Humanities desk
< September 16	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 18 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 17[edit]

Longest Serving Democratically Elected Leader?[edit]

I asked this same question on this page a few years back without success but as everyone here seems to be far more intelligent (and no doubt better looking) than the people who were around then that I thought I would try again...

Sir Thomas Playford GCMG is referred to as having "the longest term of any democratically elected leader in the history of the Commonwealth of Nations" (26 years, 125 days). Can anyone tell me who outside the Commonwealth has served as a democratically elected leader (federal/state/territory etc.) for longer? Roisterer 06:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Byrd is the longest-serving US Senator in history (49 years next January). I doubt that's the longest in history, though. Just by odds, there are so many more elected leaders at the local level, so it's more likely to be someone there. --Sean 12:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure Byrd would qualify as a leader though, since he's not a governor or president. A close contender is Urho Kekkonen, who was president of Finland from March 1st, 1956 to January 27, 1982, or 25 years, 10 months and 26 days. A ecis^Brievenbus 13:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. I misunderstood the question. --Sean 15:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To a degree, popes are elected democratically as well. This would make Pope Pius IX, who reigned from 1846 to 1878 (31 years, 7 months and 23 days) a candidate for this title. A ecis^Brievenbus 13:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reductio ad absurdum: the answer that makes nonsense of the question. --Wetman 14:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tage Fritiof Erlander for "longest serving Prime Minister of any western democracy."—eric 21:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Alberto João Jardim says he's been president of the Madeira region of Portugal since 1978. -- Mwalcoff 23:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we count Popes, then Holy Roman Emperors were also elected in a small way, which gives us Frederick Barbarossa (35 years), Frederick II (39 years), Frederick III (41 years), Rudolf II (36 years), and Leopold I (47 years). Xn4 03:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does one call a democracy by an unelected electorate? (Or could 'everyone' vote in those elections? I doubt it and the article doesn't say). Does this open the way to counting Fidel Castro as well? DirkvdM 07:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And are there any places where all adults, without exception, are entitled to vote? If this were the definition of "democracry", most places would not qualify, as they deny the vote to some or all prisoners. -- JackofOz 14:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Orwell: "It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it; consequently, the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using the word if it were tied down to any one meaning." Xn4 16:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I put 'everyone' between quotes because indeed in no democracy everyone can vote. This starts with the age limit. What should that be? One solution would be to really allow everyone to vote, irrespective of age (hell, they don't even need to be born yet), but make no big deal of it if they don't, as will be the case with toddlers. if they can't operate the voting mechanism (be it pencil or computer) then they can't vote. The beauty of this is that it is simple. And for those few who some might consider unfit to vote, such as prisoners (why on Earth should they not be allowed to vote?) or retarded people, will form such a small minority that it really doesn't matter that much. After all, we let really stupid people vote too, don't we? And I mean stupid in an objective sense, like with an IQ of around 70 or so. If it isn't clear where one should put the limit, then let there be no limit. The great strength of democracy lies not in that the right people will get elected, but in that the wrong people will not get too much power. For which reason a country should not have a president (a single person with too much power), but that's a different issue. DirkvdM 18:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have to discount popes, Holy Roman Emperors, and dictators such as Castro. All have been elected, but none have been democratically elected. For popes and emperors, suffrage is restricted to only a handful, who themselves did not attain their right to vote by democratic means. For dictators, the elections are usually ego-boosters or terror tactics, in which a vote against the leader could well be grounds for arrest. --M @r ē ino 19:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Urho Kekkonen served as a MP years 1936-1956 and as a president of Finland years 1956-1982. Impressive 46 years and 26 of those as a president. TuoppiP 18:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legal case results citation[edit]

I came across the article for Colleen Shannon which says that she was involved in a legal battle over her high school yearbook photo when it got published in Playboy. I've been able to find a lot of links to articles about the case written before the decision of the court was made but not one link explaining how the case was settled. Does anyone know how I might find such info? Dismas|^(talk) 08:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is she involved? The article says that the yearbook photo company is suing Playboy... AnonMoos 10:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In one of the articles that I read it was said she was named as one of the defendants since she gave the photo to Playboy. Dismas|^(talk) 10:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the specific article. They credit the Sacremento Bee as their source. Dismas|^(talk) 10:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try sending an email request directly to Mr. Rhodes? You do have his address. Just ask for any publicly-available non-privileged information relating to the disposition of this case. dr.ef.tymac 06:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beard-stroking to express disbelief?[edit]

This may just be an British/English thing (or even a Northern English thing) - but does anyone know where the gesture of stroking one's beard (or chin, in absence of a beard) from back to front to express disbelief at, and mock another person's tall tale/apparent blatant lie originates? It's often accompanied by saying "beard, beard, beard", "chin, chin, chin" or "goat, goat, goat" in a bleating, sheeplike voice (yes, male goats do have beards - but I don't know how it ties in with this). It can actually be taken as a very serious insult, especially amongst the drunk. Any ideas? --Kurt Shaped Box 14:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly OR, but I thought it dates back to a 70s playground taunt, referring to TV football pundit Jimmy Hill, who has a very peculiar chin (and, from time to time, goatee beard). I think the implication was that Hill talked rubbish. There were many variations, often preceeded by "ooh", such as "ooh Jimmy". I think the specific reference to Hill dropped off way before he disappeared from TV screens, which makes me wonder if the Hill reference was the application of his name to a fad that predates my memory! --Dweller 14:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see there's even a reference to this at Jimmy_Hill#Image. --Dweller 22:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the Midlands in the 70s and 80s it was the length and itchiness of the beard which denoted the lie. Ranging from 'Itchy beard!' with accompanying gesture of somebody scratching a small goatee for a small fib, to a mime of a beard suddenly growing to floor length and efforts to claw one's lower face off for an outright whopper. It beard growth seemed to echo Pinocchio's nose growth, but I'm baffled as to the rest of it. 194.75.128.200 10:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

religious recognition at the UN[edit]

Which religions are recognised in the United Nations & on what parameters are they given this recognition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.184.51.226 (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that any religions are "recognized" as religions (whatever that would mean), but some religious organizations have been given NGO accreditation, and various UN bodies have endorsed documents such as the "Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities" and the resolution on Elimination of all forms of religious intolerance... -- AnonMoos 21:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that while the Vatican has observer status at the UN, it's not recognition of Catholicism, but rather the fact that Vatican City is a sovereign nation. Donald Hosek 22:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not being a nitpicker, but that's not quite how it is, I think. It's not the Vatican City state that has UN observer status, but the Holy See. The two are obviously closely connected, but they are still distinct entities. The Holy See is the oldest continuously operating diplomatic service in the world, going at least as far back as AD 325, 16 centuries before there was any such thing as an internationally recognised sovereign nation run by the Roman Catholic Church (1929). But I certainly agree that this still doesn't amount to UN "recognition" of Roman Catholicism, any more than the UN membership of the Islamic Republics of Iran, Mauritania or Pakistan amounts to "recognition" of Islam. -- JackofOz 01:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

religious organizations[edit]

which religious organizations have been given accreditation/status/recognition in the UN? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.184.36.103 (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~The UN doesn't give "accreditation, status or recognition" to religious organisations, or any other organisations.~~ The Holy See, for various historical reasons, is recognised as a non-member State. A number of other organisations and entities are United Nations General Assembly observers. This is oddly similar to the question #religious recognition at the UN further up the page - are you the same questioner? FiggyBee 16:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, apparently the UN accredits NGOs for participation in particular events, or for "working relations" with particular departments in the UN. I imagine the complete list of every organisation which has ever recieved such accreditation is very long. Needless to say, such accreditation shouldn't be seen as an endorsement by the UN of particular views of any particular organisation, which seems to be what you're driving at. FiggyBee 16:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide in Sweden[edit]

Where can I find the hard data on the suicide count in Sweden 1980-today, all age groups? Somewhere at the Swedish Statistics Bureau, perhaps? Punkmorten 20:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The English-language version of their website is here [1] DuncanHill 21:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From memory, the suicide rate gets higher as you get up to the Arctic Circle - the polar night, the flip side of the midnight sun, is a killer. Xn4 02:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, the myth that Sweden has the highest suicide rate in the world is just that, a myth. As I recall, the title belongs to Lithuania. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 21:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I can't seem to find my way through their website. Help Punkmorten 08:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

driver license suspension in Arkansas and Texas[edit]

If I get a Texas Driver's Licenses knowing my Arkansas Drivers licnese is going to be suspended (but I get the TX license before the supsension), can/will Arkansas be able to suspend my Texas Driver's license? XM 20:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer - We do not give legal advice - consult a lawyer! However something called the Driver License Compact would suggest that it wouldn't help - see the article for more details. Exxolon 21:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can pretty much assume that your license will get suspended. And when the next time the highway patrol decides to persecute you for speeding while atheist, and you're up against a judge, things will not look good for your driving on a suspended license charge. You broke the law, now it's time to face the penalty for doing so. Donald Hosek 22:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

?Speeding while atheist? What are you referring to? There's nothing about this in the question. Exxolon 00:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 July 11#Another goddamn speeding ticket, since which XM has made several requests for advice in beating the ticket. —Tamfang 00:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Man that's a lot to read through but thanks for the heads up. Right XM read the following :-

The following points are assigned for speeding and speed related offenses (In Arkansas):

Racing on the highway-8 points;
reckless driving-8 points;
careless (or negligent) driving-3 points;
hazardous driving-3points;
driving less than the minimum speed limit-3 points;
impeding traffic-3 points;
driving too fast for conditions-3 points;
speeding 0 to 10MPH over the limit-3 points;
speeding 11 to 14 MPH over the limit-4 points;
speeding 15 to 20 MPH over the limit-4 points;
speeding 21 to 30MPH over the limit-5 points;
speeding ≥30 MPH over the limit-8 points;
speeding 0 to 14 MPH over the limit in a commercial motor vehicle-3 points;
speeding ≥15 MPH over the limit in a commercial motor vehicle-6 points;
unsafe driving-3 points;
and, other violations-3 points

Source - [2]

And the following thresholds/consequences :-

Warning Letter―10-13 Points
Three Month Suspension―14-17 Points
Six Month Suspension―18-23 Points
One Year Suspension―24 or More Points

(Source http://www.***.org/ar-arkansas/point-system.php replace *** with dmv - blacklisted link for some reason)

Ergo - either you already had points on your license sufficient that a further speeding violation would result in you exceeding 13 points - in which case you're an idiot for speeding under those circumstances. OR your driving was so atrocious that you managed to commit sufficient offences to gain 14 or more points for a single incident - in which case the roads are safer without you on them. Try taking responsibility for your actions rather than attempting to wriggle out through some legal loophole. Exxolon 01:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC) You are never going to beat ths ticket..hotclaws 13:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think from memory it sounded like XM has received lots of speeding tickets in the past so I would suspect it's probably the former. Edit: Actually after going through the history I remember now. XM's license suspension may have had something to do with the fact he missed his hearing date, supposedly because they sent the notification to the wrong address. He was asking for help on how to deal with this and has previously asked about out of state licenses. I don't quite understand the hearing date bit since XM seemed to know his hearing date previously and on August 14th he said he had 6 hours before his hearing. Nil Einne 22:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Aug 14th was for a seperate speeding ticket. My driver control hearing was sometime before that. Now, I have an additonal ticket. But am trying to move to another state to avoid suspension. XM 16:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a wild, unconventional suggestion: Stop speeding and you'll beat them hollow!!203.21.40.253 01:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Mythology during the Renaissance[edit]

I need some help finding information about roman mythology during the renaissance in Italy. I cannot get a straight answer anywhere. I need to find at least two articles. I need to have this information in two days. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.39.182 (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be perfectly frank, 71.251, I'm not at all surpised that you cannot get a 'straight answer anywhere' for the simple reason that your question is so imprecise. Are you interested in what Renaissance scholars thought of Roman beliefs, or if texts recounting old Roman tales were in circulation? Or is it the uses of classical themes in Renaissance art that you wish to focus on? If the latter, you might consider the work of Sandro Botticelli as a good example of an artist who made use of classical subjects in paintings like Birth of Venus, Primavera and Venus and Mars. But I really do not intend to proceed any further in case I am wasting my time and yours. Clio the Muse 23:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So name the tribes that the haitians came from as slaves?[edit]

If the countries did not exist, What kind of region from west africa did they come from? show me a map or something? what was the slave coast and the gold coast?--arab 22:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

see Slave Coast, Gold Coast (region) —Tamfang 00:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you should be aware that for 99% of Haitians (or anyone who traces his lineage back to slaves) it will be impossible to determine beyond a reasonable doubt what particular tribes that person descends from. The records simply were not kept at the time, and the descendants intermarried almost universally, making most genetic testing fruitless (at least with today's technology). --M @r ē ino 20:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]