Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 September 15

= September 15 =

What other countries elect their president via an electoral college?
Some time ago, I asked what other countries aside from the US have an electoral college. I got some good responses, but not the answers that I would have liked, especially about electoral college elected presidents in other countries. For some time now, I have been wondering what other countries aside from the United States elect their president via an electoral college or a similar committee. I am not sure if the US is the only country that does so, although I know Hong Kong's leader is elected by a committee, although I was thinking of independent countries that elect their president via an electoral college. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * According to our article Indirect election, there are several countries in which the president is elected indirectly, most commonly by the parliament: Germany, Italy, Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Hungary, India, and Israel. Of these Germany has a special body to elect the federal president, but that body is composed mostly of members of parliament. And in none of these countries is the president the head of government. Here in Finland the president used to be elected by an electoral college, whose members were elected by the people and could in principle vote for whomever they wanted, but that system was abolished a few decades back. The president back then had considerable power over day-to-day politics, too.--Rallette (talk) 05:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind, however, that in at least some of the countries you mention the president is little more than a figurehead and doesn't have quite the power that the president of the USA does. TomorrowTime (talk) 10:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Good answers, but are there any countries apart from the US where the indirectly-elected President is also the head of government?


 * In the United States, the President is not the "head of government." He is 1/3 of a three-part government in which Congress has evolved to have far more power than the President, but both are held in check by the Supreme Court. --  k a i n a w &trade; 13:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree. "Head of government" does not mean "sole source of authority and power"; rather, we define it as "the chief officer of the executive branch of a government".  More specifically, though, it is used where the head of state is a separate office.  In a presidential system, however, the two positions are combined in the office of the president (or whatever the applicable name is).  The US President clearly fits this description. &mdash; Lomn 14:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess that an article Government (disambiguation) (unfortunately, the link is red at the moment) would make the things even clearer: in "head of government" the "government" is not the system of political institutions, but "Cabinet of Ministers", "Council of Ministers" or something equivalent (in case of United States - United States Cabinet). --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * vatican See. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  09:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to the Pope? If so cardinals are appointed by the previous pope not elected by anyone. Nil Einne (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Previouse Popes. It is entirely possible for a Cardinal to outlive multiple popes.  Just a very minor nitpick.  Other elective heads of state elected indirectly to consider, at least historically, include the Holy Roman Emperor (elected by seven princes known as Prince-Electors and the King of Poland who was elected by a convention of noblemen.  The High King of Ireland was also elected from amongst his peers as well, as may have been the Bretwaldas of pre-conquest Britain.  --71.200.75.37 (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Kings of Poland were not elected by elective representatives. Every Polish nobleman had the right to come to the election field and take part in the vote. — Kpalion(talk) 18:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The Yang di-Pertuan Agong, sometimes called King of Malaysia, is elected for a fixed term. --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   20:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes that's part of what I was getting at. Is the OP primarily interested in a system where the head of state is elected by a group who are themselves elected? Or any system where the head of state is elected? If it's the later, elective monarchy may be of interest. In such a system, people doing the electing may be hereditary as in Malaysia. (Not necessarily direct of course, the Yamtuan Besar is himself elected.) Or selected by one of the previous heads, as in the Vatican. And in the Vatican case the candidates for both can theoretically be any good Catholic male compared to Malaysia where the candidates are the people doing the electing.
 * BTW, reading that article it mentions the interesting example of Andorra where one of the co-princes is the King of France, except since there's no King of France that position no falls onto the President of France who is of course elected by the French people. Of course a similar thing may happen in a number of other territories except in those cases the head of state isn't considered a monarch.
 * Nil Einne (talk) 21:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Argentina had an ellectoral college up to the 1994 amendment of the National Constitution MBelgrano (talk) 11:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The President of India is not elected by the parliament, but an electoral college of some 4,000 people (members of national and state parliaments). see Electoral College (India). --Soman (talk) 15:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Adoption by persons of same sex
Someone said to me that an adoption is a process whereby a child is given the right parents.

So, in a state where persons of same sex are allowed by law to enter into a marriage (or otherwise called, for instance, civil partnership, ect):


 * 1) Are persons of same sex who have engaged into a marriage also allowed to adopt any child? What are such states now? I am not certain if in Germany such persons are so allowed.
 * 2) Should persons of same sex who have engaged into a marriage be also allowed to adopt any child?

182.52.98.183 (talk) 08:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * We have an article on LGBT adoption which breaks it down by country and also by states of the US and of Australia. ---Sluzzelin talk  08:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That depends on the location.
 * Of course they should. Any random male/female heterosexual pair of people can create a child. Why on earth should a homosexual pair be prevented from adopting and raising a child? All scientific studies on the subject indicate that children of homosexual parents fare no different--and in many axes of measurement actually fare better--than children of homosexual parents. There are untold numbers of children worldwide who are alone and need love and support and role models. Only religious fundamentalists campaign against homosexual couples being allowed to adopt these children and raise them into thoughtful human beings. I'll stop here before I start ranting. → ROUX   ₪  09:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly please don't rant, but please provde at least a few citations. If indeed "all scientific studies on the subject indicate" so, you should have no problem with that. — Kpalion(talk) 09:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * From the article I linked to:
 * "One study has addressed the question directly, evaluating the outcomes of adoptees less than 3-years old who had been placed in one of 56 lesbian and gay households since infancy. Despite the small sample and the fact that the children have yet to become aware of their adoption status or the dynamics of gender development, the study found no significant associations between parental sexual orientation and child adjustment, making the results consistent with notions that two parents of the same gender can be capable parents and that parental sexual orientation is not related to parenting skill or child adjustment. The findings point to the positive capabilities of lesbian and gay couples as adoptive parents."
 * The study in question is Parenting and Child Development in Adoptive Families; Does Parental Sexual Orientation Matter? (Rachel H. Farr, Stephen L. Forssell, Charlotte J. Patterson). ---Sluzzelin talk  10:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The question of whether or not they should be allowed to adopt a child should not have been asked here, because it calls for opinion; and if asked, should not have been answered. This is a reference desk, where our own personal opinions on such subjects are irrelevant. The best we can do is provide links to people whose views are published in reputable sources. --  Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   10:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that this is a fine article about the whole issue . Flamarande (talk) 10:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That article is about a specific proposition in a specific jurisdiction regarding gay marriage. It neither produces evidence, nor discusses gay adoption. 86.164.78.91 (talk) 12:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The question asks whether same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt any child. As with any adoption, the couple's desire to adopt a given child needs to align with that child's needs and desires. There are certainly going to be children who do well after being adopted by a same-sex couple, better than when raised in a children's home, just as there are children who will do fine raised in single-parent households. However, some children are going to need the stability and attention of a stable couple (so a single-parent is not enough), and some are going to find life hard enough without dealing with secondhand homophobia, and some older children may be uncomfortable with a gay couple due to their upbringing before this point (so a gay couple will be unsuitable). Nobody has a right to adopt, and certainly nobody has the right to adopt any child they like. Should gay couples be able to adopt some children? As referenced above, the evidence is that this has good outcomes, and many areas allow it. Be wary, however, of making the comparison to heterosexual couples conceiving children: most jurisdictions have stricter criteria for adopting and fostering than conceiving! After all, this is a second chance for a child that is often already hurt. 86.164.78.91 (talk) 11:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll reiterate one of Mr. 86's key point: adoption (whether by a single parent, a heterosexual couple, or a homosexual couple) cannot be seen as equivalent to conception. There are good and bad reasons to conceive, and there are good and bad reasons to adopt, but the overlap isn't necessarily that great.  I know a good deal of heterosexual couples who have conceived who probably "shouldn't" have, whatever that means. If it were up to me, the government would lace the water supply with contraceptives and charge big bucks for an antidote Buddy431 (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Gene Wolfe short story?
It's the one where the main character is born without a head; his face is in his belly; his parents kindly make a marionette head to make up for the lack. Can anyone tell me the title, and if they can point me to the text itself, all the better. Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 11:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's "The Headless Man". The only book publication I know of is in the Wolfe collection Endangered Species (1989); it originally appeared in the magazine Universe in 1972. Where I live, at least, the story is visible in its entirety at Google Books. Deor (talk) 18:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much Adambrowne666 (talk) 12:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Indian Partnership Act
1. Whether a partner have right to file a case against another partner? 2. If yes, on which ground he can file a case against other partner? 3. In which court he should filed that case?

PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION AS PER INDIAN LAW —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prashant.law (talk • contribs) 11:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * See Legal disclaimer. For legal advice it is best to consult a lawyer. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Heres the text: . I think that yes, a lawyer is probably a good idea in a case like this. Buddy431 (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

US senators
Do US senators automatically get a US security clearance when they are elected? I presume that they need clearance since the senate has oversight on CIA and such. What if they would normally be ineligible for a security clearance? Googlemeister (talk) 13:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Automatically? No. Even the President has to go through background checks before being given clearance. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 14:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * . This is a reference desk.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I wonder. Our article Security clearance states unequivocally that the President of the U.S. has access to any and all information of the U.S. government, period. I'd be surprised if it was even theoretically possible to deny the President access to some item of classified U.S. government material. After all, the classification system itself is established by an executive order of the President.--Rallette (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not all members of Congress have the same level of clearance. Members of the Intelligence committees (Senate Intelligence Committee/House Intelligence Committee) have access to classified information that other congressmen don't. You need special clearance to serve on these committees. —D. Monack talk 21:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Followup
Have there been any notable cases of Senators/Congressmen being denied clearance in a way that conflicted with their duties? --Sean 15:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. For example, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) was denied access to classified documents related to the "continuity of government" in the case of a catastrophic terrorist attack.www.naturalnews.com/022170.html —D. Monack talk 21:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A snippet view does not show the text which comes up in Google Book Search, but per "The American political arena," by Joseph Fiszman, 1962, p 473 "Congressman Condon had been denied security clearance by the government to atomic bomb test sites." A website indicates this was Congressman Robert Condon. A witness before the House UnAmerican Activities Committee had stated that Condon had attended a Progressive Part meeting also attended by Communists. The Atomic Energy Commission barred Condon from the test site based on secret evidence, although all members of Congress had been invited. The US House rules specify that the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence   determines which members can attend a closed hearing, and a member who is found by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to have breached security by unauthorized disclosure of information can be removed from committee membership . I did not find a document relating whether and how a Representative or Senator gets a security clearance. Someone who was senile, a drug addict, or a suspected adherent to some enemy of the US might be kept off committees which get access to intelligence or other confidential documents. The socialist party of Eugene Debs managed to elect a US Representative, Victor Berger who served 1911-1913 and 1922-1929. He was convicted of violating the Espionage Act by speaking against US involvement in World War 1, but the conviction was overturned. Congress refused to seat him when he was elected in 1918 and in a special election in 1919, but seated him when he was elected in 1924 and 1926. It would be interesting to see which committees the House seated him on, and if he had access to secret documents.  The FBI has long done investigations of US congressmen, such as the 1934 investigation of Senator Huey Long  and the 1941 and 1942 FBI investigations of Senator Burton Wheeler and Representative Hamilton Fish at the request of Roosevelt for making isolationist speeches, to see if foreign money was financing the activities. . Roosevelt wrote "There is absolutely no valid reason why any suspected subversive activities on their part should not be investigated by the Dept. of Justice or any other duly constituted agency." Edison (talk) 22:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * What's tricky about clearances is that the FBI doesn't grant them. Some of them (like Q clearance) require a mandatory FBI investigation. But the FBI then just passes that information on to the agency that does grant clearance (e.g. the Department of Energy, in the case of Q), and they make the determination. I believe that agencies that have mandatory investigations (like DOE) also have the power to grant "emergency clearances" without investigations. I'm fairly sure, though, that they don't get to determine who is on Congressional subcommittees (like the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy), so they probably don't get to deny clearances in those situations. The odds are that they let Congress make that kind of decision in-house, and it's not unlikely that the Congressmen who make that decision don't ask the FBI regarding people they are suspicious about. But this is mostly conjecture on my part. It's certainly the case that agencies can deny classified information to individual Congressmen. It's not entirely clear whether they can deny information wholesale to Congress. A relevant case here is EPA v. Mink (1973). --Mr.98 (talk) 13:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Please see this videographic evidence. schyler (talk) 02:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I assume (hope) you know what that onion in the lower right corner of the screen means, right? --Mr.98 (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Bronze-Age Spanish clothing?
Hello, and I'm looking for several good examples of Bronze-Age Spanish clothing? Specifically sometime around 1300 B.C., if that helps. --66.189.24.40 (talk) 14:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * We don't have any article on this. The vagaries of preservation mean that survival of textiles and similar is unusual, so Bog bodies, principally Iron Age and from northern Europe, might give some ideas. If you look at the article on Ötzi the Iceman, who lived and died around 2000 years before the period you're interested in, something like Ötzi's gear might have been common enough Bronze Age winter-wear for the Pyrenees. There are no Iberian Golden hats mentioned, but again an idea although hardly everyday wear, so too horned helmets. There are endless images of Middle Eastern Bronze Age clothing such as this Elamite one, from roughly a thousand years before the period you are interested in. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There are also several bronze age graves from Northern Europe where the clothes have been found almost intact (for example the Egtved Girl). Considering that it was much warmer in Northern Europe at the time, perhaps there could be some similarity in style. But this is conjecture only, as I know next to nothing about the Spanish bronze age. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Some place to start one's research would be at the article Pre-Roman peoples of the Iberian Peninsula. While not all of these lived strictly in the 13th or 14th centuries BC, some did.  It may give you some clues on peoples to research outside of Wikipedia once you have a short list of cultures.  -- Jayron  32  02:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Other leads may be found at Prehistoric Iberia and Atlantic Bronze Age. -- Jayron  32  02:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ha! nice one J. On the Prehistoric Iberia page the models are standing there in their birthday suits. which I guess pretty much answers the question. Richard Avery (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh, that picture is supposed to show people that are from a period several hundred thousand years older than the bronze age. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that's all well and good, but is there anyone who could give me a good illustrative example of what they wore DURING the Bronze Age? I don't think knowing what great-great-great-great-great-great Grandpa Emanuel DIDN'T wear is going to help me much... --66.189.24.40 (talk) 02:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't appear to have any pictures here at Wikipedia. But the links I provided above will give you some starting points to research the names of different groups of people who may have lived in Bronze-Age Iberia, and from there you can take those lists of cultures and start your research outside of Wikipedia, such as at other websites, or at books in libraries.  -- Jayron  32  04:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * After basically cross-referencing the articles of Mils Espaine with that of the Tower of Hercules and also that of A Coruña, I've come to the conclusion that what the Irish called the Milesians were likely the Artabrians, telling from what was said in the Milesians article, which called the tribe from Brigantia the 'Brigantes', which may only be a name given to the tribe due to convenience, probably from knowing just the location they were from. The article on A Coruña makes it seem possible that the Tower of Hercules was built by the Artabrians, which would, as suggested by the article on the Milesians, match up with the stories. also, due to this being largely an Iberian area for the most part, the Artabrians may have been influenced to some degree by the culture surrounding them. so it's very possible that they wore clothing similar to that of the Iberians, rather than what is traditionally viewed as Celtic garb. Also, the reason I ran up and threw this up here is because on the 11th I was the one looking for what the Milesians probably would have worn. so that sort of explains the specific interest in what was worn around this time period in Spain. --66.189.24.40 (talk) 14:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Melting down swords in Japan...?
Okay, I'm getting some definite confused memories here - I'm hoping someone can clear this up. A good few years ago I watched a documentary about the long, difficult, complex process of making the best-quality swords for samurai. During this, it was mentioned that, at one point, someone (probably a government?) asked the people for household steel, to melt down and use for their own purposes (probably a war effort?). The unskilled people melted down their expensive, high-quality swords, resulting in brittle, rubbish steel, essentially ruining the whole process that had made their swords so efficient in the first place.

Does anyone have a clue what I'm talking about? Can anyone point me to an article? I'm mostly interested in the event itself, not the documentary. Vimescarrot (talk) 19:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * China had a program something like that in the 50s or 60s, where their peasants were encouraged to make their own steel in backyard forges but I doubt it was swords they were melting. Googlemeister (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup. See Great Leap Forward --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Just for reference, I shall add in the link to the article about Sword hunts in Japan. The common people were not allowed to own swords, and from the Meiji Restoration onwards nor were the samurai class. --  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  19:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been able to find several web pages that say that after WWII the Americans confiscated a lot of swords and melted many of them, but I haven't been able to find any confirmation from books or scholarly articles. Looie496 (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (OR) I was told by a head priest at a temple in Nagoya that during WW2, bronze bells from temples were melted down and used for munitions, and temples would receive a smaller bronze bell in return (I didn't ask when they received them, though - during or after the war). This was to explain the very small bell they had at the temple. --  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  22:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all the suggestions. I'd guess I mixed up sword hunts with the backyard furnaces. Maybe there was a Far Eastern night on the History channel, or something. Cheers! Vimescarrot (talk) 18:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Backyards? Furnaces? Far East? Aye, it were probably about Newcastle or something :) --  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  22:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Inobtrusive classical music
I'm trying to do my homework and listen to classical music, but I notice that my writing has a noticeable decrease in quality when listening to certain pieces, probably because they are "engaging" and distract me. What are some pieces that do not do this? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.78.167 (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You probably shouldn't be listening to music while you do your homework; do one or the other. Battleaxe9872  Talk 22:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Background music is fantastic, because it keeps your mind busy enough processing stuff that you don't get bored or distracted- in my case anyway. But yes, music that's too engaging will be of detriment. sonia ♫  23:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You might try ambient music which is intentionally created to be enjoyed as background while engaged in other tasks. Much of it rewards attentive listening as well but like any music genre it's not to everyone's liking. —D. Monack talk 23:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * [ec] Given the purported Mozart effect, listening to music while writing may not be a bad thing. But "inobtrusive" is too subjective for anyone to help you. Elevator music, however, is by definition inobtrusive. I would look for pieces with little dynamic range -- volume swells are what I find most obtrusive in classical recordings. How about one of those popular CD's with "best of" classical music with background nature sounds? (Hey, you asked.) Riggr Mortis (talk) 23:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * According to an article in the New York Times earlier this month, research says that much of what we have been told about how to study is wrong, including the advice to study in a quiet, nondistracting environment. Looie496 (talk) 23:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have several CD's with classical music selections titled "Music for Meditation"... AnonMoos (talk) 01:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I listen to classical music all the time while I'm on the computer at home (not at work, unfortunately). Mostly, I put the radio on and then I never have to do anything except listen passively to whatever others have programmed for my listening pleasure today, while I work my fingers to the bone.  If I really don't like a piece, I can always go and put a CD on (or an LP, more likely).  Most of the music I listen to is instrumental, which is lucky for me because vocal music tends to interfere with my concentration on whatever I'm writing about, whereas instrumental doesn't ever do that.  Sometimes operas are scheduled, but most operas are sung in languages other than English, and if my brain cannot latch on to the words it gives up trying, and treats it as if it were wordless sounds.  But when the music stops and the hourly news comes on, that's when I have to down tools or turn the volume way down, because I just can't type about X when someone is talking in my ear about Y (or even about X, for that matter).  It's just beyond me to just "tune out" the babble; that is the most obtrusive sound of all. Even spoken introductions to pieces of music, interesting as they might be, giving fascinating bits of historical background etc, can sometimes go on for too long and I end up shouting at the radio, "Shut up and get on with it".   --  202.142.129.66 (talk) 03:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You mean unobtrusive. 92.29.119.246 (talk) 07:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm a fan of lots of Bach's music for this kind of thing. Much of it is very engaging if you listen, but it doesn't demand that you listen. Pfly (talk) 08:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * A friend of mine did most of her work for her degree while listening to noise (music), mainly Nurse with Wound, precisely because its lack of structure or any clear message makes it unobtrusive and it doesn't grab and control the attention. 81.131.10.172 (talk) 09:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Another thing worth mentioning is that no music (or sounds generally) are obtrusive if the volume is sufficiently low. I don't mean so low that you can't hear them at all, that would be rather pointless ("I'm going to put some Monteverdi madrigals on while I study tonight, but I'll turn the volume down to zero so that the music doesn't distract me" - yeah, that's a solution Margery Dawes would be proud of). I mean loud enough to have the sense there's music around you, but it's sort of like it's coming from 2 rooms away and it doesn't bother you. The exact level will differ from person to person. I make this point because many people seem to recognise only 2 volumes for music: full blast, or turned off. There are lots of choices in between. --  Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   20:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)