Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 May 4

= May 4 =

Reagan republican
What is a "Reagan Republican"?

As we head in to another presidential election here in the U.S., many of the Republican candidates are calling themselves "Reagan Republicans" or "Reagan Conservatives". What constitutes a "Reagan Republican"? My Google search turned up nothing useful; my Wikipedia search redirected me to a major article about Ronald Reagan, but did not answer my question.

So, what is a Reagan Republican? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.195.188.31 (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC).


 * Oh, there isn't a definite meaning. The closest thing that there could be would be "opposed to the federal government" and "anti-Communist."  The latter doesn't play so well anymore, so it's kind of, "Pro-military spending."  The anti-tax platform that Reagan ran on consistently may or may not figure into it.  However, for Republicans the term is almost meaningless, and they're just trying to hark back to a popular conservative president.  Geogre 01:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I generally agree with Geogre. This is not an expression with a clear meaning.  It is a marketing device.  It is an attempt to claim the mantle of the last widely popular Republican president.  It invites the (Republican) listener to remember whatever it was he or she liked about Reagan in his presidential role (the reassuring grandfatherly air, the strong John Wayne sheriff persona, the tax-cutting conservative, etc) and to associate that quality with the candidate claiming Reagan's legacy, whether the candidate has that quality or not.  Incidentally, Reagan essentially created the alliance between the propertied class and religious conservatives that has been the key to Republican success since Reagan's day.  Now that that alliance shows signs of unraveling, Republican candidates will want to invoke Reagan to try to hold it together.  Marco polo 01:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd just like to point out that Reagan wasn't nearly as well respected during his term of office as he seems to be today. Back then he was heavily criticized by many as being a plastic, senile idiot with a particularly poor memory, ("Well, uh, I really don't recall...",) whose "trickle-down" supply-side "Reaganomics" was nothing but a gimmick to widen the gap between the rich and the poor. Today, of course, he's widely credited for his genius in almost single-handedly winning the cold war. I can't help but wonder how history will treat the current administration. Lewis 02:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Reaganomics might provide some verifiable information. Rockpock  e  t  03:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Especially for the primary election, they're saying that they are a candidate who can color a map like this one. --TotoBaggins 03:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC) [[Image:ElectoralCollege1984.svg|thumb|right|300px]]


 * Incidentally, Reagan ran on tax cuts, government being inherently bad, and anti-Communism. Those who invoke him now are, interestingly, not running on his most successful point -- tax cuts -- because that has been done in a frightening way by the current prednisent (sic), and the entire tax cuts without regard philosophy has suffered (at last).  Marco Polo is correct that Reagan drew together the then-emergent tele-evangelist audience and leadership with the Republican party.  Billy Graham had already been politically right wing, and all of those tele-evangelists were generally right wing, but Reagan drew them together.  That, too, is not necessarily attractive for contemporary candidates.  Geogre 11:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Geogre, I've been curious about your rather puzzling pseudonym for quite a while, but never got around to ask. Now that you've made reference to Prednisent Geogre Bsuh [sic], should I take it that you have a particular fondness for dislexics? Lwesi 23:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The evangelicals had become increasingly politically active in the mid-to-late-70s, largely as a result of Roe v Wade, the sexual revolution and changes in the culture that they opposed. Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority were that era's version of the current Christian Coalition and they supported Reagan with a vengance. (I do have to disagree with Geogre specifically about Billy Graham, though.  He had presented himself as above severe partisanship and a "friend of the Presidents."  He was friendly with the Clintons, for example.  Our article on him says he is a registered Democrat, in fact.  Of course, he did oppose the candidacy of John F. Kennedy for President because of Kennedy's Catholicism.) ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 18:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

One Reagan philosophy that would sell well in today's political climate is to only get involved in small wars where you can win quickly and then leave, like Grenada. Less popular might be his willingness to give Iran whatever weapons they wanted to get them to return hostages. See Irangate. StuRat 02:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

A "Reagan Republican" is generally just a Republican who agrees with Reagan's particular blend of conservative principles.

However, it can also be someone who changed parties due to Reagan -- his charisma did in fact pull many converts. The largest voter shift was in the South, which had been distancing from the Democratic Party but where party loyalty itself was still high. Korossyl 21:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Which King Louis was insane?
I remembered hearing about one of the Louis being insane but can't remember which one. It was said that he used to play with a toy army and capture mice and hang them and all sorts of other weird stuff. I've looked through the pages of Louis XIII to Marie Antoinette's son and cannot find record of it. Iluvelves 20:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's possible that it is not a Louis at all, and that you are thinking of Charles VI, also known as "the mad," but someone else may have better information. Carom 21:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Mad king Louis of Bavaria?


 * qp10qp 21:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It's more likely to be Charles than Ludwig, as there is still some doubt over the nature and degree of the Bavarian king's madness. All the French Louis' were sane enough, though some of them were highly eccentric. I'm not familiar with any accounts of a king hanging mice. It's worth remembering, too, that the historical record can occasionally be quite scurrilous, and there is often an explanatory gap between what did happen and what is occasionaly said to have happened. Perhaps the most notorious example of this is The Secret History of Procopius, with its savage caricature of Justinian and Theodora. Clio the Muse 22:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I always thought it was a French boy king. I used to have a history teacher who was really great and her method was to teach and also offer insight into "their" lives. On one occasion she told us the story of a boy king that was mad and would do crazy things like play with dead mice. I thought he was French and he was supposed to be a puppet, someone in his court, an advisor, would get him to do things and at one point was given a very high position. I must have been mistaken when I thought it was one of the Louis. I was thinking Cardinal Richelieu. Maybe it would best to just look at "mad" kings, does anyone know any European mad kings besides Charles? Iluvelves 01:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a memory of someCarolingian-slanted history of a late Merovingian. Beware what you read!--Wetman 02:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

None of the Bourbon kings (Henri IV, Louis XIII to XVI) was crazy, even though they each had psychological weaknesses. You perhaps think of the late Valois kings: Henry II was not so bright, Charles IX had mood swings, etc. David.Monniaux 05:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that your second bite at this is going to be any more fruitful than the first and, as Wetman indicates, it is important to beware of obvious political bias in the historical record. Anyway, confining myself to French and Merovingian terms, you might care to look at Clovis II-Louis in modern usage-who is alleged to have gone mad, and Childeric III, who, if not actually insane, seems to have had a very weak personality, and was eventually packed off to a monastry by Pepin the Short, first of the Carolingian kings. Richelieu was an important minister during the reign of Louis XIII, who was most assuredly not insane. And David, I have one small amendment to your contribution: the Bourbon kings ended not with Louis XVI but his brothers, Louis XVIII and Charles X, the last of them all. Clio the Muse 06:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * For some reason, I was assuming an ancien régime setting! David.Monniaux 06:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Surrender of New Amsterdam
Hiya. I have been spending a couple of hours trying to find out just exactly when the English fleet arrived in Nieuw Amsterdam and when the city surrendered to the English and became New York. An extensive google&books.google&scholar.google research yielded wildly different dates even in the most respectabele scholarship, just about every single date between the 18.th of August (ODBN) and the 24.th of September 1664 (the latter is given in Wikipedia's New_Amsterdam article), the 27th. and 29.th come up quite frequently. Anyway, these discrepancies cannot even be explained by Old Style/New Style mistakes. Could anyone come up with a definitive date? --Janneman 02:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If you look at the Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, published in England by the Public Records Office, you will see that New Amsterdam was transferred peacefully by Peter Stuyvesant to the English Crown on 27 August, 1664 (1661-8, sec. 788). You will also find confirmation of this date in New York Documents Relating to Colonial History (ii 250; iii 70ff).  Cassell's Chronology of World History has the date as 29 August (2005, p. 271).  If we assume dating under the Julian Calendar then, in present day terms and taking 27 August as the base, the date would be 6 September.  The 24 September date would appear to be a simple error.  Clio the Muse 07:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll just settle for the 27th then. Thnk you very much, --Janneman 15:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Leading/Best Legal Authority for Ethics/Professional Responsibility
I wish to purchase an American legal ethics treatise. Is there one legal commentators who is considered preeminent, like Corbin on Contracts or Prosser on Torts, Miller on Procedure, etc.? I see many available at online legal sites but I don't know which is the most appropriate. I am returning to practice after a long hiatus and wish to brush up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75Janice (talk • contribs) 02:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC).


 * Two names that come to mind are John S. Dzienkowski and Charles Silver (the latter an expert on attorney's fees, don't think he's written a treatise but definitely worth citing). Unless you are doing academic research, however, your best bet is probably to just contact the board of professional resonibility of your own Bar Association, or whichever ones you intend to apply to if you need to take the Bar Exam or Professional Responsibility exam (or both) again. dr.ef.tymac 04:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Archiving gone amok
Some current questions were archived to August 16 for some reason, starting I believe at "Greatest polygot". Clarityfiend 03:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * All I can find is that were some edits earlier this UTC day by individual non-bot users, including you, to the archived RD/Humanities page for August 16, 2006..  --Lambiam Talk  10:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So your theory is that a bunch of people suddenly decided on a whim to respond to August 16 questions? Damn, I must be a wikiholic! I suppose it is possible that some earlier questions were suddenly transferred to the current desk and then corrected, but something odd definitely happened. I'm not that desperate to up my edit count. What's the signpost up ahead? (cue Rod Serling) Clarityfiend 22:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My theory is that you got caught up in a time warp when you followed the link I had put on the RD/Language desk in response to the question entitled "Most languages?". (I don't dare to give a link; what with the eddies in the space-time continuum you might this time get caught in a time loop this time get caught in a time loop this time get caught in a time loop this time get caught in a time loop...) 22:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * According to Special:Whatlinkshere/Wikipedia:Reference_desk_archive/Humanities/2006_August_16 the 2006_August_16, Humanities page is being linked to from the current language desk, I'll see if I can track down the cause-- VectorPotential Talk 22:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Update I can find absolutely no sign of either a link or a transclusion to that page, on the language desk, yet Special:Whatlinkshere disagrees with me. The only theory I can come up with is that the 2006_August_16 archive was linked to, on the language desk, some time in the last few days, and that somehow both of you found your way there and mistook it for a current page-- VectorPotential Talk 22:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Update2 Found it, on Reference_desk/Language, which provides a link to Reference desk archive/Humanities/2006 August 16, which must have been mistaken for a current Humanities page.-- VectorPotential Talk 22:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Beyond a reasonable doubt
What is the exact meaning of this term? Please explain with a scenario Thanks very much. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wooyene (talk • contribs) 03:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
 * There is a definition with examples in the article burden of proof (which, BTW, you would have found if you'd typed 'reasonable doubt' in the Wikipedia article search field). Anchoress 03:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's tantamount to saying that someone has put forth a convincing, compelling, and comprehensive case for such-and-such. Furthermore it's just a phrase and there's no use worrying about its 'exact meaning'. Vranak


 * I actually think this is, despite the article, a reasonable question to ask. The idea of reasonable doubt is very complex and not very tangible.  One of my texts that I used for a course for a course on justice systems cited this opinion excerpt:
 * "[Reasonable doubt which will justify acquittal] is a doubt based on reason which arises from evidence or lack of evidence. It is doubt which a reasonable man or woman might entertain.  It is not fanciful doubt; it is not an imagined doubt; it is not a doubt that a juror might conjure up in order to avoid performing an unpleasant task or duty." United States v. Johnson, 343 F.2d 5, 6 (2nd Cir. 1965) (quoted from With Justice for All? (Fowler 1998))
 * Other courts may define it differently, but I think that's a decent definition, maybe a little lighter than I would qualify it. In fact the verdict was overturned in that case on appeal for the sole reason that the judge did not give a good definition of reasonable doubt (he used the idea of being "morally convinced", not what I have above). –Pakman044 04:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason it's not amenable to a precise definition is that what is a reasonable doubt to one juror may be a load of hogwash to another juror. It comes down to personal (= subjective) opinion.  The plot of 12 Angry Men was all about one juror (Henry Fonda) having a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, where the other 11 were all convinced he was guilty.  I won't give the ending away in case you've never seen the movie.  JackofOz 04:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * An excellent film, BTW. Lewis 23:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Another way to phrase it, now that I look over a few other opinions, is that the juror must be "fully satisfied or entirely convinced". State v. Stewart, 122 N.C. App. 748 (NC Court of Appeals 1996). But as JackofOz mentioned, this is the standard that it should be, not that a juror actually will interpret it as.  –Pakman044 04:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You asked for an "exact meaning" and a scenario ... Anchoress and Pakman044 have provided links and examples, and JackofOz has already illustrated why "exact meaning" is elusive. You might then wonder why this exact wording matters at all. One scenario is the issuance of Jury instructions during a criminal trial. Criminal defendants routinely assert defective jury instructions regarding the burden of proof as a basis for contesting a trial court decision on appeal. Consequently, although "exact meaning" may be subject to interpretation, exact wording is often crucial, which is one reason why lawyers are ... the way lawyers are. (See also Reasonable man in addition to previous links and cites provided). dr.ef.tymac 04:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't define it, but I know it when I'm past it. -- Azi Like a Fox 07:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Emigration from england in the 1820's
Hi There, My GGGgrandparents and most all their children (some of whom were adults, but unmarried), emigrated from North Frodingham, ERYorkshire, England, to Ontario, Canada around 1820. I have seen baptismal and marriage records from the Parish church that list this ancestor's occupation as 'labourer'. In Canada they seem to have taken farms and became fairly prosperous over time, not rich by any means, but they had land, cows, a horse and wagon, your basic self-sufficient homestead. My main question is, what was the status/earning potential of a 'labourer' at the time they emigrated, and secondarily, if they had stayed could they have hoped to have anything like the kind of lifestyle and economic independence they achieved in Canada? Also, I know that different economic and cultural things caused waves of emigration at different times, was anything specifically going on at this time that may have led to their decision? I'll take my answer off the air.:) killing sparrows (chirp!) 04:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. The period just after the conclusion of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815 was one of considerable economic dislocation in England, with demobilised service men competing for a limited number of jobs.  Parliament was dominated at the time by a powerful alliance among the landed aristocracy, which, in order to keep grain prices at the artificial war-time high, introduced the Corn Law, placing heavy duties on cheap foreign imports.  This also had the effect of artificially inflating land prices.  The whole Corn Law Economy thus entailed a high degree of inflexibility in the cost of labour, which had a serious impact on industrial investment, and thus a deleterious effect on employment patterns in general.  It was also a time of bad harvests, as well as high prices, placing an even heavier burden on the very social strata to which your ancestors belonged.  I'm assuming from the place of his birth that particular individual you are referring to was an agricultural labourer.  Things were particularly bad for this sector because of the debt burden accumulated by the landlords during the wars, and the return to the Gold Standard in 1819, which, despite the Corn Laws, had a serious effect on the whole rural economy. Labour at the time was completely unrepresented in Parliament, and the government of the day reacted badly to any form of popular political discontent, the Peterloo Massacre of 1819 being the most notorious example of this.  The economy began to recover in the course of the 1820s, though wages, particularly in the countryside, remained low.  If your ancestors had remained in England it is virtually certain that they would have been forced off the land and sucked into the rapidly expanding cities, to join the ever-growing industrial working class.  So, on balance, they probably made the right move.  Clio the Muse 08:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh, talk about coincidence. I just read about that in the 'creative nonfiction' book Voyages of Hope, a speculative but historically accurate narrative of the bride ships to Western Canada of the 1860s. Anchoress 08:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Shepherd
hi

i want to know who said the following idea or sentence " All of you are shepherds, and every one is accountable by(for) his own flock". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.200.102.158 (talk) 07:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC).


 * It was the Prophet Muhammad, and the exact quotation is Each of you is a shepherd and each of you is responsible for his flock. Clio the Muse 09:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

So what is the exact meaning of this quotation?


 * Here is an extended version, providing the context:
 * Each of you is a shepherd and is responsible for his flock. The ruler who is in charge of people is a shepherd and is responsible for them. The man is the shepherd of his household and is responsible for them. The woman is the shepherd of her husband’s house and child and is responsible for them. The slave is the shepherd of his master’s wealth and is responsible for it. Each of you is a shepherd and each of you is responsible for his flock.
 * --Lambiam Talk 19:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Sourcce?--Kirby♥time 22:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It is a hadith narrated by `Abd Allah ibn `Umar and included both in the Sahih Bukhari (#853) and the Sahih Muslim (#1829). --Lambiam Talk  23:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I hate to be the party pooper, but "Sahih Bukhari #853" is not a proper citation for a Hadith. Can you find it here or here?--Kirby♥time 23:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, your first site has this in Sahih Muslim, Book 020, Number 4496:
 * "It has been narrated on the authority of Ibn 'Umar that the Holy Prophet (May be upon him) said: Beware. every one of you is a shepherd and every one is answerable with regard to his flock. The Caliph is a shepherd over the people and shall be questioned about his subjects (as to how he conducted their affairs). A man is a guardian over the members of his family and shal be questioned about them (as to how he looked after their physical and moral well-being). A woman is a guardian over the household of her husband and his children and shall be questioned about them (as to how she managed the household and brought up the children). A slave is a guardian over the property of his master and shall be questioned about it (as to how he safeguarded his trust). Beware, every one of you is a guardian and every one of you shall be questioned with regard to his trust."
 * --mglg(talk) 00:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think above "first" should read "second" (Muslim); specifically, it can be found here. You will find the hadith for Bukhari here (Volume 3, Book 41, Number 592). --Lambiam Talk  12:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Secret Police
Does anyone know anything about the Russian secret police in the 1900?

Hope you can help me, Thank you

Jade 09:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I do. What is it you want to know?  Are you interested in the Okhrana, the Cheka, the OGPU, the NKVD, the KGB or the FSB?  Look also at the pages on Felix Dzerzhinsky, Genrikh Yagoda, Nikolai Yezhov and Lavrenty Beria.  If you want to take it further get hold of a copy of Stalin's Instruments of Terror by Rupert Butler, a history of the whole secret police system, from the Revolution in 1917 to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.  If it is just the year 1900 you are interested in, then you have to refer to the page on the Okhrana, the Tsarist secret police. Clio the Muse 10:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Good answer Clio. Do you subscribe to the claim that Stalin was in the Tsar's secret police before the revolution, and that some of the secret police just changed job titles when the reds took over? (I have sometimes pictured the Okhrana as secret policemen who play the Ocarina.) Edison 16:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, Koba the 'Milkman', agent of the Okhrana, a man who would betray comrades without hesitation! There are, indeed, many murky areas in Stalin's career, Edison, none murkier than his activities in the Bolshevik underground before the Revolution.  Some aspects of Communist Party activity in general would, it seems to me, even violate the moral code of the Mafia!  There were rumours throughout the 1920s about Stalin's Okhrana file, and it was always a dangerous matter for anyone to show too much interest in the matter.  When Yezhov's apartment was searched after his arrest he was found, amongst other things, to have been gathering material on Stalin's pre-1917 police record, papers that subsequently 'disappeared' into the safe keeping of Beria.  I'm sure you must know Roman Brackman's book The Secret File of Joseph Stalin: a Hidden Life, in which it is explicitly stated that he was an agent of the Tsarist secret police, and the Great Terror of the 1930s was conceived of as a way destroying the traces of his treachery by wiping out all memory of the past.


 * Unfortuately, appealing as this thesis may be, it is built on very weak foundations. It is true that the Bolshevik underground was riddled with double and triple agents; it is true that Stalin was ruthless and unscrupulous to a quite astonishing degree; and it is true that, from time to time, he made use of his contacts in the Okhrana to obtain information, and pursue a given set of ends, including the betrayal of people whom he considered suspect.  But there is simply no convincing evidence that he was on the Okhrana payroll in the same fashion as Roman Malinovsky.  On this subject I would refer you in particular to Chapter 25 of Simon Sebag Montefiore's recently published Young Stalin (I read an advance review copy!), the chapter headed 'The Milkman': Was Stalin a Tsarist Agent? (2007, pp 183-9)  Montefiore points out that there is plenty of evidence that Stalin received information from the police, but none at all that he actually gave information which in any way compromised the Bolshevik party. Indeed, his file makes note of the fact that he was a 'fanatical Marxist.'  Most of the 'evidence' against him comes from old Menshevik enemies, who had every reason to be bitter, but whose testimony must be considered suspect.  Montefiore also highlights several inconsistiencies in the agent theory.  Amongst other things, Stalin was always short of money-bank robberies notwithstanding-, even though Okhrana agents were very well paid.  They were also almost always at liberty, for obvious reasons.  Stalin, in contrast, spent only one and a half years at liberty between his arrest in 1908 and 1917; and after 1910 he was only free for ten months in all.


 * Finally, the evidence, in the many surviving secret-police archives, is overwhelming that Stalin was not a Tsarist agent--unless it is overturned by some decisive document lurking undiscovered in provincial Okhrana archives, missed by Stalin himself, his own secret police, his many enemies, and the armies of historians who have searched in vain for a smoking gun for almost a century. (2007, p. 188)


 * This view is supported by most sober scholarship, including Donald Rayfield in Stalin and his Hangmen (2004, pp. 48-9). I suppose it will remain as another of the abiding mysteries of Stalin's career, like the murder of Sergi Kirov.  But I agree with Montefiore that, if such evidence existed, it is virtually certain it would have turned up by now.  And I do not believe that it has simply all been destroyed.  Those who have worked in historical archives will know, that even in the most totalitarian of systems, it is virtually impossible to remove all trace of the past, Orwell-style.


 * On your second point, I think it quite possible that Okhrana 'experts' were recruited by the Cheka, though not at a senior level. In the early days the Soviet secret police were marked more for their enthusiasm than their efficiency, and for their skills in sadism and brutality rather than their techniques in intelligence gathering as such.  Clio the Muse 23:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

US History
Describe how various economic forces resulted in the Industrial Revolution and unions in the US.

68.35.100.108 11:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Describe how your teacher told you to do your own homework Perry-mankster 11:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * See Industrial Revolution, United States technological and industrial history, and Labor unions in the United States.  Marco polo 12:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Paradox
If you try to succeed and fail, what have you done?

Thanks Nebuchandezzar 14:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * answered a question on the Ref desk ;) Perry-mankster 14:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You've failed. That's not actually a paradox, you know. -88.109.92.36 14:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you meant to say...If you try to fail and succeed what have you done? This would mean you could say you have either succeeded in failing (i.e. you did fail to succeed as per your attempt), or you succeed by failing in your aims. Look at paradox for an explanation of what a paradox is, it's a good article. ny156uk 16:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * And what if you try to fail... but fail, in spite of your best attempts? --Lambiam Talk  21:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Without suggesting that one shouldn't try to do things, trying per se is equivalent to failure. Think of it this way: If you're seated and I ask you to "try to stand up" (Note: not "stand up", but "try to stand up"), what do you do?  If you actually stand up, you've done more than I asked.  Thinking of trying to do something is focussing on the effort involved, whereas thinking of succeeding is focussing on the outcome that you want.  This then gets into commitment, of which there are 3 levels - (a) I'll try; (b) I'll do my best; and (c) I'll do whatever it takes.  JackofOz 07:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You have gained valuable experience.With this you can try again.hotclaws**== 08:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

copyright status of US Court filing
I am trying to identify the legal copyright status of filings to the US Courts, at both Federal and State levels. The reason I ask is that Wikisource has a template for Govt edicts, but there is no explicit provision for other court documents. I am specifically interested in complaints in the jurisdiction of Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, in order to upload the complaint (and translations) described on Talk:Universal v. Reimerdes.

indicates that wide distribution is to be expected, and plainly allows public access, but little is said about the copyright of these filings, and the definitions do not define "public access" or "electronic access". provides case law to indicate that it is the First Amendment that requires the court filings be opened unless there is good reason not to. says the court must provide access in a timely manner but again doesnt explicitly say "public domain". In 2001, a position paper from American Association of Law Libraries implies that primary sources were not free of copyright restrictions at that time.

indicates that the information in official court records is in the public domain, but I'm not sure if that is sufficient, or even if that case hasnt been overturned.

I suspect that I am overlooking something obvious. Cheers, John Vandenberg 15:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Court Procedings are public records available to all. For this reason, litigants will often feel pressure to settle a case in order to keep private information off the public record. -Czmtzc 15:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. On what firm legal basis am I permitted to redistribute a copy of a complaint (or any other filing) using the exact words provided to the court in the original filing made by the defendant?  Does the complaint loose all copyright when it comes out of the court system with a court identifier on it, or was the original never copyrightable? John Vandenberg 16:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Unless the the defendant files for a motion prohibitting release of the statement of defense, you can release the information i.e. exact words, to whom so ever you please. But here at Wikipedia we cannot give you legal advice so do it at your own risk. --Goingempty 16:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I remember this argument over at Wikisource. I think you would be fairly safe in concluding that federal court pleadings enter the public domain, except when they are sealed.
 * For State court proceedings, those are generally speaking in the public domain as well. See for example § 206.01 of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices which includes "judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents" for federal, State, and local governments.  But opposition was raised to using this justification as some were not sure whether the Compendium II is still valid.
 * In addition, Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress, 293 F.3d 791 (5th Cir. 2002) (en banc), cert denied, 539 U.S. 969 (2003) notes:
 * The issue in this en banc case is the extent to which a private organization may assert copyright protection for its model codes, after the models have been adopted by a legislative body and become "the law". Specifically, may a code-writing organization prevent a website operator from posting the text of a model code where the code is identified simply as the building code of a city that enacted the model code as law? Our short answer is that as law, the model codes enter the public domain and are not subject to the copyright holder's exclusive prerogatives. As model codes, however, the organization's works retain their protected status.
 * Veeck, 293 F.3d, at 793.
 * After reading this opinion, it would appear that it would endorse the Compendium II position. I don't know whether the Eleventh Circuit (the federal court of appeals that encompasses Florida) has adopted this position.  But most of the discussion that I saw in the Scriptorium rejected the reasoning of Veeck: see discussion 1 and discussion 2.  I never did get around to contacting the Copyright Office about their position on edicts of government.
 * And the reason that s:Template:PD-EdictGov exists is because I made it. So I'm not sure if that's adequate justification for your debate.
 * So are filings public domain when they are made in court? Yes...and...no.  It's easy to conclude that the opinions are likely PD.  So too are the briefs, complaints, transcripts, motions, and so forth (usually these are also public records as well).  But is anything introduced in court as evidence automatically PD?  I don't think so; for example, in a libel suit, if I introduced someone else's copyrighted writings to defend myself, I wouldn't think that would all of a sudden abrogate the copyright.  I think that's where the idea of "edict" comes in.  If it's the opinion, or related to the production of the opinion (such as attachments to the opinion, briefs, motions, transcripts, complains/pleadings, and so forth), those would probably be edicts and PD.  At least, that's my opinion. –Pakman044 17:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Great, so edict applies to all of the parts of the case that are not sealed ? If so and the works are in the PD, are there any issues with translating govt edicts? (IIRC Canada doesnt allow this)?


 * Diving into specifics now .. the EFF collection lists the case number and so it came from the court record, whereas 2600's PDF is the complaint as sent to 2600 prior to the court waving their wand over it.  To be safe, only the EFF version is covered?  That version doesn't include any of the details.


 * The two translations (German and Norwegian) do not have the case number on them and have the same contents as the 2600 PDF, so I'm guessing they were either sent to the parties or are translations of the non-blessed English version. John Vandenberg 18:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oy, this is getting to hot to handle. You need to talk to a lawyer for this one.  I will give three further points:
 * Court edicts of foreign governments are NOT necessarily PD. In fact, a lot of UK legislation was taken down from Wikisource because even though Compendium II would have it as PD, in reality it is loaded down with Crown Copyright.  So no absolute inference can be drawn here.
 * Translations are not inherently PD either, even if they are translations of something in the PD. I can go out and translate Beowulf and then copyright it just fine.
 * I think the complaint itself though is probably covered (emphasis on the fact I'm not positive). The complaint is an offical court document filed to facilitate the case (for example, it's the kind of thing that would show up on PACER or LexisNexis).  The parties willingly filed them with the court, so they've more or less released them.  Now as to whether the pre-filing versions are PD is more complex.  The Veeck case (see above) talks about this kind of issue (with the copyrighted model building codes that were passed into laws, and then extracted from reverse engineering as I recall).  My take would be: if it's the actual complaint, and the complaint has been filed, it's fair game.  A draft is not fair game, nor is a complaint before it has been filed, or a sealed complaint.
 * I am now taking my hands off this one. Needless to say, this is a highly complicated issue that needs insight from someone "in the know".  Once again, I'd suggest talking to a lawyer who specializes in this kind of thing, or maybe a law school professor. –Pakman044 18:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

need help with this
I would like to find a complete and literal transcription of alaska US REP. Don Young's 1995 speech at a fairbanks, alaska highschool where he used very vulgar language to refer to homosexualsRandydem 16:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't find a record of this speech. Assuming that it happened, it seems likely to me that it wasn't recorded and that Young did not release a written copy.  Marco polo 16:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The incident is mentioned here. I can't find anything more "complete and literal."  --LarryMac 17:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Try contacting the newspapers that regularly report on Fairbanks, Alaska and see if their archives would be of some help. Another possibility, speculating on the interested-party angle, would be the local or regional offices of the Democratic Party who might have used such material in campaigning against Young. Also, try posting your query on the Discussion page for Don Young, where knowledgeable Wikipedians who don't necessarily frequent the Reference Desk may notice it. -- Deborahjay 20:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Shrek 2
where/when does shrek 2 reference sanford and son!? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.199.0.8 (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC).


 * At one point, Donkey says "I'm Coming Elizabeth", apparently a reference to Fred Sandford's catchphrase "I'm coming to join you, [Elizabeth]!". IMDb is your friend. Laïka  17:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hostile Takeover
When a company say lists 20% of it stock in the stock exchange, the shareholders of this 20% are asked in the hostile takeover to tender their shares. But how can the take over be completed, considering the founders still own 80% of the unlisted stock? --Goingempty 17:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In this scenario, assuming that the "founders" are united in opposing the takeover, I don't see how it could happen. It could only happen if more than 3/8 of the private shareholders can be induced to sell.  Marco polo 18:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Your question is a rather confusing one. What exactly do you mean when you say "when a company lists 20% of its stock"? Is this a new issue or is it previously owned stock? If it's previously owned, who are the previous owners? I may be wrong, but you seem to be under the impression that a company can own its own stock. That's...well...impossible. I'm further confused about what this has anything to do with a hostile takeover. Also, corporations can either be public or private, but not both. You seem to be implying that somehow the corporation is 80% public and 20% private. In a takeover bid, hostile or friendly, all shareholders are given the same offer. There seems to be a very interesting question in there, but I can't for the life of me quite figure out what it is! If you'd try to rephrase it, or describe what your speaking of in a step-by-step fashion, I'd be more than glad to do my best to answer it! Lewis 23:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression, that many companies which are listed on the stock exchanges, are public compnies, but many are controlled by the founding families, and their stock is not listed as outstanding shares in the stock exchange? --Goingempty 23:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I was definitely under the impression that a company can be partially owned publicly and partially privately. For example, Ford Motor Corporation is mostly publicly owned stock, but the Ford family does still retain a substantial portion of the stock.  I suppose the difference between public and private stock is largely a matter of opinion, however, as the Ford family members can sell their stock at any time, just like any other stock.  They are subject to additional concerns about stock manipulation, however. StuRat 01:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ford is a completely public company, and by no means a private company. The terms "private" and "public" are legal designations. With regard to stock manipulation, anyone capable of stock manipulation is subject to laws restricting it. The reason the Ford family is subject to these laws is because they have sufficient control to abuse their power, not because their last name is Ford. Lewis 01:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * All companies listed on stock exchanges are public companies. Yet just because a company's stock is publicly traded and is therefore a public company, it can still be controlled by its founders. For example, Berkshire Hathaway is a publicly traded company completely controlled by Warren Buffet (though technically speaking, he didn't actually "found" the company). Likewise, Microsoft is a publicly traded company controlled by its founder, Bill Gates.


 * Also, I don't think you quite understand what is meant by the term "outstanding shares". A company's "outstanding shares" are basically all the shares that have been issued by the company. For example, say Mr. Smith founds a company called Smithco, and as sole shareholder and director he causes the company to issue 1,000,000 shares at a par value of 1¢ each, and then buys them all for a total of $10,000. The number of outstanding shares is now 10,000, and assuming the company hasn't done anything yet, it's a private company with "contributed capital" of $10,000. Now say that after 10 years of hard work, because everyone knows that hard work is the key to success and luck plays no part, right? :) Mr. Smith builds the company into a phenomenal success. The market is just dying to invest in his company, so he causes the company to issue an additional 900,000 shares and offer it to the market in an IPO. As a result, 900,000 very eager investors each buy one share each for $100 a piece (I realize how overly simplistic and unrealistic I'm making this, but bear with me!) Now the company is a public company with 1,000,000 outstanding shares, and with its shares trading at $100, its market cap is now $100,000,000. Mr. Smith, with his mere 10% stake still by all accounts controls the company. And that, simply put, is pretty much all you have to know to become obscenely rich. It's quite simple actually. :-) Lewis 01:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * But then again, as Sexta-feira once said, I really don't ever contribute anything of value, so might as well ignore the above nonsense. :-) Lewis 01:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The board of directors for Dow Jones & Co. announced late Wednesday that it will take no action on the surprise five-billion-dollar bid launched by Rupert Mudoch's News Corp.

The prize asset of Dow Jones & Co. is The Wall Street Journal, which dates back to 1889 and is the most prominent daily business publication in the United States.

Michael Elefante, a board member who represents the Bancroft family -- which owns the shares that make up 52 percent of the company's outstanding voting power -- told the Dow Jones Board of Directors Wednesday that they oppose the bid.

The Bancrofts would "vote shares . . . against the proposal submitted by News Corporation to acquire Dow Jones," the statement read.

Approval of the merger according to Delaware law "requires approval of a majority of the outstanding voting power of the corporation.

"Accordingly, the Dow Jones Board of Directors has determined to take no action with respect to the proposal".

Widely spread out, the Bancroft family holds 24 percent of the capital but more than 62 percent of the vote in Dow Jones. So if only 52 percent were opposed to the Murdoch bid, that means the family is split on the offer.

Murdoch's bid led to the Down Jones stock spiking more than 60 percent by the time the markets closed on Monday, the day the bid was made public.

According to a source close to the transaction quoted on The Wall Street Journal website late Wednesday, the family appears to be split among generational lines, with the younger members seeking to sell and the older ones resisting.

Murdoch's offer of 60 dollars per share led to intense speculation on Wall Street, with Dow Jones shares finishing the day Wednesday at 56 dollars, a five-year high.

Yahoo News

Widely spread out, the Bancroft family holds 24 per cent of the capital but more than 62 per cent of the vote in Dow Jones. Vancouver Sun

I suppose they have a different class of shares, which has a higher voting power, but is not listed on the stock exchange? --Goingempty 14:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Newspaper Prices in USA and free newspapers
New York Times has recently increased cover price to $1. What is the prime reason behind that? Does anyone know how much dollars or cents will I get if I put 1 kg of newsprint to old-paper-store? If I get some 10 cents to 50 cents if I put 1 kg of old newsprint, why would anyone be sure that people read those free newspapers? Why wont people simply get 5 free newspapers and put it to old-paper-store and pocket handsomely each month. If anyone knows about the economics of these please explain. I do not belong to USA but researching about starting a newspaper/ freesheet in USA. I belong to business development of a non-US publishing company. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.92.106.156 (talk) 17:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC).


 * The reasons for the increase in the price of the New York Times probably include stable or rising costs, along with declining revenues from subscriptions and advertising. They may try to make up the difference by raising the retail price slightly. The price is already $1.00 or higher in most parts of the United States. I think that it was below $1 only in New York City and the immediate suburbs.


 * As for free newspapers, I don’t think that you would get 50 cents or even 10 cents for a kg of newsprint for recycling. I think that the price is probably lower. Even it is 10 cents, 10 cents is very little money in the United States. You need at least $2-3 for a cheap meal here.  That would be 30 kg. of newsprint. The places that would accept newsprint for recycling are many kilometers apart. Nobody can carry 30 kg. the necessary distance without a motor vehicle.  The cost of transporting all of that newsprint would increase the amount that would have to be transported and reduce the money earned per kilogram. Also, the free newspapers are left in stacks of only maybe 2 kg. in scattered spots around the city. Someone wanting to collect those newspapers to recycle them would have to travel around the city and collect numerous stacks. This would further add to the cost and decrease the earnings. It would also be considered theft by the publisher of the free newspaper, and the police would quickly set out to arrest the person stealing the free newspapers.


 * Even if the police did not act, there would be no reason for a person to try to collect free newspapers for recycling. It is much more worthwhile, in most places, to collect glass for recycling, because in most cities, residents leave glass on the street for recycling one morning every week. Glass for recycling is worth much more per kilogram, and a person collecting the glass just needs to know the schedule and can quickly collect a large volume of glass by going to the correct neighborhood. There are some poor people who do this in the United States, but still there is some glass left for the city. Poor people would collect this glass and other valuable recyclables before they were tempted to collect free newspapers. Marco polo 18:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * According to this document, in Japan, 1 kilogram of old newsprint is worth about 7 yen per kilo, which is about 5 US cents. As Seymour Skinner claims when realising what a rip-off this is in The Old Man and the Lisa, "That won't even cover the gas I used to go to the store to buy the twine to tie up the bundles". Laïka  18:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Right. Probably a person could not make any money collecting free newspapers for recycling because of the low price and the transport cost.  If they could make any money, it would be only a few cents per hour.  In the United States, the minimum wage is now more than $7 per hour.  Even the lowest-paid job would produce much more income than collecting paper for recycling.  Marco polo 18:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting points Marco polo, I mean the fact that North Americas higher dollar value... --Goingempty 23:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The New York Times needed to charge more to pay their journalists to make up the news. Fiction authors aren't cheap, after all. :-) StuRat 01:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you now baiting me, Stu? Sorry, but I can't bite on that tasty one of yours, my PO may be watching. :-) Lewis 13:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Gray hair influence
I have read an article in KLM jurnal on my flight from kuwait to amsterdam in early 90's under the headline " Gray hair influence" and I would like to have a copy from it,please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.184.33.152 (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC).


 * We do not have copies of such articles at Wikipedia, but you might be able to get a copy by contacting the magazine, whose information is on this webpage. Marco polo 20:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Gustave Dore Publications
In what year did the London publishing house of Cassell. Petter. and Galpin first print (1861-1865?) Gustave Dore's The Legend of the Wandering Jew?

Thank you.

Gahermann 20:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately the book carries no publication date. Estimates of antiquariats and others attempting to sell copies range from "1860" to "about 1890" to "early 1900s". One seller wrote "I know that it was published after 1875", without hint what this knowledge might be based on. It is generally agreed that the engravings themselves were made in 1856. There are several American editions, the first one published by George Gebbie, Philadelphia, 1873. It appears somewhat plausible to me that the English edition would have been earlier. I could find no indication that Cassell, Petter and Galpin published more than one edition. --Lambiam Talk  21:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * UK university library catalogues give 1866, 1866? or 1867. --HJMG 21:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

ELECTRIC BICYCLE LAW IN THE U.S.
A US law states that electric bicycles with fully functioning pedals, no more than 750 watts of motor power output, and a top speed of 20 mph on motor power only, are to be treated as "bicycles", and are not subject to motorized vehicle laws. Where can I find a copy of this law? I've already searched the obvious places - even asked a Senator for a copy without response. 71.100.2.43 20:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm already suspicious. Are you sure that it isn't a State law rather than a federal law?  Tihs would traditionally be the kind of area that would be subject to the jurisdiction of the State alone...in most cases.  But if you really think it's a federal law, you can start looking at the THOMAS interface offered by the Library of Congress. –Pakman044 21:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As it turns out, the better interface for searching the US Code is at Cornell's Legal Information Institute. Conducting a few searches does yield some fruit.  47 U.S.C. 2085 notes that "low-speed electric bicycles are consumer products".  The definition given is identical to your definition--750 watts, 20mph.  &sect;2085(d) preempts State laws on this issue.  But this law is in Title 47, which is dedicated to Consumer Product Safety.  While motor vehicles aren't "consumer products" (47 U.S.C. 2052(a)(1)(C)), I haven't found anything yet that says in so many words that they aren't subject to motorized vehicle laws, unless this is the distinction you mean.


 * You may also consider looking at the article Electric bicycle laws. –Pakman044 21:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

@71.100: Your question is ambiguous because you have not defined what you mean by not subject to motorized vehicle laws. Although some of the wording in your question does coincide with statutes (cited above) and regulations promulgated under the Consumer Product Safety Act, administered by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (see also, Code of Federal Regulations Title 16 available on-line here); that may or may not apply to whatever problem or factual scenario you have in mind (if any).

There are many laws and regulations (both State and Federal) that apply to the manufacture, sale, distribution and use of "motorized vehicles". (See e.g., Lemon law, NHTSA, Internal Revenue Code, and many others that will never have articles on WP ... ). Moreover, statutory definitions vary. If anyone were to search for a single law that governs everything about "electric bicycles in the U.S." ... they might do well to re-think their research strategy.

Note: this thread and this thread provide excellent examples for why "legal hobbyists" should read this page. dr.ef.tymac 01:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)