Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

The Wikipedia Reference Desk covering the topic of humanities.
Humanities #eee #f5f5f5 #eee #aaa #aaa #aaa #00f #36b #000 #00f humanities Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities Humanities WP:RD/H

Welcome to the humanities reference desk. Want a faster answer? Main page: Help searching Wikipedia How can I get my question answered? Provide a short header that gives the general topic of the question. Type ~~~~ (four tildes) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when. Post your question to only one desk. Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. We'll answer here within a few days. Note: We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice. We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate. We don't do your homework for you, though we’ll help you past the stuck point. How do I answer a question? Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

skip to bottom Choose a topic: Computing desk Entertainment desk Humanities desk Language desk Mathematics desk Science desk Miscellaneous desk Archives   See also: Help desk Village pump Help manual

February 22

What is this painting?

This is the best shot I can find, but it displays behind the bar at a renovated church in Southampton, UK?

http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g186299-d732578-i35680787-The_Vestry_Restaurant_Bar-Southampton_Hampshire_England.html#35680787

--81.101.105.36 (talk) 12:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Isabella, by John Everett Millais, currently on display in the Walker Art Gallery. 195.89.37.174 (talk) 12:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Isabella (Millais painting) Nanonic (talk) 12:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Inflation

Hypothetically and in theory, if every country had a certain amount of money and more money was made so that the amount of money per person was made exactly the same and the amount of money in the world was doubled, and all prices for things were frozen, would inflation still occur? And why? I know this would never work in reality and is flawed in many ways but would it work in theory? 94.14.210.10 (talk) 12:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

What would be the mechanism by which prices were kept the same? See this discussion of government price-fixing: [1]. 31.54.195.124 (talk) 13:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

We also have an article Price controls, but it could use some loving attention. 31.54.195.124 (talk) 13:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

You're basically describing the United States at the time of the western gold and silver strikes—because the US had a bimetallic gold and silver standard, adding more gold and silver to circulation literally increased the money supply. As more and more money goes into circulation, its value goes down, so prices rise to compensate, causing inflation. If (as you postulate) prices were frozen, then with real-terms prices falling (as money is worth less), there would be less incentive to produce goods. Assuming a relatively free market in other respects (e.g., people not being forced at gunpoint to keep productivity levels up), you would get shortages accompanied by either rationing or queueing. In the real world in this situation, some of the money flows overseas (think all those buildings owned by oil-rich countries), which in the short term stabilises the economies of both the newly-rich country and those countries without oil/gold/diamonds etc who are suddenly relatively poorer. 78.146.17.69 (talk) 13:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, inflation would occur by definition; you've described a situation in which "more money was made", and that's inflation. Nyttend (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that is inflation, but rather it's one factor which causes inflation. If there were strong enough factors fighting inflation at the same time, it would be possible to increase the money supply without any inflation. StuRat (talk) 15:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

You're inflating the money supply: that is inflation. If your population and economy grow rapidly fast while the money supply is inflated very slowly, you might end up having simultaneous inflation and falling prices. Nyttend (talk) 15:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

"In economics, inflation is a sustained increase in the general price level of goods and services in an economy over a period of time." So no, it's not inflating the money supply. That's related, but not the same thing. StuRat (talk) 15:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

That definition appears to conflate the symptom with the (presumed) cause. —Tamfang (talk) 07:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I assume that your tabbing was off, and you meant to say that about Nyttend's definition. My def comes straight from our article, and says nothing about expanding the money supply. StuRat (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm more careful about my tabbing than many around here. I assume you'll agree that we must be wary about relying on a Wikipedia article as a final authority. —Tamfang (talk) 08:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

If your tabbing is correct, I don't know what you meant by saying the def I quoted conflated the two. It did not. Nyytend did. And the def I used agrees with other authoritative sources. I think quoting our articles is a good starting point, but we can go to external sources in cases where there is disagreement, as I did further down. StuRat (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

If inflation means the symptom, is there a word for the cause? —Tamfang (talk) 09:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Rather than the "symptom", I would call it the "result" (a "symptom" of inflation might be union strikes for higher wages). As for causes, there are several. The one which has been confused with inflation here is "expansion of the money supply". StuRat (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Price controls don't work in the long term, for several reasons:

1) Changes in the relative cost of items. For example, digital camera prices are coming down relative to film cameras, and any price controls that set them at the same price would lead to cheating (selling digital cameras cheaper).

2) Changes in technology. Cars, for example, are not the same as they were 50 years ago, with all sorts of new features that didn't exist then. So, any price controls set back then really wouldn't apply now.

3) Uncontrollable inputs. Farmers in particular have to deal with changing weather, etc., so the price to produce a given amount of food can go up. If they can no longer sell that food at a profit, they will go out of business and a food shortage will result.

4) Changes in the popularity of items. Lobster used to be considered food for poor people, then it became fashionable. If the price stayed the same, the natural stocks would have been wiped out due to over-fishing (and it wouldn't have been profitable to farm them). It's only the high price that prevents this. (I'd eat lobster every day if I could afford it.)

What really happens under price controls is that they need to constantly adjust the "fixed prices", which follow the natural changes in prices (including inflation), just in steps instead of continuously. StuRat (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Inflation is not a situation in which more money is made. That’s simply an increase in the money supply. Inflation is when a specifically defined basket of goods and services costs more in a subsequent time period than it did in the previous time period. While that may be facilitated by a rise in the money supply, more money in circulation is not, per se, inflation. Nyttend uses the term inflating the money supply to equate an increase in the money supply with an increase in prices; the two are not the same.DOR (HK) (talk) 04:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

No, that's not what I said: you couldn't have "simultaneous inflation and falling prices" if increases in the money supply and prices were equated. Inflation is the process of increasing the money supply, regardless of what else happens; of course it's normally rising prices, but not absolutely necessarily. I was slightly wrong, but not badly; let me quote OED. Great or undue expansion or enlargement; increase beyond proper limits; esp. of prices, the issue of paper money, etc. spec. An undue increase in the quantity of money in relation to the goods available for purchase; (in lay use) an inordinate rise in prices. So it's not simply increasing the supply, but increasing faster than demand. Let's not stoop to the "lay use": we need to use the educated terminology, i.e. money supply's being increased faster than money demand. Nyttend (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

It didn't say "not simply increasing the supply, but increasing faster than demand", and I should point out that increasing the money supply faster than the money demand is also not guaranteed to raise prices, as other factors also control prices. That seems like a poor definition, since it defines inflation as two different, and at times contradictory, ways. This is what happens when non-economists define economics terms. Look it up in an economics text and you will only find the increase in the price of goods and services. Here's some: [2], [3]. StuRat (talk) 20:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

As StuRat already pointed out, "In economics, inflation is a sustained increase in the general price level of goods and services [(notice the absence of any reference to money supply)] in an economy over a period of time." So no, it's not inflating the money supply. That's related, but not the same thing. (Trust me? I'm an economist!) DOR (HK) (talk) 09:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• If there's a fixed amount of money, the result is deflation. Suddenly injecting a bunch more money as a one-time operation temporarily interrupts/reverses the deflation but then it's back on. Also if every country starts out with the same amount, there are still trade imbalances likely to develop, so the countries that are net importers end up with deflation though the the exporters may be able to avoid it. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 01:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Brazil-Portugal during the Spanish American wars of independence

What activities did Rio de Janeiro conduct during the wars of independence, i.e. what relations did it have with the rebels, with high Spanish officials, what border incidents occurred, etc.? Spanish American wars of independence doesn't mention Brazil (aside from remarks that its independence occurred in the same context as the Spanish colonies) or Portugal outside the footnotes. I'm aware of the Cisplatine War and related disputes, but that's all I can remember hearing about. Nyttend (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Brazil's path to independence actually occurs in a different context than did most of the Spanish colonies. The events that led to the Brazilian independence are wrapped up in the Napoleonic Wars, specifically the Transfer of the Portuguese Court to Brazil where the Portuguese monarchy transferred their capital to Rio de Janeiro. Rio de Janeiro remained the capital of Portugal until the Liberal Revolution back in European Portugal caused the King of Portugal, John VI of Portugal, to return to Europe. Shortly thereafter his son, Pedro declared Brazil independent, and himself a constitutional monarch as Emperor of Brazil. Thus, while most of the Spanish colonies became independent through Republican revolutions, the Independence of Brazil occurred due to a dynastic split in the House of Braganza. Shortly after Brazilian independence, a small portion of southern Brazil (which was Spanish speaking, unlike the rest of the country) became independent as the Republic of Uruguay in the Treaty of Montevideo (1828). Other than the Cisplatine War which led to Uruguayan independence, I'm not sure that Brazil played a major role in the independence movements in the other South American nations. --Jayron32 00:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I was asking a different kind of question. What relationships were there between Rio and the various colonial and anticolonial forces of the Spanish areas during the wars of independence? Either they had some sort of relationships (diplomats here and there, border crossings, approaches to dealing with Indians), or these relationships were absent, and historians knowledgeable on the subject could presumably write a good deal about it. Did they generally have relations with the rebels, e.g. co-maintaining border crossings, exchanging diplomats, and recognising each other's customs officers, or did they generally work only with the Spanish, or were there significant variations from place to place and time to time? I'd just like to know what routine parts P-B played, if any, in the long period of warfare. Nyttend (talk) 03:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

You may find some of the machinations of Carlota Joaquina of Spain, Queen Consort of Portugal and Brazil, to be interesting. --Jayron32 03:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald, a British naval officer, was involved in the Wars of Independence for Brazil, Chile, and Peru. He may provide some connection, diplomatically or militarily, between the nations. --Jayron32 03:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

[ec] I did, and Carlotism too. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 03:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Central African Republic Constitution

How many constitutions has the Central African Republic had, and in what years were they promulgated? Also, I would like to know when any of them might have been suspended, and if so, for how long? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C541:CC60:49D2:A5AA:F06A:1780 (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

See History of the Central African Republic. In chronological order:

• 1 December 1958 (Boganda)
• 13 August 1960 (Dacko)
• [1 January 1966 (suspension)] (Bokassa as President)
• 4 December 1976 (Bokassa as Emperor)
• [20 December 1979 (restoration of 1960 constitution)] (Dacko)
• [20 September 1981 (suspension)] (Kolingba as military ruler)
• 29 November 1986 (Kolingba as President)
• 14 January 1995 (Patassé)
• 5 December 2004 (Bozizé)
• [24 March 2013 (suspension)] (Djotodia)

Samba-Panza is therefore "interim president" at the moment, but with no actual constituional documents to support her (unless it's the 2004 constitution). The state is described as a "provisional republic" in our main article. Tevildo (talk) 22:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

February 23

Mankind given dominion over the world

In the Bible, mankind is allowed to rule over the whole world by God. In which religions do god/gods specifically give mankind dominion over the world? Are any of these religions completely unrelated to Judaism? --98.232.12.250 (talk) 08:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Not in Buddhism/Hinduism, can't speak for the rest.PiCo (talk) 12:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I've only ever seen that phrase written in the Old Testament. Also, bear in mind, many religions don't have gods, in the sense of 'the one and only creator of the world'. I think that only Abrahamic religions only have one god, whilst the rest which have gods generally have a pantheon of gods, all with complex relationships. Buddhism doesn't have any. Many shamanistic and animalistic religions don't have gods, just spirits. The concept of a monotheistic religion with only a single god is, as far as I can recall, purely Abrahamic. As a side note, even the Ancient Greeks knew the concept of infinity, as they have stories about Titans who existed before the Greek pantheon of Gods existed, to (sort of) explain how all these gods turned up (because all the Titans were in never-ending conflict and ended up killing each other). KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 20:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you mean animistic rather than animalistic. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:23, February 24, 2015 (UTC)

See Category:Monotheistic_religions. Atenism and Zoroastrianism are of at least comparable age to the Israelite religion, and relegate other spirits to roles comparable to archangels in the Abrahamic religions. Tenrikyo, Cao Đài, Cheondoism, and (debatably) Tengrism postdate Islam, but are not identified as Abrahamic (though Cao Đài was definitely influenced by Christianity). Henotheism and pantheism also blurs boundaries between monotheism and hierarchical polytheism, resulting in some sects of Chinese Heaven worship, Hinduism (especially Vaishnavism), and traditional African religions (particularly worship of Waaq, Olodumare, and Nyame) as being at least complementary to monotheism (again, by framing any other figures in the pantheon as occupying a role comparable to archangels in the Abrahamic religions, or arguing that ancestor spirits simply affirm the immortality of the soul, not polytheism). There were also the Hypsistarians, who (like with the Zoroastrians) scholars aresplit on whether their monotheism was influenced by Judaism, influenced Judaism, or evolved in parallel. Over all, the Roman empire would have become monotheistic thanks to Neoplatonism, the cult of Sol Invictus, and Mithraism; even if Constantine or even Jesus had never been born.

As for other religions holding humanity being in charge of the world, Hermeticism sort of said that, but in a more cosmic sense. How unrelated it is to Judaism is a matter of debate, but most secular scholars I've read tend to favor the idea that Hermeticism influenced Judaism (Kabbalah) and Christianity (Gnosticism), while only occasionally grabbing some names from Judaism just to be trendy (such as incorporating Iao and Pipi into the Greek Magical Papyri, but favoring a more Neoplatonic panentheistic monotheism). Hermeticism saw humanity as the shattered, scattered, and ignorant remains of the nature-creating demiurge, however (though, unlike many forms of Gnosticism, it didn't see the material world as evil so much as a foreign land). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

According to Genesis 1:26 (World English Bible),

God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the sky, and over the livestock, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

—Wavelength (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

That "us" thing, which implies "gods" rather than "God", historically has required jumping through some theological hoops to explain. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Even though I acknowledge that it was a historical reference to Henotheism, "angels" is still a simple enough resolution. Still, attempts to use the Trinity to explain it while trying to avoid tritheism are not as simple. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Translating אֱלֹהִים (Elohim) in Genesis 1 as "gods", rather than "God" is far more difficult to defend grammatically however, because every time it occurs (31 times in this chapter) it is accompanied by a singular verb. And even comparing verse 26 with the next verse shows that the meaning is singular. - Lindert (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly the verse I was referring to. I have another question: in which other religions is mankind specifically said to be in the image of God/gods? Of course anthropomorphic gods are as common as dust, but I'm curious if other religious texts make it as explicit as the Bible. --98.232.12.250 (talk) 01:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, make what as explicit as in the Bible? I don't understand this last question. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 03:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

That humans look like gods, and were made to be that way. --98.232.12.250 (talk) 03:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you looking for non-Abrahamic parallels to the Imago Dei, or would you count religions that believe humanity is descended from the gods or patterned after some cosmic man (e.g. Keyumars, Pangu, or Ymir)? Because the Imago Dei concept is firmly rooted in Genesis and would only be found in religions influenced by it. As for the broader scope for examining religions that affirm a divinity-of-humanity, it would probably be easier to list those that reject the idea (and even then, there'd likely be exceptions once the religion got over a certain size). This could also open up opinionated debate on which religions treat people better, something the refdesk is not meant for. Off the top of my head, the Canaanite religion had currents in it that depicted humanity as the undignified slaves of the gods, while some of the Indian religions view humanity as just another consciousness that needs to either be extinguished or reabsorbed into Brahman -- but some forms of the Canaanite religion depicted cities (and so its citizens) as the brides of their patron god, and some Indian religions regard humanity as the minimum form of life capable of achieving enlightenment (and so comparable to the gods in that respect). Ian.thomson (talk) 03:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. Imago Dei is only found in Abrahamic religions? I would have thought that human arrogance and anthropocentrism would make it a recurring theme in many religions, but I guess I'm too cynical. --98.232.12.250 (talk) 04:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses have published an article about images at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002149. According to the first three paragraphs, humans were made to reflect their Creator by their personalities and not by their physical appearance. According to the article about animals at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200000281, having dominion over the animals involved responsibility for how they [humans] exercised that stewardship.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Scientists would probably say that microbes actually have dominion over the globe. The writers of the Bible obviously knew nothing about microbes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

That's a bit like saying the people of North Korea have dominion over their government. They're much more numerous than the government, but they can't act together in a meaningful way. --98.232.12.250 (talk) 04:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

That's not a valid comparison. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

That's not a clear refutation. —Tamfang (talk) 09:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

North Korean politicians and citizens are all the same species. The comparison doesn't work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Without microbes, the human body wouldn't work. Nor would any other multicellular life forms which depend on a symbiotic relationship with microbes. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 18:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

How many copies of 'Revolution' by Russell Brand have been sold worldwide to date?

I can't seem to find any sales figures online, are they usually not public or am I just poor at searching? 88.106.151.77 (talk) 10:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Sales figures are often publicized for best seller lists, otherwise often not. Best I could find was these figures from shortly after the book was released [4]. Amazon has some info too, they say it was a "national best seller" and was at one point their number 1 best seller in "political humor" [5]. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Hatred against Israel

Why do Palestinians along with Most of the rest of the Middle East hate Israel so much? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.159.52 (talk) 11:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

It's extremely complicated. To begin with not all Palestinians do hate Israel, and of the ones who do many also hate the Palestinian authorities too. Other countries in the Middle East also have quite complicated relationships with Israel, the Israeli government, the Israeli people, and the Jewish Israeli people (all four of those groups are different). But a short and very limited answer would be that the establishment of Israel in the Middle East back in 1948 transplanted a lot of Jews and Europeans into a very Muslim and Arab area, and that has caused tension ever since. Additionally, the manner in which almost every action from 1930 in the Middle East has been done has caused tensions too. Whether one side is to blame or not, and if so which side, is for you to decide for yourself. But suffice to say I'd start with the WP article on Israeli–Palestinian_conflict and then read it and linked articles before you form a concrete judgement. There has been an enormous amount of fault on both sides: some people think one side's actions are justifiable, others think the other side's are, some think neither. As for what we do now to solve it, if you figure that one out you deserve (and will win) a Nobel Peace Prize. 88.106.151.77 (talk) 11:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

It's only reasonable that a people under a brutal military occupation hate their oppressors. The actual question is why do Israelis hate Palestinians so much. The answer for that begins with many Jewish Israelis believing that their god gave them all of Greater Israel and they are unhappy that those native to the land are still there. This issue for some turned into racist indoctrination, militarism, and jingoism for most. Arab states, and other Palestine supporters around the world, have offered to normalize relations with Israel if only Israel would return her military back to Israel. 70.50.123.188 (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Or, more pragmatically, they're weary of those self-same Palestinians blowing them up. --Jayron32 19:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Or sending their rockets to land harmlessly in open spaces, as the majority do. But yeah, it's still a bit of an annoyance firing up the jets for the mass revenge killing and demolition, when the very odd rocket does kill an Israeli. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:37, February 24, 2015 (UTC)

It's a good thing Hamas has such lousy aim and/or lousy equipment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Good for Israel, yeah. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:34, February 25, 2015 (UTC)

Have you read our article on Israeli–Palestinian_conflict? SemanticMantis (talk) 20:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

As Israel is one of America's dearest friends, a lot of Anti-Americanism also rubs off of them. Goes way beyond Arabs and Jews. Without that rub, the sentiment would be far more local, and only pop up in relevant online comment boxes. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:32, February 24, 2015 (UTC)

State of American academia and universities

So there's this article, which seems to be reliable and comes from a very professional looking site that portrays American universities and academics in a quite negative light. According to the article, these universities are hotbeds for leftist dogma instead of the teaching of facts, and the people who study and teach there are highly dogmatic. Is this article accurate in its portrayal of the state of American academia? Will having courses teach about conservatism really alleviate these issues? 74.14.49.84 (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

If you hold that American universities are hotbeds for leftist dogma, why would you believe that having courses teach about conservatism would help things? Teaching something from a negative perspective generally won't help its cause, after all. What makes that question come to mind? To your first question, it's well established that American universities are generally left of ordinary Americans, or that ordinary Americans are generally right of American universities, or however you want to put it. Nyttend (talk) 13:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

University students are not stupid. If a professor is slanting his lectures towards one political extreme or the other, the students will quickly become aware of the professor's bias, and take it in stride. Some (the better students) will openly challenge the professor when he/she starts to spout dogma. Others will be less brave, and will pretend to adopt the teacher's bias (in the mistaken idea that doing so will earn them a better grade). But in either case, the students will understand that the professor is biased, and take that bias into account as they learn.

Of course the really good teachers (whatever their politics may be) teach their students how to think for themselves, and actually encourage their students to always question what they are told. Blueboar (talk) 13:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The first thing to note is that the website where this article is posted is that of a journal that is generally right-wing in its stance, and it is clear from an inspection of the list of the journal's contributors that some of them are not thinkers in the mainstream of the evidence-based academic community. Some of the contributors to the journal are from what we might call the "academically respectable" right-wing, but some others fall into the category of "clearly nuts". It's also worth noting that the article's author is certainly from the right-of-centre, but that he appears to adopt stances that are reasonably well grounded in reality. The article itself isn't an academic article, and relies largely on anecdote rather than quantified facts, and should thus be taken as a piece of rhetoric in favour of its author's personal views.

As for your interpretation of the article, it seems to me you have misread it in at least two places. First, the author doesn't suggest that all universities are "hotbeds for leftist dogma", but that some departments within some (perhaps many, though he doesn't really say) universities are largely dominated by a particular kind of thought, which he characterises as a "grievance university, mired in the morass of postmodern obsession with oppression and privilege". Second, the author was not hired to teach "about conservatism" - he is quite explicit about this, and made it a condition of his hiring that he simply taught courses like any other academic - and his article explicitly gives reasons why teaching courses such as "conservative studies" would, in his view, be unwise and counterproductive.

However, with these caveats made, it is possible to make some useful comments. First, it is not difficult to find working papers and professional publications that provide evidence in support of the general contention that academics, as a group, tend to adopt more "left wing" positions than the population at large. (For example, this working paper.) However, I wasn't able to find evidence that corrects these results for raw intelligence/level of education (though this may be available); it may simply be that more intelligent people, or people with more education, tend to adopt more left-wing positions irrespective of whether they are academics or not. I vaguely recall reading research that suggests that the higher the average education in a state, the more likely that state is to vote Democratic in a US presidential election. For example, economic theories suggest that it is certainly the case that several important social goods can best be delivered through a "left wing" solution, and these theories tend to be well-supported by empirical evidence, so a reasonably well-educated economist is likely to appear "left wing" in respect of these issues. I imagine that the same is true in other disciplines. I should say, for clarity, that in this paragraph I have used the phrase "left wing" to refer to what we might call the "academically respectable" left-wing - that is, people who have reached their conclusions on the basis of careful consideration of observable facts and soundly argued theory.

Second, however, is what I believe is the substance of your concern, and indeed the principal concern of the article: what we might call the "modern left wing". The article suggests that this kind of "left wing", described as those "whose main focus is the holy trinity of race, class, and gender, along with their close correlates, post-colonialist, postmodern, and post-structural analysis", and whose principal goals seem to be to enforce a particular set of political positions and require a particular set of personal beliefs from the population (both academic and general), is becoming increasingly dominant in many non-STEM departments in many universities. Your question is whether the article is correct in its assertion. The best answer we have at the moment seems to be "we don't know". I have not been able to find any empirical evidence to support the anecdotal contents of the article. This is not to say that the article is wrong, but just that we don't have evidence one way or the other.

That said, I can give you a couple of observations from my own experience, which is in the UK. I have the strong impression that there are some departments at some universities where free academic discourse must be handled with great care. For example, I am aware of a research project at a leading university in London that was quietly re-purposed when it became clear from preliminary results that members of different ethnic groups seemed to have slightly different language capabilities at a neurological level. It was deemed unwise to present the results without providing a carefully-written "context", so that nobody could take offence. Language, and the ability to avoid upsetting particular interest groups, was important. Contrariwise, I am aware of a UK classicist whose facility with Latin and Greek is, I am told by experts in that area whose opinion I trust, noticeably poorer than might be expected, but who has nevertheless built a career for herself by concentrating on "classical studies" with a particular emphasis on the position of women and other politically disadvantaged groups in the classical era. She has, I suppose, the ability to say the "right" thing. These are, if you like, anecdotes that convey a general impression of what can and cannot be said, and who does well in such an environment. That said, I should stress that "grievance academics" are much less common in the UK than they seem to be in the US. All of this paragraph, though, is just anecdote. The truth is that we don't yet have real evidence one way or the other.

Returning finally to your last question, the article itself argues against the teaching of "conservative studies", taking the view that conservatism "is a point of view or disposition that informs nearly all the traditional disciplines". That is, it's a way of thinking, and not a subject in itself. This is not to say that particular "conservative" doctrines can't be studied. For example, some academics study the sociological aspects of heterodox economics - why, for example, do certain kinds of people subscribe to Marxian economics, Georgism or the Austrian school, even in the face of good evidence against these approaches? These studies, however, fall into the normal realm of academic research, and thus don't meet the requirements of an unbiased taught course on "conservative studies".

My apologies for the long response. I think the short answer to your underlying question, though, is probably "we don't know whether the article is accurate, because it cites anecdotes rather than data, and we don't yet have enough real data". RomanSpa (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Since educational generally pays less than other business opportunities available to someone with that background, yet has the potential to do more societal good, academia often attracts more altruistic individuals. You can judge for yourself whether such people are more likely to be liberal or conservative.

As for a correlation in lack of education and conservatism, the cause and effect might be reversed. That is, once conservatives get control over the school curriculum, they set about dismantling anything that might cause one to question a literal interpretation of the Bible. Evolution has to go, of course, but all science is a threat, since geology can teach that some rocks are billions of years old, astronomy and physics that the stars and subatomic particles are, biology can teach that dinosaurs once existed millions of years ago, anthropology teaches that Neanderthals and other hominids once existed hundreds of thousands of years ago, etc. StuRat (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

At least one scientist has claimed that liberals are more intelligent than conservatives [6]. So that might explain why many academics tend to be liberal. WP:OR I've spent almost 20 years in academia, never once met a dogmatic professor, conservative or liberal. Dogma is pretty much the antithesis of academics, so we tend to not promote people who rely on dogma. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a good point. In what I said earlier, I was using the phrase "academically respectable" as more-or-less a synonym for "undogmatic". In most areas of economics (and, I suppose, many other areas of the humanities) there are legitimate ranges of interpretation for many topics, and this is reflected in the positions that people adopt. For example, there is a legitimate debate on how all sorts of things should be paid for, with some people adopting positions that we might call "left wing" and others being more "right wing". The "academically respectable" person, whether left wing or right wing, should be able to change his mind if new evidence is introduced into the debate. (I should say that I personally hate it when someone forces me to move to a new position; my tactic is generally to change the subject to something else for several days, then quietly take up the new position when I think nobody's watching, possibly with a brief sentence along the lines of "however, bearing in mind X's results, we may also wish to consider...".) RomanSpa (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

In the US in particular, there is a certain anti-intellectualism en-vogue with conservatives, partially because modern science does not agree with religious views (see creationism) or economic/ecological wishful thinking (see climate change), and partially because cultural icons are being challenged in academia (see Jefferson–Hemings controversy or even IAU definition of planet). Not all of this is a necessary alignment, but it is the current situation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good point. We have an article on Anti-intellectualism that has some good info and refs, though it is currently lacking a section on 21st century USA. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• There is a number of things to note about this article. It's clearly written from a humanities perspective. In proper research and teaching (the sciences), politics is largely irrelevant at the university level (politically motivated government spendings decision are very different of course). Secondly, of course (and as mentioned above), demographical difference to the general population make a massive difference. Amongst the students, average age is going to be lower, and it's well known that the politics move right with age on average. Further demographical difference, amongst both the students and staff, you would expect a higher than average intelligence (well, in the sciences at least), so it's entirely logical that they are more left-wing than the general population. All things to take into account! The exact same things are seen here in the UK and on the wider continent. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
• Conservatism, but its very definition, is the political stance that seeks to maintain existing cultural, social, and political structures as status quo. Academia, by definition, is the pursuit of new knowledge. Insofar as new knowledge --> new understandings --> new paradigms --> new ways to deal with the world, there's a natural tension between conservatism and academia for that very reason. Academia which says "We've looked at things in deep detail, and everything you already know about the world is exactly what we've already thought", and which does that forever, is not very realistic. Which is not to say that academics cannot be politically conservative, or deeply religious, or anything else, for that matter. But the tension between a philosophy of perpetual status quo and the pursuit of change has some natural tensions... --Jayron32 19:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a very good point, I feel. To be a conservative is to always be on the losing side. None of what we would regard as the major positive social changes in our society over the past hundred years has been a conservative cause. Conservatives always lose: extension of the franchise to non-property owners, votes for women, improved civil rights for people who aren't white, letting women have control over their own bodies, the elimination of the death penalty (at least in Europe, if not yet in the US), and improved rights for lesbians and gay men - all were opposed by conservatives. I can understand that this must be very uncomfortable for conservatives, particularly in times of economic stress when it's convenient to find some group of people to blame for their discomfort. I don't think you can be a dyed-in-the-wool conservative and an academic, because the academic mind has to be open to change. RomanSpa (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Not necessarily. There's no inherent contradiction between political conservatism and academia, only a tension. It isn't as though political conservatives have to be "wrong" or on the "losing side". The one does not cause the other like hitting a baseball causes it to fly in a specific direction and speed. It's merely something we need to be cognizant of when looking at the situation. --Jayron32 21:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

We may be using the word "conservative" in different ways. In my comment I meant it in the sense of "being unwilling to change under any circumstances" - this is why I added the qualifying "dyed-in-the-wool". This is dogmatism, and I feel is entirely incompatible with the necessary flexibility required in academia. RomanSpa (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

All this, however, is light years away from the positions adopted by the "grievance politics" of some of the academics in the article we're discussing. This kind of "modern left wing" approach seems to me to be as uninterested in evidence as any conservative. I have from time to time been in meetings with third wave feminists, for example, and the predominant impression I've had is that they're more interested in policing thought than advancing it, and in attacking (white heterosexual) males than advancing women. As an outsider, some of what I've seen has looked to me very much like bullying, and I think the article is largely concerned with developments of this kind on US campuses. RomanSpa (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

We should also be careful about the etymological fallacy, not all "conservatives" are explicitly about maintaining the status quo, and we have social conservatism as well as Fiscal_conservatism as fairly distinct concepts. The latter, IMO is alive and well when the deans meet with the provosts... and that also explains why most universities in the USA have many more classes taught by adjuncts than they did 20 years ago. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The author's opinion is not entirely negative. I think this quote is representative of his opinion:

Gradually coming into focus is the plain fact that today we have two universities — the traditional university, which, while mostly left-liberal, still resides on Planet Earth, and the grievance university, mired in the morass of postmodern obsession with oppression and privilege. You can still get a decent education, even from very liberal professors — I had several excellent ones as both an undergraduate and a graduate student — if they teach the subject matter reasonably, and I came to respect several far-left professors at Boulder who plainly held to traditional views about the importance of reason, objectivity, and truth. But these traditional hallmarks of the university — one might call them the original holy trinity of higher education — are fighting words to the postmodern Left, which openly rejects reason, objectivity, and truth as tools of oppression.

In other words, there is one faction of the university that he respects, even if it is mostly left-liberal. There's another faction (which he seems to see as a loud and aggressive minority) that he doesn't. --Bowlhover (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

This has a bit of the "some of my best friends are [black/gay/jews/muslims/atheists]" trope, though... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Back when I was at University, I had a elderly professor who commented that when he first started teaching (in the 1950s), he had a reputation for being very liberal. Then, came the 1960s and suddenly he was accused of being a conservative reactionary. By the 80's (when I knew him) he was pleased to note that he was considered liberal again... and what he found particularly amusing was that his views had not really changed all that much over the years. It was the student's attitudes towards his views that had determined how he was viewed. Blueboar (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Rafael Trujillo

When Rafael Trujillo was in power, how long was a presidential term in the Dominican Republic, and were there ever any term limits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C541:CC60:18BC:9212:6F41:596F (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

According to this, he refused to run in 1938, citing American two term practice, rather than any written law. When Roosevelt took a third term, Trujillo again decided to follow suit. A term was four years. Not sure if that was codified in Trujillo's day or if it was also just because America did it that way.

Now, at least according to List of Presidents of the Dominican Republic, they go four years, max two terms. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:34, February 24, 2015 (UTC)

Non-involvement in marriage

Lately, I've been seeing people offer as a third option in the marriage debate that we should "get the government out of marriage". What exactly is meant by this because it makes no sense, conceptually or grammatically to me. — Melab±1 ☎ 21:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

There is the religious marriage and also the legal one. Historically, these have been the same thing. However, it doesn't have to be that way. You could have religious marriage(s) to whomever or whatever you want, so long as your priest, imam, rabbi or witch doctor agreed, while a legal marriage, perhaps called a "civil union", could be arranged by sending in a form to the government. Only the legal marriage would count for tax purposes, adoption, the "can't testify against your spouse" law, etc. This would finally separate the state and church in regards to marriage, and each could then define their own rules for it, without stepping on each other's toes. StuRat (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

It basically means that the government should not give benefits to married couples or make any distinction in the law between married and unmarried persons/couples. The idea is that marriage is purely a private thing, something that the government should not be involved with (e.g. by granting marriage licenses). - Lindert (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Similar to what StuRat said, another proposal is that the government could recognize some form of households but not concern itself in any way with the makeup of those households. Side remark: for years, these proposals came almost entirely from social radicals generally opposed to the institution of marriage. Once many governments began to recognize same-sex marriages, the same proposal of getting the state out of the marriage business was suddenly coming from the opposite side of the political spectrum. - Jmabel | Talk 22:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

But as far as I know that comes from the kind of conservatism that says "Don't let the government change what I'm used to, including any governmental favoritism from which I benefit." —Tamfang (talk) 09:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

It's useful to understand why churches got into the marriage business in the first place. In earlier times, marriage, at least where one or both parties came from families with some wealth (however little) was to some extent a business deal. The historical use of the phrase "to contract a marriage" makes this very obvious. Marriage contracts were recorded by churches because the clergy had a long-standing historical role as witnesses to political, social and business contracts of all kinds (for example, the Magna Carta was witnessed by two archbishops, ten bishops and twenty abbots), and because in pre-medieval times in most places the only person who could read and write was the local clergyman. The church's official position for a long time was that celibacy was preferable to marriage, but when the church was intertwined with the state the church inevitably got involved in writing and witnessing all kinds of contracts. This was so institutionalised that scriveners in England were even authorised by the Archbishop of Canterbury as "minor clergy" in 1392. Inevitably, this led to the church eventually taking the view that marriage was a contract that could only be entered into in church.

You can't get government out of the marriage business, since marriages are still contracts, and these contracts must from time to time be enforced or (more commonly these days) arbitrated through the courts. In the past, churches got into the marriage business because the government needed people who could read and write contracts. Now that churches no longer have a monopoly on literacy, it seems reasonable to get churches out of the civil marriage business. You can't get government out of the civil marriage business, though, because there will always be civil contracts between people. Christians who want to "get government out of the marriage business" really mean they want to "get government out of the same-sex marriage business" - they still want to be able to use the government to enforce "opposite-sex marriage". RomanSpa (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

In some countries, only "civil ceremonies" are valid (e.g. Mexico). Churches were big into ceremonies as a result of the Catholic definition of the Sacraments. Any ceremony officiated over by a Catholic cleric which is not in accord with theology is not only invalid, but a major sin (likely true of some other groups as well). There is no way to overcome the difference between "Sacramental Matrimony" and any civil ceremony to that Church. The support for "civil partnership" is large, but no courts have sought that solution, so who knows what will happen in the next fifty years - we has alcohol Prohibition, then repeal, Marijuana prohibition, then relaxation of the laws, and unlimited consumption of sugar and tobacco which some would not restrict (Prohibition of tobacco, anyone?) Society has never been truly static, I think. Collect (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• The libertarian stance against legally institutionalized marriage is that government should not be telling third parties how to treat a couple/family or preventing things like multiple-partner marriages. If you don't want to rent to a mixed-marriage couple, that should be your right as a bigot. If you don't want to insure your employee's four wives and 32 children, you shouldn't be forced to do so by law. The issues that come up with getting rid of marriage are next of kin rights, such as visitation rights, end-of-life decisions, and inheritance. Another issue is common-law marriage. In places where that still applies, an officially unwed couple living together may have children, or the woman may become pregnant. Where common-law marriage applies, the man has no right to throw the woman out on the street, and the children are considered his legitimate heirs with the right to child support. There's also the issue of bigamy, which is fraud, in essence. A search of the Ludwig von Mises Institute's mises.org site will give plenty of material. μηδείς (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • What's to be done about government employees who refuse to issue marriage licenses? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm not quite sure if you are addressing me. The libertarian solution would be to issue civil union, next of kin or adoption documents, and to fire those civil servants who would not issue them. It's all an open question, especially when a white lesbian couple sues because the child they "conceive" is black. In reality, the child has a black father. In fantasy land, the child has two white mothers. The victim is the child who, according to court papers, is an embarrassment to the legal guardians who had him created. In that case, a return to common law marriage (you father him, you support him) would be a logical resolution, but not necessarily one a certain political faction would welcome. The ultimate issue is that children are humans with rights, not their "parents'" fashion accessories. μηδείς (talk) 04:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Separating legal and religious marriage could make people of many political leanings happy:

1) Liberals would like that gay marriage could now be legalized (that would be a legal marriage, and perhaps a religious marriage, too, if they can find the right religion).

2) Conservatives would like that their church could then ban gay marriage, interracial marriage, and whatever else they felt like.

3) Ultra-conservatives, like some sects of Mormons, would love to be able to legally have plural marriages (although the nation might not recognize them, but at least it wouldn't toss them in jail). StuRat (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

If the Supreme Court decides to make same-sex marriage the law of the land, it might open the door to legalizing polygamy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Haha, considering the polygamy situation in progressive states, I really don't think you have to worry about polygamy happening anytime soon in the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.123.188 (talk) 04:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

You can't rule it out. In the year 2000 or so, if you had said that by 2015 same-sex marriage would be valid in a majority of US states, what percentage would have believed it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't arguing that the US never progresses, just that the US government has never been a leader in social issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.123.188 (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Ông Địa

Ông Địa

Does anyone know a Chinese term for this figure in the East Asian lion dance? The Vietnamese call him Ông Địa.

Our article on the Lion dance suggests it is a Vietnamese cultural addition to the broader tradition of the lion dance. Could it be that the figure doesn't traditionally appear in the Chinese version? If it did appear, they might use the "traditional" Vietnamese name? St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Good question. The people who do the lion dancing here in Seattle are associated with a martial arts group (Mak Fai Kung Fu Club) that I presume is Chinese in origin, and lion dancing here goes back far enough that our older pictures of it are public domain from pre-1923 publication, but there is enough cross-cultural interaction in the A.P.I. community here that such an adaptation would be possible. - Jmabel | Talk 22:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

And did that character feature in those pre-1923 lion dances or is he a relatively new addition to the Seattle scene? St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

As for the old stuff, hard to know because there are only a very few pictures. I'd suspect a later addition, and it could well be from the Vietnamese (in which case it wouldn't just be post-1923 but almost certainly post-1970). I'm hoping someone might weigh in here who actually knows. I wasn't planning on doing a research project just to describe my photo accurately, but it wouldn't be unprecedented if I have to. - Jmabel | Talk 00:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

This paper contains the following sentence: "the concept ‘Ông Địa’ is truly culture-specific. It is a famous and unique character in Vietnamese water puppetry and cannot be found in any other cultures."--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 05:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• Huh. So it must be a recent appropriation. - Jmabel | Talk 07:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

February 24

Introduction of serfdom in Russia

When was serfdom introduced in Russia? Our article History of serfdom says "Serfdom [in] Eastern Europe [...] became dominant around the 15th century." (no citation), while Ivan Grozny#Domestic policy states (also without citation) that it was he who introduced "the first laws restricting the mobility of the peasants, which would eventually lead to serfdom." Which one is it, or is the truth somewhere in the middle? — Sebastian 06:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

See Yuri's Day for the answer. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

It's possible to have serfdom without laws codifying it, although I don't know if this happened in Russia. StuRat (talk) 06:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

That's true, but the two claims are still contradictory, the second saying the codes led to the already allegedly dominant serfdom. I also don't know which one is lying, but it sure isn't neither. Could be both. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:44, February 24, 2015 (UTC)

Or wait, no, could be neither. There really is no limit on what counts as "around the 15th century". Depends how far back you stand to look at it. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:46, February 24, 2015 (UTC)

This astute observation has the potential to greatly simplify my life. Henceforth, when anyone asks me where anything is, I can always reply "around here", considering that the earth itself shrinks to a Pale Blue Dot when seen from our solar backyard. — Sebastian 07:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I've been saying for years that there is always a bigger picture. My life quest is to discover what the Universe looks like from the outside looking in. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Fitting to the topic, I already used this new insight here for Boris Godunov.— Sebastian 08:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

"Eastern Europe" is a bit more defined, but also wiggle room there. It definitely isn't exactly the same as "Russia". InedibleHulk (talk) 06:50, February 24, 2015 (UTC)

This sentence was added as part of this big edit by an IP account who did no other edit. — Sebastian 07:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Should certainly be taken with a grain of salt. Or just taken out. Might be true, but still original research. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:40, February 25, 2015 (UTC)

Forms of serfdom were very common all over Medieval Europe. People could actually be regarded as the property of a landowner or they were bound to the land they were working on without owning it. It's not an exclusively Russian phenomenon, so it may not be all that relevant when exactly it was 'introduced'. There is a short article about the subject in Dutch Wikipedia: nl:Lijfeigenschap --Judithcomm (talk) 08:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the Ivan the Terrible article refers to the so-called second serfdom, which we don't currently have a separate article on, but is mentioned in our History of serfdom aticle, two paragraphs down from the one quoted by Sebastian. — Kpalion^(talk) 10:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Dear OP, we have an article Serfdom in Russia, which should tell you everything you ever wanted to know about this topic! — Sebastian 05:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow, thanks a lot! It does answer my original question. Strange, though, that it doesn't mention the "second serfdom". — Sebastian 05:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Because there was no such thing in Russia. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

accuracy of Swedish image?

You seem to have ignored the point made at the head of this page: 'Do not edit others' comments'. Would you mind reposting the link as I want to follow it. (And no, I a not Canadian or affiliated with the original poster.) 86.180.122.180 (talk) 10:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

You can go through the history if you want (since the IP signed, it's trivial to check what they posted). Please don't readd it since as I said it makes untrue claims, even if the person is no longer living there's no reason why such untrue claims should be something we are linking to. The removal of such links is well supported by wikipedia policy and guidelines, whatever the header may say. I could delete the entire question if it would make you feel better, but I'm not sure that's really necessary. Nil Einne (talk) 11:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

chinese story children's fiction

I remember there was children's book I used to read back in my elementary school days. The book was about Chinese boy twins and they had long names which made it funny. The story would have one of the twins fall in the well and I forgot the rest. I also forgot the name of the story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.16.245 (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Tikki Tikki Tembo Daniel(talk) 04:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that one. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.16.245 (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Being a person of Chinese descent myself, I find the synopsis of the book disrespectful and ignorant of the Chinese language. Most, if not all, Han Chinese given names contain one or two logograms (aka characters), and Han Chinese family names are always one logogram. Of the Chinese given names and family names, there are numerous foreign transliterations, most of which are simply pronounced with one syllable for the family name and one or two syllables for the given name. There has never been a time in Chinese history when people used lengthy names, as that book suggests. If you read about the history of Han Chinese family names, then you'd find out that all of them started out as one-character names. Part of the beauty of the Chinese language lies within its succinctness, as indicated by the four-character idioms and classical Chinese poetry. Another fact about the Chinese language is that it is tonal, in sharp contrast to Japanese. Foreigners from non-tonal languages (i.e. native Japanese speakers) may struggle a bit mastering the tones. Tone, context, and regional dialect are the key to understand a given sentence. The fact that the Chinese language is tonal may contribute to the shortness of Chinese names. In contrast, the Japanese language is non-tonal, and so you'd find more multi-syllable names. 140.254.136.178 (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Russia

Throughout Russia's history as a polity, in chronological order, at the national level, what are the legislatures it has had? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C541:CC60:852A:86F6:9EC2:1BCF (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

You might get some of your answers if you read Russia#History. Dbfirs 22:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Also see Duma, Governing Senate, Congress of People's Deputies of the Russian Federation, and Federal Assembly of Russia. StuRat (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Also Veche and Zemsky Sobor. The Senate (a judicial body) should be replaced with State Council (Russian Empire). Don't forget Russian Constituent Assembly. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Those links are useful, but I was kind of hoping for a convenient list in one place.2602:306:C541:CC60:852A:86F6:9EC2:1BCF (talk) 03:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Is here not one place? --Jayron32 15:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the complaint. I should have been more patient.2602:306:C541:CC60:852A:86F6:9EC2:1BCF (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

"Dear Lord, grand me patience... and I want it right now!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

That quote would be grand, had you said grant. StuRat (talk) 16:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

February 25

New Chronology

Why is Anatoly Fomenko's New Chronology falsely considered pseudohistory if it's backed by solid scientific and mathematical data?Johndoe48 (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Because it isn't, despite what some conspiracy theorist echo-chambers insist. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

To elaborate, Fomenko ignores any material that doesn't fit into his theory, and imagines a variety of materials that some trace of would have to exist for his theory to be true. For example, he claims that Emperor Jingzong of Western Xia, Pope Gregory VII, and Jesus were the same person, whose name was corrupted into multiple identities. If that was the case, there should be some trace somewhere of corruption of manuscripts along the line. Since there are no traces, Occam's razor favors the idea that those three figures were separate. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Not so much pseudohistry, then, as sheer loopiness. PiCo (talk) 05:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

That's because the trace of corruption of manuscripts was destroyed.199.119.235.217 (talk) 00:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

That's what Occam's razor would call an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory. It would also require that all literate persons at a particular time would decide to actively rewrite history they know is false -- an untenable position. It would also require that all of these perfectly coordinated diabolical masterminds would then immediately thereafter be stupid enough to miscopy "Jesu" as "Jingzong of Western Xia" and "Pope Gregory VII."

But let me guess, alien brainwashing? Ian.thomson (talk) 00:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Let's not forget that the lack of any evidence whatsoever that the moon landings were faked... simply goes to show how massive and all-encompassing the cover-up is.--Shirt58 (talk) 02:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

If I remember right, Fomenko says Byzantine Greece = pre-Norman England (I forget which is original and which the copy). Did he ever study linguistics, or art history? —Tamfang (talk) 09:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Or archaeology, or anthropology, or history, or really anything? His work is so batshit insane, it isn't even worth refuting. --Jayron32 15:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Hold on. Are you Johndoe48? If you are, I thought you said "it's backed by solid scientific and mathematical data". Now you're saying something fairly important to his theory was destroyed? How do we know whatever stuff which allegedly supports his theory isn't also a corruption, and in truth Emperor Jingzong of Western Xia, Pope Gregory VII, and Jesus were all my cat gone back in time a million years ago who BTW isn't called anything like those 3 names? Nil Einne (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Mr Thomas and Mrs Thomas

The article on a Wilfrid Thomas who seems to have married a Swedish dancer called Marga... is full of information about Wilfred Thomas (broadcaster) who married an English dancer called Margo... you can check this quickly at state library of NSW under Margo Thomas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.163.6.74 (talk) 03:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you ... I think. Why are you telling us all this? Please discuss any matters about Wilfrid Thomas at Talk:Wilfrid Thomas. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Peter the Great

When Peter the Great was abroad in Europe, who governed in his place?2602:306:C541:CC60:852A:86F6:9EC2:1BCF (talk) 05:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• Two princes: Fyodor Romodanovsky and Boris Galitzine. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

John Kline - US Chairman Education is given credit for introducing a bill he had not one thing to do with!

I will be glad to provide more information on this. I will go back to the page & try to make the corrections of my own, Kline was dead-set against President Obama's Education Reform plan -which he wrote in the first 3 1/2 years of office & presented to Congress & was of course refused. He then took it to the individual states & 10 took him up on his offer. John Kline said of such plan, that teachers would strike!!

Please advise me as to what to do to correct this grievous error! President Obama should go down in history for this one - the good side & not the bad! Is it perfect? NO, but a site better than "NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND"! This must be corrected & give the President his dues & not John Kline, who will of course sit back & take all the credit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by America Jane (talk • contribs) 08:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Presumably we have an article on that, and these comments should go on the talk page there, along with any sources you have. StuRat (talk) 15:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

As StuRat said, you need to deal with this in the appropriate article. Even if you want to seek help elsewhere appropriate like in some noticeboard, you'd need to be clear about what you're referring to. For example Student Success Act mentions John Kline, but doesn't seem to be what you're referring to since Obama threatened to veto it (but the Senate never passed it anyway). Success and Opportunity through Quality Charter Schools Act does mention John Kline. I'm not sure what Obama's role, if any, on the bill is although if there is some and it and can be probably source this should probably be mentioned, but the claims about John Kline seem to be supported. Neither School Improvement Grant nor Race to the Top mention John Kline. Nil Einne (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

This looks like a political coatrack, not a real question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Pedophiles per capita across modern-day societies and cultures

Firstly, for what its' worth, I ask this question in good faith, and hope I'm not accused of trolling. I am NOT assuming what the answer is likely to be; it's an open question. Neither am I making any moral statements of any sort.

My question is: from what we know, does the percentage of individuals who are pedophiles vary significantly between countries, religions, or cultures?

I am specifically asking about pedophilic orientation - i.e. the number per capita who have intense and recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about prepubescent children, whether or not they've acted on them. (I.e. those with the paraphilia or pedophilia)

I am NOT asking about the rate of child molestation - (this would likely vary greatly, I assume, based, to give an obvious example, on the likely ramifications for the molester, which can vary dramatically between jurisdictions).

I know this question may be a tad difficult to answer - we're not mind-readers, after all, and I'm not suggesting hooking random innocent men up to Penile plethysmographs. But can anyone source some expert answers, or at least hypotheses, to this question? 101.160.63.123 (talk) 13:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is a very good one for answering your question. Or, at least, telling you why it is very hard to answer your question. To wit, "There are pedophiles in the world who don't molest children, and never will. No one disputes that fact. So what portion of pedophiles actually victimize kids? We have no fucking idea. That is, in fact, the point." The article is on Cracked.com, which is ostensibly a humor site, but it is a very well written and often well researched one. As seen from the quote, they use non-scholarly writing, but their articles are usually very well done, and take a serious attempt to at least try to be accurate. They have links to more articles and studies and the like which indicate the problem with the question you're asking. And the problem is pedophilia (as in the attraction to children, not the crime of child molestation) is essentially unstudied in any culture. It's a worthwhile question to ask, but it does not have any answers. --Jayron32 15:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you interested in past cultures? Pederasty has a section on the practice in ancient times. This honors thesis, "ancient pedophilia" [7] may not be top notch research, but at the very least it has a decent bibliography. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Searching for an English term

These pictures show jesters/fools/etc. and they carry an accessory which looks like an very old-fashiened pair of glasses. The German expression ist "Narrenbrille" (fool's glasses), a term which can be found in the literature and which is used in idioms.

I try to search the English literature but find surprisingly little. What would be the correct terms for the "fool" and which one for the "glasses"?

In addition, is there an English expression for "looking/glimpsing/peeking through/between the fingers" ? (as seen in the pictures) THX GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 14:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• 

  ~ 1540)

• 

  Jester

• 

  The Laughing Jester

• 

  No glasses, but gesture...

I fixed the link to the first image. Richard Avery (talk) 11:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, "playing peekaboo" means hiding the eyes and uncovering them, although not necessarily looking between the fingers. StuRat (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

According to a Swedish saying (looking between the fingers; the Danes know it, too; Brueghel shows it in one of his paintings) the meaning is "it appears (to you) that I do not see/know, BUT I DO" - in relation to the jester "I do and say stuff, as if I didn't know (that it hurts/that it is insulting/bad), but of course I know!". So peekaboo may be a little bit off... :-) GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 16:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

A lorgnette is probably the closest thing to fool's glasses, but that term, and the actual item, aren't much used, at least in US English. StuRat (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The English term for those style of glasses, AFAIK, is Pince-nez, which is not a native term, but a borrowing from French. There isn't a particular term for them when associated with Jesters, AFAIK. --Jayron32 15:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone have good ref for the glasses as common accessory? I don't get it... SemanticMantis (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

For the gesture: going off Geezer's description, in English the phrases "a wink and a nod" [8] or "tongue in cheek" convey a similar attitude of being facetious or "in-on" a joke, though it isn't conveyed by a hand gesture. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The only term that I'm aware of for the gesture in English is the very literal "laughing behind your hand". Tevildo (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The facepalm of embarassment

• Is there any evidence this is not simply an earlier version of the facepalm? Obviously the latter didn't originate n 1890. μηδείς (talk) 03:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• The statue is actually hiding his eyes, while the jester is only pretending to do so. Huge difference. StuRat (talk) 04:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I started out with "facepalm!", too, but the situation/feeling is different. Facepalm ist "despair"/frustration/shame about what someone else said ("Fremdschämen").

I am not sure whether gesture and glasses actually are recognized in English-speaking cultures. It also could be an (a) very old and (b) continental Europe thing, which caused no feedback in English. It seems a bit so ... GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 08:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The website of the College of Optometrists has an article called Rivet spectacles, which apparently is the correct name for the medieval glasses in the paintings shown above. At the bottom of the right-hand column, there is a photograph of "a 'joke' pair of rivet spectacles... in the Royal Armouries, supposedly worn by Henry VIII's court jester, Will Somers." So it seems that taking the piss out those of us who wear glasses has a long history. Curiously, I only knew the right search term because yesterday, I watched a repeat of the 2004 edition of Time Team which is referenced at the bottom of this article. A strange coincidence. Alansplodge (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I've not heard the phrase "laughing behind your hand" which Tevildo brought up, but it's appropriate for the jester because people frequently will instinctively partially cover their faces like this when they have uncontrollable laughter. Searching with Google on "can't stop laughing" brings up numerous videos of this reflex including this compilation [9] (it includes Dustin Hoffman at 6:53 cutting up at the end of it). -Modocc (talk) 00:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I think I'd call that "peeping", wikt:peep#Etymology_2. You could also ask at WP:RDL. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Why not adopt the german meaning of (looking at things or some situation or topic) "seen with jester's eyes" by saying: "seen through jester's glasses"? comp. as well: jester's license (=Jester's_privilege) (DE:Narrenfreiheit).   I'm afraid for the gesture, you'll have to call it the "medieval_painting's_jester's-You_think_I_don't_see_but_I_do-hand_before_the_face" :o]p   ;o]) --217.84.85.167 (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Japan

In Japan in the 1870's, what were the important national and local government institutions, and how was the country administratively divided?2602:306:C541:CC60:852A:86F6:9EC2:1BCF (talk) 17:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

You might want to check out our articles on the Meiji period, Meiji Restoration, Meiji oligarchy, Government of Meiji Japan, and Meiji Constitution. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Bokassa

After he became leader of the Central African Republic, what ministerial portfolios did Bokassa have, and when did he have them?2602:306:C541:CC60:852A:86F6:9EC2:1BCF (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia's coverage of the CAR isn't detailed enough to find out through Wikipedia's articles. We do have articles about Jean-Bédel Bokassa, Politics of the Central African Republic, and the History of the Central African Republic. None of them get into that level of detail, describing his various ministers and whatnot. I looked into the articles over at fr.wikipedia (since CAR is nominally French speaking and a former French colony) but their articles are less well developed even than those here at en.wikipedia. Sorry we couldn't be of more help. --Jayron32 01:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The fact we don't have an article on Wikipedia doesn't mean the information doesn't exist. What I can find is that Bokassa did not occupy any ministerial functions before becoming President of the CAR following a coup on January 1, 1966. He proclaimed himself President, then made that President for life in 1972 and Emperor in 1976, until being deposed by a coup in 1979. [10]. But he did hold various ministerial functions during his time as Head of State, including Minister of Defense (1966-1976) (I guess it was unbecoming for an Emperor to be a minister after that) and Minister of Interior and Justice. [11]. According to this article [12], he was Minister of Justice (garde des sceaux) from the time of the 1966 coup, but not minister of interior (that was Jean-Arthur Bandio, who already held the position before the coup). Bandio was named minister of Foreign Affairs on January 13, 1967 [13], so that may be when Bokassa took on that portfolio as well. --Xuxl (talk) 10:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

February 26

Best publish place for research paper on books?

So I just wrote a research paper on a literature book. I would like to know which academic journal are the best in terms of impact factor or alexa ranking (aka number of viewers). Those are strictly my two criterias to decide where to publish. It would be nice if someone happens to find a ranking table somewhere with one of the two or both criterias. Thanks!146.151.91.129 (talk) 08:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Criterion - singular, criteria - plural. Richard Avery (talk) 11:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

It could be worse: I've occasionally seen the plural written as "criteriae". Of course, as it's a Greek word, it should obviously be "criteriata"... AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, κριτήριον is second declension, both in ancient Greek and when borrowed into Latin, and forms a regular nominative/vocative/accusative plural as κριτήριᾰ. RomanSpa (talk) 13:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Ooh, gosh, you are clever, so what would that be in English? Richard Avery (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The plural in English is "criteria", as you've already remarked. I was merely clarifying the matter. I wasn't seeking to correct you, since as an Englishman I'm sure your command of the language is fine. (I know you're English because only English people find sarcasm an appropriate response to educated comment.) RomanSpa (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

If you're a student at a university, the best thing to do would be to talk about this with your professors. They will be able to give you appropriate guidance about (a) whether and (b) where to publish. If you submit an unacceptable paper to a reputable journal it will be rejected, and if you persist in submitting unacceptable papers they will all be rejected and you will damage your reputation. If you're not currently a student at a university, it might be wise to start by contacting a suitable academic at a nearby institution and seeking their advice. In all cases, you will have to demonstrate competent use of the language in which the journal is published. RomanSpa (talk) 13:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Who said I'm going to submit it many times? I'm not stupid. Submitting the same unacceptable many times is useless and stupid. I'll submit only once. And of course I would have competent use of language within my paper. Don't judge my grammar based on what I wrote on here. I don't usually pay much attention to my grammar when I write things on the internet, so I do make silly errors sometimes. However, for my academic papers, that's a different story. Anyway, none of you really answers my question. I'm not asking so I can be directed to somewhere else. I also asked them. They and I know many places to publish, but I want to know the best place to publish based on the two criteria I listed above. Thanks!146.151.85.1 (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

If you don't actually know the journals in your field, you have no place publishing in them. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how things work for papers on "literature books", but in my area of the social sciences a lot of journal submissions start as working papers. This is a particularly good way to start if it's your first paper, as you can learn a lot about how to write without facing the pressure of writing specifically for journal publication. Also, you're wrong about multiple submissions. Although it hasn't happened to me, I am aware of cases where a paper has been declined by one journal, but has been returned with reviewers' notes along the lines of "not acceptable for our publication, but with list of changes/expansions/discussions would probably suit name of alternative journal"; this has included some important work. RomanSpa (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't know of any tabulation of Impact Factor for journals in area of your interest (and have never seen Alexa rankings considered in deciding where to publish), but you may want to look at the Modern Language Association's Directory of Periodicals to help find and compare the journals that may be of interest. Typically though, the practice is to consult working academicians in the area who are well-informed about the focus and reputation of the journals, and are able to advice on which journals your work is likely to be accepted in. Hope that helps. Abecedare (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

arm sleeve thingies

In this photo what are the arm sleeve thingies Laura Poitras is wearing called? Are they some standard fashion gizmo? Pic is of her getting the Oscar for Citizenfour. Thanks. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 08:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Not sleeves, they're gloves.
Sleigh (talk) 08:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Amazon calls 'em "long sleeve fingerless gloves". Clarityfiend (talk) 09:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Fingerless opera gloves.
Sleigh (talk) 09:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks all. Sleigh's answer helped me find the article opera glove. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 09:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The fingerless version seems rather pointless until you consider what happens when she needs to visit the rest room. I'm guessing she wouldn't take them off?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually it looks to me like she's wearing fingerless gloves made of some kind of fabric like nylon, and then has leather sleeve thingies covering part of them. Any idea? I typed "fingerless opera gloves" into web search and did find some leather ones. I'm still wondering about the fashion statement of those things and whether they're a normal clothing item, or some BDSM specialty thing, or what. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

'For you, I make special price!'

So, I'm familiar with how effective shopkeepers in the Old City of Jerusalem (Arab and Jewish) are at helping visitors to the city to part ways with their money given that it's a tradition almost 1,700 years old (thankfully they lost their effect on me long ago). Luxorites also have this sort of reputation. What other cities have a reputation for exceptionally pushy hassling salesmen? Shukran. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 7 Adar 5775 13:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can respond adequately to the question but Bargaining contains some related information. And https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Bargaining provides pleasant reading. Bus stop (talk) 13:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Singapore's Change Alley used to be well known for this, but when I actually lived in Singapore I was too young to go there unaccompanied (so my parents would do all the bargaining), and from the look of our article's photos, it's changed (heh!) a lot since the 1960s. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 14:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

All the souqs in the world seem to have this reputation, especially if they are visited by Western tourists. Carpet shops too. The Middle East in a large sense (starting in Morocco and all the way to Turkey) would qualify. --Xuxl (talk) 14:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not just the Middle East. This kind of practice exists practically everywhere outside of Northern Europe, the Anglosphere (and French Canada), and Japan. Societies with little bargaining (outside of large transactions) are the exception globally. Marco polo (talk) 19:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Bargaining is definitely still a fact of life on the street markets of China. I've also bargained or seen people bargaining at Aztec/Mayan tourist sites in Mexico, at a flea market in the middle of Paris, and in the Grand Bazaar in Istanbul. Now that I think about it, it seems strange that people don't usually bargain in Canada/USA; I can't believe I've never noticed this before. --Bowlhover (talk) 06:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe a cost/benefit analysis figures in. In a rich country, it would be a waste of time to bargain over a loaf of bread, since it only costs like 5 minutes of labor to earn enough money to buy it at the asking price. But in a poor country, if that loaf of bread costs them a day's labor, then it's definitely worth their time to haggle, comparison shop, etc. StuRat (talk) 06:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

This is quite common with high-end merchandise like cars, jewelry, furniture and flooring or home remodeling/repair in NJ and NY. It even sounds like a catchphrase from SNL. μηδείς (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course a person has to have autonomy over price for bargaining to take place. When variance from a set price is not allowed there can be no bargaining, Bus stop (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

There can be ways around that:

1) The salesman might be able to throw in something for free, like free delivery or extended warranty or no interest financing.

2) They might pay part of the price themselves. For example, if they get 10% commission, then paying 1% of the sales price to seal the deal makes sense.

3) Dealers sometimes get rebates from the manufacturer, and can apply a portion of that to the sales price. StuRat (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and for cars and houses, haggling is the norm, even in rich nations, since there those items still cost enough time to earn that any time spent haggling is seen as worthwhile. However, there are also people who want a good deal, and yet don't want to haggle. For houses, since every house is unique, it's a bit difficult to set a "fair price". But with cars, where there are thousands of identical models, it's not so hard. Saturn car dealerships offered no-haggle prices, and at time other dealerships have, but they don't seem to last, making me think that they need to rip-off the occasional easy mark to make a profit. StuRat (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Lourdes apparitions

Does anyone know what accounts for the gaps in time that I have referred to here: Talk:Lourdes apparitions#Gaps in time? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Нужен текст гимна всех студентов "Гаудеамус"

Прошу знающих гимн студентов "Гаудеамус" сообщить мне текст на латыне .Заранее благодарю.Вилма. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.162.8.104 (talk) 15:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Could you maybe ask your question in English? It seems to have something to with Gaudeamus. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 7 Adar 5775 15:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Спросите на российском Википедии, это английский Википедия. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 16:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

See ru:Гаудеамус and scroll down to the Latin text there. --84.58.246.235 (talk) 16:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• The user asks us to provide the Latin text of the hymn Gaudeamus in the Latin text, thanks in advance.

Посмотрите Gaudeamus igitur, 192.162.8.104, ничего. μηδείς (talk) 03:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe, he/she can't read latin letters and needs ( not a translation, but) a transcription of the latin spoken or written text into cyrillic letters, so as to be able to read the original Latin in Cyrillic letters? See: http://gaude.ru/page/gimn-studentov-gaudeamus-i-ego-russkie-perevody:

"Гаудеамус игитур,

Ювенес дум сумус!

Пост югундам ювентутем,

Пост молестам сенектутем,

Нос хабебит хумус.

.."

--217.84.85.167 (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Japan

What was Japan's first legislature, at the national level? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C541:CC60:4897:AF86:CD38:DFCF (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

In which era? KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 16:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

National Diet has the details, particularly in the History section. The first legislature was a result of the Meiji Constitution, which is also worth a look. Alansplodge (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Anigunta

The only reference I can find online to "Anigunta" is the Wikipedia article. Does anyone know to where this may be referring? Could it be a transliteration issue, and possibly known by a slightly different spelling in Standard English? Sotakeit (talk) 17:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The creator of the article (whose ID, by an amazing coincidence, is Anigunta (talk · contribs)) states that it's a "village". So it might not be on Google's radar. Or it could be a hoax. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

In Google Maps, the village is known as Anegunta, coordinates (17.605447 N, 77.594904 E). - Lindert (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Excellent. So the question is, what (if anything) is its more common English transliteration? Whichever it is, the other could be created as a redirect. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

It appears that this article also exists in Telugu: te:అనెగుంట, which word is transliterated by this website as "aneguMTa", though typing "anegunta" in this convertor does yield అనెగుంట. -Lindert (talk) 19:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The easiest solution, lacking any definitive evidence, is to recreate redirects to this article from variant transliterations. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

It is listed in the Indian census as Anegunta. It was formerly in Andhra Pradesh, transferring to Telangana state last year.[14] Hack (talk) 01:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Brand Mascots's of the 1920's

Is there anyone here that's able to identify the brand mascots shown on this poster?

http://www.ltmuseumshop.co.uk/posters/pre-printed-posters/product/poster-art-150-international-advertising-exhibition-mini-print.html

The Michelin Man is obvious , but id like to place some of the others. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

It would be a far sight easier to investigate this if it would led me download the illustration. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I suspect the two urchins at the front of the poster are the Bisto Kids. I also recognise Mr Punch, and wouldn't be surprised if one of the dogs (perhaps the one on the left) is Nipper. RomanSpa (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Image is also at File:Underground_to_Wood_Lane_to_anywhere,_International_Advertising_Exhibition_at_the_White_City,_1920.jpg with some notes. Nanonic (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

And the V&A have (on the More Info tab) "Subjects depicted ... Michelin Man; Cardinal Furniture Polish; Rowntrees Cocoa Nibs; Kodak Girl; Pears Soap Tramp; Skipper Sardines; Johnny Walker Whisky" which gives some. Nanonic (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Do I see the Gorton's Fisherman (which dates to 1905) on the right side ? StuRat (talk) 06:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The clownish figure with "Vim" on his top hat is from Vim polisher and cleanser ads. - Nunh-huh 08:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The chap with the top hat is Johnnie Walker [15]. I thought that the children in the centre foreground were the Bisto Kids, but maybe not [16]. Mr Punch is from Punch (magazine). The little Jack Russell might be Nipper - the HMV dog. The chap in the red robe may represent Cardinal Polish but I couldn't find a similar image. Alansplodge (talk) 12:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

What is the capital of the USA?

Legally, is the US capital Washington, the city, or Columbia, the district? If they're now the same, what about before the Organic Act? — kwami (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The federal statute defining the seat of the United States Government provides that "[a]ll that part of the territory of the United States included within the present limits of the District of Columbia shall be the permanent seat of government of the United States." (4 U.S.C. § 71) The City of Washington and the District of Columbia are, geographically, exactly the same territory and have been since the nineteenth century. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

(ec)The capital is the city of Washington, D.C., which was once a subset of the District of Columbia, but the two entities are now the same entity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

How can that be, if it was only one of five entities in the district, and it was the district that was defined as the capital? — kwami (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

No, the city is the capital, and it exists within a state-like entity called the District of Columbia. Prior to the 1870s, there were other autonomous cities within DC, such as Georgetown. Then it was decided that the city of Washington would occupy the entirety of DC, and places like Georgetown became merely neighborhoods instead of cities. It's kind of like Indianapolis' relationship to Marion County, only "more so". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

In addition, the District of Columbia originally consisted of a portion ceded by Maryland, and a portion ceded by Virginia. The Virginia portion was returned to Virginia ("retroceded") in 1846, and is now Arlington and Alexandria, Virginia. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

But I thought the territory was defined as the capital before the city was founded. So, the district merely houses the capital, and before the city was established, we had an imaginary capital? — kwami (talk) 00:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The territory was originally defined by the Residence Act of 1790 and was ceded to the national government to become the future capital (as contemplated by Article One, Section 8, clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution). The capital remained in existing cities (New York and later Philadelphia) temporarily until the first federal buildings in Washington were completed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! — kwami (talk) 01:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) List_of_capitals_in_the_United_States#Former_national_capitals lists all of the former seats of government of the U.S. The best known were Philadelphia (when the Declaration of Independence was signed) and New York City (which was the first capital under the Constitution). But such places as York, Pennsylvania and Trenton, New Jersey acted as de facto capitals and seats of government at various times. As noted above, the seat of the U.S. government, since moving to the district, has always been located in the settlement known as Washington, in the District of Columbia. The actual district was divided into 5 different political entities:

1. the incorporated capital city itself, known as Washington
2. An existing incorporated city, Georgetown which had been part of Maryland, and which was a separately incorporated city within the District until 1871.
3. An existing incorporated city, Alexandria which had been part of Virginia (the modern corporate bounds of Alexandria, Virginia are larger than they were in 1800)
4. The balance of the land which had been part of Maryland, but not part of either Washington or Georgetown was unincorporated Washington County, D.C.
5. The balance of the land which had been part of Virginia, but not part of the city of Alexandria was unincorporated Alexandria County, D.C., now known as Arlington County, Virginia.

The last two were returned to Virginia in 1846, while the first three (two incorporated cities and a large area of unincorporated land around them as Washington County) continued their separate existence until 1871, when Congress made them all a single entity. Historically, there were parts of the District which were distinct political entities that were not part of the U.S. capital city, which was defined only as Washington, D.C. Thus, the capital really is Washington D.C., and not just the District of Columbia, or at least, it was until 1871, after which there was no difference in any sense, so it really doesn't matter. --Jayron32 02:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC

Important correction. The legal name of that single entity existing since 1871 is the District of Columbia, not Washington, DC. See the article: "revoked the individual charters of the cities of Washington and Georgetown and combined them with Washington County to create a unified territorial government for the entire District of Columbia". Or better yet, see the actual law, cited in the article (which the original poster already knew about, as they mentioned the "Organic Act"), specifically the last two sections. From §40: "That the charters of the cities of Washington and Georgetown shall be repealed on and after the first day of June, A . D. eighteen hundred and seventy-one, and all offices of said corporations abolished at that date..." And from §41: "And upon the repeal of the charters of the cities of Washington and Georgetown, the District of Columbia be, and is hereby, declared to be the successor of said corporations..."

So the answer is simply "the District of Columbia". In legal terms there is no such place as Washington; the everyday usage is a holdover from how it was before 1871. And on the second question, about the situation before the Organic Act, the Constitution provides that the entire district (which it does not name) is the "seat of government", so I think DC is the best answer even before 1871. 70.49.169.244 (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC), edited 13:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC).

Israel Shamir

Was he born in Sweden or Russia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey13952 alternate account (talk • contribs) 23:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article titled Israel Shamir states that he was born in Novosibirsk. At some times in history, some parts of what is now Russia were once part of Sweden, but a) never Novosibirsk and b) Never at the time when he was born. So it seems pretty definitive he was born in Russia. --Jayron32 02:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

February 27

Central African Republic

What states have been in the area that is now the Central African Republic before and during its time as a French colony excluding the French colony and the state that was derived from it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C541:CC60:4897:AF86:CD38:DFCF (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe the answer is possibly none. There was no organized state in that area when the French showed up. The politics were purely tribal and the area was likely somewhat depopulated due to the slave trade. Daniel(talk) 00:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

To provide some references for Daniel's supposition, see List of kingdoms in pre-colonial Africa which shows no historic polities located where the French later formed Ubangi-Shari. The area was occupied by non-state civilizations such as the Sao civilization. The nearest states I can find through research include the Kanem Empire, its successor the Bornu Empire, and the Kingdom of Baguirmi, which all came close to the area, and which had fuzzy enough borders that they may have exerted control over some small parts of what became the CAR. Most of central African states, however, were really concentrated on Lake Chad and into the Sahel, and probably didn't exert any real state control over what became the CAR, or were much further south along the Congo River. --Jayron32 01:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

House prices: domino effect

If I own a house and I reside in it and I do not wish to sell it and I do not wish to move, and my next-door neighbor demolishes his house and replaces it with an apartment building having a higher assessed value but causing increases in traffic congestion and air pollution and worsening the quality of my life, then why does the apartment building cause my house to have a higher assessed value and a higher tax rate?
—Wavelength (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

See Property tax in the United States, particularly the "Valuation" section. Tevildo (talk) 01:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

More importantly, see supply and demand. By increasing the demand for your property, the value goes up. Quality of living issues, and how much you now "like" it has little to do with it. Also, your "house" is not necessarily what is being valued, but the total value of your land and all that is on it. Most of which is land. The value of the structure itself is of lesser concern. It's a real estate adage that "Buildings depreciate and land appreciates". --Jayron32 01:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Related to this, consider the potential uses of your property. How big is your lot? If you own the house and just a few feet past it in every direction, it may be far less valuable because not much could be put there. This is an interesting aspect of Bloomington, Indiana, where I went to grad school. While there are some apartments near the huge university campus, most of the campus is surrounded by neighborhoods of small houses, since most of the lots are really tiny, and constructing an apartment building would require that several house owners all be ready to sell together. Yes, you could buy one at a time, but if one has a young couple who won't move, you might get stuck holding the other houses for decades. Consider the film Up. If you've seen it, you remember Mr Frederickson's small house surrounded by all the development — since everything's been built around it, isolating the house and its little lot, there's not much you could put there. It's not as if someone could buy Mr Frederickson's property and put in a big apartment building, for example. Nyttend (talk) 06:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Nyttend, my reply has four parts: (1) Monetary values are not the only values. My land could have value for growing fruits and vegetables, for beekeeping, and for maintaining a view for the benefit of my neighbors. (2) Taxing it while I own it is imposing a capital gains tax on its increased monetary value (of no benefit to me unless I choose the risky option of leveraging its value for a loan), instead of imposing a sales tax after its sale (which sale I do not want). (3) Real estate brokers might hope to gain from its hoped-for sale, and the local government might gain from increased taxes, but the higher assessment is of no benefit to me. (4) The expression "supply and demand" is fuzzy, because the term "demand" blurs the distinction between needs and desires.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no clue how potential future uses (e.g. agriculture) or æsthetic uses (e.g. neighbors' views) are taken into account, let alone the way that things like taxes and real estate brokers' wishes fit in; go find a real estate agent if you want to understand how those fit in. Did you see that most of the above comments, especially supply and demand, were made by other people? Anyway, the concept of demand in economics seemingly doesn't attempt to distinguish between needs and desires; after all, it's virtually impossible to draw a firm line between them. Nyttend (talk) 22:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I see that another editor mentioned supply and demand. Thank you for your replies.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Leaning liberal-conservative

How can anything or anyone "lean liberal-conservative"? How can you lean in opposite ways simultaneously? Yes, I understand that one can have conservatives within a body called the "Liberal Party" and liberals within a body called the "Conservative Party", but when neither one is capitalised, it looks like the leaner has tendencies toward liberalism and conservatism. The context for this question is our Allgemeine Zeitung article, which says "The newspaper leans liberal-conservative"; the source won't help, as it's no longer a working link. Nyttend (talk) 05:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

See liberal conservatism. As I've mentioned other times, "liberal" and "conservative" are not opposites, and not even necessarily in tension. --Trovatore (talk) 05:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

That's all right-wing stuff. Where's the "liberal" part? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing left-wing about liberalism in general. Actually, the entire mainstream of the American political spectrum is liberal in a broad sense.

I once asked my brother-in-law, a historian, whether there was ever any large American political movement that wouldn't fall under the broad rubric of liberalism. His answer was the American Party from the 19th century, more usually called the Know-Nothings. There is also plenty of anti-liberal sentiment on the left, among adherents of identity politics, but even they are so influenced by liberalism that only a few radicals really fundamentally reject it as a whole; they just aren't willing to embrace it fully either. --Trovatore (talk) 06:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I've seen other editors claim just the opposite - that the US is all conservative (compared to Europe, anyway). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Once again, "liberal" and "conservative" are not opposites. --Trovatore (talk) 07:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Once again, in America they are. Maybe in Canada things are different. Although I recall Dave Foley saying once, "In Canada, we're so liberal we make Castro look like a Republican." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Once again, they are. Conservatives want to maintain the power status quo. Liberals want to expand liberty to more people. You can't retain the power status quo AND expand liberty. Not possible. The confusion arises because people who were genuinely "liberal" back-in-the-day eventually became entrenched in power, and their policies ARE the status quo; they are no longer interested in expanding liberty to more people. See classical liberalism, which had to have the word "classical" added to the front because this is no longer modern liberalism. --Jayron32 17:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

So this is the American-center-left party line, which I obviously don't agree with. If everyone already has liberty, then there is no "expanding it to more people", because there are no more people to expand it to, and in that case, preservation of the status quo is liberal, because the only way it could change is to take away liberty from someone. I don't claim that's the situation we're in, certainly, but further discussion of that gets down to details that are not relevant to the current question.

What is relevant to Nyttend's query is that the word "liberal" is used in multiple ways. It is not purely an America-rest-of-the-world distinction, but one of a distinction between a (mostly American, but not entirely) sense meaning "center-left", and a broader sense meaning "supports the idea of individual rights, civil liberties, procedural and substantive due process, free enterprise, free trade, etc", things that are virtually universal across the American political spectrum, and not universal but have a strong majority in the Western European spectrum.

The broader sense is used even in the United States; you generally have to understand it from context. There was a column by Jeb Bush recently talking about, I think, al-Sisi (I'm not 100% sure on that point) where he raised the question whether this person was a "small-l liberal democrat as we understand it", and responded that he obviously was not, but that he might still be the best option for the region given the alternatives. Implicit was the claim that Jeb was a "liberal democrat". And in fact, Jeb Bush is a liberal democrat, understood in this broader sense. He is also, obviously, a conservative, and the two things are not in contradiction. --Trovatore (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

What world do you live in where every individual has the ideal level of liberty?!?!? --Jayron32 22:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Didn't say they did. However, the threats to individual liberty, in the current American context, come grosso modo as much from the left as from the right. "Change" is not always liberal; defending against illiberal change is a liberal undertaking. --Trovatore (talk) 22:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Some examples would help. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, there's for example the individual mandate from Obamacare, which takes away your freedom to roll the dice and bet that you won't need that coverage you're not buying. More generally there's the trend to hold that the State knows better than you what risks you (or especially your children) should be taking (how about this one?). Lots more. --Trovatore (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

That's the same argument that you shouldn't have to wear a motorcycle helmet because it inhibits your freedom. As to the child-endangerment case, that's at the state level, not the national level, and conservatives love to talk about "states' rights". And are you saying that we shouldn't have child-endangerment laws? Do those laws inhibit the freedom of adults to do whatever they want to their children? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

It is (the motorcycle thing). And in fact you shouldn't have to wear a motorcycle helmet, because it inhibits your freedom. Legislating otherwise is illiberal, even if it comes from the center-left, and opposing such legislation is liberal, even if the opposition comes from the center-right. --Trovatore (talk) 02:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Part of the problem is assuming, however, that the ONLY source of restrictions on liberty is the government; the deal with classical liberalism is that, AT THAT TIME, the government was the primary source of illiberalism. What happens when other forces (corporations, societal norms, advantaged social classes, etc.) are providing the restrictions to liberty, and the government itself is acting to expand individual liberty against those forces? That's really what distinguishes modern liberalism from "classical liberalism", the use of the apparatus of state to expand personal liberty rather than to restrict it. --Jayron32 02:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, now, remembering that conversation, I think the Know-Nothings were my brother-in-law's answer to a slightly different question, namely whether we had ever had a religious party comparable to Shas in Israel. But I think he might have given the same answer to "large non-liberal party" ("political movement" is not right I guess; the Ku Klux Klan was at some point a large political movement). --Trovatore (talk) 07:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

It's all due to the fact that the US uses the word 'liberal' in a completely different manner than the rest of the world does. Liberal means socially permissive and fiscally conservative in the rest of the world, whereas conservative is socially regressive and fiscally conservative. There is in fact of course no left wing in mainstream American politics, and they are by and large all conservative, yes. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 08:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no actual one-size-fits-all definition of left v. right, or liberal v. conservative. Each place and time finds totally different definitions used, frequently simultaneously. Abolitionists were "liberal" but were also "conservative" in many ways - depending on which attributes one looks at. In the US, a huge percentage of people would actually be called "centrist" by the standards of European politics. Collect (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• In the US we have RINO's, (Republican in name only) if that's what's meant. John Boehner is widely considered one. There also used to be Rockefeller Republicans and Arlen Spector and John Lindsay μηδείς (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Anybody who thinks liberal and conservative in America are somehow the same thing needs to listen to Sarah Palin for a few minutes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Could I just shove a rusty cheese grater in my ears instead?

American politics usually is a single spectrum with liberalism on the left and conservatism on the right, but I've seen a double spectrum (or even a triple spectrum, like a cube) of authoritarian (or fascist, or populist) vs liberal (or libertarian, or democratic) on one axis, left-wing (socialist or communist) vs right-wing (capitalist) on another, and socially liberal vs socially conservative on the third.

American politics, in the grand scheme of things, is really more "moderate vs conservative" (heading toward "moderate vs neoconservative") than truly "liberal vs conservative." Ian.thomson (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Anti-Punishment points of view, sources?

Hey, I would like to know if there is any information published by reputable sources that provide criticism of punishment and point toward a reward-based system of discipline to add within the page on "Punishment". That would really help me. thx. Frogger48 (talk) 10:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Supposing someone commits murder, what type of reward should they get? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't be facile, the OP clearly meant what preventative measures are there as disincentives for crimes. 130.195.253.12 (talk) 07:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't be arrogant. I'm not the only one (see below) who's apparently dumber than you are. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

A search on Google Scholar produced plenty of results. You may wish to refine the search terms depending on whether you are interested in sources relating to children or adults - a spell on the naughty step might not deter bank robbers. Alansplodge (talk) 12:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you interested in the penal system, or child rearing, or something else, or anything related to punishment? If the former, we have Rehabilitation_(penology), if the latter, recall that negative reinforcement is not punishment, and of course there's also positive reinforcement. If you can explain a little bit more about what you're looking for, I can probably get some scholarly references. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Pre-2003 USA-Iraq Oil Trading

Did the United States and Iraq under Hussein trade oil before the 2003 invasion? 130.195.253.12 (talk) 07:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

It would surely depend on what you mean by trading. However a simple search for 'us iraq oil' finds [17] which shows US imports or Iraqi oil. which suggests a peak in October 2001 - January 2002 until October last year. However it looks like the peak is because the graph isn't smooth as much as anything, the levels may be slightly higher but seem to have been fairly consistent from August 1998 until the end of the graph with a brief drop around the time of the invasion. Unfortunately the stats start in 1996. It seems that imports was zero for 1996, with a small amount in 1997 before the larger increase in 1998. It wouldn't be surprising if oil imports were zero since about 1990 i.e. the time of the Gulf War but there's probably a fair bet it wasn't zero before then, perhaps since Saddam Hussein came to power in 1979 (well before 1979, but your question as stated only covers the period from 1979 onwards). Nil Einne (talk) 10:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

[18] has an analysis of the data on a year to year basis until 2007 which shows there was indeed a peak in 2001 although it was only about 20% or so higher than the next higher year, 2004. It also looks like figures seem to have some degree of correlation with Iraqi crude oil production, at least in recent years until 2006. Nil Einne (talk) 10:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

See also Sanctions against Iraq#Limitations on exports and the Oil For Food Programme for the post Gulf War situation. Alansplodge (talk) 12:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Welsh flag - pre 1953

Flags of Wales 1953-1959 (Left) and 1959-Current (Right)

The current Flag of Wales shows the welsh dragon. During 1953-1959 one was used showing the Royal Badge of Wales. Was any flag or ensign used immediately prior to that or was the Union Jack used for all things? For instance; what would have been used at international football games and the British Empire/Commonwealth games prior to 1953?. Nanonic (talk) 14:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

"Cumberland Clark’s 1926 book about the flags of England and the Empire has no reference to a Welsh flag, but his 1934 book ‘The Flags of Britain’ has; ‘Those who happen to be in Wales on Saint David’s Day will catch a glimpse of a British banner that is rarely seen beyond the boundaries of Cambria. The national flag of Wales has a horizontally halved white over green background, with the famous Red Dragon over all.’" History of Y Ddraig Goch. The same article also shows another flag, used "by government buildings in London" was a "white field with the dragon standing on a patch of green grass". Alansplodge (talk) 16:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Alansplodge) Also see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Flag of Wales, where the issue was actually raised, and where there's a sort of a discussion going on. --Theurgist (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I have added my six penn'orth to the discussion by the football people, which I hope has helped. Maybe. Alansplodge (talk) 00:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

bond market - structured products - german "Zertifikate"

hi, anyone here into german "Zertifikate"-stuff? Is it possible to find a translation for them: "structured bonds, bond market"? "Structured derivative european-style bank-issued exotic bonds"? "Structured Reverse_convertible_securities"? "Structured reverse Convertible_bond"? "Over-the-counter derivatives"? Is there a common term for them? (OP on german refdesk: DE:Wikipedia:Auskunft#Was_hei.C3.9Ft_Zertifikat_.28Wirtschaft.29_auf_englisch.3F) Thanks advanced! --217.84.85.167 (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

UK military decoration ceremonies

L/Cpl Joshua Leakey was awarded the Victoria Cross on Wednesday. As can be seen from, for example, the BBC article on the event, he received the award wearing his everyday camoflage battledress. Not knowing much about this subject, I would have expected a more formal dress uniform to be appropriate for this sort of ceremony - however, my expectations were incorrect. Is there a tradition or protocol which dicates this sort of clothing for medal ceremonies? If so, perhaps a reference to it in the relevant articles would be useful. Tevildo (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't find an answer for you, but note that in the same video sequence, there was an image of Johnson Beharry receiving his VC while wearing No.2: Service dress which is more formal, but not THE most formal uniform.[19] I suspect that a decision was taken by his unit that the soldiers should appear in their "working clothes" (actually No.8: Temperate Combat Dress) to show that they are really fighting troops and not parade soldiers, but that's just a guess. Alansplodge (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

UK Chief Constables

Are UK Chief Constables of Police fully warranted police officers? Does anyone have any references or legislation to shed light on this issue? Thanks. asyndeton talk 22:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a notoriously difficult to disprove something, but look at it another way... When a serving police officer is made Chief Constable, is he somehow stripped of his powers or required to hand in his warrant card? It seems a bit unlikely. Until recently, many chief constables still wore their whistle chains, a symbol of their status as a police officer. Alansplodge (talk) 00:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The question would then become: are all Chief Constables of Police promoted from the ranks of warranted officers, or are some appointed as "political" position? My wife works in law enforcement in a forensic science lab: the Lab Director has no lab experience whatsoever, it's always been a political appointment of the State Attorney General, and IIRC, neither does the Deputy Director. The highest ranked person at her lab who are promoted from within are the two Assistant Lab Directors. So, by analogy, it would not be unexpected that a high ranking person such as the Chief Constable would be a political, rather than professional, appointment. If there were some Chief Constables who did not get their job by rising through the ranks, they may not be warranted. I have no idea if this applies to any currently serving, of the 50 listed at Chief constable. About half of them have biographies on Wikipedia. I checked the first three, and all were career warranted police officers. --Jayron32 00:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Final Authority on UK Law

Can legislation.gov.uk be taken to be the final authority on UK law? If so, why is this? How many times is it peer reviewed (I ask as I wonder how sure they can be there are no errors that would affect the law)? Are there any other safeguards? How does the whole thing happen, if that can be easily explained? Thanks. asyndeton talk 22:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

It looks to be the official government website. If there was an error on that site (anything is possible), it would not be binding. What is binding is the wording of the legislation as it was passed by Parliament, not a mistake in publishing it to a website. Is there a specific piece of legislation, whose text is on that website, which you have reason to doubt is the same as the text originally passed by Parliament? If you have specific questions about that website, This page here I found with a few clicks will likely answer them for you. --Jayron32 22:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

No, the final interpretation of the law, so in that sense the final authority, is by the judicial service. However, the website does indeed carry the legal text of the law, as held by the National Archives (see 'About Us'). You'd have to contact the National Archives about their error save-guards. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Interpretation of the law wasn't the question; the question asks about the text of the law (which can easily be ascertained from the printed originals), not its meaning or application. Only in an extremely rare situation, if ever, would the judiciary have to attempt to ascertain the official text itself, since official texts are routinely printed and distributed to law libraries. Nyttend (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The question was about "the final authority". Nowhere did it mention the text of the law. Whatever a law says, it's the interpretation of that law by a judge (or a series of judges) that matters in the end. Judges surely are the final authority, except where countermanded by a more senior judge. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I apologise for not being clear in my question. By final authority, I meant to ask whether or not the text of any act on legislation.gov.uk can be taken to be "the law" in the sense that it is the complete and official version and representation of the law, as passed by Parliament. I wondered whether or not there is a paper document somewhere that is seen as the unquestioned representation of the law, and the aforementioned site is simply meant to make what this says more widely available. Apologies again for not being clear. Thanks. asyndeton talk 00:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Neither their About Us page nor the page linked by Jayron addresses the issue of the website's authoritativeness. Based on viewing other legislation-hosting websites, I'll guess that Jayron's correct: in general, websites of this type are provided as public services, not as authoritative sources. While the webmasters attempt to be as accurate as possible, the online text has the force of law only if it's identical to the text of the law enacted by the legislature; if they make any mistakes in transcription, the officially enacted text takes precedence over the online text. This is why some such websites have disclaimers that say basically "If you rely on an erroneous piece of text on our website, you will be liable for violating the actual law, so consult a printed copy of the law and/or talk with a lawyer." Nyttend (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

It should be as good as printed copies, though. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Seeing as it is an official website of the UK Parliament, and not an independent site, I suspect (but cannot prove) that the text is not transcribed (by hand or OCR) but rather simply copied from the actual word processing files used to print the text of the bills voted on in Parliament. It is quite likely (but again, cannot be proven from what I can read at the site) that the text is as identical as possible. --Jayron32 00:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it probably is, but it's still possible for corruptions to occur. I don't remember where I read it, but there was a US court case (Supreme Court?) that held federal law to consist of what had officially been enacted by Congress and published in its official organ, the Statutes at Large — any other medium of publication is unofficial, unless Congress decides to make something else official. I would strongly suspect the same to be true of the UK Parliament with its website: unless they've designated the website as their official organ, some other publication is the complete and official version and representation of the law. If you don't have a single official publication, which always takes precedence when differences arise, you're in a horribly undesirable situation: people can always debate the meaning of the law, but it's absolutely necessary for the judiciary and the rest of the citizens to be able to know what the official text of the law says. Nyttend (talk) 01:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia articles are a bit out-of-date, but it does appear that the online database is official. See UK Statute Law Database and Acts of Parliament in the United Kingdom#Acts in force. It appears that the office responsible for maintaining accurate records of the Acts of Parliament in force (and thus the corpus of British statutory law) is the The National Archives (United Kingdom). If the OP has genuine questions regarding the official copy of legislation, how it is maintained, and how to research it, they would be the people to contact. Their website is at http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ and they have a contact page at http://apps.nationalarchives.gov.uk/contact/ which even has a phone number. That'd be the best way to get the question answered, since they are the ones responsible for maintaining the official records. --Jayron32 02:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Huh. Well, if Parliament have decreed that the online database be their official organ, it is the final authority on UK law, and there's no getting around it. I'm somewhat surprised, but I suppose it's to be expected in our electronic age. Nyttend (talk) 02:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe or maybe not. The Wikipedia articles are either uncited, out of date, or unclear on the matter. They certainly imply or state that, but where they state it outright they are uncited. Near as I can tell, the National Archives are the body charged by Parliament with maintaining the official records, and the online database MAY be that official record, or may be a copy of that record, it is unclear since we don't have a definitive outside-of-Wikipedia statement to that effect. Which is why I recommended the OP (and you if you really want to know) contact the National Archives directly and ask them. --Jayron32 02:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Who polices the police who police the police?

The Metropolitan Police Service has a specific department for investigating complaints against officers, ie the Directorate of Professional Standards, Who though is responsible for policing them? I have read a Freedom of Information Request that suggests it used to be the Metropolitan Police Authority, but has that not been replace by the Police and Crime Commissioner? Is their office responsible for keeping the DPS in line? Thanks. asyndeton talk 00:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you asking about the Metropolitan Police Service in Greater London?

—Wavelength (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, although I suppose the question also applies more broadly to other constabularies within the UK, as I would have thought they would all follow a similar structure regarding these matters. If not though, the Met is the on I am most interested in. Thanks. asyndeton talk 00:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The Independent Police Complaints Commission (according to the Met's website [20]) "primary statutory purpose is to increase public confidence in the police complaints system in England and Wales." It continues; "The IPCC also investigates the most serious complaints and allegations of misconduct against the police in England and Wales, as well as handling some appeals from people who are not satisfied with the way police have dealt with their complaint". So the IPCC seems to have a regulatory role as well as being the ombudsman for those dissatisfied with police internal investigations. The Police and Crime Commissioner does not appear to have a direct role in enforcing police standards or the investigation of complaints according to Role of the PCC. Alansplodge (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

There's a division is responsibility between the IPCC and PCCs - the latter's role explained here. My understanding of the original question here would suggest that the PCC polices the DPS in all PCC'd areas. But for London, no PCC, but instead still Boris & co. [21] [22] ... and so the London assembly is the next level up. Clearly there is a lot of common ground between the IPCCs remit and that of PCCs; not sure how they handle that overlap. I disagree with Alansplodge ... if PCCs hold chief constables to account, then they are standards enforcers. If the DPS is failing, that is a matter for the PCC/Boris; but I suspect the cases which are failing in the DPS are the remit of the IPCC. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

UK royal assent

The discussions up above make me wonder: who officially grants Royal Assent to Acts of the Scottish Parliament? It's not in the UK section of Royal Assent, but neither is anything on who officially grants it to Acts of the UK Parliament. I remember reading somewhere (but I can't remember or discover where) that Royal Assent was first granted by a non-monarch (by an individual? by a committee? I can't remember) during the reign of Henry VIII, since he didn't want to sign the bill of attainder against one of his wives, and that this procedure is pretty much always followed today for Acts of the UK Parliament. I'm curious if the same type of official or same type of body grants Royal Assent to Scottish, Welsh, and Nirish acts. The article quotes the ordinary Assent formulæ, which say "By The Queen Herself Signed with Her Own Hand", but it would seem odd for Royal Assent always to be granted in person to Scottish, Welsh, and Nirish acts if it were rarely or never given to acts of the UK Parliament. Nyttend (talk) 01:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Hm, I just realised that there's additional information farther down in the Royal Assent article. Does the Queen personally sign all bills passed by the national and devolved parliaments? Nyttend (talk) 01:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Likely she doesn't. The job of officially assenting to legislation long ago passed out of the hands of the Monarch, even before the Monarch lost all of his or her real power. Even when Monarchs had power, they had a official "Keepers of the Seal", whose job it was to affix the official seal to Acts that had royal assent. The UK has both a Privy Seal and a Great Seal of the Realm. It also has people whose job it is to keep said seals, the Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal and the Lord Keeper of the Great Seal. In the modern UK, the Lord Keeper of the Great Seal is usually also the Lord Chancellor. In commonwealth realms today, royal assent is accomplished when the Governor-General personally signs the bill. In the UK itself, a bill gets royal assent when either the Monarch appears personally in parliament to grant said assent (a rare event) or, more commonly, by the Lords Commissioners, who are given the authority to grant royal assent; the most important commissioner is the aforementioned Lord Chancellor. In reality, it seems, few acts of Parliament get the full "ceremonial" treatment in Lords; the Lords Commissioners simply issue a letters patent giving the Royal Consent. I can't find who formally signs or seals the legislation, but I doubt the Queen does personally. --Jayron32 02:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

That's something I found unclear in the article. It says that no monarch since Victoria has personally granted assent to Acts of the UK Parliament, and it says that the commission process only happens once per year, with all other bills being granted assent by letters patent. Since the personal-granting process involved the monarch physically going to the House of Lords and going through the various ceremonies, I figured that the "not since Victoria" statement didn't address whether the monarch personally signs bills. Acts_of_Parliament_in_the_United_Kingdom#Sovereignty says that there are only approximately fifty Acts of Parliament annually; I figured it wouldn't be that much of a strain on the royal right (or left) hand to sign her name once per week. Nyttend (talk) 02:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but that would still imply that she actually participates in passage of said acts. I seriously doubt it. I suspect (but cannot find sources) that the actual official passage involves the Lord Chancellor in some way; much of the roles held by the Governors-General in other commonwealth realms are held by the Lord Chancellor in the UK. --Jayron32 02:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)