So it would be much nicer, more systematic, if the computation of the answer to that question, which is the *right* question, had nice mathematical properties, such as "x PM, day y is always exactly twelve hours after x AM, day y." --Trovatore (talk) 10:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

That seems to be exactly what we do have at the moment. 3 PM today will be exactly 12 hours after 3 AM today. And 12 PM (noon) today will be exactly 12 hours after 12 AM (midnight) today. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

My bad (although 12 AM and 12 PM are not actually as standardized as you claim). Here's the property I should have said: x+1 AM should always be exactly one hour after x AM, and similarly for x+1 PM. --Trovatore (talk) 20:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I could live with that, as long as you don't have 11 AM being followed by 12 AM, 13 AM, etc. What we use to label the hours is the set of numbers 1-12. The first hour past the most recent reference point is completed at 1 o'clock, the second hour at 2 o'clock, ... and the 12th hour at 12 o'clock. Scientists and mathematicians can easily deal with the set 0-11, but that wouldn't suit most lay people, who do not expect the first page of a newspaper or a book to be called Page 0, or the first day of a month to be called the 0th of the month. Nor would they like the 12th hour to conclude at 0 o'clock rather than 12 o'clock. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, "what we use to label hours" is the wrong way around. The time is the real thing; the labels are just labels. So there's no problem with multiple labels for the same real thing; the only problem is different real things for the same label. Therefore there's no reason we shouldn't be able to say it's 14 AM, and have that mean the same as 2 PM.

This would also ease a problem at the other end of the day. As I mentioned, "midnight Saturday" is ambiguous; you don't know whether it means the midnight at the start of Saturday, or the midnight at the end. But in practice it's even worse than that — when I say "tonight" I really mean the coming time of darkness; it's not over at midnight. So what's "2 AM tonight"? A little unclear. If I could call it "14 PM tonight", everything's hunky-dory. --Trovatore (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Good luck with convincing the world to make the switch. I'll consider it if you send me a clock that doesn't have the 12 AM/12 PM thing the standard way. And it is standard. Show me a commercially available clock that does it the opposite way. Mingmingla (talk) 23:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I have no illusions about convincing the world to switch to that system, even though it would be better than what we have. My real hope is that 24-hour time, which does not have these flaws, will slowly take over.

As for clocks, not all time measurements concern what you see on a digital clock. There is no doubt that 12:30 PM standardly (though regrettably) refers to a time when the Sun is usually shining, and probably 12:00 PM does as well.

However, the situation for "12 PM", with no minutes shown at all, is somewhat less clear. While people understand 12:30 PM to be in the afternoon because PM means "after noon", and probably extrapolate that to 12:00 PM, that argument does not attach to 12 PM, and the strangeness of going straight from 11 AM to 12 PM is more apparent when the minutes are not there.

So for me the takeaway message is:

• Just don't write 12 PM or 12 AM, especially without minutes; they are ambiguous and may be misunderstood. Use 12 noon and 12 midnight instead.
• Hope and work for the day when everyone uses 24-hour time. --Trovatore (talk) 01:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

My clock won't go there. And it defines time. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

No. Your clock measures time; it does not define it. --Trovatore (talk) 01:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

By the way, there are a lot of similarities between this and the whole 0.999... thing. I hope you accept that 0.999... is exactly the same real number as 1.000...? That real number has two different names, which confuses a lot of people for some reason. But it's really perfectly straightforward. That real number is the real, underlying Platonic abstract object, which happens two have two different decimal representations. That's not a problem; just two names for the same thing. --Trovatore (talk) 10:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

You can ask Google by typing in "What time is it in" followed by whatever location you want. Dismas|^(talk) 04:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

12:00 Noon and 12:00 Midnight leave no room for confusion. Bus stop (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I wish more people would use them instead of insisting on one of the confusing conventions. Dbfirs 08:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

December 9

Germanic people nations Roman Catholic and Protestant

I understand that United Kingdom except Northern Ireland is a Protestant nation and same thing with Sweden, Denmark, Iceland and Norway. Germany and Netherlands are half Protestants and Roman Catholics. But what about Germans in Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Switzerland and Austria? Are they all Roman Catholics or some of them are Protestants? What about Dutch people in Belgium? Are they Roman Catholic? Also, I want to know that are Luxembourg, Switzerland, Austria, Liechtenstein, and Belgium 100% Roman Catholic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.107.103 (talk) 03:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

There are many Catholics and Protestants among Swiss German-speakers. Austria and Belgium are predominantly Catholic due to their Habsburg heritage. Luxembourg and Liechtenstein are also predominantly Catholic. No nation is 100% Catholic. Every country has minority religions. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Except perhaps Vatican City. LANTZY^TALK 04:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Vatican City might be a state, but I hardly think it's a nation. Not that I really buy the concept of "nation", but if I did, I wouldn't count the Holy See. --Trovatore (talk) 06:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The Holy See and the Vatican City are different things. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 06:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I wouldn't count Vatican City, then. --Trovatore (talk) 08:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The Catholic/Protestant divide among German-speaking peoples is one of the things that got in the way of uniting Austria with the rest of Germany. There were some efforts to unite them early on (see German Confederation), but ultimately the eventual United Germany excluded the mostly-Catholic Austria (see German question and Unification of Germany). --Jayron32 06:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Here ist the distribution of denominations in 1986. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 09:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

you can simply look up each country, they all have a section on their populations' religion, called "religion" under "Demographics"!!. It is really not that hard to search before you ask, as the top of this reference desk page recommends. Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Lichtenstein Luxembourg. --Lgriot (talk) 09:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you have slightly oversimplified the issue of religion in the nations you mentioned - all of these countries have significant religious minorities, and religion isn't taken particularly seriously in much of Northern Europe - for example, according to Religion in Sweden, while 70% of Swedes are members of the (Lutheran) Church of Sweden, only 17% of the population see religion as an important part of their everyday life, and only 2% regularly attend church. The UK is a particularly complicated case, as the largest religious group is Anglicanism, which is frequently not considered to be Protestant (as far as I can tell, there isn't really any consensus among its members). If you don't consider the Church of England to be Protestant, then Northern Ireland has more protestants (relative to its population) than England. Of course, most of these countries have a 'Religion in X' article, if you want more detailed information. 130.88.99.217 (talk) 11:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that there is an oversimplification here...while some European nations have Established denominations, that does not mean that everyone in that nation must be an adherent of that established religion or denomination. In fact, it doesn't even guarantee that a majority of citizens are adherents of the established religion or denomination. It is quite possible for a nation to have one denomination as its Established Religion, and yet have a majority of its citizens adhere to a completely different denomination... or to no denomination at all. Blueboar (talk) 13:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

If the Church of England is not Protestant, this is a big problem for the UK monarchy. The Act of Settlement 1701 requires the monarch to be a Protestant. The monarch is a member (the Supreme Governor, in fact) of the Church of England, which has always been regarded as satisfying the Act of Settlement. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The nature of the relationship between CofE and Protestantism is, erm, complicated. Insofar as "Protestant" means, merely, "Christian but not Catholic or Orthodox", then the CofE is "Protestant". Insofar as "Protestant" means "Decended from the teachnings of Martin Luther/John Calvin/et. al.", then the CofE is somewhat less Protestant. Historically, after the tumultuous time under her siblings, Edward VI who was unambiguously Protestant (of the Lutheran type, see Edward_VI_of_England#Reformation) and the Catholic Mary, the Elizabethan Religious Settlement established a particular, unique "branch" of English Christianity. That's why a third term "Anglicanism" exists, and Anglicanism#Anglican_identity discusses some of the complications in considering it a "Protestant" faith of the second kind. Some CofE members would unambiguously describe themselves as "Protestant", while others would not. One cannot describe the CofE as a "Protestant" church in a completely unqualified manner. --Jayron32 14:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

How to write well

How can I get good at writing? --108.225.117.205 (talk) 03:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Write. The more you write, the better you get. You will also want others to read what you write and tell you everything they find wrong with it. That doesn't mean that you will blindly accept all criticism. But, it allows you to form your own opinions about your writing. (Example: Imagine if Douglas Adams accepted complaints that he tends to go off tangents easily and decided to avoid doing so - he would have become a terrible writer). -- kainaw™ 03:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

But I can't write at all. The most I've ever gotten is a paragraph before I realize it's all garbage and delete it. --108.225.117.205 (talk) 03:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

You left this paragraph which is quite comprehensible, and you even know how to manage Wikipedia templates. If that's not good writing I wouldn't know what is! Joepnl (talk) 03:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I have an unconventional view regarding this: I believe it is impossible to write well without having something to say. Do you have anything to say? Looie496 (talk) 04:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The best way to learn to write well is to read as much as you can. Books and periodicals, I mean. And not Maxim magazine. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree—reading is very important to learning how to write well (not that I write well). Looie496 also makes a good point—that one has to have something to say. Apropos this, though, I think writing can help us figure out what we want to say. Bus stop (talk) 05:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Reading is essential; but, like anything, practice makes perfect. No painter/composer/writer/film maker/chef ever created a masterpiece before first creating lots of non-masterpieces. Fail your way to success. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 06:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

You might find it helpful to read/join one or more of the several websites run by and devoted to aspiring writers, such as Absolute Write: note I am not personally endorsing that particular one, I merely happen to know that it is well regarded by some professional writers and editors. A frequent aphorism quoted in such circles is that (in the case of fiction) one typically needs to have written about a million words of "rubbish" before one can expect to attain a consistent publishable standard. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.243 (talk) 09:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is actually quite a good place to learn to write. Find a topic you're interested in. Find a reliable source that mentions it in a way we don't currently cover and add the information in your own words, adding the source of course. Others may come along and 'improve' what you wrote - keep an eye on what they do and try to weigh up whether the changes improved the text or not, and if they did, try to remember what they did, and ape it. However, your writing style seems to be very colloquial, ie you seem to write as if you're speaking. This is a writing style that suits some projects - some novels, for instance, are written in this manner, but for an encyclopedia, you'll need to try to write more formally. You have three great things going for you - your spelling looks pretty good, you can punctuate and you have a desire to write. Good luck! --Dweller (talk) 10:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I can attest to that, I recently passed my millionth word of rubbish and think my writing ability has noticably improved over that time. Meanwhile, The idea is to write rubbish, then go back and make it better rather than just starting again. And plan what you want to write, have a sort of rough outline of where you want to go, and follow it, until you find that moving away from that is even better (that is when you start writing well, when the words carry you along rather than the other way around). And yes, read, but also, look at what you are reading, understand how they did what they did, what you like and dislike about it, all that boring stuff they tell you to do at school, apparently it does actually help. HS7 (talk) 10:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Is the question about writing fiction or non-fiction (or both)? There is a world of difference between the two, and being good at one does not imply doing well at the other. Wikipedia is a good place to practise some non-fiction (but not all) writing, but it is not a good place for fiction! Mitch Ames (talk) 14:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like to chime in that for me, personally, my writing would not have gotten anywhere had I not the help of better writers than I. I do quite a lot of writing as part of my job (non-fiction) and find it very easy to just swim in one place and keep writing the same breathless crap that I usually am inclined towards (for examples of such, see my "user contributions" page on Wikipedia). Becoming a better writer required me to actually put something in front of someone who knew how to write (and edit), and have them talk it through with me, show me where the stupid parts are, show me where I've got germs of good parts that I'm not really using, and so on. Over time I internalized some of these suggestions and some of this approach to it. I'm not sure that just writing more and more will get you there (after all, it didn't work for <insert horrible-but-prolific sci-fi or fantasy author here>, hey-o!), if you don't have some sort of real feedback loop with better writers. The people I know who really care about their writing have all participated in writing workshops, round-tables, and merciless, excruciating criticism (including one who is regularly a contributor to The New Yorker). They all agree it is a painful thing. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

You refer to "The people I know who really care about their writing", but should one "care about" one's "writing"? Yes, under certain circumstances, one should care about one's writing. But that entails conforming to one sort of propriety or another. In some settings such propriety is besides the point. Basic verbal communication is the minimal requirement of writing, I think. In fact mangled language is a beauty of its own—I think. Bus stop (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, to paraphrase Strunk and White, there are some people who get a lot out of breaking the rules. But most people don't — they just write poorly. I don't consider "creative" as being synonymous with inarticulate, thoughtless, poorly-constructed, inexpressive, and cliche-ridden, which is what most "bad" writing is. I also think we should not confuse creativity with laziness. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Half-baked opinion follows: An expressionistic theory (and pedagogy) of composition has done a lot to reduce the quality of prose in the last 50 years or so. The good stuff doesn't just pour out of one when one opens up one's soul; facility with words is definitely learned. In his essay "A Retrospect", Ezra Pound wrote: "Don't imagine that the art of poetry is any simpler than the art of music, or that you can please the expert before you have spent at least as much effort on the art of verse as the average piano teacher spends on the art of music." The same applies to any sort of writing. Deor (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Mr.98—I don't aspire to be a great writer. I have no pretensions about my writing. But I'll be damned if I am going to sacrifice having fun out of fear of writing wrong. And I do think that mangled language is beautiful. Why is a crushed automobile by John Chamberlain a beautiful thing to behold? I do know The Elements of Style by Strunk & White. I like it a lot. But I wouldn't follow it slavishly. In response to your mentioning of cliches, I think cliches can be deadening if found in an expected context, but I think they can be refreshing when thrown in where they "don't belong". I guess I am mostly expressing a concern with keeping one's writing entertaining. Bus stop (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The OP doesn't sound like they're having "fun" with their writing. Anyway, you've got it all backwards. Improvement is not something you do "out of fear of writing wrong." You do it because you always have room to improve. This is the case with everything one does, no matter whom one is, not just writing. Being in control of your prose gives you the option of playing with the rules, playing with language, playing with plot. Doing whatever you were taught to in high school (in my case, nothing but empty, careless "emoting" which took literally half a decade for me to break out of), without any feedback, is a recipe for stagnation. I don't care in what direction people move, but everybody who cares about the content of their work (whether writing, programming, dancing, cooking, whatever) should take care to being in control of it. Doing empty things because it's all you know how to do is, well, empty. And lazy. And even Strunk and White wouldn't want you to follow their book slavishly, and say so in it many times. But the alternatives here are not "slavish attention to rules of writing" and "flowering creativity that comes from being a total autodidact who doesn't care about improving." There's plenty of middle room to occupy as writers work to find their own voice and be in control of it. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there anyplace online that I can post my attempts at writing fiction and get feedback from better writers on how to improve? --108.225.117.205 (talk) 18:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Mr.98—there is also a "naturalness" to many things. There are self-taught musicians, writers, painters. Some are awful because of their unawareness of the concerns of their particular field. But it is perfectly feasible to pick up all you need to know by looking at what others are doing or have done. Just listening, just reading, just looking—can teach one worlds of information about a given pursuit. There is nothing wrong with a proper educational course of study, but it is not indispensable. Bus stop (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

To the OP: That is a good idea, but I would suggest doing it in person rather than online. I don't know your location, but in the U.S. just about every community has a writers' group where authors and aspiring authors gather and review each other's work. They are especially helpful to beginners. Check with your local arts center or community center. These groups are very often free. (I do not know your location, but if you like, I can help you find such a group.) — Michael J 03:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there anyplace online that I can post my attempts .. and get feedback ...
Use your favourite search engine to search for "writers' forums" or similar - there are plenty of them out there. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

TRADOCtrine

Is TRADOC the only major center in the world that has focouced on doctrines or there are another places? if so, where?(does doctrine here means that should make someone believe dogmatically in it?) Flakture (talk) 10:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Most military have some form of doctrinal development of one kind or another. In the UK we have the Joint Doctrine and Concepts Centre, the Aussies have something similar. The entire staff model used by NATO forces is derived from German staff doctrine.

TRADOC is an interesting example as it combines both doctrine and training, although that reflects US Army culture. What we see is that, at least in NATO, there is quite a high level of shared development.

The level of dogmatism around doctrine does to an extent itself depend on the doctrinal approach to the use of doctrine. There are risks that it stifles innovation at the practitioner level and that's something that's taught in the UK, and elsewhere. Doctrine is a guide, rather than a direction to the lower level. Others teach it as somewhat more binding.

Personaly I'm a fan of the doctrine of Mission Command, in that one passes down the food chain what one wants achieved and allows subordinates to get on with it in a manner they see fit.

ALR (talk) 13:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks ALR, your examples are just military ones (more examples are still appreciated) but TRADOC itself seems to have more than military doctrines. for example see TRADOC Mission and TRADOC Priorities in the article. is it still non-unique in this way? More obviously, is there any non-military major doctrine center in the world? Flakture (talk) 15:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

TRADOC does only deal with "military doctrine", although it should be noted that current military doctrine also includes components of Security Sector Reform, Rule of Law, Stabilisation Operations, Demobilisation, Disarmament and Reintegration etc, all of which include elements of both other government and non-government ativities.

I referred above the the uncommon nature of conflating doctrine with training and development in that way that it happens here. I've only had dealings with the doctrinal component but I've met training analysts and the like from there. The associated articles are, in the main, meaningless as they've been taken straight from opaque doctrinal documents, unfortunately.

So yes, there are many military doctrine centres, and by it's very nature doctrine is taught at both entry and continuation training for officers and other ranks. It would normally be treated as a component of training, rather than governing it. I'm also not sighted enough on the relationship between TRADOC and the various US Army higher command and staff training establishments.

I'm conscious that doesn't really answer your question, but I'm having difficulty doing that without making the distinction between "doctrinal development" and "doctrinal training".

ALR (talk) 15:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

But I thank your trying. Actually TRADOC has some non-military content schools like finance schools ... (take a look at list of schools at their homepage)maybe they are not related originally to TRADOC's knowledge and doctrine generating and there TRADOC is just a consumer of other thoughts. 91.98.174.229 (talk) 16:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I think I'm starting to see where the difficulty is. Military training includes all of the activities that are required to conduct military operations, and that can include subjects like finance, contracting, negotiation, criminal investigation. If you look at current operations one of the directors of TRADOC is in Afghanistan heading up the counter-corruption taskforce. He's a Brigadier and has people doing investigation into financial and contracting issues in theatre.

These are all essential skills in the management of military activities as well. The commander of a base in CONUS needs to be able to run it as a business and his, or her, board will include a finance director, military and civilian HR, facilities etc.

Counter-Insurgency doctrine includes a need to understand the economies within which the military operate at the maro and micro levels.

A personal view would be that the US military can be very doctrine driven. Whether this is a function of conflating training and doctrine, or whether that conflation reflects the culture I do not know.

ALR (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Tui Manuʻa Elisala

Does anybody know where I can find a complete list of the Tui Manu'a, the ruling chiefs of what became American Samoa, and the genealogy of the family/families that held that title? Also what years were the births and deaths of Tui Manuʻa Elisala and Chris Young, the last titleholders? Also what is the best institution/museum in American Samoan history in the world? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

What type of military equipment did the Qing use during the Opium Wars?

I've never been clear on what type of equipment the Manchu army used during the Opium Wars. I know there were still using Junks for naval war. But I'm not sure what kind of arms their land army used? Were they using some form of primitive muskets, or pikes, bow and arrows? How were Chinese weapons manufactured? I'm aware that the Chinese discovered gunpowder very early on, but I was wondering if any military use of it was made during the 1840s in guns or artillery? --Gary123 (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

In the assault on Dinghai on 05 September 1841, "100 iron guns, 36 brass cannons, and 540 gingalls (heavy muskets or light guns mounted on swivels) were captured (by the British) for the loss of two killed and 27 wounded."[7]. The Opium War Through Chinese Eyes By Arthur Waley says "The bow was still the main Chinese weapon and the Chinese regarded our (ie the British) failure to make use of it as a sign of military backwardness". A bit more detail is in Modern Chinese warfare, 1795-1989 By Bruce A. Elleman. "The most common weapons of a Qing soldier included swords, shields, and pikes. The Chinese infantry also used a large range of non-standardized weapons... dart rockets with barbed tips... spears, halberds, and a curious thing like a hedge chopper fastened to the end of a pole". Also, "the Chinese musket was a wretched thing... Worst of all, the thing was a matchlock, which is to say, it was fired by holding a slow-burning cord over a hole instead of pulling a trigger". As for artillery; "Chinese cannon were numerous, but Chinese infantry did not have field artillery, although the gingal resembled a large elephant gun and could fire a ball weighing up to a pound" Alansplodge (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

monarchs of Arabian Gulf

In western media, they addressed the monarchs of the Arabian Gulf kings and princes but what about the local media meaning newspaper and tv networks and radios, how do they addressed the king of Saudi Arabia, King of UAE, King of Qatar, King of Kuwait, King of Bahrain and King of Oman? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.19.23 (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Saudi kings now disclaim any title except Custodian of the two holy mosques... AnonMoos (talk) 20:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea about the local media, but labeling them all as Kings is definitely wrong in western media as well. The title King is usually only applied to the Kings of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. Qatar and Kuwait are ruled by Emirs. Oman is ruled by a Sultan. And the UAE is ruled by a President, who is also Emir of Abu Dhabi (the Emir of Dubai is traditionally Prime Minister). 80.122.178.68 (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Looking for Moroccan princess married to Lebanese

Hello,

I am trying to find the name of a member of the Moroccan royal family, who married a Lebanese, and has a grandson who is a Lebanese businessman. I don't have much more information, except that she must almost certainly have been born before 1940.

Thanks! Evilbu (talk) 20:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

This is presumably Moulay Abdullah (4th child of King Mohammed V), born 30/7/35 in Rabat, who married Lamia el Solh (born 1937) in 1961, daughter of Riad el Solh, former Prime Minister of Lebanon. Mikenorton (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed that you put princess in the title - I couldn't find a Princess who married a Lebanese, but that's not to say that one didn't. Mikenorton (talk) 00:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Prince Moulay Ismail was their son and became a businessman. Moulay Abdallah's grandchildren appear to be too young for any of them to be a 'businessman'. Mikenorton (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Black man speaketh with forked tongue (X-Factor)

L.A. Reid said in December 8th's X-Factor's Result's Show that he had to go by his principle, admitting that Rachel Crow had out-performed Marcus Cantry, one of his "Boys". He chose however to send home Rachel Crow. I thought the idea of the "Save Me" song they performed was under the auspicious of talent. Isn't this a Talent show? Why have a "Sing Off" if it (that evening's performance) really doesn't count? Wasn't the deciding factor the performance of the evening BEFORE?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 21:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Rarely. In most of these types of shows, the results are based on the performers' overall performances during the season, as well as how the judges think they will do as professionals. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

You're talking about the X Factor, where rules are obeyed only insofar as they suit the Great God of Maximising Audience Ratings. --TammyMoet (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Empress Dowager Bo's tomb

Does anybody know anything about the whereabout of Empress Dowager Bo's tomb and the excavation of it? According to some articles she buried with a panda and a rhinoceros.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Chinese pyramids lists her tomb under "Western Han dynasty mausoleums complex in Xianyang and around Xi'an, Shaanxi", at 34.2209934°N 109.0963411°E. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

This page, The Giant Panda, agrees with you; "When the Empress Dowager Bo (179-163 BC) tomb was opened 2100 yrs after her death, a giant panda skull was found along side her.". The same detail is repeated in The Last Panda By George B. Schaller p.62. I couldn't find any other reference or account of the excavation though. Alansplodge (talk) 16:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

December 10

Question Moved to Languages Desk

Resolved

Can someone kindly tell me how to write the following sentence in fluent, colloquial German?

I have enjoyed having you living here and hope you continue through 2012.

Thank you in advance. Gurumaister (talk) 11:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Should really be on ref desk / Languages. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

You are so right. My apologies - I will move it. Gurumaister (talk) 11:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

1930 Census Cook Co, Illinois, USA

How can I search this? Kittybrewster ☎ 17:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

www.ancestry.com has it digitized and has a nice search engine (subscription). Edison (talk) 20:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Liberal Party of Canada counterparts

Does Liberal Party of Canada have any counterparts in the Western World that are major parties in their own nations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.154.206 (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The Liberal Party of Canada is a member of Liberal International, which has 104 members. These parties do supposedly have ideological positions in common, so you could have a look at the membership list. Hut 8.5 18:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The closest analogue I can think of are the British Liberal Democrats; Canadian parties started out as Liberal and Conservative in parallel with the existing Liberal and Conservative parties in Great Britain. There have of course been many mergers, splits and changes in direction in both the British and Canadian Conservative and Liberal parties in the last century and a half. One interesting result of this year's elections was that the Canadian Liberals stopped being one of the top two parties in the federal Parliament for the very first time, while it was also the first time since World War II that British Liberal ministers joined a formal coalition government. (However, Liberal and allied Members of Parliament haven't formed the largest or second-largest party in the British House of Commons since 1918. British Liberals and Liberal Democrats are used to being a third party, while at a federal level, Canadian Liberals had always been either H.M. Government or the Official Opposition. This difference has had an effect on the structure and policies of the two parties, and probably will now do so in reverse: whether engaging in consistent but somewhat abstract and diffuse criticism or defending a specific and concrete but necessarily inconsistent record.) —— Shakescene (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Saudi Arabian Airlines headquarters

Who is the architect of the Saudi Arabian Airlines headquarters in Jeddah? When was the building built? WhisperToMe (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

republican party vs democrat party (US)

Please explain repulican party vs democrat party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.30.67.135 (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

They are the two major political parties in the United States. Lucky for you, Wikipedia has very extensive articles on both: Republican Party, Democratic Party. Feel free to come back if those articles don't answer your questions. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

“The left and right wings of the party establishment — two great pinions of an ancient bird of prey” -Walter Karp.John Z (talk) 23:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Neither of the two corresponds very well to commonly-found types of European parties (Social-Democrat, Christian-Democrat, Classical Liberal, Labour, etc.), and both have changed somewhat in philosophy and policies over the more-than-a-century than they've been in existence, but generally and vaguely, the Democratic party is more "left"... AnonMoos (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Compared with most other nations, if both parties were real wings on a real bird, that bird would be flopped over on its right hand side. HiLo48 (talk) 01:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Modern American Conservatism, which the Republican Party generally leans towards, and Modern American Liberalism, which the Democratic Party generally leans towards, differ somewhat in philosophy and policies when compared to other Conservative and Liberal political parties around the world. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The Democratic Party is for overtaxing and overspending, while the Republican Party is for undertaxing and overspending. :-) StuRat (talk) 04:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

December 11

Grand OLD Party?

I followed the links suggested in the section above, and immediately found "The (Democratic) party has the lengthiest record of continuous operation..." This surprised me, because I was aware of the Republican Party being known as the Grand OLD Party. I don't really expect logic in politics, but why? HiLo48 (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't know, really, but note that the Dems have a tendency to claim a bit longer heritage than they're really entitled to. They claim a connection to Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party, which I don't really see. Still, even if you start them with Andrew Jackson (my personal most hated president; even if you ignore the whole genocide thing, creating the imperial presidency was a horrific offense), I guess they do predate the GOP. --Trovatore (talk) 00:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Why the "Old" in "the GOP"? Where does that come from? HiLo48 (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, they've been around since the middle of the 19th century. Isn't that pretty old? I don't know how old they were when they got the moniker, though. --Trovatore (talk) 01:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

After Google Books trawling, I found a surprisingly earlier 1864 usage of "grand old party" by Clement Vallandigham for Democrats, in a speech about carpetbagging practices in the south by the Union. And an even earlier 1862 usage, again for the Democrats.

And more surprisingly, despite the claims that the original usage of GOP was for "Gallant old party" first applied to the Republicans in 1875, an 1851 source used this, again for the Democrats.

The oldest usage I can find of GOP in Google Books referring to the Republicans was in 1892.

"Grand old party" in this case probably has more to do with whichever party was the entrenched authority (with a certain amount of venerability thrown in). It also must be stressed that during the period that the Republicans received this appellation, they were more or less the "liberals" (the Union) and not the conservatives. Reinforcing the earlier observation about the lack of logic in politics. The conservatives were the Democrats back then, the people against the abolition of slavery and consisted primarily of the Confederate southern US states. So when the Union won, it was naturally the Republicans who rose into prominence. And yes, the Democrats (in name only) were the older party. The Republicans were a splinter group.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 01:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Interest on gold accounts?

Some banks offer saving accounts denominated in gold. Do these accounts earn interest? If so, what would be the interest rate for those accounts? Would it follow the same interest rate as the local currency? 99.245.35.136 (talk) 02:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)