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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Honestly, guys, I couldn't find the list of the candidates of Shas party and Meretz party for the 2009 Knesset elections. Please help me. I just want to know.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“

The doctors found that the 30 babies who received deep anesthesia recovered much better. All survived, while 4 of the 15 babies who received light anesthesia died after surgery. The babies who got light anesthesia produced high levels of stress hormones. They were more prone to infections, their blood made unnecessary clots and acid built up in their muscle. The researchers theorize that the hormones, while useful in brief bursts when people need them to cope with danger, are unhealthful when high amounts are produced for days.

”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There seems to be still a view in the medical profession that pain or other unpleasantness, such as the horror of being paralyzed by a drug and unable to breathe for some time while being intubated, or pain from procedures, is ok as long as the patient doesn't remember it after the operation. They routinely administer Midazolam, which makes the patient sleepy and causes amnesia. It does not particularly block pain; that is done by local anesthetics or opiods. I've had operations with Midazolam in which I remember nothing for some time before the operation, and others in which I remember getting on the table, and much of the sounds, discussion,and twinges from cutting, with Fentanyl and local anesthetics preventing the experience being worse than getting a filling by the dentist. I may be more resistant to Midazolam than the average patient. I suppose the vibration of cutting, sawing or drilling on their bodies would bother some folks in retrospect and make them less likely to go in for surgery at some later date, if there was any way to avoid the needed operation."The baby felt pain, but he will not remember it as a child or adult" or "You were in pain and distress, but you don't remember it, so it's ok" does smack of "We waterboarded you to get information, but we gave you a date rape drug so you don't remember it, so it's ok." An anesthetist told me that decades ago they were afraid of babies or small children dying under general anesthesia, because there was less of a margin for error than with adults, so pain during the operation was far preferable to explaining to the parents the child had died. Edison (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is a good comparison. Irish Citizens who are resident and on the electoral register can vote in UK elections where other EU nationals cannot.[1] I believe this has been the case since the founding of the Irish Free State in 1922. Alansplodge (talk) 23:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

WikiProject Reference Desk Article Collaboration This question inspired an article to be created or enhanced: Anthony Knyvett (1507-1554) Please consider contributing

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

They appear to be two different gents both named Sir Anthony Knyvett.[2][3] Clarityfiend (talk) 00:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Check it out for yourself: Elysian Fields ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bible indicates that Sheol describes the grave, which is to say that both the good and the evil is called to the grave. Sheol, as used in the Bible does not refer to a place, but to the actual state of death. "Samuel" was not called up, but a deceiving spirit in disguise instead, the Bible is quite clear on the state of the dead. Only God can restore life to the dead. The Bible does not support the idea of the afterlife in any case, there is only life and death. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is becoming a tangent to the OP's question, but Plasmic, it's not clear to me that the Samuel conjured up by the witch of Endor in 1 Samuel 28 is not in fact Samuel. The verses make it fairly plain that Saul, who knew Samuel in life, recognized him, and there is absolutely no suggestion in the passage, by Saul or anyone else, that Samuel did not in fact appear: http://www.esvbible.org/1+Samuel+28/ I'll admit that a large number of theologians have interpreted the passage as you do--that is, that it was a "deceiving spirit"--but that interpretation is not demanded by the text itself. I think it's fair to say that this passage, at the very least, suggests that Jewish ideas about death, the spirit realm, and the afterlife may have been more complicated in the era during which the books of Samuel were composed than they later have been understood through the lens of Christian exegesis (and I'm saying this as someone who identifies as Christian and takes a serious layman's interest in exegesis). Jwrosenzweig (talk) 05:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that the Books of the Bible can be cross-referenced, then it becomes impossible for that subect to be Samuel. This depends entirely on whether or not you acknowledge that the Books are interconsistent. If you don't acknowledge this then my arguement is pointless. Plasmic Physics (talk) 07:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I challenge your false dichotomy. I cannot see any reason to believe that the author of 1 Samuel did not think that the Witch of Endor successfully called on Samuel's spirit. And the spirit appears to give Saul accurate information, so there is no reason within the text to regard the spirit as 'deceiving'. Your assertion of 'interconsistency' is a very tall order, and an obviously unproven claim. Which other texts do you think give us reason to think otherwise?

It's not apparent that the author of 1 Samuel regards calling up a spirit as the same as 'restoring life to the dead'. There's a clear contrast with the most relevant story from Hebrew scripture, which is Elisha raising the Shunamite's son in 2 Kings 4. I also think that no credible scholar would ever claim, as you do, that 'the Bible does not support the idea of the afterlife'. New Testament examples are plentiful: I particularly direct your attention to Jesus' words to the dying thief, "I tell you truly, you will be with me in Paradise today", but also to Jesus' use of 'Abraham's Bosom' and related concepts in the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus. And in the Hebrew scriptures, there's 2 Samuel 22:6 and Psalm 18:5 (which certainly do seem related and interconsistent), where David specifically refers to Sheol by name, and Psalm 16:10 - "You will not leave my soul in Sheol", which makes it clear that the soul is conceived of as having an existence beyond the outward life of the body, and that Sheol is a potential trap or prison for it.

It looks like you want us not just to accept that the books of the Bible can be cross-referenced, but that doing so delivers an interpretation which suits the teaching you have accepted. I submit that (a) except where the explicitly call on the reader to recall another scripture, the books of the Bible can be read in isolation, and that (b) reading them in both their scriptural and historical contexts may lead to interesting and productive insights - about Judaism, Christianity, and the ancient Near East - but that it does not lead ineluctably to the conclusions you are attempting to press on us.

For my part, I regard the Bible's teaching on the afterlife to be partial and inconclusive, but most definitely not non-existent. And I think it's fair to say that the early image of Sheol, especially as illustrated by the books of Samuel and Psalms, does have some correspondence with beliefs about the afterlife found in Mesopotamian and Greek sources from both before and after the time those stories are set, and when they were likely to have been set down in something approaching their present form. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no point in discussing this with you if you don't fully understand your own premises. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And what do you suppose my premises are, and in what way do you think I don't understand them? Because I have a degree in this stuff, and I like to think I have a reasonable clue what I'm talking about. Alternatively, you could actually address the points I've raised, rather than attacking my intelligence or integrity. I'm concerned because the OP asked a reasonable question, and your responses so far represent fairly obvious misinformation on the topic at hand. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that is the only thing that we have in common, we've both concluded that the other is misinformng. I didn't address the points you raised, because to make a succesful argument, it is necessary for both parties to first be in agreement over the premises used in making said argument. Since we don't agree over your asserted premises, my rebutal would be as useless as lever without a fulcrum. I did not attack your intelligence or integrity, I merely made an observation. I didn't address your premises either, as I can see from your personallity that it would be a futile task. In this context, I don't see meaning in degrees or personal achievement, understanding comes by the Spirit. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

They very well might have. The Jewish people were living in the middle of the Hellenistic world for quite a while. While the Biblical period predates much of that period, for centuries many Jewish people lived in "Hellenistic Jewish communities, and it is quite likely there was significant cross-pollenization. See also Septuagint, a major and widely used Greek version of the Hebrew Bible. Again, while Hellenism occurred too late to be considered during the times the Hebrew Bible describes, later Jewish traditions would certainly have not been immune to such ideas, being in such close contact with the Greek world. --Jayron32 06:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There were some Greek influences, but they should not be over-exaggerated. Before Alexander's conquests, Judea was a kind of minor inland province, somewhat insulated from sea-trading, and not quick to embrace foreign theological concepts. The scribes and priests of the Jerusalem temple, or the Babylonian exile, would have had zero knowledge of or interest in Greek literature. Even for a few books of the Hebrew Bible where it's widely considered possible that they were written after Alexander, and that there may be significant general overall Greek influences -- such as "Ecclesiastes" -- it's still extremely difficult to point to any particular passage as being specifically influenced by a passage in any Greek work, and there's a distinct paucity of Greek loanwords... AnonMoos (talk) 11:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I stated exactly what you stated. When I said "Again, while Hellenism occurred too late to be considered during the times the Hebrew Bible describes..." what I meant by that was "Hellenism occurred too late to be considered during the times the Hebrew Bible describes" I'm sorry if that was unclear. --Jayron32 14:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but the classical concept of "Sheol" is contained in the parts of the Bible which date from too early for meaningful Greek influence, while during the Hellenistic period many (not all) Jews moved towards an apocalyptic resurrection and heaven-vs.-hell view of the afterlife (which is generally ascribed mainly to Persian influence, if any outside influences were involved), so I'm not sure when significant Greek influence on Jewish views of the afterlife could have occurred... AnonMoos (talk) 14:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which is not to say that the Persian and Greek and later Hebrew concepts didn't come up in the same cultural millieu. These cultures had constant continuous contact over many centuries, and it would be surprising if they all didn't have profound impact all on each other. The Achaemenid Empire dates from the founding of Zoroastrianism, which happened at the same time as the Babylonian captivity period when much of the Hebrew Bible was penned (though it describes earlier periods, it was written down at this time) and this is also the time Classical Greece reached its Zenith and when much of Greek Mythology was committed to its classic form. So, you have a case where three major religious traditions are being composed during the same (roughly) overlapping 200 year period, among cultures which are in constant contact and yet it is supposed to be surprising that there are parallels between Greek Hades and some concepts of Sheol, as well as the "Heaven-and-Hell" aspects of Zoroastrianism? I'd say I would be shocked if such connections weren't made, given the historical realities. --Jayron32 17:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There were many possible paths of cultural influence; however, it's hard to get around the facts that before 332 BC there was no meaningful direct influence of Greek mythology or literature on Biblical Judaism, while after 332 BC, Jewish views of the afterlife tended to move away from a Hades-like conception... During the era when Greek influence became more historically plausible, Jewish conceptions of the afterlife actually became less Greek-like. AnonMoos (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's quite widely accepted that early Greek religion and mythology were influenced by the Phoenicians, aka Canaanites, who also influenced the early Israelites. They're all nations on or not far from the coast of the eastern Mediterranean, so some degree of cross-pollinisation would be unsurprising. --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of my friends told me that this was a quote by Confucius, as a number of quote sites online mention. I feel that this is spurious however, and I couldn't find anything in the Analects that says anything to this regard. What's the origin of this quote, or is this just the work of some fortune cookie hack? bibliomaniac15 07:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

I checked two different translations of the Analects[4][5] and the words "sword" and "dance" do not appear in both of them. For what it's worth this Chinese guy[6] made the exact same observation as you. A8875 (talk) 07:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Philosopher Wilson called it an ancient Celtic saying that goes, "never give a sword to a man who can't dance." Rich Goodhart has a CD, "Never Give A Sword To A Man Who Can't Dance." Choreographer Joe Chvala mentions a Celtic motto, "Never give a sword to a man who can't dance," to emphasize the mythically destructive and creative duality of aggression. Similarly, he explains how the berserks worshipped Odin, the Norse god of war and poetic inspiration, "which are two things people don't generally put together, but the dance does." Another reference mentions, old Celtic saying: "Never give a warrior a sword before he learns to dance". Another reference mentions, "There is an old Celtic proverb that says, "Never give a sword to a man who can t dance." In other words, don t entrust weapons to a man who is not also capable of experiencing joy and passion." Another reference, "There is an ancient eastern saying, "Never give a sword to a man who can't dance, or the Celtic saying, You cannot pick up the sword until you have picked up the drum."[7]. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both 'Celtic' and 'Eastern' are extremely general terms. Can you be more specific, and do you have sources? AlexTiefling (talk) 11:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are we ready to call bullshit on this? If anyone can find a pre-internet reference, I'll eat my lunch. Zoonoses (talk) 06:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We wouldn't want you to go hungry, Zoonoses. Please start, otherwise it will go cold. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 12:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, well - two months later I stumbled across a possible reference in the Essays of Elia (Mrs. Battle's Opinions on Whist): She held not her good sword (her cards) "like a dancer." (The quotes are Lamb's.) This was first published in the early 1820's. Lamb didn't footnote this quotation, but it is almost certainly from Antony and Cleopatra Act 3 Scene 11:

 Antony: Yes, my lord, yes: he at Phillipi kept
 His sword e'en like a dancer while I struck
 The lean and wrinkled Cassius, and 'twas I
 That the mad Brutus ended: he alone
 Dealt on lieutenantry, and no practice had
 In the brave squares of war: yet now, no matter. 

My excellent Royal Shakespeare Company copy of the play glosses the relevant line: sword...dancer in its scabbard, like a dancer's sword worn for ornament. Maybe, maybe.... Zoonoses (talk) 06:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The last sentence in its original form as of 14:56, 1 October 2012 is incoherent semi-gibberish... AnonMoos (talk) 10:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they since corrected the last word from "zionist" to "anti-zionist". StuRat (talk) 18:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think you're missing a negation in the last clause. --Trovatore (talk) 02:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find elements of the above discussion problematic in their use of the key terms - including the OED definition. Kindly consider:

• The Jewish "people" - a better term than "nation" as the latter is usually associated with geopolitical locales - can be seen as including (a) adherents of the Jewish religion (b) individuals who descend from Jewish forebears and who either (b1) do or (b2) don't identify with this ethnicity apart from religious belief/practice as in (a). Almost all (a) are also (b), whereas many (b1) and even more (b2) are not (a).
• The state of Israel was established to be a homeland for the Jewish people (not "a" Jewish "nation"), and those who qualify per the Israeli Interior Ministry are granted residence and citizenship. This preferential treatment is considered by Zionists a goal worthy of continued support due to antisemitism in other sovereign nation-states. Not incidentally, Israel is the world's only country (and this only since 1948) to institute what I'll call Jewish culture: the Hebrew language, the Jewish calendar of holidays, etc.
• The state of Israel doesn't operate entirely on Jewish religious law, though this is enforced in many areas of life in the domain of the abovementioned Ministry of the Interior.

• "Orthodox" and "ultra-Orthodox" Jews are numerically a minority, though their political parties receive disproportionately high support due to the clout they wield in coalition system of government.
• Minorities do have government-funded support, notably a separate education system for the Arab population (language of instruction: Arabic).

For the purposes of this query, looking only at "anti-Zionists living in Israel": they oppose the privileges granted to Jews and would prefer a "nation[-state] of all its inhabitants/citizens." (A separate case from some believing Jews who maintain that only the Messiah can bring about a Jewish sovereign state on Earth.) Perhaps the manifesto of some anti-Zionist party or similar organization would specify whether Judaic religious practices would be included along with others, i.e. Muslim, Christian, or secular (similar to the U.S.A.'s "separation of Church and State"), or be relegated to minority status (and possibly delegitimized) were the Jewish/Zionist hegemony replaced by either a secular, egalitarian multi-stream, or non-democratic form of government. I can also state that it's possible to support the Zionist call for Israel as a homeland for the world's Jews while demanding - as written in the Basic Law amendments (notably that of Human Dignity and Liberty) to Israel's Declaration of Independence - equal treatment/opportunities/rights/responsibilities for all its inhabitants, perhaps on the model of other multilingual, multiethnic democracies. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Funny thing how the Arabic word for "Arab nationalism" (قومية) literally means "tribalism" (as expressed and exemplified in such literary masterworks as Three Whom God Should Not Have Created: Persians, Jews, and Flies), while the country of Malaysia has an overtly and explicitly racist governing philosophy backed up by an overtly and explicitly racist constitution, yet for some reason Soman never seems to criticize those nationalisms... AnonMoos (talk) 11:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this is some kind of personal quarrel you have with Soman, I don't want to get involved. But this discussion is about Jews and Zionism, not Arabs, Malays, or their constitution. Soman also didn't denounce Stalin in this thread, but that doesn't imply anything about his beliefs about Stalin. --140.180.242.9 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a personal quarrel as such, just that I'm a little tired of the trotting out of pseudo-leftist jargon buzzwords (such as "chauvinist" here) as some kind of apparent substitute for reasoned critical thought when it comes to certain topics (as for Stalin, see the use of buzzword "progressive" at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 November 5#Israel & American policy...). -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall having ever spoken in favour the bumiputra doctrine, neither on WP:RDH nor anywhere else. AnonMoos tried the same argument ploy back in 2009, and I responded there Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2009_August_10#Racism_Israel. --Soman (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Britain has multiple embassies and consulates in Japan, so I doubt that actually has anything to do with it. The British Gov also has a High Commission, a Deputy High Commission, two High Commission Liaison Offices, and another Liaison Office in Nigeria, and no Embassy. Having an embassy in a country does not mean that they recognize the country as a sovereign entity, because I am pretty sure the UK recognizes Nigeria as an independent sovereign state. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 06:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't think so, Monaco's defense is managed by France but I would call it independant. It's foreign policy is independent though, which allowed it to become a UN member. --85.119.27.27 (talk) 09:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, foreign policy is far more important than defense when it comes to independance. Plenty of small countries have agreements where a larger country provides their defense since it wouldn't be practical or efficient for them to maintain their own standing army. That doesn't stop them being independant. --Tango (talk) 11:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, as I said countries like Palau are independent while revocably handing over their defense to a larger country. I assume Monaco is in that category--it could decide that henceforth France no longer is responsible for its defense (or is that not right?). But my suggestion was that a country that by law cannot revoke its defense agreement is therefore not independent. Comments? Duoduoduo (talk) 14:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Dependent territory is probably also relevant here, with many examples showing different degrees of "dependency". Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to license my art work, which is currently in public domain, under creative commons? Will it prevent others from for-profit implementations? Should I prove as it is my work? --V4vijayakumar (talk) 04:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, wrong noticeboard. Take this exact same question, and ask it again at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --Jayron32 04:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. --V4vijayakumar (talk) 04:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could I please get the currnet deatils about Mrs.Janaky Athi Nahappan, Malaysia? Who fought for Indian independence through Indian National Army of Subash Chandra Bose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.193.98.241 (talk) 04:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article about Janaky Athi Nahappan. Looie496 (talk) 06:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just mentioned an excerpt form Xin Haonian in zh:人海战术 says "during the Menglianggu Campaign, in order to eliminate the 74th Reorganized Division led by Zhang Lingfu, the communists forced landowners, rich farmers, their children and nakesd women to be their cover."（在孟良崮戰役中，為了消滅抗日名將張靈甫的整編第74師，中共竟逼迫地主、富農及其孩子和裸體婦女在前面做衝鋒掩護。） but I cannot find such saying anywhere else in the Chinese and English article of Menglianggu Campaign. Can that claim ever be true?--Inspector (talk) 06:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"nakesd " ? StuRat (talk) 07:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The role sounds like what would be called "human shields", not "cannon fodder"... AnonMoos (talk) 10:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article; Human shield. Alansplodge (talk) 12:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is right. But the Human shield article says nothing about even the Chinese Civil War.--Inspector (talk) 13:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True; but I thought it might be useful if the article is updated. A quick look at Google didn't give any useful information in English unfortunately. Alansplodge (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if it will be better to ask among those who studied this area. But I would like to know what is the westarn view about the tactics employed during the battles in Chinese Civil War?--Inspector (talk) 05:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I studied a lot of mid-century Chinese politics, war and military affairs, and this incident is not one I’ve come across. Still, it may have simply been under-reported in scholarly works. More to the point, my first thought is “who is the source?” That will often tell you all you need to know about the likely accuracy of a one-off report. ADD: The source is a pro-Nationalist (KMT) newspaper in Shanghai, in 1946. That puts it in the grey area between heavily censored news and deliberate propaganda. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any links to this source?ADD: wait a minute, the Menglianggu Campaign took place in May 1947, and "The source is a pro-Nationalist (KMT) newspaper in Shanghai, in 1946." You mean by 1946 the date when the newspaper started? --Inspector (talk) 03:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As always, with material like this, there is a difference between reporting something as fact, and reporting that a source claimed it as fact - and if the source is a pro-KMT newspaper, you'd need very strong grounds not to going with the latter option. Even better, find a less partial source, and use that instead. If you can't find one, then ask yourself whether the claim actually merits inclusion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference between the two? What are the similarities? As far as I can tell, they both seem to worship the Bible - the former the Hebrew Bible, the latter the Christian Protestant Bible. 140.254.227.46 (talk) 13:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside the obvious differences between Christians and Jews, I think that if you honestly believe any group committed to the literal truth of the Ten Commandments can really be said to worship a book, you have not understood these religions. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article to read is Fundamentalism which explains fundamentalist strains of all religions in broad terms, and will help the OP to fix the misconceptions they appear to be working from (if indeed, they are interested in fixing their own misconceptions). --Jayron32 14:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given some of the OP's other edits, they may well not be. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I'm using a public computer. 140.254.227.46 (talk) 15:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure whether Karaites are very meaningfully "fundamentalist" but they're strictly scripturally literalist -- applying the sola scriptura principle in a more thoroughgoing way than Protestants have traditionally done, to the degree that they've sometimes been considered effectively a different religion than Rabbinic or "Rabbanite" Judaism... AnonMoos (talk) 14:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While the difference between Jews and Christians is pretty obvious (happy to elaborate if necessary...), I think a more interesting question would be the difference between Karaites and Sadducees... I don't know that myself. --Jethro B 00:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think there's any real historical continuity between the two, but both vehemently rejected the "Torah she-be-`al peh"... AnonMoos (talk) 08:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So I've read information in the past that addressed that we live in the most peaceful time in history. I couldn't find a solid article here that addressed violence today in comparison to violence in recent or even ancient history. Does that exist, or where would I find more good sources comprehensively looking into violence rates in the past. Thanks Chris M. (talk) 14:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not fully comprehensive (since comprehensive historical information often just isn't available), but see The Better Angels of Our Nature for a prominent recent book... AnonMoos (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit Conflict) A quick Google under "Do we live in more violent times?" has New Scientist - Steven Pinker: Humans are less violent than ever as the first result. Alansplodge (talk) 14:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted, I suppose, that Pinker's conclusions are considered fairly controversial. He more or less ignores the World Wars, for example, as anomalies to the general trend. More than a few people have taken issue with that sort of thing. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose once you dismiss a few tens of millions of deaths as anomalies, you can come to any conclusion you want.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you count them, they aren't as significant, relative to a global population of billions, as you might think. StuRat (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It also depends on what you call 'now'. Now in the XXI century we enjoy one of the most peaceful times of humankind, but in the last 100 years not so. The compelling reason to define 'now' in a more limited way is certainly that that is what matters to us. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars by death toll could give one a start. Collect data by years, compare to world-wide population during those times, and see when the greatest proportion of the world population died in wars. An idea on methodology. The incompleteness of the Wikipedia article is probably a hindrance, but if one could get the data from better sources, I'd think that's how one would do it. --Jayron32 19:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that Pegasus is the name of the winged horse ridden by Bellerephon, child of Medusa 'n' all that. My question is did the Greeks have a word for a generic winged horse? People nowadays just call any horse with wings, 'a pegasus' but I'm curious if there exists a word that the Greeks may have used.24.218.57.201 (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably they just called Pegasus the ancient Greek equivalent of a "winged horse". If there were more than one, they might have had a name for them collectively, like Gorgons for Medusa and pals. StuRat (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pegasus is the name of a mythological winged-horse character. A theoretical word formed from ancient Greek roots meaning "winged horse" would be something like Pterippos πτεριππος... AnonMoos (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not one word, but Apollodorus calls him "hippos ptenos". Adam Bishop (talk) 21:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"hippos pteros", I should think, as with the Pterosaurs. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Πτερος is the noun meaning "feather" or "wing" suitable for forming compound words, but Πτηνος is the adjective meaning "feathered" or "winged" suitable for use in multi-word phrases... AnonMoos (talk) 08:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was there more than winged horse in Greek mythology? Alansplodge (talk) 12:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're trying to ask if there was more than one winged horse. There were two, Pegasus and his twin brother Chrysaor. I don't know of any others in the standard canon. --Jayron32 12:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry the "one" was missed out somehow. However, our article on Chrysaor says "often depicted as a young man". The carving of him at the Temple of Artemis (Corfu) also doesn't show any equine attributes, although admittedly you can't see anything below his hips. This site says: "KHRYSAOR (or Chrysaor) was a son of the Gorgon Medousa. He was usually represented as giant, but may also have been conceived of as a winged boar, just as his twin brother Pegasos was a winged horse." Alansplodge (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Private Law 95-10, signed by US President Carter in late 1977, directed the Postal Service to forgive some debts and the Treasury Department to repay money that had already been paid on the debt. It contained a provision stipulating that no more than a certain percentage of the amount repaid could be devoted to attorneys' fees, and the subsection concluded with "Any person violating the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be fined in any sum not exceeding $1,000." Imagine that someone had violated these provisions: what would the charge have been? Is there some part of the US Code that gives a default name to crimes that aren't named by the statutes that create them? I don't remember seeing any kind of criminal law in a private bill before. 2001:18E8:2:1020:81A9:10F5:10B3:3C4A (talk) 17:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Contempt of Congress. Certainly it would only have bound the parties affected, who would be on notice of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with that. Shadowjams (talk) 02:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They can just say "You are charged with violating statute X, subsection Y, of ...". Even when crimes have names, they often include a variety of offenses, so it's important to specify the exact sections under which they are charged.StuRat (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who are these "they" that can charge you with things? I seem to remember Al Gore saying his crimes were unpunishable because there existed "no controlling legal authority" to prosecute them. μηδείς (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What? Shadowjams (talk) 02:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if you're still confused. μηδείς (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "they" would be the executive branch, and everyone else down the line. Shadowjams (talk) 20:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, that Gore reference is so far afield of the original question I don't see how it even came to mind as relevant.Controlling legal authority in that instance was a reference to an indication it was illegal, not that they couldn't find a prosecutor. There is an issue of who prosecutes the executive itself. For that there's the Saturday Night Massacre, and the independent prosecutor, but again, none of that has any reference to this question at all. The central confusion in the OP's question is either an assumption that private laws cannot carry criminal penalties (they may), or that the lack of codification means a penalty cannot exist (it does not). Shadowjams (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the law (or another law) specifies that a certain prosecutor can bring a certain charge, it is pretty much a joke, which was Gore's point. They had declared certain campaign acts illegal, but no one was empowered by law to prosecute them. StuRat's "solution' immediately below is entirely novel--we'd need a ref to a law which allows such prosecutions by the legislative branch. Bills of attainder are expressly forbidden, so I don't expect he's looking to the Constitution. μηδείς (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whatever the specifics of the Gore case, your point is exactly why there's a constitutional debate over the legality of an independent prosecutor. Even bills of attainder would be enforced by the executive. And yes, unless Congress is given some power expressly or implicitly (e.g., contempt) they don't have enforcement power. And there's no way, absent that constitutional power, Congress could write itself in as the enforcer of a particular law (the special prosecutor statute some might argue does this, but that argument's for another day). Shadowjams (talk) 04:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if Congress passes a law and doesn't pass the responsibility for trials onto anyone else, then it would be up to them to press charges. It's not very practical, but is possible. They generally only preside over impeachment trials. StuRat (talk) 21:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at most indictments they list the statute itself, or actually more technically they list the code. There's no necessity to have a law in the code. Specifically see U.S. Code#Uncodified statutes. Private laws are not codified, but they still have the same force of law. There's no need to talk about Contempt of Congress (which is quite different) or worry about who would prosecute (the U.S. Justice Department). Shadowjams (talk) 02:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There were two monarchies in history that claimed descent from King David, Ethiopia and Georgia. Do any of these monarchies have a direct genealogical line of descent in their tradition from David down to the present? David IV of Georgia is called the 78th descendant of King David so there must be some line to go by.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia articles Origin of the Bagratid dynasties and History of Armenia (Movses Khorenatsi) has some information; apparently Moses Khorenatsi has geneologies for the Bagaratid (Georgian and Armenian Royal Dynasties) going back to Adam, so that may give you some place to look for that. The Wikipedia article on the Bagrationi dynasty of Georgia also cites Sumbat Davitis-Dze and others as being a source for that genealogy. Some leads to follow. The article Solomonic dynasty has information on the Ethiopian dynasty, but it is sadly lacking in background and references. --Jayron32 18:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When we're talking about lines of descent from Adam, most scientific scholars dismiss at least parts of those as fiction. So, the question comes up as to whether any genealogies from David to now are reliable. StuRat (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not any more so. Claiming "decent from David" isn't much more reliable than how many Germanic and Norse dynasties claimed decent from Odin, with the exception that David was probably an historical figure. Genealogies of David after the Babylonian Captivity are covered at Exilarch and Davidic line, the last article contains the salient line "In general, the validity of such claims — as that of most claims to royal descent after a considerable passage of time — is difficult to check."--Jayron32 19:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the original question to be "is there a list of descendents in order", i.e. do these families have an entry for someone in each generation, or do they just have a legend saying "King ___ who founded this dynasty was the xxth descendent of Azariah son of Amaziah, but we don't know the names of everyone in between"? If I understand it correctly, the original question really isn't asking about the historicity of these accounts. 66.244.68.64 (talk) 20:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this isn't a question about the historic truth behind the Davidic line. It is asking if there is a complete line in cultural reckoning?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 20:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia no, but above I gave what Wikipedia articles indicate to be sources that likely do, themselves, have such a list. You would probably start looking at those original historic sources, or translations thereof, for such information. --Jayron32 21:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a third monarchy that claimed descent from King David. --Dweller (talk) 21:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32 wrote - "Claiming "decent from David" isn't much more reliable than how many Germanic and Norse dynasties claimed decent from Odin, with the exception that David was probably an historical figure." I can understand where Jayron32 is coming from. However, interestingly enough, I actually have a friend whose family throughout the generations kept a family tree with their descendants, and it goes all the way to David. Of course, it could be fabricated, but I don't think that's likely. A lot of families keep family trees throughout the generations, and his family is one of them. It's pretty interesting. Anyway, I don't know much about the actual question, but if you're wondering about the alleged descent from David as written in the Bible (and hence the alleged descent from Adam, as that can be traced in Genesis), then Books of Chronicles gives that whole thing. Of course, whether you want to believe it or not is up to you - I'm just offering it if you want to see it from a Biblical standpoint. Hope it helps. --Jethro B 00:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is highly likely that it is, at least in part, fabricated or, at least, contains innocent mistakes. You're talking about over a 100 generations spanning thousands of years. Do you really think it's going to be flawless? Do you think nobody had an affair and pretended the resulting child was their husband's? Or that there were no gaps when nobody was filling it in and then it got filled in afterwards with someone's best guesses? That they were descended from David isn't really in doubt - when you're talking about someone that long ago, either they have no living descendents or almost everyone (at least everyone with European/Middle-Eastern descent) is their descendant (see identical ancestors point). --Tango (talk) 11:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This chart shows the direct line of descent from Adam to HM Queen Elizabeth II via King David and Kenneth MacAlpin. Another branch connects Abraham to George Washington. This pedigree works through the royal houses of Ireland and Scotland culminating in the House of Stuart, from whom the House of Windsor is descended (a little indirectly). This must be a different route than that taken by the pedigree preserved at Hatfield House that connects Adam to Queen Elizabeth I of England,[8] from whom the Windsors are also descended related (apparently they're only descended from Henry VII in the Tudor line). Alansplodge (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find a text copy of the Hatfield pedigree online, but this modern chart connects both Alfred the Great and William the Conqueror to King David via Joseph of Arimathea. Apparently the Hatfield chart includes King Arthur, and I think Elizabeth would have wanted to have her line to include the Saxon kings of England. If anyone can find it, I would be very grateful. Alansplodge (talk) 16:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do the special municipalities of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba get any official representation in the Dutch Senate or House of Representatives? (Or anywhere else in the government of the Netherlands, for that matter?) --CGPGrey (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe so; looking around the best information I can find is at Caribbean Netherlands which indicates that the "National Office for the Caribbean Netherlands" provides all liaison between the islands and the National Government; but I can't find any information to indicate direct representation in the States-General of the Netherlands. However, the States-General article lists a connection to the template "National Legislative Bodies of the Americas" indicating some connection there. Of course, the States-General doesn't appear to be elected from single member districts, rather via party list proportional representation, so I don't know that any elected representative has a specific single constituency they represent. --Jayron32 19:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct, members of the States-General do not represent any region or district any more than any other. They each represent all people that voted for their party, wherever they may live. However, Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba don't have enough voters to significantly influence the outcome of the elections. Together they have about 13000 people that can vote, while the mainland has about 12.7 million, which is about 0.1%, i.e. 0.15 out of 150 seats in the Dutch House of Representatives. The Dutch senate is chosen indirectly, i.e. they are elected by the (directly elected) representatives of the 12 provinces and by the respective Island Councils of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba. The weight of the votes is proportional to the number of inhabitants they represent. - Lindert (talk) 19:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If Denmark signs and ratifies United Nations conventions do they automatically include Greenland and the Faroes or do these two "autonomous countries under the Danish Crown" have the responsibility/competence to sign separately? The specific instance I'm concerned with is the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities but answering the general principle would be useful too. Roger (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are examples when conventions do not effect Faroe or Greenland when they are for Denmark (the EU treaties are examples), but I have the feeling that in the case of Denmark the situation is: if the UN don't mention it, its Faroe, Greenland and Denmark. I checked the Dutch treaty database (not much of an authority in this case, but in my experience quite reliable); and they include Faroe and Greenland (see here)... L.tak (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the authoritive source! NOrmally (so: unless mentioned otherwise), they do include Faroe and Greenland. See the historical information section of the UN Treaty base. L.tak (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As to the general principle, neither Greenland nor the Faroes appears in the list of Member states of the United Nations, nor on the list of sovereign states. Also, there is this document submitted by Denmark on behalf of Denmark and Greenland [VERY LARGE PDF] detailing Danish actions under the Convention on the Law of the Sea relating to Greenland. So barring very special circumstances, the details of which would fall under WP:CRYSTAL, the Danish signature is the one that commits Greenland and the Faroes to participation. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 19:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little confused. What does the Dutch treaty database have to do with Denmark? μηδείς (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's mark call it resolved; we have the -very large pdf- of the Danish government and the short summary of the of UN Treaty series. (The Dutch treaty data base says the same. That is; as I said, not an authoritive source; but they simply record every treaty of interest to the Netherlands and they are good at it; that's why I sometimes go there in case of doubt; only later I found the more authoritive UN-source, that;s clearly a better one...). Rgds! L.tak (talk) 21:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting! Kind of like NOAA being responsible for the Boxing Day tsunami. μηδείς (talk) 21:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone. Roger (talk) 22:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the class that I'm teaching I want to have the students read a short story by Bruce Coville about people that live in a giants teeth but I can't find it anywhere on the internet or libary. Does anyone know what the story is called and where I can buy a copy of it? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.60.175 (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Search "giant's teeth bruce coville" at amazon. μηδείς (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What percentage of the USA population dies intestate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.201.84 (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here and here and here are some starts. I found these using Google and Google scholar using the phrase "Americans die intestate". Its a start for you. --Jayron32 20:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do living organisms die? Is it possible for living organisms to live forever? I do recall there was a tree that lived for hundreds of years before it died. If a living organism has or is given an infinite amount of nutrients, then can it live forever? I know it sounds like science fiction, but can one defeat death if one were to remove all natural and unnatural causes of death? Or is death really inevitable and that there will always be some sort of unknown cause of death? Cell can't function anymore? Wear-and-tear? How do philosophers justify or explain death? 140.254.226.217 (talk) 20:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Living organisms die because they get eaten, injured, frozen, attacked by their own species, etc. They also run out of food or water, get diseases, suffer organ failures, etc. For organisms that don't have biological immortality, senescence kills cells because the mechanism for DNA replication fails to copy a short segment every time, and when this process starts cutting off useful DNA instead of just telomeres, cellular mechanisms start failing. The primary benefit of this seems to be in preventing cancer, and it almost always works; cancer cells can only proliferate because some mutation disables the mechanism and makes themselves immortal. Nothing can live forever because the stars will eventually die due to the second law of thermodynamics, and the universe will suffer a heat death (which is actually the coldest possible death). Finally, whatever philosophers think about death is utter bullshit unless they have empirical evidence for their claims, at which point they'd be scientists. --140.180.242.9 (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I'll take it as "There is no purpose in life" or "The meaning of life is to create a harmonious cycle of life or to behave naturally. Whatever that is supposed to mean is up to the individual." 140.254.226.217 (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've unreddened and emblued your link (biological immorality), but its smirk-worthiness was lost in the process, damn it. Swings and roundabouts. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Biological immorality" was pretty funny, but I'd rather 140.180 pay more attention to fixing his last sentence, which is wholly unproductive. While we don't have a "philosophy of death" article as such, death and culture is a reasonable starting point. Mortality salience and existential psychology may also be of interest. Naturally, no single answer can be given to "what do philosophers think of death?"; there are innumerably many philosophical approaches. — Lomn 21:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally, death scares the hell out of me! 140.254.226.217 (talk) 21:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that many organisms could be "designed" to live much longer than they do, but short life spans are favored by evolution, as it allows for more generations, and hence more variation in a species, which permits it to adapt more quickly and effectively to it's constantly changing environment. Some organisms, like certain salmon, are programmed to die right after they breed. StuRat (talk) 21:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That makes me feel better. Well, at least life has a purpose: to reproduce and help the population survive. Death, I suppose, is for a good cause. 140.254.226.217 (talk) 21:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's an odd perspective on the whole thing. You're dead FAR longer than you'll ever be alive. Life is a blink of the eye, a drop in the ocean. That's not to say it's irrelevant or trivial or unimportant, though. The question is not whether death has a good cause, but whether life can be made meaningful and fulfilling. I can guarantee that death will come to you; but I cannot guarantee you'll have a meaningful and fulfilling life in the meantime. That's up to you. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although it's sad that good people have to die, it's balanced by the fact that bad people have to die also. If no one died, there would be no need to reproduce, nor any need to pass the torch to a new generation, as the old people would be around forever. Ugh. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We inevitably die because we have sex. The two are even more closely linked than most people suppose.

Bacteria reproduce asexually by splitting. Each resulting bacterium has just as good a claim to be the original as the other one does, and every bacterium can be said to be as old as its species. With sex, though, that's all out the door. Two parents contribute their genes to make a new individual. Since the parents do not live on as their own descendants, the way bacteria do, they must inevitably die.

And the sad part is, that as a member of a sexually reproducing species you are doomed to die, whether or not you personally have sex. John M Baker (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It strikes me that the reason that we die (insofar as it is a ``reason) is that there's no evolutionary pressure not to do so. Put the other way around, if there were good evolutionary reasons not to die, then we wouldn't. Evolution favors species that live until their reproductive cycle is complete, but otherwise, there's no pressure to live beyond that. (Infer what you like about ``meaning of life). 128.59.163.13 (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surely there is a selection pressure to remain fertile for longer, though? There is such a thing as biological immortality: some people think that lobsters could live indefinitely (assuming no diseases or predators), and might even become more fertile as they age. 130.88.99.231 (talk) 16:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently staying fertile all your life is not in the biological interest of all species, as humans, especially women, don't. StuRat (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a selection pressure to remain alive and infertile for longer in humans. See grandmother hypothesis. By promoting the survival of their grandchildren, grandparents promote the propagation of their own genes, even though they do not reproduce themselves. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 21:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They don't all die. Some are immortal. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot understand Nietzsche and Kant. It may be because of differences in manners of speaking arising through time. What were there views regarding what is right and what is wrong? Nietzsche is more interesting; of all the things I've read about him it just seems like he was a man who just put ideas and thoughts out in the open. Dd he actually believe any of the stuff he wrote? --Melab±1 ☎ 23:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both Nietzsche and Kant are quite difficult to read in the original, and they are written not only in a different style, but you're reading them in translation and in a world that isn't necessarily asking the same questions they were asking at the time. There isn't a way to summarize Nietzsche and Kant's views on "right and wrong" (or even "truth and falseness"!) in a short paragraph that wouldn't do great injustice to the nuance of their thinking. If you are looking for a nice way to dive into their thinking — or at least give you enough understanding of what their big questions are — I've found the A Very Short Introduction series to generally be pretty good. They have Kant and Nietzsche editions. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly recommend Walter Kaufmann's translation of The Antichrist It is not at all hard to follow if you have the wider grounding that is assumed, like a familiarity with Judaism, Christianity, Ancient Rome, and Buddhism. Nietzsches' basic viewpoint is that moral systems are tools meant to achieve ends: validation of power and success (master morality) or validation of guilt and suffering (slave morality). You can read this work in two sittings, it is well worth the effort. μηδείς (talk) 01:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may read Schopenhauer, who was the cerebral middleman between Kant and Nietzsche. The latter was strongly under his influence. --Omidinist (talk) 12:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Hume could out-consume Schopenhauer and Hegel. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you suggest a specific work of Schopenhauer's to read in this light? μηδείς (talk) 22:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely suggest his main work, The World as Will and Representation. It takes time to read, but it's worth reading. The most comprehensive exposition of his philosophy in English is Bryan Magee's The Philosophy of Schopenhauer. --Omidinist (talk) 05:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently working on the Mombasa article, and have not been able to find good history and culture resources by which to find and verify information. Does anybody have some recommendations with regard to sources? I'd also appreciate some "keywords" which I could use to search online, and get started. Thanks everybody! Van Gulik (talk) 00:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to point you to the history on the official city website, but then realized it is identical to Wikipedia's text. [9]. How about these books instead: Lonely Planet guide, Encyclopedia of Twentieth-Century African History, Kenya: A History Since Independence, Kenya: Identity of a Nation. And for some really old stuff (I don't know whether this counts as primary sources or not), Universal history, ancient and modern: from the earliest records of time, to the general peace of 1802, A general history and collection of voyages and travels (1812), Through Masai land (1887). All of these have at least a section on the "history of Mombasa" (which was all I googled; I just used books instead of regular web search). Taknaran (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which Muslim nations formerly had Jewish population that they are called as Sephardi Jews in Israel? Which Muslim nations formerly had Jewish population that they are called as Mizrahi Jews in Israel?--70.29.32.229 (talk) 01:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Don Mustafa[reply]

See Mizrahi Jews for the answer. Specifically, the opening paragraph (bold is mine):

Mizrahi Jews or Mizrahim (Hebrew: מזרחים‎), also referred to as Adot HaMizrach (עֲדוֹת-הַמִּזְרָח) (Communities of the East; Mizrahi Hebrew: ʿAdot(h) Ha(m)Mizraḥ), are Jews descended from the Jewish communities of the Middle East, North Africa and the Caucasus. The term Mizrahi is used in Israel in the language of politics, media and some social scientists for Jews from mostly Arab-ruled geographies and adjacent, primarily Muslim-majority countries. This includes Jews from Iraq, Syria, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Oman, United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Palestine, Lebanon, Yemen, Azerbaijan, Iran/Persia, Afghanistan, India, Uzbekistan, Kurdish areas, Northern and Eastern Sudan, as well as Ethiopia, and within and nearby Israel. Sometimes, Sephardi Jews such as Jews from Morocco, Algeria, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya or Turkey are erroneously grouped into the Mizrahi category for some historical reasons.

Hope it helps. --Jethro B 01:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes Jews descended from ca. 1492 emigrants from Spain and/or who spoke Ladino are described as "Sephardi", while Jews who are neither Central-European influenced (Ashkenazi) nor Spanish influenced are called "Mizrachi". However, sometimes the distinction between Sephardi and Mizrachi is ignored. Yemen had a large Jewish community without any meaningful Spanish influences... AnonMoos (talk) 08:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Besides Hebrew, Arabic and Persian, what other languages do Mizrahi Jews speak? Other than Arabic, Hebrew and Turkish, what other languages do Sephardi Jews speak? --65.95.106.38 (talk) 19:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Don Mustafa[reply]

Sephardi Jews also speak Spanish. 83.49.195.42 (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our articles on Mizrahi Jews and Sephardi Jews have sections on the respective languages spoken. You may want to use the search box (top right) to locate similar entries in the WP. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question is a bit vague. People can speak any language that they learn. I'm sure there are plenty of Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews who speak sign langugage, having learned it in their life. There isn't anything that prevents people from learning a langugage. If you're asking about the traditional languages spoken, it depends on a degree which country they're from. If they're from Morocco or Italy, many will speak Italian. If they're from Syria or Egypt or Iraq, many will speak Arabic. If they're from Spain, many will speak Spanish. etc --Jethro B 20:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Ladino. μηδείς (talk) 21:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much by definition, Sephardi Jews are those whose ancestors spoke Ladino... AnonMoos (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad we agree for once. μηδείς (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which city of Bangladesh have historically had Jewish population? Someone told me it was Rajshahi but I didn't believe it. --70.29.32.229 (talk) 01:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Don Mustafa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.32.229 (talk) 01:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Typing "Jewish people in Bangladesh" into Google (you should try this sometime. Type exactly the question you want answered there first. It's a wealth of good information) turns up this article which states that there are between 175-3500 Jewish people in Bangladesh, depending on who you ask. At either end of that spectrum, that's a fairly tiny number. The article notes that many Jewish people in Bangladesh disguise their faith as they fear social retribution, so teasing out where most live may be difficult to do. --Jayron32 03:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A good answer, but I believe the OP was referring to a few decades ago, when Bangladesh had a larger Jewish population. I could be wrong, but that's what I got from the OP writing "historically." I don't know the answer to that though. --Jethro B 03:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. In which case, a google search on History of judaism in bangladesh turns up some interesting stuff. Just this year, a former Jewish-Bangladeshi military officer was honored as a liberator of the country: [10]. Another source which looks promising to answer the OP's historical question is this one. --Jayron32 03:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What Wikipedia has seems to be at Baghdadi Jews... AnonMoos (talk) 08:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baghdad isn't in Bangladesh, though! Bangladeshi Jews is a redlink. --Tango (talk) 11:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you had looked at the article, "Baghdadi Jews" is a term for Jews who migrated from Baghdad at some point, apparently including a substantial fraction of former Bangladeshi Jews. In India, Baghdadi Jews are contrasted with Cochin Jews etc. AnonMoos (talk) 13:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the building at 3:09 of this video? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 03:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The maker of the video wrote in the comments, "That is from Batumi city at the Black Sea shore." --Jethro B 03:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but they didn't know what the building was. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 03:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the building you mean: [11] ? Unfortunately, the only caption I see is "Divlek C. at Batumi City, Added June 19, 2012", which I take to be the name of the photographer. Here's the site where I found it: [12]. You might want to contact the blogger. StuRat (talk) 11:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's the Batumi Justice House. They are apparently dancing on the roof.--Cam (talk) 11:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously??? That's their justice house!! It's amazing... --Jethro B 23:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Giovanni Di Stefano or Jacques Vergès. It's Ludwig, Ludger something (I'm pretty confident on the "L") and he has a von or van attached to his name, but it was added for cosmetic reasons. He might have died recently. Eisenikov (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edward von Kloberg III Found it by searching for "added "von" to his name" surprisingly it's a common practice. Eisenikov (talk) 05:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article, he was a lobbyist, not a lawyer. Rmhermen (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure "notorious" is really the right description? Everyone, even suspected drug bosses and terrorists have a right to be defended properly. Alansplodge (talk) 12:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Notorious" simply means famous. It carries no negative denotation whatsoever. A8875 (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to wiktionary (and two others I checked):"Widely known, especially for something bad; infamous." [13]. Interestingly, you would be right, if we were speaking medieval Latin :) SemanticMantis (talk) 18:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to 50 years of my usage - "notorious" has a strongly negative connotation; if you just mean "famous", say "famous"! -- Arwel Parry (talk) 19:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notorious sounds rather negative to me. My point is that a perfectly respectable lawyer has a duty to defend their clients to the best of their ability, no matter how odious the crimes that they are charged with. If they (the lawyer) fail to do that, then the whole adversarial system is flawed. Alansplodge (talk) 00:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A peculiarity of English, as "notorious" acquired negative connotations a few centuries ago,[14] while "notoriety" is pretty much neutral.[15] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I'd query that last statement – [16], [17]. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the UN General Assembly podium there is a set of red, yellow, and green lights[18]. Is there an official statement from UN indicating its purpose? Most commentators assume it's a speech timer, but there are many flaws in that theory:

1. Contrary to the commonly used green, yellow, red, flashing red sequence[19], the UN one goes from green to flashing red[20] directly. The yellow blub is never used as far as I can tell.
2. In the above video the speaker goes on for 18 more minutes after the red light starts flashing. He essentially used more than double of his allotted time.
3. The light is not used at all for some speakers[21].
4. Speech timers are generally not visible to the audience, since it can be distracting. (Hence the question. During a boring speech all I can focus on is the blinking light.)

I'm looking for official UN documents describing the purpose of these indicator lights, or barring that, an authoritative source that describe it as a speech timer.A8875 (talk) 07:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found some references to the light system (the link goes to one example of a search, I tried others too with other results). Sometimes the "orange" light is referred to and sometimes not. The time limits seem to vary by event.--Cam (talk) 12:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Thank you very much.A8875 (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad this was answered, because all I could think of was, you will find out next time The Master leads a Sontaran invasion fleet. μηδείς (talk) 22:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

La Salle Expeditions I have done extensive searching for dates or even "three weeks later" and such of any of his 1669 voyage south of Western New York (specifically on the Allegheny River and upper Ohio River. I have searched all the links and references on the wiki articles for any specific dates south of western New York and even found this but alas no dates or time references. Anyone have a document or journal link to the complete journey? Marketdiamond (talk) 08:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen this? Starting at "In what regions" the author discusses the problem, including chronology issues and sources. He seems to conclude that there is no reliable evidence that La Salle explored the Ohio at that time. --Cam (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that link! However from what I see it mostly centers on years after 1670 (1681 etc.) how far he went on the Ohio and that he didn't really discover what we now know as the Mississippi until later. I get the point though, La Salle may have been a hoaxster, for balance (and with a grain of salt) is there any similar source that by date allows for LaSalle's perspective (daily journal etc.) something that may key in the exact date he reached modern day Louisville (the falls as he calls them) and also Pittsburgh specifically in 1669-70? Thanks and that was a great read learned a lot but now I have more questions than answers now lol. Marketdiamond (talk) 19:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good day all together. I am very interested in watching the TV-debates between President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. I would like to watch them live but that's impossible because I live in Germany. So the debates take place in the middle of the night, therefore I have to watch it the next day. Does anyone know where I can watch them immedialtely? I doubt that someone will have uploaded it at youtube the same say. Perhaps CNN or CBS? Thanks in advance for the answers. --Jerchel (talk) 08:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

C-SPAN will live stream it here[22].A8875 (talk) 08:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

C-span will probably have videos online afterwards. There will also be transcripts, which are much faster to read than actually watching the videos. It might be worth watching a minute or two of video to get a look at the candidates, but watching the whole thing is in my experience a big waste of time. You get the info much faster from the transcripts. 67.117.130.72 (talk) 10:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello guys! I tried to search here and on other wikis to find a list of paramilitary education institutes in US but I could not find. Could you give me a list? - Prücsök (talk) 09:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The really depends on how you define "paramilitary education institutes". If you're looking for places that will teach you how to shoot a gun, most ranges will offer that. If you're looking for PMC type companies that will offer the whole training package, then take a look at Category:Security_consulting_firms and Category:Private_military_contractors.A8875 (talk) 09:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean something like a List of United States military schools and academies? 67.117.130.72 (talk) 10:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I though to. Thank you so much! - Prücsök (talk) 10:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infanta Maria Francisca of Portugal's article says "A crowd of several thousand were known to have visited the village to pay their respects as her body lay at the rectory awaiting burial at the Royal Pantheon of the Braganza Dynasty...Although initially interred in Gosport Catholic Church, Maria Francisca's remains were later transferred to Trieste Cathedral in Italy, next to those of her husband and children." Where exactly was she buried? How could she be transferred from the prestigious Braganza tombs to a church in Gosport, England, then to a Church in Italy? Was she ever buried in the Braganza tombs?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 13:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On average, when normalized to a per-paperclip figure, which has the highest profit margin, paperclip manufacturers who spend money on machines (amortized over life of machine, and maintenance), materials, and energy to actually make them and then sell them to wholesalers (or directly to retailers), paperclip wholesalers who spend money to buy them from manufacturers and then sell them to retailers, or retailers who spend money to get them and then sell them to customers? 20.137.18.53 (talk) 14:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For low-priced items like this, the retailer typically makes the most profit. This is because the average customer is not going to do Internet research and compare prices at several stores before making a purchase, unlike, say, with a car. So, the retailer could sell them at a 100% markup, while, with a car dealership, this would be quite difficult. Both retailers do have the resources to compare manufacturers and choose the cheapest product. StuRat (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} Shadowjams (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why does your signature require a citation? μηδείς (talk) 22:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Either because he likes it that way, OR he's commenting on the edit just above while not modifying it.[23] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I agree Stu. Yeah high-street retailer don't have to worry so much about product comparison on low price Items, but I imagine high street sales is a very low fraction of the total compared to the amount made from bulk sales to large businesses and offices, and if you're buying 50 million of the things, I'd bet you would want to shop around--Jac16888 ^Talk 20:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did mean to include an exception for large businesses, although many of them buy from wholesalers. And small businesses, like the corner bakery, are just as likely to buy the first box of paperclips they see at the local retailer as individual customers are. BTW, what does "high-street" mean here ? StuRat (talk) 20:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The low street is down by the docks where the working class lives and works. The high street is up the hill and out of the pollution and grime, where the nicer houses are. Shops on the high street are cleaner, have higher-quality merchandise with staff who don't spit tobacco juice on the floor, and charge more money, not least to keep the rabble away. If you are going to the high street to shop, you don't care about the price or at least are willing to pay more. In modern times, the stationery store near higher-end offices (lawyers, architects, etc.) would tend to be pricier than one in a commercial strip mall. Franamax (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, high street is Brit-speak for everyday retail sales, referring to shops in town centres. Rojomoke (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rojo gets the points, I was simply referring to the idea of going to a shop for small amounts as opposed to going to suppliers for bulk amounts, with bulk amounts being where the majority of money will be coming from--Jac16888 ^Talk 21:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stu is basically right, the retailers make the most profits when they make them, but they also engage in the highest risk, while manufacturers make a small but more dependable margin. This is basic economics, but I haven't been able to find an article that addresses it directly. μηδείς (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the OP is being led up the garden path by the simple and speculative answers above. So, first things first: I don't think any of us have ready access the the data we would need to answer the question. Not least, here will be a great deal of variation in profits made across different sectors of the paperclip supply chain, between different actors in each sector, and across different timescales for consideration of profit, such that there is no hard-and-fast answer. We can hypothesise that each link in the chain - manufacturer, wholesaler and retailer - in general cover their costs and make a profit. That means that each manages to cover their fixed and variable costs: these differ significantly in form between the three, but not in substance. The manufacturers bears the cost of materials, manufacture, overhead recovery, and repayment of investment in plant and machinery. The wholesaler bears the cost of inventory, warehousing, distribution overhead recovery and cost of sales. And the retailer bears the cost of inventory, store space, overhead recovery and the cost of sale. And although it is the case that the retailer's mark-up is likely to be way in excess of the wholesaler's mark-up, it's likely that the retailer's cost of sales and recovery of store rents is way in excess of corresponding costs for the wholesaler. In the long term, it's likely that each industry sector (manufacturing, wholeselling and retailing) has pretty much the same sort of profit to capital invested ratios, since if otherwise, one would expect the market to correct the disparity by investing more capital in the higher profit sector of the chain. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the past, when a national economy got in trouble, the government would devalue it. Nowadays the alternative would be reducing the wages, and put up with the outcry. But when the euro was established, did the EU thought that this would be needed? Were they aware that they were eliminating the financial instrument of devaluation and introducing something so prone to generate conflicts? OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This information was available to them. But they were also aware that there is no possibility for currency devaluation within large nations like the USA. So the more they were thinking along the lines of a United States of Europe, the more a single currency looked appropriate. What happens in the USA when the economy of one part of the country is booming and the economy in another part is in decline? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The USA is a different case. They are a monetary and fiscal unity, the EU is only a monetary one. If the economy in one part of the US is depressed, which is often the case, just compare NYC with New Mexico, you can ignore it, or compensate it a little through governmental programs, tax relieves, or grants. 83.49.195.42 (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The euro often seems to be talked about as though it is unique, but there have been many examples of fixed exchange-rate systems (such as the Bretton Woods system, which fixed the exchange rates between lots of major currencies from 1945 until 1971) and currency unions (such as the CFA franc used by many West and Central African countries). Devaluation has not been feasible for many governments, and as with everything in economics, I don't think there is any consensus on whether it is actually a useful tool. 130.88.99.231 (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear to me that fixed exchange-rate systems have some pretty tough drawbacks. Fiat money is the way to go for modern economies, that have to adapt, contract and expand rapidly. Comparing the euro to such system is comparing it to the Titanic, impressive but a complete disaster. Some European countries would love to use this tool of devaluation right now, even if there is no consensus as you claim. 83.49.195.42 (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While fiat money may deal better with minor problems, it can also suffer a total collapse during a depression. StuRat (talk) 19:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has it ever happened? I know that hyperinflation is a natural consequence of making money just because you need it. 83.49.195.42 (talk) 19:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but also if people lose faith in it. At some point, such a currency may need to be abandoned, pegged to a more reliable currency, etc. StuRat (talk) 19:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has it ever happened? Excluding the case where the government printed money to pay their debt, and not to manage the inflation and growth, have any single nation lost faith in their currency? Also excluding wars, where people tend to lose faith in government actually, and all its institutions. 83.49.195.42 (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you exclude all the conditions under which fiat currency has collapsed, you will eventually get to the conclusion that it has never collapsed. :-)

Therefore, I will concede that, in a world without war and without incompetent and/or corrupt politicians, fiat money is the best choice. StuRat (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I was having a discussion with a friend about "what would happen if.." and the scenario was basically this: a student researcher does some dangerous research, and goes missing in a foreign country. Who do the media confront? I thought the supervisor would be first in the firing line. She thought the vice chancellor. Does anyone know of cases involving universities facing this kind of unwanted attention, and what was the role the media played? I'd be interested in cases from anywhere, pref first world countries, where the university was in some kind of media storm, and the issue was something like negligence. As far as I understand it, in most countries, any lawsuit would be against the institution, but wherever the media frenzy is directed, that is where heads are most likely to roll. IBE (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't most universities (at least larger ones) have some kind of press officer to deal with the media? Beyond that, it would depend on the circumstances: for example, the media might blame the vice-chancellor if the problem was caused by university-wide policies, or somebody more junior if they appeared to be personally responsible for what happened. 130.88.99.231 (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's sad how many google hits there are for "missing university student". In lieu of a news story of the kind you are looking for (until someone else turns one up), here is some more general info similar to 130.88.99.231's point: The university will have codes both for relations with student researchers and for fieldwork. Here are two examples from the University of Edinburgh: Code of practice for supervising grad students, Health and safety code, fieldwork section. Presumably before blame is assigned the media would check whether the university had policies and if they were followed.Taknaran (talk) 18:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone does dangerous research in a dangerous country, ignoring any travel advisories, and something happens. Would that really be a big media thing, let alone a firing/liability issue for a university (assuming they didn't pretend it was a safe trip?) Unilynx (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everything I can find with missing students no one blames the university. American student missing in Spain, Iranian-American student missing in Iran, American student arrested in Syria, American student missing in Syria. Everything I can find with criticism of universities is for controversial course content, lab practices (usually involving animals) or anti-discrimination policies on campus. Universities sued for negligence are usually for sports safety, hazing incidents or medical treatment. Perhaps your scenario is uncommon or has not happened.--184.147.123.169 (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"...would that be a big media thing?" Maybe, since research has to be approved by the supervisors, and an ethics committee. The question might arise about their culpability, and by implication, that of the university. If it is just someone going there as a visiting student, different story, but it seems possible that there would be questions about others allowing it. I agree it's strange, but somehow duty of care seems to pop up quite often. A case does not have to be watertight for the issue to cause problems, since the threat of a lawsuit is enough to scare a lot of people. IBE (talk) 05:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Despite ever more detailed procedures, minor problems with fieldwork crop up all the time and major ones from time to time. The answer to your question is that press queries are directed through the press office. Individual members of staff may be instructed not to speak to journalists on that question. (They can carry on talking to journalists about unrelated research.) Then an internal investigation, kept strictly at arm's length from the press, will try to work out who, if anyone, messed up. It's not the case that if some journalist opines that "the supervisor must be to blame" the university will share that assessment. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See above. If you wanna post a paragraph on it make sure you put 'yes' or 'no' first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.113.87 (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if we consider the difference before and after the housing bubble. See: here, the last graph titled "Existing Home Sales (NSA)" (as in "not seasonally adjusted", so the raw numbers). You'll see the sharp drop between 2006 and 2007, and then it stays at that same comparatively low rate for all years following. --Jayron32 17:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. You'd think that such a simple question would be easy to track down the answer to, but for somebody like myself with only a very basic grasp of the subject... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.113.87 (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a rethink of the question is in order. If you have only a very basic grasp of the subject, how do you know it can even be answered with a simplistic "yes/no" answer. It may be yes in some places and no in others - you didn't specify what part of the world you're interested in. It may vary over time - you didn't specify any time period. And what's your definition of "selling"? Is it an actual sale as evidenced by an exchange of contracts, or is it merely a desire to sell as evidenced by a "For Sale" sign. Are you talking about just investment properties, just the family home, or both? And what does "fewer people" mean? Fewer than what, and compared to when? What if it's fewer in some places but more in others? Is the sale of a house counted as 1 for the house, or 6 for the family of six people who are all moving? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, more people are offering their house for sale, but that doesn't mean they are indeed selling it. 83.49.195.42 (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where? (See Jack's post above.) HiLo48 (talk) 22:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo. μηδείς (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "indeed selling houses" is exactly what Jayron's source says (for the US market, per Jack's comments re: clarification). There are far fewer sales now (2011-2012) than during the peak of the bubble (2005-2006), though today's sales are comparable to levels a decade ago. Conversely, there are far fewer houses on the market now than at any point post-bubble (though levels are comparable to before and during the bubble), so there are not demonstrably more houses being offered for sale. — Lomn 21:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My experience is anecdotal, but since 2011 my family has sold property, and my neighbors to my left have sold, and my right have offered, and my biggest client offered their properties. That's a lot of selling and not so much closing. I can't make any rational sense of the fact that home values have collapsed unless one figures that demand has fallen far below supply. μηδείς (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where? (See Jack's post above.) HiLo48 (talk) 22:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NJ & NY. (Also MA, sold, in 2009 at a good price.) μηδείς (talk) 01:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In 1955, according to our article, no one had heard of Allen Ginsberg. In 1957 Howl became the object of a court case for obscenity, defended by the ACLU, brought to national attention. Question: is this court case the only reason why this became known? Would anyone otherwise have been aware of Ginsberg, or Jack Kerouac (whose first work was bought in 1957), or William S. Burroughs (according to the article Ginsberg was "instrumental" in getting his first work published), or anyone in the "Beat Generation"? And if so, does this illustrate some general law or principle of historical development (beyond the Streisand Effect?) and if so what? Wnt (talk) 00:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked,

dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix, . . .

I don't see much point in speculative questions of this sort. Looie496 (talk) 00:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty pointless waste of time. OK for chatting over a cup of coffee or a mug of beer, but not really appropriate for the RD. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that a true "alternative history" can go anywhere - maybe the 60s never happen and we all go up in nuclear war; maybe some other dissidents come to prominence with a more reasoned philosophy, etc. But I think you can analyze the situation in a very narrow way, simply asking whether some people in this group were making it into the public eye independently at the time when the court case began. Wnt (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason to crucify Wnt for the question, although it is speculative as worded. He could have asked which contemporaries are there of Ginsberg who were compared to him without being accused of obscenity, etc. He did ask whether Kerouac's and Burrough's fame is seen as derivative of theirs. Referring to critics of these authors might be helpful. And next time he might do better by asking what reviewers of and works about these writers might help me research the question whether.... μηδείς (talk) 01:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That kind of question can be asked about anything in history. Would the Kennedys still have had a lot of impact if JFK had died on PT-109? Would Regis Philbin still be nationally known if he had never worked on the Joey Bishop Show? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why Bangladeshis tend to migrate more to America than Canada? What does America have that Canada doesn't that Bangladeshis like about? Education system? health system? lifestyle? --70.31.19.100 (talk) 03:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Don Mustafa[reply]

More people. --Jayron32 04:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And more stuff. Futurist110 (talk) 05:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warmer weather?-85.119.27.27 (talk) 07:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a map where it shows the nations and the date of recognizing Bangladesh?--70.31.19.100 (talk) 03:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Don Mustafa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.19.100 (talk) 03:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to find a lapel pin depicting the Grand Union Flag. Where's a good place to begin?142.255.103.121 (talk) 04:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I googled [grand union flag lapel pins] and a number of entries came up. This particular one is one the blacklist for some reason, but I would think there are others: www aliexpress com / wholesale / wholesale-united-states-grand-union-flag-lapel-pins.html ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the first episode of The World at War there is a clip showing members of the German Army swearing a personal oath of allegiance to Hitler. They are shown making a 3-fingered salute with the thumb and first two fingers of the right hand held in front of the chest at shoulder level with the elbow bent. It looks similar to the Serbian salute. What are the origins and symbolism of this salute, and why was it used in preference to the German military salute, or the Hitler salute? - Cucumber Mike (talk) 09:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone remind the phrase where Franklin Roosevelt (or possibly Theodore) said that the country where the citizens have their own houses is invincible? Don't know the exact wording though. Thanks. 176.241.247.17 (talk) 12:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was FDR in a speech to the United States Savings and Loan League in 1942. The full quotation appears to be "[A] nation of homeowners, of people who own a real share in their own land, is unconquerable." See here. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 12:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, since the first mention I could find of this quote is from a book published in 1950, it's possible the quote is apocryphal, or at least synthesised. It's also frequently misquoted, especially by Realtors as "A nation of homeowners is unconquerable". - Cucumber Mike (talk) 12:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was just looking at Arvind Mithal's Wikipedia article, and see that he goes by just the name Arvind to the point that all of his published works that I can see cite him only as Arvind, without including his last name, which he has, which is Mithal (if the Wikipedia article is correct). What he wants to do is not at all my question, but I just wonder about the majority of peer-reviewed publications, at least in the field of computer science, if they have stated policy regarding the procedure of applying an author's desired name to the article written. Obviously, they're letting Arvind go by simply Arvind. Is this an exception? If some computer scientist named Peter Sanders (I just made that up) wrote a paper that was reviewed as highly relevant and well-written and by all degrees was determined "this needs to be in the next issue of Communications of the ACM!" And Mr. Sanders adamantly wanted to go by only "Pete," is it likely (not invitation to speculation, cite policy) it could show up on the page "[Article Title] By Pete, University of [whatever]"? 20.137.18.53 (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why shouldn't anyone call a person what they wish to be called? --Jayron32 14:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I'm not asking why or why not, I'm asking if the publishers have policy on this and Arvind is a granted exception or not. What if someone, despite any assumption of such professionals by default being absolutely not frivolous, were one whose papers were undeniably deemed of the highest importance and needed to be published, but he was a weird person and demanded to go by "#apofijawpeoi5rj"? 20.137.18.53 (talk) 14:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]