Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 March 19

= March 19 =

King of Tavolara
In 1836, King Charles Albert of Sardinia made a shepherd, Giuseppe Celestino Bertoleoni Poli, King of Tavolara. Did he had the right to do that? Wasn't it only that the Pope could created someone a King, ie. Stephen I of Hungary? And also it wouldn't make sense a king making someone an title equal to their's. I thought King only created Dukes, Counts, Prince, and ect. --Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Similarly were the Cocos (Keeling) Islands granted in perpetuity to the Clunies-Ross family by Queen Victoria. However the "king" title was self-styled by the head of the family. It's essentially a fiefdom. --Kvasir (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Newly formed kingdoms used to have monarchs elected by a body, not the Church. The Great Powers at the London Conference of 1832 elected Otto of Greece, originally a Bavarian Prince, to become the king of the newly form Kingdom of Greece. He was later deposed and the Greek National Assembly elected a Danish prince to become king. The newly formed Belgian National Congress elected yet another Bavarian prince to be their first king when the country became independent from the Netherlands. Of course, one of the most notable examples is Napoleon crowning himself as Emperor. --Kvasir (talk) 07:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Pope created Charlemagne as emeperor. Sleigh (talk) 11:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Under what code of laws do you suppose Charles Albert might not have had the right to do that? If you're a king (or a government) you can do more or less anything that the other polities will let you get away with. International law hasn't been around that long, at least in Europe. --ColinFine (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The OP may be a bit confused because the pope traditionally crowned Emperors; the pope is Pontifex Maximus, i.e. chief priest of the Roman Empire, and as such, is given the right to crown the Emperor, in medieval times this meant the Holy Roman Emperor. Kings, on the other hand, either exist since "time immemorial" (like England, France, Spain, etc) where the Kingship can be traced back to the military leaders of major confederations of Germanic tribes (Anglo-Saxons, Franks, Visigoths, etc.).  Other kings are created by Emperors or even other kingdoms, for example  Ottokar I had his Duchy, Bohemia, elevated to a Kingdom as a reward for giving military aid to the Holy Roman Emperor (see Golden Bull of Sicily).  Other times kings just up and declare themselves to be kings, King Zog I apparently got tired of merely being the President of Albania, so he had the constitution rewritten and made himself king.  And then there's the kings that are so assigned by the various Congresses of Europe.  This, for example, when the Ottoman Empire was driven out of Europe, Otto, a Bavarian Prince, was placed in charge of the new Kingdom of Greece.  -- Jayron  32  02:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Crown Prince of Denmark
Who was the first Crown Prince of Denmark? When did Denmark started having crown princes instead of hereditary princes?
 * See List of Danish monarchs and Crown Prince. Crown princes are hereditary princes, and Denmark has always been an hereditary monarchy (and still is).  To answer your question, the first (recorded) crown prince of Denmark was Sigfred, son of Ongendus, the first king of Denmark, who ruled in about 720 AD.  Tevildo (talk) 09:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Denmark has only been constitutionally a hereditary monarchy since 1660. Prior to that time, monarchs were elected and their children, including their eldest sons (even Hamlet, were not princes of Denmark since they had no hereditary right to the throne. Instead, from the accession of the House of Oldenburg to the Danish throne, the Danish kings' sons and their male-line were Dukes of Schleswig and Holstein, at first dividing those fiefs up among the numerous cadet branches, but later simply bearing the title Duke/Duchess (not Prince/Princess) of Schleswig-Holstein or of Holstein-Gottorp, while the head of their dynasty, the King of Denmark, actually ruled the twin duchies. A crown prince is a form of hereditary prince, although the former term is more commonly used for the heir apparent to an empire or kingdom than to a grandduchy, sovereign duchy or sovereign principality. In Scandinavia, the term Hereditary Prince came to be used to refer to the heir apparent's heir apparent (i.e. usually the eldest son of the king's eldest son) or, when there was no heir apparent, the heir presumptive was accorded the title of Hereditary Prince. When Frederick IX of Denmark's daughters were given succession rights in 1953, his younger brother Prince Knud of Denmark ceased being heir presumptive de jure but continued to retain the style of "Hereditary Prince" (Arveprins) for his lifetime as a courtesy title. FactStraight (talk) 11:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Original & Translation version of Gilgamesh
Does anybody know of a print version of the Epic of Gilgamesh which includes the original as well as a translation in parallel, such as what the Loeb Classics series does? Cevlakohn (talk) 07:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The original cuneiform? The epic we read in translation is a synthesized version patched together out of various tablets. So there's no single authoritative "received text" such as we have with the Greek and Latin canon in the Loeb editions--Wetman (talk) 12:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)--Wetman (talk) 12:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Penguin edition translated and edited by Andrew George is pretty good. Images of the original Sumerian or Akkadian tablets may be seen mainly in specialist journals.  New tablets (or fragments) used to appear routinely, but the recent hostilities in the region may delay new recoveries.  Weepy.Moyer (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

services industries
Why services industries are generally very competitive in the world today?


 * Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Service industry leads to a couple of other articles which could lead to further information. However, Google is probably a better bet. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

sales revenue and employees
in 2001, General Motors was ranked 1st in sales revenue and 32nd in number of employees. McDonald's was ranked 108th in sales revenue and 4th in number of employees. What might explain these differences? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.214 (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * They are apples and oranges? They sell totally different types of products and have totally different business models, and they make use of their employees in a totally different way (McDonald's employees are mostly in service, GM I imagine are mostly in manufacturing). Is there any reason to think that ranked number of employees would have anything much to do with ranked sales revenue for all industries and products? I doubt it, but I'm no economist. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Salary level. McDonald's employees teenage fry cooks, GM employees engineers. Rmhermen (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that there is not much in the way of a meaningful comparison to be made between these companies. One makes millions of easy to assemble burgers that sell for dollars each, whereas the other makes thousands of vehicles which sell for thousands of dollars each.  Much better to compare GM to Ford or McDonald's to Wendy's.  Googlemeister (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course you can compare them. Investors compare them every day.  Abstractly, that year, McDonalds utilized more employees to generate less revenue than GM did.  GM's revenue-per-employee was much higher, which was great for GM.  Of course, the two companies' fortunes have reversed in the subsequent 9 years, so revenue-per-employee clearly isn't everything.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * But is sales revenue even what you are trying to compare? I was under the impression that McDonald's made a huge amount of its money from real estate, for --Mr.98 (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's comparing apples and oranges. However, when looking at such ratios between two auto companies, or between two fast food companies, the comparison is valid.  And, if McD's goes to automated assembly lines for production of hamburgers, then maybe it can be compared with GM.  StuRat (talk) 18:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Claiming it is not possible to compare GM and McDonalds (as you did saying it would be an "apples and oranges" comparison) is nonsense. They are both businesses which exist primarily to turn a profit for investors, and investors compare them all the time using many indications of profitability and efficiency.  Revenue-per-employee is one such indication.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely it is, but using revenue-per-employee on businesses in 2 wildly different industries will not give good results in and of itself any more then comparing only the relative fuel economy between a 747 and a pickup truck would give a good indication of which vehicle moves people more efficiently. Googlemeister (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not arguing that this is the best yardstick to use, but am arguing that comparing these two companies is not "apples to oranges". Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You can compare them this way, just as you could compare their revenue to the heights of their buildings (GM probably wins in this respect, too), but it doesn't mean that you'll get meaningful investment or economic data out of it. Comparing random metrics is exactly what the phrase "apples and oranges" is all about. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * We are quibbling at this point, because I'd certainly agree that many, many metrics give a lot more information than this one when comparing companies in different industries; but I can't let it go: You are saying revenue per employee is actually meaningless in this comparison, which is untrue.  In addition to being one indicator of efficiency or productivity, it implies the amount of managerial overhead each company must maintain; it can indicate how much each company will be affected by certain types of new taxation (or reductions in certain types of taxation); it says something about worker education and/or training, which in turn says something about each company's probable success if trying to commence operations in a new market.  Some of these are second-order approximations but I think it's misleading the original poster to just say "The metric is actually useless when comparing two companies in different industries" &mdash; the indicators I just listed have some value.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * How about this example then CT, In 2009, AIG got $101B revenues with 96,000 employees, value, $1.06M revenue/employee. Walmart got $405B in revenues off of more then 2 million employees, or about $200k revenue/employee.  Using that metric, one would think trading %1 of AIG for %5 of Wal*Mart would be even, but in reality, it is a total sucker bet for the guy holding Wal*Mart (to the tune of $46M traded for $10B).  Googlemeister (talk)
 * Straw man argument. Nobody but you in the above paragraph has ever suggested that anybody thinks that the "revenue per employee" metric gives you a literal valuation of Company A's shares versus the shares of Company B.  My only argument is that comparing the revenue per employee, between two companies in different industries, has an amount of meaning that is nonzero.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But my argument shows that whatever "signal" you can get from such a comparsion can be totally swamped by the "noise" from all the other, far more useful indicators. Googlemeister (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Arbitrarily counting the number of employees doesn't prove much. Clearly someone involved in the manufacture of a car is going to add more value than someone involved in frying a burger. It would be relevant to compare their Sales Revenue to their wages bill. That way you can compare the efficiency of their utilisation of labourJabberwalkee (talk) 06:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I used to work for a Chartered business valuator, and though revenue per employee was rarely the best way of assigning values to businesses, we did have access to an annual publication that estimated it for different industries. As the discussion above points out, it varies significantly. NByz (talk) 22:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks this is a homework question? DOR (HK) (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

drum beat in music
An awful lot of popular music has a prominent drum beat, and an awful lot of "classical" music doesn't (I know there are tons of exceptions). I've never personally developed an appreciation for classical music, but I think I'd probably like it more if it did have a drum beat. Can you explain why classical music often avoids including drum beats? ike9898 (talk) 17:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The presence or absence of a drum beat in classical music is likely to determine if it's a march or not. Thus they might have tended to look down on drums as an expedient instrument for war, since hauling a brass band, piano, and violin section around were problematic.  But drums were loud enough and portable enough to signal commands to soldiers during battle.  Later on, the bugle was more likely to be used for this.  And, just like the drum, this made it less desirable for normal music (Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy aside).  StuRat (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The brief simplistic answer is that since around the early 20th-century, "western" popular music has been significantly influenced by African rhythms through various channels (at first rather indirectly). In 19th-century classical music, they had a rather different understanding of percussion, in which non-rhythmic percussion tended to be used for kind of "special effects" (simulating thunderstorms, cannons in battle, etc), while rhythmic drumming had a strong association with military marches (as mentioned by StuRat). AnonMoos (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hooked on Classics has/had a number of classical medleys with a recurring beat as an undertone. As for the drum beat in rock, swing music and jazz also had it a lot. But even classical marches such as this one seem to de-emphasize the drumbeat. Classical music has more to do with strings and woodwinds, with drums as percussion when needed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems like there's something more to it than that. I've heard classical music that's been popularized with a drum beat (usually electronic) and it seems to be regarded by classical music lovers as extremely cheesy.  Also, modern composers of classical-type music shouldn't associate drum beats with military action, and yet they continue to avoid them. ike9898 (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sure music experts could identify a great many classical works which have a prominent drum beat, such as Ravel's Boléro. Others feature percussion with a steady rhythmic beat at least for several bars. But the tympani or other drums make their point and then some other part of the orchestra gets a turn, with the rhythm moving to the string bass, tuba, trombones, horns or other sections. In lots of modern pop music, a drum machine (or drummer) bangs out the same repetitive pattern bar after bar, "boom-CHUCK, boom-CHOCJ" etc, or "one TWO-AND, three, four, one TWO-AND, three, four," etc for 12 or 32 bars, which would have a classical audience yawning, then leaving (with notable exceptions like the music of John Cage which repeats something seemingly forever with only tiny variations). Edison (talk) 03:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have the impression that a typical percussion section of an orchestra set up to play 19th-century works consists of two guys placed in a corner in the back who are surrounded by diverse miscellaneous equipment (kind of like sound-effects guys on a 1930's radio show). If you look at them during the performance, then most of the time the piece is being played they aren't doing anything (though from time to time they may be working strenuously for brief periods). AnonMoos (talk) 09:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * My interpretation involves timing. Classical music has a conductor whom can be seen by the entire ensemble.  Smaller groups in the recent - pre-amplification - past, needing an auditory equivalent, adopted a steady rhythm from a penetrating and concussive instrument.  Though music may need no standard method to be enjoyed, it certainly needs one to be performed.  Modern music seems to rely heavily on this concussive convention.  Maybe a more enlightening question might be: "Why does so much modern music rely so heavily on drums as a rhythmic centre?"NByz (talk) 07:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There is, unfortunately and disappointingly, very little information on this at the article on Rhythm - but, I've just discovered, a lot more here (in the .pdf document). Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how true that can be. In my experience, groups of musicians from string quartets to moderately sized orchestras are perfectly capable of staying together without the conductor: the front desk of the first violins functions as the leader, and the rest of the orchestra usually sticks to them more closely than they do the conductor. The purpose of the conductor is more to shape the music and get specific effects: the basic keeping of time happens even if the conductor walks away. 86.177.124.127 (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Very good point. Perhaps in the post-amplification and the rock bank format, no instrument but the drums can fit this leadership role so robustly and flexibly?  The bass can be muddy (though it often leads for long periods in smaller jazz groups, this is only practical when all instruments, including the bass, are using an abrupt clean tone; certainly not in a rock band with a rounded bass tone and a distorted or "effects"-riddled guitar tone), the rhythm or lead guitar can be as well (and relying on it to be always playing and always indicating the time signature can be straining to the composition).  The drums, on the other hand, are the perfect time keeper in this modern format.  They are loud and abrupt, and the lack of tonality (except on advanced sets. I do realize that drums are tuned, but their purpose is mainly percussive) forces the player to focus their musical growth on tempo and time signature.  Furthermore, the lack of tonality in most percussion instruments allows them to create another layer to the music without interfering with the melody.  This can serve to make the music more complex without being harder to understand.  It seems that most bands you hear on the radio rarely take advantage of this opportunity.NByz (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you've ever seen Tous les matins du monde (film), it depicts a 17th Century French chamber orchestra, with the conductor keeping time by banging a big stick on the floor. Classical music has moved on since then. Alansplodge (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A strong rhythm is very accessible. Perhaps because of its similarity to the human heartbeat, it causes an instant and visceral reaction. It also makes music very danceable. The most popular forms of music have always had a strong beat. Not only modern pop music and traditional African, but also consider Celtic fiddle music or German Volkstümliche Musik. The disadvantage with relying on rhythm is that it is hard to have much complexity. Popular music tends not to have the changes in tempo and metre, diversity of emotion, array of instruments, and complex melodies that are common in something like western classical music or Indian ragas. - SimonP (talk) 21:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Free Churches Moderator
AKA. the Moderator of the Free Churches Council, is a president of the Council of Christians and Jews – but who is he, what does he do, how is he appointed, what is/are the Free Church(es)? Web-references are sparse! Thanks! ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  co-prince  ─╢ 18:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * One start is Free church. There is also the Free Church Federal Council. BrainyBabe (talk) 13:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, thanks—I understand the concept of a free church, I was more interested in this specific British organisation... ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  senator  ─╢ 14:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe the easiest thing would be to contact them directly? My answer tried to deal with your fourth question, but I think the previous three might be best answered by them. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

"it isn't _____ if you don't get caught"
This might belong to the language desk instead, but what do people mean when they say "it isn't stealing if you don't get caught", "it isn't cheating if you don't get caught", "it isn't illegal if you don't get caught", etc...? In what sense are these statements true, do we have an article about it?

Is there a history of this ideology? Where did it originate? Thank you. 82.113.106.89 (talk) 18:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a (illogical) view of a victimless crime due to the idea that if you don't get caught doing something, then the victim will never know that they've been stolen from, cheated on, etc. It's also based on the idea, especially in the "cheating on someone" version, that if they don't know you cheated on them, then their feelings won't be hurt.  Dismas |(talk) 18:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That is assuming there are no such things as victimless crimes. I would refute such an idea by putting forth that running a stop sign where there is clearly no other traffic is such a victimless crime.  If they caused an accident or near accident, their crime is no longer victimless.  Googlemeister (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the "victimless crime" concept is a red herring. There is one context where where the claim is essentially true, and that's the presumption of innocence at law &mdash; or, in other words, the fact that criminal cases in court aren't about whether you committed a crime but about whether you can be proved to have committed it.
 * The extent (if any) to which that principle might be extensible to other contexts is a matter for one's personal morality. --Anonymous, 19:07 UTC, March 19, 2010.


 * They're true in the sense that you won't get prosecuted for something if you aren't caught at it, and thus don't necessarily fit the legal definition of the crime. In a non-legal (e.g. moral) sense, this doesn't work. Even in a legal sense, getting away with something, in the sense of not suffering a criminal conviction, does not mean you are off scot free (as O.J. Simpson found). --Mr.98 (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In the case of the UK MPs expenses "scandal", it was a common feeling (in England at least) that the MPs felt that the real crime was not claiming expenses to which they were not entitled, but that they had been caught doing so. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Related quote, from Dirty Rotten Scoundrels: "To be with another woman, that is French. To be caught, that is American." --Mr.98 (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Italian saying: "Where there is no police, there are no speed limits." Gabbe (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If you look at it from an entirely pragmatic point of view, then the difference between a legal act and an illegal one is that you get punished for the illegal one but not the legal one. Since you don't get punished if you don't get caught, it can only be illegal if you get caught. It's not intended to be sound logic, it's more a redefinition of legality in terms of the consequences, rather than the act. --Tango (talk) 09:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "It isn't _____ if you don't get caught" could most properly be filled in with "punishable". If you drive 50 in a 35 zone, you've broken the law, but if you don't get caught, then you "got away with it", and as far as the legal system is concerned, you're clean. I could pose a more extreme example: If you murder someone and are never caught, does that mean you are not a murderer? No, you're still a murderer, except not in the eyes of the legal system (yet). I'm reminded of one of my favorite quotes from The Adventures of Superman, in an early episode where the writing was a bit crisper, in which Clark Kent wants a man detained despite a lack of evidence, and Inspector Henderson admonishes him with, "The law, Kent, what has he done to break the law? This man might beat up his mother every day and twice on Sunday, but as far as the law is concerned, he hasn't done a thing." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The imminent resignation of Hillary Clinton?
Intrade is giving Hillary Clinton a 49% chance of resigning from her post before the end of Obama's first term. I don't understand why Clinton would want or have to do so; why then is this probability so high? Insight welcome, 86.45.173.139 (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The "quotes" are based on user opinion and, for the most part, who is willing to click the green button or red button the most. It is not based on any tangible evidence one way or the other.  It may as well be: "Do you like Hillary Clinton?  Yes  No."  In other words, the website is purely for entertainment, not for factual evidence. --  k a i n a w &trade; 19:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Intrade.com contracts trade in real money. -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless I misread the Intrade quote matrix, Clinton's resignation has only been traded 31 times, so that's probably not a reliable sample...--达伟 (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, it is not a sample but the entirety of the bids, but yes, the low volume lends to a less credible probability. 86.45.173.139 (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

There have been rumors of an eventual Clinton resignation for a couple months now. The recent spike was due to New York Governor David Paterson's troubles, with speculation that Clinton would step down and run for governor. See here for example. Additionally, the current state of US relations with Israel probably feeds speculation that Clinton won't be around for the duration. —Kevin Myers 20:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Aha, that makes sense, thank you Kevin. Do you know who her main rivals might be for a prospective gubernatorial run? 86.45.173.139 (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This poll by Rasmussen (the article was written March 2) says the front-runner is currently Andrew Cuomo (D), and the two Republican front runners are currently Rick Lazio (R) and "wealthy Buffalo developer" Carl Paladino (R). If it matters to you, Rasmussen has been noted to yield more conservative-leaning poll numbers than other pollsters.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Secretary of State to NY Governor? I can't see it - HC has been on the national/international scene for too long now, and there's no political advantage to her in stepping back from it.  She might do something like that as a political statement if she had a good enough reason, but at 1 year into the current administration it would speak to some internal frictions or some looming political disaster that doesn't even appear on the Fox News radar (if not even they can stretch things to see that kind of trouble, what's the likelihood?) -- Ludwigs 2  22:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * She had an interview (with Tavis Smiley ?) where she was asked if she could imagine herself serving another term or even finishing this one, and she didn't sound optimistic. She also commented on how hard her job is. StuRat (talk) 22:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You might also want to do a little research into the average tenure of Secretaries of State. Off the top of my head, 4 years is a very long time to stay in office. DOR (HK) (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? List of Secretaries of State of the United States would seem to suggest to me that over the past say 30 years, ~4 years is about average and longer not unheard of Nil Einne (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The NYT ran a semi-puff piece a few days ago about how she is settling into the job. I hadn't thought of it this way before, but "I have complete confidence in Secretary Clinton" (not that Obama said that) is the traditional kiss of death.

Olympics question
What determines who can have an Olympic team? I mean, Puerto Rico had their own team, even though they are kinda sorta part of the US, so could say the Souix have a team as their reservation is only kinda sorta part of the US? Could Wales have their own team if they wanted, like they do in soccer? What are the IOC methods for determining this stuff? Googlemeister (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Apparently they need a National Olympic Committee, who then petition for recognition by the International Olympic Committee. There are quite a hodgepodge of territories recognized, and at least one petitioner unrecognized, and Taiwan, who is only recognized so long as they call themselves "Chinese Taipei" to avoid irritating the People's Republic of China. As to whether the IOC would recognize the Sioux—who knows. They recognize the Palestinians, who are not quite in the same position of the Sioux, but it's not a huge stretch of an analogy (since the Sioux are self-governing). --Mr.98 (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Macau Sports and Olympic Committee have existed for years and have participated in international sporting events, it just has not been recognised by the IOC yet. I've not been able to find why this is. Dependent territories are certainly not barred from joining the IOC. Hong Kong's NOC has participated in the Olympics since 1952, it is now participating as "Hong Kong, China". On the other hand, the membership of Kuwait Olympic Committee has been suspended since Jan 2010 from violating "international regulation". From Kuwait's case, it seem the IOC requirements are stringent, technical and political. --Kvasir (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is also a question of funding. Establishing a separate NOC from the mother country means you are now independent from the funding structure and need to raise your own funds for the athletes. Macau may have their own NOC but in the case of Olympic sports, the athletes may want to keep their access to high performance national training program and funds. --Kvasir (talk) 20:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As for Gilbratar, their non-recognition seems to based on the fact that its sovereignty is not "recognised by the international community". This Swiss source is in French. Apparently the Gilbratar National Olympic Committee is suing IOC in Swiss court. --Kvasir (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I may have missed something (my French isn't that great), but I think that document is only about the IOC itself and does not talk about what it takes for a new NOC to be admitted to the club. Just for fun and practice, here's my translation (a bit rough in places) of just the first paragraph:
 * For more than a century, international sports have been primarily governed by a system of non-profit associations centered on the Olympic Games and on the the world championships of the various disciplines. This system was itself designed under the name of the Olympic Movement and its principal agent is the International Olympic Committee (IOC), a club of individual members founded in 1894 by Pierre de Coubertin. Its members are responsible for perpetuating the modern Games.  Despite the considerable evolution of sports in the 20th century and the growing importance of the Summer and Winter Games, the IOC has continued with no important change of structure through a century that has known, among other things, plenty of surprises.

It was only in 1999 that the IOC was suddenly shocked to its foundations because of the implication of about 20 of its members in a corruption scandal linked to the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. It was also at this same time that doping and sports-related violence began to strongly preoccupy governments, which perceived that the Olympic Movement had not taken serious control of these consequences. At the end of the century, across the news media, the IOC was all at once confronted with opinions and public bodies that put its legitimacy into question. (Chappelet 2001).
 * --Anonymous, 21:35 UTC, March 19, 2010.
 * The bit about Gibraltar is in section IV: L’harmonisation des dispositifs de régulation (Harmonisation of dispositifs of regulation)
 * "La deuxième affaire date de 2003 et n’est pas encore tranchée par les tribunaux vaudois. Elle concerne une association qui se nomme « Comité national olympique de Gibraltar » et qui veut se faire reconnaître par le CIO, depuis la fin des années quatre-vingts, comme CNO à part entière. Cette association remplissait les conditions nécessaires au moment de sa demande, notamment avant que le CIO n’exige que le territoire concerné soit « reconnu par la communauté internationale » (règle 31 de la Charte olympique). Elle se plaint de la lenteur de la décision à son sujet du CIO qui ne veut pas en prendre une qui soit positive (et qui ne serait pas acceptée en Espagne) ou négative (qui risquerait d’être contredite par un tribunal vaudois du fait de la Charte en vigueur à l’époque)."
 * Immediately above this paragraph was the bit about Taiwan, and most of us are pretty familiar with that. Don't worry about my quality of French translation, not a pro here:
 * "The second business dated from 2003 and is not yet "sliced" (decided?) by the Vaud tribunals. It's about an association called "Gibraltar National Olympic Committee" and that it wants to be recognised by the IOC since the end of the 80s as an NOC. This association fullfilled the necessary conditions at the moment of its request, notably before the IOC insists only that the concerned territory be "recognised by the international community" (Olympic Charter Rule 31). The association accuse the length the IOC has taken to make the decision be it positive (and which would not be accepted by Spain) or negative (that risked being countered vigourously by a Vaud tribunal over the fact of the Charter of the time.)." --Kvasir (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I thought I had searched the PDF for "Gibraltar", but I must've missed it somehow.  Sorry to have been misleading.  I suspect that "sliced" here means something like "scheduled (for consideration)", i.e. assigned its slice of time.  In the last parentheses, "risked" should be "would risk".
 * So an interesting point here is that the rules seem to have changed since Gibraltar made its application, but in this paragraph they don't say how. I don't have time now to see if they cover it anywhere else.  --Anonymous, 00:28 UTC, March 20/10.

Falkland War -- Thatcher Speech
According to Lexis/Nexis, Mrs Thatcher gave a speech to the House of Commons, which began thus: "The Falkland Islands and their dependencies remain British territory; no aggression and no invasion can alter that simple fact. It is the Government's object to see the islands are free from occupation". Lexis Nexis finds that bit in a NY Times article dated April 3, 1982, apparently on the front page. I know it's probably a long speech, but I'm looking for the entire text. Can anyone give me a hint about how to find the transcript of that speech? Thank you. Llamabr (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This link takes you to the Hansard record of her speeches in Parliament. You should be able to search it to find the official record of the speech you are looking for. DuncanHill (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The speech you want is here - the bit you quoted is a few paragraphs down. DuncanHill (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (bit pointless now) It's not the beginning of the speech, but nevertheless, good ol' Hansard recorded the whole debate verbatim, so you know nothing's been cut. A mirror is at . - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 20:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow, you guys are quick, and efficient. Thanks so much. Llamabr (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It's well worth reading the whole debate. DuncanHill (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The audio recording of the debate was rebroadcast on BBC Parliament on 'Falklands Night' in 2007 (marking the 25th anniversary); I have a copy and there may be others out there. Note also that all important Margaret Thatcher speeches, including those outside Parliament, are available from the Margaret Thatcher Foundation website. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

History of the bound book
Can someone briefly explain the history and chronology of going from scrolls (for example the library of Alexandra hadnothing but scrolls in it didn't it) to bound leafs in a book that you can leaf through. Did scrolls and these bound books coexist for a while, or was itlike an Aha moment and as soon as the bound pages appeared no one wanted scrolls anymore. Thank you. This is not homework. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.107.105 (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I seem to recall that, in ancient India, they wrote on long objects (tree leaves ?), bound together into a book. StuRat (talk) 22:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * From the article for Codex (bound books): "First described by the 1st century AD Roman poet Martial, who already praised its convenient use, the codex achieved numerical parity with the scroll around 300 AD, and had completely replaced it throughout the now Christianised Greco-Roman world by the 6th century." The introduction of that article, and its #History section, go into further detail. Cheers, -M.Nelson (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Christians were very significant "early adopters" and popularizers of the book format... AnonMoos (talk) 22:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The British Museum had on exhibit a few years ago a pretty little bound book which had been buried with some British religious leader quite early, maybe the 6th century. I do not recall his name, only that it was a relatively early "book" as such, and rather nicely bound. It was definitely not the Codex Sinaiticus. (Now its driving me mad trying to remember the details, but I can see it clearly as day in memory). Edison (talk) 03:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this one: Rmhermen (talk) 05:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The one I saw was older as I recall and in better shape, and was found in the tomb of some famous early religious figure in England, Ireland or Scotland. Edison (talk) 03:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We have history of the book, although it doesn't really seem to have the info we're looking for here. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The followers of Manichaeism were known as bibliophiles, and often had splendidly bound codexes of the major writings of their religion. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)