Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 July 17

= July 17 =

vast fortunes
It's understood several members of the Rockefeller family and the Vanderbilt family are still alive today. Are there any living descendants of F.W. Woolworth still living? Does Doris Duke still have an estate? What are all of their fortunes worth today?69.203.157.50 (talk) 05:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Reading through our articles on these families it doesn't look it. The Duke fortune is controlled by several trusts. Barbara Hutton spent through her share of the Woolworth fortune but it isn't clear from her article if she was the only descendant. Rmhermen (talk) 13:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hutton was not the only descendant; her aunts Lena (Woolworth) McCann and Jessie May (Woolworth) Donohue both left progeny. I have several Woolworth descendants in my files born in the late 1960s and 1970s, so unless there's been some sort of recent highly selective disaster, there are almost certainly living Woolworth descendants (Frederick Edward Guest III, born 1975, for example, has notable ancestors besides F.W. Woolworth including Joan Bennett, Walter Wanger, Freddie Guest, Ivor Bertie Guest, and John Spencer-Churchill, 7th Duke of Marlborough). The Duke estate is now operated as a charity and offers tours. There's probably no way of knowing the worth of the Woolworth descendants at this point, and some probably have more wealth from their marriages or personal accomplishments than is left over from the Woolworth estate. - Nunh-huh 19:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Confederate Battle Flag w/13 Red & White Stripes
I'm looking for this, but am having a tough time sifting through google images to isolate by the right search terms. Does anybody have a link to a website with the American flag, canton superimposed by the Southern Cross and 13 stars? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.239.21 (talk) 08:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure which flag you mean, but there are heaps of Confederate flag images on Flickr, supposedly Creative Commons licensed. . They have 13 stars, not red and white stripes. - KoolerStill (talk) 12:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I mean a hybrid flag. The original Stars and Bars was similar to the Union flag, but I am wondering about whether anybody here has seen a flag which has the Battle Flag cross and stars, in place of the stars on a blue background of the standard American flag, like how there are American flags with Soviet, Nazi and Israeli symbols in the upper left hand corner, instead of stars. Do you understand now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.239.21 (talk) 12:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It would be quite easy to make a high-quality image of such a flag design by combining various SVG files currently present on Wikimedia Commons. However, what would be the point?  Who uses this alleged flag, and what is it supposed to represent? -- AnonMoos (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought there might be a Wikipedia or Commons-spawned one. Perhaps Uncyclopedia would make it. It's just tongue-in-cheek satire. I don't know the first thing about making images like this, plus, I really hate SVG. I long for the days when Wikipedia was graced with JPG, as even PNG sucked. Why does Wikipedia go about with Linux style file extensions? Nobody outside of geekdom uses .ogg files either, but mp3 and wav, etc.


 * You've changed the subject, now that you've found that nobody has drawn this flag idea of yours, but I'll note that Wikipedia is still "graced with JPG", as most images on Wikipedia are jpeg files. PNG files don't "suck", they are awesome if you want a picture with lossless compression.  SVG files are for vector graphics images (so they can be scaled and still look great, unlike PNG and JPG files).  I agree that ogg files aren't used widely, as of yet; Creation and usage of media files claims that file types outside of their short list of approved file types aren't used "for security reasons", although I had assumed this policy was because free usability is one of the Wikipedia objectives, and MP3 playback is subject to patents from two patent holders, and .wav files' compression is worse.  I had also assumed the .wav format was protected by patent in some way, though our article doesn't indicate such.  Tempshill (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

discrimination against Aspies
i am looking for info about discrimination against Aspies. i heard its so bad in Canada that there was a lawsuit 5 years ago and they are banned from an organisation that is supposed to represent them. how about Europe - Dutch, Spain, Norway, Belgium? Asia? rest of the world? wish to examine and compare discrimination against Aspies in different countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.59.150 (talk) 10:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm having a hard time telling whether you are a troll or just plain insensitive - if it's the latter, may I suggest you stop using the term "aspies"? Doing so will get you further in discussions with relevant people. TomorrowTime (talk) 12:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Since "aspie" is used as a self-identifier by at least some members of that community (see Aspies For Freedom, for example), I don't think the term is "insensitive"; at worst it is informal and somewhat imprecise. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm, didn't know that. It just felt wrong, probably because the word is used as a loaded slur on Encyclopedia Dramatica and elsewhere on the Internet. I withdraw my comment, then. Proceed, please. TomorrowTime (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

actually, i am an Aspie and, like all my Aspie friends, self-identify as such. i suppose those websites hate us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.59.150 (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Aspie is just a term. I'm undiagnosed aspie but I don't find offense at it's use. Websites like ED are cancer, you shouldn't read them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.91.128 (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are undiagnosed, how do you identify yourself as such? Livewireo (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have the symptoms  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.91.128 (talk) 20:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You're probably just a weirdo. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not a very civil comment Adam - please don't insult other editors. Exxolon (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A term used by a group to self-identify seems ok, especially if those it applies to and their families are not known to object to it. (Besides "Asperger" sounds too much like a sandwich made from a patty of donkey meat). Edison (talk) 17:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's completely impossible in any western country that a representational organisation would be banned - various discrimination laws prevent this. If any such organisation was banned I would imagine it was because they were doing something illegal - which would be unrelated to representing aspies - which is legal.83.100.250.79 (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently links to Enc. Dram. are not allowed - so you can't read the filth - let that be a lesson to you...83.100.250.79 (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

yeah, why do some people attack me for using a not offensive term, instead of answering my question? the organisation representing Aspies is not banned in Canada. the organisation in Canada is supposed to represent Aspies, but it bans Aspies from joining, saying Aspies are useless at advocating, and the Canada government still supports the organisation with funding. that is all i know from other Aspie friends. but like i said, i want to know more about discrimination against Aspies all over the world, not just in Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.59.150 (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about this incident http://www.autistics.org/library/aspergerson_censorship01.html ?? 83.100.250.79 (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't really know what organisation you are referring to.83.100.250.79 (talk) 19:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

yes, that. the Autism Society of Canada does not allow Aspies to join. so Michelle Dawson started a campaign against them. Dawson was also involved in a lawsuit - not sure whether it was about the ASC. --59.189.59.150 (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you sure it does allow that, I think you've got that wrong in that it's not a society like a club you can join. It's an advocacy organisation.
 * Also self identification with a disease or disorder is not particularily what autistic people do - it's more common in young people, and teenagers, and does not relate to actually having any specific disorder at all.
 * Some people end up having very extreme behavioural problems such as facitious disorder, it sounds like you are lucky to have very mild autism since people who have more fuller symptoms/effects of the disorder would have difficulty even discussing or being in the slightest bit bothered about their diagnosis.
 * Simply typing "aspergers discrimination" + country into a search engine will turn up specific examples that have been on the news etc. All forms of autism are called "silent disorders" or "invisible disorders" since it's difficult to show or prove that someone mildly autistic has been discriminated against - for example in a job interview - to put it simply they don't perform well in these situations - in the same way that short people don't make good sprinters.
 * However in general all western counties have laws against discrimination of any kind - but as I hinted at above - it can be difficult to know when you are being discriminated against and when it is simply a fact of life what is happening to you, as happens to all people whether classed as disabled, non-disabled or whatever.83.100.250.79 (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I notice that the society you mention lists itself as championing the rights of people with autism. Could they believe that Asperger's is not actually a form of autism, but its own disorder? According to our article on Asperger's Syndrome, there are those scientists who believe this.209.244.187.155 (talk) 23:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Look at there home page ie http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Autism+Society+of+Canada+&meta=&aq=f&oq= press one of the first two links - read the page - they include it as an "autism spectrum disorder" - they have resources on it - I couldn't find any disclaimers - who knows? 83.100.250.79 (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason to think that. Reading the info in the link gave earlier suggests that it isn't the case to me. Note that the link seems to be trying to make people feel sympathetic to the people who were banned but in my eyes is failing miserably which suggests their behaviour was a lot worse then what's shown which IMHO is telling. (I admit though I'm not particularly sympathetic to those who keep trying to push their ideas and then scream censorship when people tell them to stop because they're sick of listening.) Rather the society simply has rules for their mailing list which they expect people to obey. These rules are that people aren't supposed to attack other people in the community. Whether or not you feel these rules are merited is of course irrelevant, they feel they are and apparently so do other members. They aren't of course unique in that regard, wikipedia has WP:NPA. It's perhaps possible that people with Asperger's syndrome or some form of the autism spectrum disorder may have greater difficulty following such rules however I've seen some discussions here on wikipedia where people where such non-neurotypical people have been critical of those who hide behind aspergers to excuse poor behaviour. I also think if the people who were banned had been neurotypical and had no relatives who weren't neurotypical, they would have be banned a lot quicker and a lot less fuss, i.e. it's easily possible the people banned were given special treatment because of their status/connections i.e. were discriminated for rather then being discriminated against. (Note that the first person banned doesn't seem to have Asperger's but simply two children with some form of autism spectrum disorder.) I also see no reason to presume all of those who supported the ban were neurotypical. Heck do we even know if the president of the society is? One of the emails suggest they may not be.
 * Anyway regardless, the claim they don't allow people with asperger's syndrome to participate is clearly without basis currently, the only evidence we have is that they don't allow certain people (whatever their neurotypical status) who don't obey their rules to participate. Do note that it doesn't even seem to be a ban from the society but simply the mailing list.
 * Nil Einne (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking further I came across this , note from before the mailing list thing (which makes the mailing list thing even less surprising). She apparently has problems with the governance structure which appears to be top down (not uncommon of course) and doesn't like the way they promote autism is a serious problem requiring serious intervention (which for better or worse is usually the best way to actually get funding). Also they appear to think of Asperger's as autism since they consider all people somewhere along the line of the autism spectrums as having autism, something which Michelle Dawson doesn't like. I can't be bothered looking in to it some more but from what I can tell from what I read it's not that the society doesn't allow people with Asperger's to participate, rather their top heavy approach means that their decisions are primarily made by the people managing the society who I presume includes a variety of neurotypical people including pscyhologists and other people with no personal connection but probably also includes some people with autism spectrum disorder or with relatives; rather then the community of people they try to represent. As I said, this sort of structure isn't exactly uncommon for many things and regardless of whether it's bad, doesn't intrisicly indicate they don't think the community can manage themselves or that they don't want people with asperger's syndrome or somewhere along the autism spectrum contributing Nil Einne (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Indochina War
Hello all. Does anyone know any good references about the French Indochina War? Specifically anything which relates to the impact the Fall of France and Vichy France had on the conduct of the French during the conflict? I've got Paxton, Jackson, Roy, Fall x 3 (Street, Hell and 2 Vietnams) and Windrow. What other good ones are there out there? Also, what good primary source documents are there? I've already ID'd some foreign office docs, though the French are reluctant to release them. I also understand that the army censoring office during the conflict would retain correspondence they dealt with during the conflict. Where could I find such docs, if possible? Regards, SGGH ping! 12:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The Vichy government fell in 1944 and the Indochina war began in 1946. I don't understand the question. Rmhermen (talk) 13:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I take the question to be "are there any documents that show how France's position in Europe in WWII led to what happened in the Indochina War?" Sorry that I can't provide sources; but do I understand your question properly?  Nyttend (talk) 01:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The concept I want to research is the impact of Vichy France and the Fall of France on the French mentality and national mindset and memory, and what ramifications that had in Indochina and the evidence there of it. But the question I am asking is, what are some good sources for the French Indochina War, the Fall of France, and the Vichy Govt. SGGH ping! 12:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Senator by proxy
Assuming that a United States senator is fully sentient, yet entirely immobile and unable to reach the capitol, is it possible for him to send a proxy to cast an important vote on his behalf? If not, may the transaction be accomplished by telephone? Or is the senator simply cut out of the process on account of his physical absence? L ANTZY T ALK 15:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have read of votes cast by a Senator unable to speak: touching the eye to signal "Aye," but not a mailed in vote or a proxie vote. Legislators who need to miss a vote will sometimes match votes with another legislator on the other side, so that the nonvotes effectively cancel. If he is "entirely immobile: and the vote were crucial (like the deciding vote in an impeachment) it might be possible to transport in an ambulance and roll a gurney into the chamber long enough for a vote to be indicated. Edison (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The "'Eye' for an 'aye' Senator was Clair Engle of California in 1964 . Engle was dying from a brain tumor, and his vote was for cloture to stop filibustering against the Civil Rights bill . He died a month and a half later. Edison (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think Edison is pretty much right here. Voting in person is required in cases such as this because proxy voting is open to fraud; even telephone voting would be. If the person is actually present there is no doubt that he is actually casting his vote. And as noted, infirm Senators and Representatives have been basically wheeled in to the houses to cast votes in key situations; for non-major issues and votes on procedure and the like, vote matching may be negotiated. Standing Rules of the United States Senate, Rule XII governs voting procedure; standard voting rules require the senator to personally attest "yea" or "nay" during a roll call vote. Additionally, Standing Rules of the United States Senate, Rule VI makes it clear that a Senator must be present to be considered part of the quorum and to conduct official business. If a senator is not present in the chamber during a roll call, then they are not availible to conduct business. --Jayron32. talk . say no to drama 18:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * A proxy vote could be forged or coerced. Physical presence makes it more of a deliberative body, however few actually show up to hear speeches. Edison (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * For a cloture vote, you'd need to "match" three ayes against two nays, heh. —Tamfang (talk) 01:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

King Oliver, King Kim (monarchy/republic)
First of all, can someone explain to me why the Commonwealth of England was a republic and not merely a kingdom ruled by a crownless guy? Considering that Cromwell ruled absolutely and was succeeded by his son, doesn't it make sense to think of the interregnum as a sort of monarchy, albeit a rather dour and unornamented one? Were the Cromwells so very different, in the way they functioned politically, from the royal dynasties that came before them? Was Charles' death so different from the deaths of Harold Godwinson and Richard III?

To put the question in abstract terms, is there any structural political difference between monarchies and republics, or are the differences merely stylistic and cultural? For instance, why is North Korea classified as a republic rather than an absolute monarchy? And as for those democratic countries where the monarchy is entirely decoupled from the business of governing, would it not be more accurate to think of these countries as republics which happen to operate popular, well-funded historical recreation programs? Excuse my irreverence, but doesn't a European royal family serve the same general function as an olympic team - a feel-good, politically neutral project in which many citizens feel a patriotic involvement, but which has no political agency? Once a monarchy has been stripped of political power, why does the term 'monarchy' continue to describe the country? In contrast, the term 'constitutional theocracy' has never been self-applied by any of the European states where churches continue to be established. L ANTZY T ALK 17:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Because a Monarchy is a hereditary state ruled by royalty or nobility. Monarchies are usually understood to be exclusively ruled by members of the "noble classes", and access to the executive position is restricted to those who are royal/noble by blood.  Even in cases of elective monarchies (Kingdom of Poland or Holy Roman Empire), the King had to be elected from eligible royals, and not just from anybody.  Cromwell was not a monarch so much as a Military Dictator, he was merely a military leader who overthrew the previous government and took over executive power personally.  Additionally, during the interregnum between the end of the English Civil Wars and the start of The Restoration there were several different forms of government.  From 1649-1653, the government was officially a republic with legislative power vested in Parliament and executive power vested in the English Council of State.  After 1653, Cromwell as head of the army overthrew the Council of State and installed himself as Lord Protector, establishing The Protectorate, which was still a republican form of government.  Cromwell made no attempt to declare himself a monarch; he had no royal blood and did not try to establish himself and his family as royalty.  His rule of England was more akin to that of people like Francisco Franco and Muammar al-Gaddafi than to an actual monarchy.  I suppose that he could have declared himself king and his family royalty; however he did not do that.  Thus, under his rule, England was a republic.  Basically, Monarchy/Republic is a binary thing.  A government is either ruled by a hereditary ruling class or it is not.  Any government which does not claim itself to be a Monarchy gets called a Republic, even though many modern monarchies are inarguably more democratic in form than many modern republics.  --Jayron32. talk . say no to drama  18:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What is the term for a ruler (elected or not) announcing that their offspring will rule after them? Just a "political dynasty?" Kim I is followed by Kim II is to be followed by Kim III in Korea. No election, more of an anointing. As for King Oliver, having an African-American jazz cornettist from the future leading their country would have been quite a novelty for 17th century England. Edison (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a form of nepotism. Sort of thing some rulers have been hypocritical about.- Jarry1250 [ humorous – discuss ] 19:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The difference between a monarchy and a republic can be a fuzzy one. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth of the early modern period, in which nobles elected the king, is sometimes referred to as a monarchy and sometimes called a republic. The Holy Roman Empire also had an elected king/emperor, but for hundreds of years they always elected the Habsburg family's heir to the throne, so the empire is thought of as a monarchy. The term "Kim Dynasty" is often used when referring to the rulers of North Korea, but in theory, Kim Jong-Il's power comes from his position as general secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea, not from his position as heir to Kim Il-Sung (but we all know better). -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The other thing is that Crowmell and Kim Il-Sung just happened to have sons available to be designated as their successors (and Kim Jong-Il also has a son). Thus, it looks like an hereditary succession.  But what if they had been childless?  Would it have gone to their eldest surviving sibling, or a cousin, or a more distant member of their family?  We'll never know for sure, but imo almost certainly not.  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that the difference between a monarchy and a "hereditary republic" like the Protectorate or your example of the Not-So-Democratic People's Republic of Korea is that the ruler of a republic, no matter how despotic, doesn't call himself a monarch. Of course, monarchies can develop from "absolute republics" [my term, not an academic one]: Julius Caesar was killed because many feared that he was about to claim the title of king (which really wouldn't have had a practical change in his position over the state), and President Jean-Bédel Bokassa of the Central African Republic decided that he wanted to become an emperor: thus the Central African Empire came into being.  Nyttend (talk) 01:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The difference between the DPRK, say, and a monarchy is that in the former, the inheritance of power is not guaranteed by a succession law of general application as it is in the latter. It either occurs by the use of non-legal political power, or by ad hoc laws of non-general application.
 * The DPRK, for example, has no law that says the top job in the country (the Presidency doesn't even operate any more) shall be passed to the lawful successor of Kim Il Sung by male-preference primogeniture. The current head of state is in fact elected by parliament, which itself is elected via non-competitive general elections. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is enough of a definition - it would also cover Anglo-Saxon England, where the monarch was elected by a Witenagemot of nobles and leading clergy who, it is generally agreed, did not work to a legal succession law, but instead came up with ad-hoc procedures to choose anyone they liked - although, in practice, it was always someone related to previous monarchs in some way. Warofdreams talk 11:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * In 1970, a disaffected Western Australian farmer named Leonard George Casley "seceded" from Australia and announced the creation of the Hutt River Province. He styled himself Prince Leonard I.  In the 1980s he upgraded himself to King Leonard I, but has since downgraded himself to a Prince again, changing the name of his bailiwick to the Principality of Hutt River.  Was he ever really a king/prince and was his territory ever really a monarchy/principality?  I, for one, don't think so.  In this case, the "Principality" has been recognised by no sovereign states, least of all Australia, so Casley's claim is barren.  Bokassa's claim to have become an Emperor was equally fatuous.  --  JackofOz (talk) 10:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do you say Bokassa's claim was as fatuous as Casley's? He did in fact govern the sovereign territory he proclaimed himself emperor of, and was (I think) internationally recognized as such, which are two important points he has over Casley. Do you consider the First and Second Empires to be in the same category? Algebraist 14:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * He did have de facto control of the country, just as Casley has de facto control of Hutt River. I understand Casley has not paid a cent in tax to the Australian Government since his declaration, although I'm sure the Australian Tax Office would regard him as a debtor.  Essentially, he's treated as a harmless eccentric and left alone.  I'd like to see some evidence that "Emperor Bokassa I" was widely recognised internationally.  --  JackofOz (talk) 22:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * He bought an extremely fancy throne while he ruled the country. Did that advance his claim to have "noble blood?" Weren't nobles generally just successful warlords at the start of their dynasties, for all the fancy talk of their being anointed by God to rule over the rest? Edison (talk) 09:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Jack, what sort of evidence do you want to see: that he was recognised as the head of the country, or recognised as being the Emperor? He had been the ruler of the country for something like a decade already, and although he had some difficulties at first, by the time that the mid-1970s rolled around, his position wasn't challenged much internationally.  Don't know about his imperial status, if that's what you mean.  Nyttend (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * According to this page, the USA commissioned one ambassador to the Central African Empire. Since the USA recognised the Empire as an Empire, I think it's reasonable to say that the USA saw Bokassa as Emperor.  Nyttend (talk) 02:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This reminds me a bit of the Myanmar fuss (how some people insist on calling it Burma). I think the key point here is that Bokassa's territory was recognised as sovereign territory even if people didn't recognise or like the person controlling it. He therefore had de facto control off sovereign territory and so I would say it's not unresonable to say he was emperor of that territory at the time even if you consider his rule illegitimate. Anyone who wanted to do anything in the CAE/CAR or wasn't pleased with what was going on there would have had to deal with Bokassa or get rid of him (as the French did), they wouldn't have tried to deal with someone else and expected it to be of any use. Casley on the other hand basically controls land which he alone (well probably a few other odd people and other micronations) consider soveign territory, but no one else does including the people who as far as most parties are concerned, do have de facto and de jure control over that territory (i.e. the Australian government). Anyone who wanted to do something in Casley's land would likely speak to and consider the laws of the Australian government (which means Casley has some control over his land) and if Casley was doing something in his land to annoy someone else (difficult of course since he's 'bordered' by Australia but let's just imagine) people would speak to the Australian government rather then worrying about Casley. So he controls nothing in the eyes of most people and is just a harmless eccentric as you say whereas it seems clear Bokassa (illegitimately?) controlled the recognised soverign territory CAE for a while. And e.g. if Casley was doing some nasty shit like distributing child porn the US would discuss it with the Australian government not send a team to kidnap Casley to Guantanamo (actually the Australian government wouldn't need to be told), whereas if Bokassa was doing the same shit (yes it was a while ago but again let's just imagine) it's possible he would be kidnapped for Guatanamo or perhaps just removed like the French did and then put on trial. Nil Einne (talk) 22:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

What do they say regarding evolution in intro to biology classes at some conspicuously religious universities?
I'm thinking of places like Notre Dame or BYU. I mean what do they (the actual professors in the room)say in a nutshell, not links to their overly worded, legalese written, circular, prepared statements which the average person can't understand. I'm betting it's something weak like "it works as a theory but we just don't accept it with regards to humans." I'd like to hear some firsthand anecdotal evidence from people who went to such schools and heard the teacher speak in plain words on the subject of their/the school's position. 20.137.18.50 (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not think that accredited universities like Notre Dame or BYU would employ professors that countermand the directives of the biology departments with any personal religious bias. Livewireo (talk) 19:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think the question is, "what are the directives of the respective biology departments?". Of the two universities, Notre Dame is Catholic and so there is no doctrinal problem whatsoever with teaching evolution. There's certainly a problem in terms of previous Mormon statements on the subject at BYU, but as far as I can tell the LDS church has not taken an official "position" on evolution, and so there is probably no reason for BYU to teach anything but the relevant science. - Nunh-huh 19:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * BYU not only teaches evolution, its professors solidly defend it in the face of what is often an ignorant student body. Usually they will say something like "This is what science says (evidence suggests we are related to monkeys)." Some may not mention religion at all. Many, however, may say something like. "All we know is what God says, that we were created by him. How he might have done that we really don't know. Maybe evolution. Maybe not." The church has always had deeply divided opinions on it going all the way up to the leadership of the church. The only thing that has really come out officially is that we maintain that we were created by God. BYU actually banned it from being taught at the school at one time, nearly a century ago, but that period is long over, and it probably wasn't the only school to do it back then. Any student studying Biology at BYU will learn evolution as a part of the science. Wrad (talk) 21:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It may be worth adding that being "accredited" itself is no guarantee: Liberty University is accredited, yet teaches, among other nonsense, the superiority of creationism to evolution. - Nunh-huh 23:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The Catholic Church accepts evolution and the LDS Church takes no official position on the matter, so I don't see why these two schools would have any problem teaching evolution in biology classes. (See Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church and Mormonism and evolution.) An example of another approach is Liberty University, an evangelical Christian school which promotes creationism in its science classes. —D. Monack talk 19:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, as can be seen from the articles Relationship between religion and science and Theistic evolution being a Christian does far from always mean rejection of evolution (quite the contrary probably). --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's an enlightening article on creationist teachings in science classes at Liberty U. You can tell the guy is a real scientist by the fact that he's wearing a lab coat.  --Sean 15:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And during a class to boot :-) Nil Einne (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Bilingual American President?
Has the United States of America ever had a bilingual or multilingual President? - Vikramkr (talk) 21:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * According to his article, Barack Obama is at least conversationally fluent in Indonesian. Also, Franklin Roosevelt and his wife Eleanor Herbert Hoover and his wife Lou Henry used to speak Mandarin Chinese to hide their personal conversations from White House staff. Livewireo (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed your link. --Anon, 22:55 UTC, July 17.


 * Thomas Jefferson was fluent in French. All the presidents until Andrew Jackson could read Latin at a level that would pass college language requirements today. Almost all upper-class Americans educated between the Civil War and the Vietnam War spoke French, however haltingly.--Wetman (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought George W. Bush gave some speeches in Spanish, though his article doesn't mention being bilingual. Tempshill (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Bush did not give full speeches in Spanish. However, he does know many phrases and can properly use them.  There are many examples of him using one or two Spanish sentences and then switching to (Texan) English. --  k a i n a w &trade; 22:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Heck, I wasn't aware he was even unilingual. Just what language is he fluent in? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is informative, though there are no sources. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * James Garfield could write simultaneously in Latin and ancient Greek, although I'm not entirely certain whether he could use them easily. Not that there were too many native speakers of either language that he would have met :-)  Nyttend (talk) 01:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * With a pen in each hand, you mean? Ian Spackman (talk) 14:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, ambisimuldextrously. :)  Page 1229 of The People's Almanac #2 says "Garfield was not merely the first ambidextrous chief executive.  There were those who claimed  (my emphasis)  they had observed him write classical Greek with his left hand and classical Latin with his right hand simultaneously".  Make of that what you will.  --  JackofOz (talk) 22:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * FDR spoke German, having vacationed in Germany with his family as a teenager. He read Mein Kampf in the original at a time when the only translations were abridged and expurgated, giving him an understanding of Hitler superior to many of his contemporaries.John Z (talk) 21:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Martin van Buren did not have English as a first language, according to our article. He grew up speaking Dutch. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * President George H. W. Bush spoke French. He would not do so in public, because his advisers (Lee Atwater ?) told him it wouldn't go down well with voters - it would give him an "effete" image, was the way the media put it. In the last days of his mandate, Bush met President François Mitterrand and the two played around with the US media by speaking French to them, letting the cat out of the bag that the President in fact spoke French fairly well. There's an allusion to his language ability at the end of this transcript . --Xuxl (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm told that Jimmy Carter, on his first visit to Mexico, made a long unscripted speech in fluent Spanish. —Tamfang (talk) 04:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)