Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 February 1

= February 1 =

Percentage of felons who claim they are innocent and appeal their conviction (U.S.)
I stated in a conversation at Talk:Sante Kimes that it is not at all unusual for those accused of a felony to plead not guilty, and for those convicted of a felony to repeatedly appeal. Another user has claimed that is simply my opinion. Are there any statistics on what percentage of felons in the U.S. plead not guilty and how often they appeal conviction? Beeblebrox (talk) 04:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That is a surprisingly hard statistic to find. It should be near 100% for those who did not plead guilty. Pleading guilty waives the right to an appeal in most cases. If a person does not plead guilty (either pleading not guilty or no contest), the right to an attorney covers the first appeal. So, the first appeal takes no real effort or money on the part of the person convicted. Why not appeal? -- k a i n a w &trade; 04:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Almost all cases(80-90ish%) are settled and the felon pleads guilty for a reduced sentence(as I have been told). In the uncommon instances that someone does not plead guilty then yes, they probably always appeal. There are no statistics because it is probably understood to be near 100% anyways, and because no one is interested.AerobicFox (talk) 06:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I doubt "no one is interested" — there are a lot of people in the country who study the American criminal justice system and are interested in all sorts of things. (Heck, I'm interested!) In any case, according to plea bargain, some 90% of all cases are indeed settled with plea bargains (though the source for that statistic dates from 1979, and so is a bit out of date now). I suspect that some useful statistics on this are out there somewhere, but probably buried in obscure legal statistics arcana, or the research data of some law school shlub. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * My wife works in the criminal justice system, and I can roughly confirm the 90% figure. It is probably higher.  She has the kind of job where, if the case goes to trial, she will always be called to testify in open court for cases she has worked on.  She probably only appeares in court 10-12 times a year, and probably works well over 100 cases per year; probably much more.  So she only appears in court for less than 1 out of 10 cases she works on, usually meaning that roughly the other 90% never go to trial.  -- Jayron  32  13:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * so, it's a myth that everyone in prison claims to be innocent? 212.169.191.79 (talk) 14:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * On a personal basis, I suspect they all do claim to be innocent. But that's not the same thing as what you enter into formal plea, which has really no relationship to "truth", per se, but to desired outcomes. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A plea of innocence and a formal trial is a vestige of a bygone age, and (except for cases where even a plea means most of a life sentence) it is punished with more prison time than the crime itself. So people will plead guilty, yet maintain their innocence with some credibility.  In fact, for crimes of moderate severity, for the poor, the typical sentence is "time served" - in other words, the punishment comes first and the trial (or plea, rather) follows afterward. Wnt (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Gonzaga name
Why do many of the Portuguese and Brazilian royalties and some of the Austrian royalties in the 19th centuries have Gonzaga in their name. My first guess would be because of the House of Gonzaga, but they went extinct in the male line in the 1700s, so why would the Austrian and Portuguese/Brazilian royals 100 years later choose this group of distant ancestors to name their children?--Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 04:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * See Portuguese name. Like Spanish names, Portuguese names include matronyms, and when the matronymic name is prestigious, it may be carried through families, often as a second given name or as a "middle name".  Some Portuguese people may carry up to four surnames, usually those of their four grandparents.  In the Iberian world, there's not as much standardization to the naming system as you might find in other parts of Europe. -- Jayron  32  05:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's used as a surname though but an actual name. For example "Maria da Glória Joana Carlota Leopoldina da Cruz Francisca Xavier de Paula Isidora Micaela Gabriela Rafaela Gonzaga", none of her names are surnames. And that doesn't explain why the Austrian archdukes Franz Salvator and Karl Salvator have that name, seeing as they don't have immediate Gonzaga or Portuguese lineage.--Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Cost for a water pump including labor and materials in Bangladesh in us dollars...
What is the cost to purchase and install a water pump in Bangladesh.--128.54.15.47 (talk) 06:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Obviously this will depend entirely on the size and type of water pump. A pump to supply a city would have a cost thousands of times greater than a pump to supply a field or household. Even among pumps that supply a similar area, there will be a big cost difference depending on the quality and durability of the pump and on the level of expertise needed to install it.  Marco polo (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Bengal Daily Wage
Is 4.38 USD a reasonable wage to pay a Bengali per day? --128.54.224.231 (talk) 08:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That rather depends on what the Bengali is being paid to do, and whether the worker is in Bengal or in a western country with a higher cost of living. Here is a chart of minimum wages for various jobs in West Bengal: $2.77 is the approximate minimum daily wage for an agricultural worker, and $3.14 or $3.53 depending on area for tailoring.  The living wage is likely to be higher. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Tax not being paid by British royals
How much extra tax would the British royals pay if they paid tax like "normal" British people on their incomes? 92.28.255.71 (talk) 09:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * They'd probably pay about half of what they pay now. Since the 18th century, the monarchy pays all of surplus from crown property into the treasury, and since 1993, the Queen pays normal income tax on her private income. See British_monarchy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It would depend if you counted civil list payments as taxable income (and allowed tax deductions for official duties); in the UK some state benefits are taxable and others are not. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

That's misleading/disengenuous, since the "Crown Estate" is juast part of the government, as the Crown Estate article clearly states, and not the personal property of any person claiming to be one of our rulers. It would be like me claiming that I gave away all the income earnt by one of the bailed-out banks.

The question was motivated by reading that Prince Charles only pays 25% tax rather than the 50% tax that's soon coming into force: in the past he paid a rate of zero%. I expect he has other income that no tax is paid on, and I don't think he paid any tax on the tens of millions his mother gave him.

I also see that the "Crown Estate" only gives a yield of 2.7%, which is very bad and suggests that it is grossly inefficient: the government would get a far higher return if all of it (except any public land) was sold off.

"They'd probably pay about half of what they pay now." I cannot see that there is any truth in that statement. Can you provide your figures please? 92.28.247.121 (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The Crown Estate is owned by the Crown - the public persona of the monarch, not by the person of the monarch herself. If you are going to separate out the personal and public personas of the royal family, then the civil list is definitely outside of your consideration here, since the civil list payments are contributions towards the cost of the royal family's public duties. The grants-in-aid are also for a public purpose, and thus would be outside your consideration.
 * As Monarchy of the United Kingdom states, the Queen pays income tax on all personal income.
 * I'm not sure what you are referring to about the Prince of Wales' tax rate being lower than normal people. If you are referring to the controversy in 2009 about the Prince's tax affairs, such as detailed in this article, it concerned a tax ruling about deductibility of certain public expenses paid out of the Prince's income. The article states that the Prince faced a top marginal tax rate of 40%, like other members of the royal family and like "normal" people. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The Crown Estate is owned by the public; you seem to be suggesting that the "Crown" is outside the normal laws of accountancy, ethics, taxation or physics. Sorry there's no point in arguing if you insist upon keeping the premise that the royals are divine beings or mythological representations of Britannia and all that. It's not Harry Potter. 2.97.220.121 (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The Crown is not owned by the British people. The British people are subjects of the Crown. The Crown is outside the law, in the sense that it is where the law comes from (the "fount of justice" as its called). --Tango (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You may "expect" that Prince Charles has sources of untaxed income, but you don't offer a shred of evidence that he does. As for financial gifts from his mother, Prince Charles is no more liable for income tax on such gifts than you or I would be if our parents were wealthy enough to hand over a suitcase full of cash.  Granted, if the donor dies within seven years of the gift there are Inheritance Tax implications (see Inheritance_Tax_(United_Kingdom)) which would have cost Charles a pretty penny if his mum had handed over the cash and then expired, but gifts in the UK are not counted as income for income tax purposes whether you're a royal or not.   Ka renjc 13:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually the IHT side gets even more interesting. If Charles becomes king when his mum dies, he doesn't pay IHT on what he inherits from her personal estate (although bequests to other Royals in her will would be liable for it).  That was the quid pro quo for the income tax rule (see here). He'd probably not pay IHT on those gifts even if they were added back to the estate, provided he did inherit the throne.  But if he stepped aside in favour of William, looks like he could face a pretty big IHT bill.  Ka renjc 17:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, where are the figures to support the "They'd probably pay about half of what they pay now" statement? 2.97.220.121 (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OP, I'm not sure how insisting the Crown Estates is owned by the public assists your argument. I think you could benefit from reading the articles The Crown (the public persona of the monarch which I referred to above), and Public. It may surprise you to learn that the United Kingdom is not a republic. The proper way to express your frustration at this situation would be to join a republican movement and push for constitutional change, rather than manufacture a fantasy about taxes.
 * There is hardly a point in asking a quesiton if you are just going to ignore all the answers because they don't suit your prejudices. Instead of pressing for figures, perhaps you can check back again on where you got the notion that the Prince of Wales somehow faces a lower tax rate than everyone else from, and also any evidence for your suspicion that the Prince of Wales has undeclared sources of income - do you suppose he is smuggling organic produce by night? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It would be a national disgrace if the royals claimed the Crown Estates to be their personal property - I'd call it stealing. 92.24.180.229 (talk) 13:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No-one is claiming the Crown Estates to be their personal property. The Crown EStates are owned by the Crown. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

But it was claimed that the royals deserved to pay little tax / get given a lot of money because they allowed their Crown Estates money to be paid the government! Make your mind up, you can't have it both ways. All this obfustication prevents a true picture being presented to the public and thus stops democracy doing its work. 92.24.185.155 (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Ethnicity of Europe's royals
What is the principal ethnic origin of most European royal dynasties? German, French or both? Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say they go back to pre-national days. What's the nationality of William the Bastard? Or of Frederick II? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Or even of Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor? He was born in Flanders (modern Beligium), which was then Burgundian territory (Burgundians being an ethnicly French people) to Castillian Spanish parents, and one of his grandparents was a from a German family that was a resident of Austria.  So is he German?  Flemmish?  Belgian?  Spanish?  Burgundian?  French?  -- Jayron  32  13:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * They normally claim to be from a specific lineage, not from a specific nation. 212.169.191.79 (talk) 14:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What I'm wondering about is their origin. For example, many dynasties descend from Charlemagne who was a Frank; then there are the Spanish royals who were descendants of the Visigoths. The Normans were Viking in origin (at least paternally). Even the early Princes of Kiev were of Viking and Slavic origin. This all leads me to presume they are primarily ethnic Germans.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the Franks were a Germanic tribe, but France is named after them. So it's not "either/or". Not all Germanic tribes are "German", nor are all Germans descended from Germanic people (see e.g. Prussians). You write "The Normans were Viking in origin (at least paternally)" - well, they started that way, but became culturally and linguistically "French" in a very short time. And, with 5 generations from Rollo to William, William was possibly as little as 3% "Viking". In short, there has been so much mixing in the last 2000 years in Europe that it does not make sense to ascribe modern nationalities to people from the early middle ages. Nearly all modern Europeans will have Germanic, Celtic, Roman, and probably even Greek, Slav, and Arab ancestry. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Are Vikings ethnic Germans? 212.169.191.79 (talk) 14:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Germans, no. Germanic, arguably yes. At least they speak a North Germanic language (and modern variants are close enough that I can often guess what a written sentence means). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You are not taking into account the fact that dynasties end and new dynasties replace them... for example, the Visigothic line in Spain died out... The current Spanish Royals (House of Bourbon) are essentially French in origin. Blueboar (talk) 15:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But the Bourbons are just a branch of the Captians, and they are Frankish (hence, arguably, Germanic). Of course, over the course of history they have incorporated lots and lots of other influences, both genetic and cultural. The identity as a "lineage" is an artificial construct that only reflects a very small part of the overall influences. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Even the modern era, ethnicity is a nearly impossible thing to keep reliably more than a few generations; what is meaningfully "French" (see Nicolas Sarkozy) or "Irish" (see Eamon de Valera) or "Chilean" (see Bernardo O'Higgins) or "Peruvian" (see Alberto Fujimori) or "Swiss" (see Stanislas Wawrinka). If we went by surnames only, you'd guess that Sarkozy was Hungarian, de Valera was Hispanic, O'Higgins was Irish, Fujimori was Japanese, and Wawrinka was Polish, and you'd be wrong in all of those cases.  Each of them is the nationality they are because of Jus soli, that is you are "French" because you were born in the territory of "France" and not because your parents were both "French".  The belief that ethnicity is purely inherited is called Jus sanguinis, and is problematic in that it becomes essentially abitrary when one attempts to define citizenship solely based on bloodlines.  For example, how do you deal with people who were born before your country existed (like say pre-1871 Germans) or, more to the point, when your borders change to suddenly incoporate people who used to be ethnicly part of another country (in France, think of all of the Savoyards and Alsatians and Corsicans who suddenly became French one day, and not Italian or German).  What about ethnically isolated communities?  Do the Y Wladfa community ever become Argentine, or are they always going to be Welsh?  How do you deal with groups like the Kaifeng Jews?  Ethnicity is never a permanent state of being, and can only be understood within the social system it is defined, in the time and place you are defining it.  Who counts as "us" and who counts as "them" is always fluid, and always changes over time.  -- Jayron  32  15:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the same thoughts, but I wouldn't have expressed them as well. "Ethnicity" is a highly confused and confusing term - best avoided, in my view.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * People sometimes take a swipe at the British royals by saying they're all bunch of Germans anyway. Which, as the above tells us, is applying a far too simplistic analysis to what is a very complex set of relationships.  They're not Germans; or English; or Greeks; or any other single thing. They're all mongrels, like every one of us is.  Very comforting to know that everyone on the planet is a mongrel.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  18:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Speak for yourself. I'm pure-blooded Chordata, Tetrapod, Mammal and even Primate! And we don't talk about those procaryotes who sneaked into out pure eucariote lineage to become mitochondria --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's article Ethnogenesis is a useful read to understand that "ethnicity" is a self-identification".--Wetman (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, there are an awful lot of Royals with German connections. That is probably because in the 19th Century, Germany was made up of 39 independant states, all of which had a royal family. If you wanted to marry a fellow royal, as protocol demanded, then the German states were a likely hunting ground. There was the added bonus that (Austria and Prussia excepted) few of them were important powers, so marrying a German prince or princess was unlikely to have unwanted diplomatic consequences. If there was a brand-new country that needed a monarch with royal blood in his veins, there would always be an under-employed German prince who would be happy to oblige. Belgium and Greece spring to mind. Our own dear Queen is of course, half Scottish. Alansplodge (talk) 02:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Effects of U.S. government shutdown
I'm hoping you can help me. I have booked flights for a trip outside of the United States, with a flight returning to the United States on March 6. Since booking these flights, I have discovered that the last Congress extended funding for most U.S. government agencies only until March 4, 2011. Does anyone know whether my flight into the United States would be canceled in the event of a government shutdown because U.S. Customs and Border Protection would be shut down? The Federal Aviation Administration is an exception to the shutdown; for some reason, its funding was extended until March 31. So air traffic control and domestic flights should in principle be unaffected. However, would a shutdown lead to a cancellation of funding for the United States Department of Homeland Security and shut down all U.S. commercial airports? Please spare me mocking comments about the ridiculousness of a government that would shut down the country's borders and transportation systems because of an internal political fight or about the idiocy of the Republicans who would go to these lengths. As an American, I am embarrassed about the situation. However, I am looking for information and facts, not commentary. Thanks. Marco polo (talk) 13:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * In the past, government shutdowns did not shut down essential services, such as border control. They shut down office workers, such as data entry clerks, janitors, cafeteria workers, middle-management, bathroom attendants, drivers, etc... -- k a i n a w &trade; 13:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It is hard to say, but the last time this happened certain things designated "vital services" were exempt from the shutdown, and that would likely include stuff like defense and security. The Army won't stop fighting, and things like the TSA will keep strip-searching little old ladies.  What gets shut down in such events is usally "non-essential personel", which would pretty much include all of the people working in other departments, like Education and Interior and stuff like that.  So the National Parks shut down, and all of the midlevel bureaucrats get some unpaid vacation.  -- Jayron  32  13:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't have to shutdown anything -vital or not- to save money. Just make it more restricted and you save money. It is a common practice, for example, to limit the opening hours of a library, but not shutting it down completely. In the case of border control, they probably will make it slower. 212.169.191.79 (talk) 13:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The thing is that you don't want to shut down services that tend to make you more money than they cost; and customs is definately one of those things. While paying park rangers and paper-pushers is generally a costly endeavour, and so you can save money by just not paying them, restricting the flow of goods and people into and out of your country will generally hurt your revenue streams (you know, because of duties and tarrifs and taxing commerece in various ways) more than it saves you on costs.  So those things will likely keep going.  However, as you note, such government shut downs are usually a purely political statement.  After all, it is the government.  All the money is theirs anyways.  They could generate revenue simply by printing more of it (there are VERY GOOD reasons why they may not want to do that, however!)  Unlike state governments or private enterprise, who may find furloughs and layoffs to be the only ACTUAL means to stop the bleeding, the feds have other tools at their disposal, technically speaking.  -- Jayron  32  14:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about your flights. As the above responses state, the U.S. government can go several months without a debt ceiling or a budget, just by some creativity in the executive branch.  The legal and practical precedent will be the United States federal government shutdown of 1995.  In addition, there are laws dating from the Civil War and World War One era that make it clear that the Army (and, arguably, the rest of the national security apparatus) can go on forever without pay -- although see Bonus Army. for a sense of how unpopular that was.  --M @ r ē ino 17:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

A logical answer to these questions?
Is there a logical answer to these questions?

"What is the weight of a heart of gold?"

"How great is the force of love?"

"How many birds in the bush are worth one in the hand"?

Just wondering... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.112.128.153 (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Questions 1 and 3 can be calculated. Question 2 is meaningless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.169.191.79 (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I wonder-wonder, who-m-ba-do-oo-who, who wrote The Book of Love? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, one could calculate the compressive/tensile strength of the erect human penis, and then get a maximum force it could withstand before failing. That would be the maximum force of love...-- Jayron  32  17:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I read something about that once. As I recall, the answer is about 20 miles per hour. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Your love is measured in per hours? I'm impressed.  Sadly, mine is measured in per minutes.  Per seconds if it's been more than a week. -- Jayron  32  17:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That "per hour" is extrapolated. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and another observation I read long ago: "One in the bush is worth two in the hand." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps:
 * If we know the volume of the heart, the purity of the gold, and the composition of any impurities, then we can determine its mass and hence its weight at Earth gravity. Or else, we can just put the heart on a scale.
 * Love, however, is not composed of matter and thus not measurable in terms of mass, and since f=ma, love's force is not measurable.
 * Two, by unchallenged precedent.
 * Hope this helps! --M @ r ē ino 17:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * According to Geico Insurance Co. ... 1 bird in the hand has an estimated value of 2 birds in the bush (I assume this is an estimated value for Insurance and Estate Tax purposes. It could bring in as much as 3 or 4 birds in the bush at Auction) Blueboar (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose that would depend on the value of the bush and whether the bush came with the birds or had to be purchased seperately. --  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  17:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The logical answer is: "The question is invalid." 66.108.223.179 (talk) 01:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The thing you need to consider about logic is that it doesn't deal in the truth in an absolute sense, but rather truth within some system. With that understanding, it becomes clear that we are able to construct systems to deal with these questions logically:

"What is the weight of a heart of gold?"

If you have a system with axioms that hold that A) one's kindness, and goodness can be quantified, B) that the "heart" contains these qualities and C) the capacity for kindness and goodness makes a heart weigh more...well then you have a perfectly sound logical system dealing with your question. Greg Bard (talk) 07:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Newt Gingrich instead of Newton Gingrich
Why did he choose or accept being called 'Newt'? Newts are such horrible creatures. 212.169.191.79 (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a common nickname for Newton. And what's horrible about amphibians? Try spending some time with a wolverine, and you'll appreciate amphibians better. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And what more apt name for someone who would take out a contract on America than a slimy relative of the toad? Pais (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't troll... --Mr.98 (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Without wanting to take this discussion too OT I'm going to call a on the description of newts as slimy.  says they are not particularly slimy and  says they have less slimy skin then salamanders. Nil Einne (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a satirical song by the Austin Lounge Lizards about how all true newts repudiate that Gingrich guy... AnonMoos (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There are worse things for a man to be named after. --  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  17:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You have no idea. -- Jayron  32  19:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed.  Corvus cornix  talk  19:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And so forth... Adam Bishop (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but I chose someone in politics to reflect the thread's topic. --  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  00:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, this is fairly silly. I mean, it's meant to be silly, but it's sillier than that.  Dick is a perfectly respectable name and has been forever.  The slang for penis presumably derives from the man's name, not vice versa.
 * On the original subject, I can't believe no one's brought up: She turned me into a newt!.  (Everyone gets quiet).  Well, i' go' be'ah. --Trovatore (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes I pine for the old days of the Ref Desk thread of the week award. --Dweller (talk) 12:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm tempted to say that the person who complained the loudest and single-handedly put the kibosh on your award in the face of general approval from other editors is no longer around, so maybe you could quietly reinstitute it, Dweller. After all, we operate on consensus around here.   --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  18:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm tempted to say that, amusing though they may be, this thread and the one above are good examples of exactly what we shouldn't be promoting in any way. Matt Deres (talk) 18:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

17/12/93
So, when it says Henry IV of France was crowned on February 27th, that would be Sunday the 17th in the Julian calendar, right? Anyone know why that particular day?

148.197.121.205 (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Many royals such as Elizabeth I of England consulted their astrologer, who then chose the date most auspicious for the coronation based on the monarch's natal horoscope.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Just a WAG here, but February 17th was a Sunday in 1594 (see 1594 and Common year starting on Tuesday), which would have allowed Henry IV to take Mass during his coronation. Having recently converted to Catholicism to end the French Wars of Religion, Henry is said to have quipped "Paris is well worth a Mass." My guess is that he chose to be coronated on a Sunday so as to keep the religious symbolism of his coronation occuring in conjunction with a Catholic Mass. See this section of this article.-- Jayron  32  19:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * France was using the Gregorian calendar in 1594, so the Julian dates don't matter (and it was 1594, not 93, although maybe we are counting wrong, if they didn't start the year on January 1). February 27 is February 27 (which was also a Sunday). All French kings were crowned on Sundays (or some other important feast days). I don't know why February 27 specifically...it is the feast day for numerous saints but none of them seem to have any connection to Henry. He had to wait years to be crowned, for various religious and political reasons, so maybe this was just the best "let's get it over with" date. (I am looking in "The French wars of religion, 1562-1629" by Mack P. Holt and "Vive le roi!: A history of the French coronation from Charles V to Charles X" by Richard A. Jackson, and I'm sure there are more books about Henry IV and this period.) Adam Bishop (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC) (Sorry, deleted Jayron's post again.)


 * Oh, were Masses limited to Sundays in those days, or was it just a coronation thing? That seems odd. 86.164.58.119 (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, it depends on how well-Reformed things were at that point; you're not supposed to have more than one mass per week, but sometimes there were more, sometimes less. It didn't have to be on Sunday, but like now, that's when it usually was. Also, lay people sometimes tend to call any service in a church a "mass", but there are many other kinds of services that happen every day, which are not a mass but may have some of the same elements. The service at a coronation may not necessarily have been a mass. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * you're not supposed to have more than one mass per week - where does that come from, Adam? Daily mass has always been the ideal practice to my knowledge.  Mass on Sundays and other Holy Days of Obligation is a minimum requirement, not a maximum.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  18:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I recommend you look up the relevant sections in Canon Law and the Catechism (both available online), because you are quite mistaken about current practice, Adam, and current rules. You're not supposed to receive communion more than once a day, unless you're a priest, or it's Christmas or Easter. I think there might also be an exception for being gravely ill? I'd have to check. There are generally daily Masses, and two or three for Sunday, in a parish. I'd be interested in knowing if the Church felt differently about this in the past (I know they felt differently about going to a church that wasn't your parish church), but that is how the Church feels now! 86.164.58.119 (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sorry, I'm definitely confusing mass and communion, and probably other things...nevermind, pay no attention to my crazy ramblings. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I am more familiar with Polish coronation customs than French ones, but I'm convinced that the Polish order of coronation was modeled on West European ones and that things were quite similar all over Christian Europe. Anyway, in Poland a coronation would always take place on Sunday, the holiest day of the week. Ceremonies related to the coronation normally took four days, from Friday to Monday. Friday was the day of a symbolic reburial of the previous king. On Saturday the king-elect prepared spiritually for his coronation by confessing, fasting, charity donations and making a short pilgrimage to a local shrine. Sunday was the day of the main coronation and enthronement ceremonies which took place during a solemn mass in a cathedral. Finally on Monday, the new king would make his first public appearance in a city square and knight a few selected people. This kicked off public festivities with feasts, dances, jousts and fireworks. (Online source in Polish) — Kpalion(talk) 12:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, related question, does anyone know which exact day he first entered Paris after the start of that last war? I can't seem to find it anywhere. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Oil shocks with low inflation
In the 1970s there was high inflation due to the price of oil rising rapidly. However, I do not think there was either a depression or a recession as far as I know.

What would happen if we had the same big increases in oil prices now, but central banks used increases in interest rates to keep inflation at 2%? Would we inevitably be forced into a 1930s style depression? Thanks 92.28.247.121 (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There was a rather deep recession in the 1970's, see 1973–75 recession. Also, in the late 1970's there was the era of Stagflation in the U.S., and a memorable reflection on the rather crappy econmic times in the late 1970s (even if it wasn't an "official" recession) was the famous Malaise speech of Jimmy Carter, which seemed to capture the zeitgeist of the time.  The 1980 presidential campaign was won by Reagan basically using the shitty economy to his advantage; the rallying cry that year was "Are you better off today than you were 4 years ago."  That really resonated with the American people, and Reagan won pretty easily against Carter, one of the few sitting presidents to lose a re-election bid.  -- Jayron  32  19:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, high oil prices are recognized as a main cause of the 1973–75 recession, as well as of the early 1980s recession, and a period of negative growth in the first half of 1980, which contributed to the defeat of Jimmy Carter in that year's U.S. presidential election. While Jayron and I have mentioned events in the United States, the recessions of the mid-70s and early 80s were global in scale.  Marco polo (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is kind of what happened in the early 80s. Inflation was 14.8% in March 1980 after the Iranian Revolution. In 1981, the Fed raised the discount rate to 14%. Inflation subsided, but the unemployment rate went from around 7% in 1980 to 10.8% in December 1982. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Would allowing high inflation in responce to oil shocks reduce the severity of a recession or depression? 92.24.191.10 (talk) 10:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no simple answer to your question. The answer is that it depends.  In our current case, we have a vast overhang of debt that is suppressing economic activity in many countries.  Inflation is one way to reduce the burden of debt, and so it might reduce the severity of the current recession.  Certainly raising interest rates to combat inflation in this economic climate would be likely to worsen economic conditions for most people (though such a move might benefit those whose income comes mainly from financial assets).  Marco polo (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

President of the US stopping a death sentence of a state government
Can he do it? Quest09 (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No, see Presidential_pardon. -- Jayron  32  19:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Except that state governments don't impose death sentences or any other types of sentences. They're matters for courts.  There is separation of powers even at the state level.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  20:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The courts are part of the government. At least, in the US English sense of the word government, which means the same as state in the sense of, well, government. --Trovatore (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed that courts are considered part of the government in US English. In the United States, the government consists of three branches: executive, legislative, and judicial.  The balance of powers exists among these three branches.  Marco polo (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * State courts do not impose penalties. City and county courts do.   Corvus cornix  talk  21:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * State_court_(United_States) has another opinion on this matter. 212.169.191.79 (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That sure doesn't seem right. Courts are "In and of the district of Manhaatan", or "Alameda County Court". District attorneys are not state officials.   Corvus cornix  talk  22:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a slightly subtle point, I think. In California, courts are typically organized at the county level, but they enforce state law.  There is no death penalty for violation of county ordinances.  I don't know if violations of county/city ordinances can ever be criminal matters (but I'm also not sure they can't). --Trovatore (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Also see the Kenneth Bianchi case, where the local prosecutors wanted to drop the case, so the judge, Ronald George, reassigned it to the state AG's office. I honestly thought he should have recused himself from the case after that &mdash; it was a reasonable decision given the facts, but I think it compromised his neutrality as a judge.  Instead he got an appointment to the state Supreme Court.  I wasn't too happy about that. --Trovatore (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I had the wrong case. I mean, it was the right string of murders, but the wrong defendant.  It was Angelo Buono. --Trovatore (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The real question by the OP, if I'm reading it right, is simply whether the U.S. President can commute a state-level death sentence. The answer is no. He has no such authority. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, could overturn it via the judicial process, if there was a constitutional question. It's maybe possible that the Congress could pass a law prohibiting capital punishment, but it would likely immediately be challenged in court. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Right on the point.Quest09 (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Has this ever been tested in court? It's generally assumed that the president cannot issue pardons for state crimes, but the Constitution does not say this explicitly.  We won't know for sure unless some president tries to do it.  Has that ever happened?  My guess would be no. --Trovatore (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The President can only do stuff that he's overtly authorized to do, by the Constitution and the federal laws. He has no jurisdiction where individual state's crimes are concerned, as such. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the question is what that overt authorization covers. What the text says is
 * and he shall have power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
 * Now, it's true that the "against the United States" thing probably means federal-only. That's what everyone assumes.  But I doubt it's ever been tested. --Trovatore (talk) 03:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A violation of strictly a state law is not a crime against the United States. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that's the most natural interpretation. But as far as I know it's never been tested. --Trovatore (talk) 09:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In matters of internal affairs, the states are (with certain explicit exemptions, more on that) considered sovereign and are not subject to federal law except in the domains expressly enumerated in the constitution. See Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the prior Enumerated powers which the Tenth Amendment clarifies.  The basic principle is that in areas NOT specifically enumerated by the constitution (such as regulating foreign affairs, printing currency, regulating interstate commerce, establish citizenship requirements, run the post office, etc.) are expressly reserved for the states themselves.  This situation was slightly modified by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution which basicly applies the Bill of Rights to the states directly.  However, other than the Bill of Rights and the Enumerated Powers, the federal government is expressly forbidden from interfering in the business of the individual states.  The only time Federal law takes over is when a) some aspect of the Federal government is a direct part of the violation (such as murdering a Federal official, or committing fraud through the mail; which uses a federal agency which is expressly the domain of the Feds, even if the fraud is committed wholy within one state) or b) when the crime crosses state lines (such as carrying a kidnapping victim across state lines, or the rather maligned Mann Act,).  If you kill someone in your own state, are arrested, tried, and convicted under state law, there's not a damned thing the feds can do about it, unless the U.S. Supreme court can find something about the state law which is in violation of the U.S. Constitution itself.  -- Jayron  32  03:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In a separate specific subject, but in the same general states-rights topic, if the health care laws do indeed require every citizen to have health insurance (which I don't know is true, but it's the argument being made), then that part of the law, at least, is almost certainly unconstitutional, because there is nothing in the Constitution allowing the feds to tell you that you must have health insurance. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, there very well might be. The interstate commerce clause could be invoked to give Congress this right.  Furthermore, there is nothing inherantly unconstitutional about the extreme case; which would be fully government funded health care.  The Federal government collects taxes and runs all sorts of agencies which duplicate or supplement either state-run agencies (c.f. the FBI and various state investigative agencies) or private business directly (c.f. the Post Office and UPS/FedEX/DHL).  They could effect the same exact sort of healthcare system by charging everyone in the country taxes, and providing healthcare, with a full dollar-for-dollar tax credit for premiums paid for people who have private insurance, and then the government could then use the rest of the tax revenue to purchase private insurance for everyone else, or simply pay health care providers directly.  It would have the practical effect of the exacts same legislation they just passed, i.e. requiring everyone to purchase insurance.  Its quite unclear how the courts will rule in this situation; at least two courts have ruled the mandate constitutional, and at least two have ruled it unconstitutional.  The net result is this will probably go to the Supreme Court... -- Jayron  32  21:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * A point. Murder is a federal crime, though different states have different statutes extending that.  The president could certainly commute the death sentence of anyone charged with murder solely under federal law, but whether he could commute the sentence of someone charged under both state and federal laws is something that the courts would need to decide.  The more likely scenario would be for a president to instruct the FBI to investigate the case and use the court system to overturn the conviction if needed.  -- Ludwigs 2  22:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)-- Ludwigs 2  22:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Murder per se is not a federal crime. Under certain circumstances, which keep getting broader, it can be a federal crime, but I think it's safe to stay that it still ordinarily isn't.  For it to be a federal crime, it has to be directed against a federal official in performance of his duties, or be on federal property, or involve crossing state lines, or be at an international airport, or.... --Trovatore (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * For example, that Loughner guy is being charged with murder and attempted murder by the U.S. government, but only for the federal officials that were shot; whereas he will be or has been charged in connection with the others, at the state level. Somewhere down the road, the President could theoretically pardon the shooter for the federal crimes, but not for the state crimes. He has no jurisdiction to do so. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Take a look at Office of the Pardon Attorney and List of people pardoned by Bill Clinton, which links to it as well as to a list of pardons and commutations by other Presidents. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Some people above seem to suggest this is an open question. It's not. The President can only pardon for federal crimes, and indeed it is States (not cities, counties, or municipalities) that impose police power. The double jeopardy clause explains a lot here: independent sovereigns, such as the State and the federal government, have unique powers to prosecute crimes, unless the federal constitution says otherwise. Shadowjams (talk) 09:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you cite a specific case that is on point? --Trovatore (talk) 09:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's an essay looking at whether an entire-in-state murder-for-hire charge could ever be considered a federal crime as well. Julie Hinden cites diverging opinions from the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits. --- OtherDave (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting, but not on point. The question is, what happens if a president issues a pardon or commutation for a person convicted by a state?  He just claims that that state is one of the United States, and so the crime is against the United States, and he just does it.  If it's a capital case, I'm pretty sure that some federal judge will at least issue a stay until the matter can be worked out.  It doesn't seem to be the intent of the pardon clause, but judges have stretched language further than that. --Trovatore (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Under the Constitution, he simply can't do that. Unlike other Federal systems (like Canada and Australia) where the powers of the states are enumerated, while the powers of the Federal government are reserved (that is the States have specific named powers, and the Federal Government reserves all other powers for themselves), in the U.S. the situation is exactly reversed: The Federal Government has a list of specific enumerated powers, and all other powers are expressly reserved for the states.  In other words, unless the constitution specifically says that the Federal Government can do it, it cannot, while the states are given much more leeway.  In the case of pardons, the relevent bit comes from Article Two of the United States Constitution, Section II, clause 1, in part " he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States,".  The bold is mine.  The phrase "United States", in the constitution, ALWAYS refers to the federal government as distinct from the contituent states.  The constitution, when it refers to the states themselves always uses the phrase "the various states" or some close approximation of that.  In other words, the text is clear: The president has the power to grant pardons against people convicted of violating Federal laws, in the Federal court system.  He has no jurisdiction to grant pardons against people convicted of violating any single state's laws.  He simply cannot do it.  The federal government does NOT have supreme sovereignty in the U.S., except in the case of the Enumerated powers.  The individual states have sovereignty in all other matters.-- Jayron  32  21:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The question is still whether there has ever been a case testing the meaning of against the United States as it appears specifically in Article II Section 2. I'm sure you know that the same words can be construed differently in different places.  I doubt there has ever been such a case.
 * As for "he simply cannot do it", well, he certainly can do it. So can I, for that matter.  If I do it, it's pretty obvious that nothing will come of it.  It's less obvious to me that nothing will come of it if the president does it. --Trovatore (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There's nothing to test. The President has no jurisdiction in regard to individual state crimes. Notice that the last appeal in a state capital case is always to the governor of the state. In a federal case, it would be to the president. I recommend you talk to your Civics teacher about this. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There's nothing to test? So how does the scenario go down in your opinion?  President Obama calls up the warden at San Quentin and says "I hereby commute the sentence of  to life without parole".  He also informs the convict's lawyer.  Do you think the warden and/or lawyer just ignore it?
 * I think at the very least, the lawyer files a suit in federal court against the warden, alleging that the warden is illegally planning to go ahead with the execution in the face of the pardon, and the judge routinely issues a stay until it can be worked out. Do you dispute that part of it? --Trovatore (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In practical terms, I can't see any actual president doing that, however. I can declare myself Grand Vizier and order all women in a 30 mile radius to bow down to me.  I won't, because I am not insane.  Likewise, the President doesn't make seemingly rediculous decisions on how to operate.  The president has lawyers and advisers which scritinize and give advice on every situation he encounters, he rules by committee, not by fiat.  I have no doubt that Presidents may have wished to pardon people who have been convicted of state-level crimes.  I also am fairly certain that every constitutional lawyer who was anywhere within shouting distance of the President when he proposed such a thing would advise so strongly against it that it would never actually make it out of private conversation.  We can invent hypothetical insanity all day "Well, the President could do XYZ, and since no one has tested it, we'll never know..." Sometimes, given the realities of how things operate, the President really would never do XYZ.  -- Jayron  32  02:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But if he did, you agree that the court system would respond in some way and not simply ignore it, I assume. You can't get away with "it's an improbable scenario".  I know it's an improbable scenario.  That isn't a response. --Trovatore (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, the courts would respond. And what they would say would be "You can't do that".  In the case of a man scheduled to be executed, it may buy him a day or two, but this isn't one of those iffy sorts of things.  The reason it has never been tested is that it is pretty much a foregone conclusion as to how it would go.  -- Jayron  32  15:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your certainty is mistaken. I am confident the courts could puzzle over it for years.  --Trovatore (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

(undent) In re Adams, 689 A2d 6, 10 (DC Cir 1997) cites In re Bocchiaro, 49 FSupp 37, 38 (WDNY 1943) for the proposition that the "President lacks authority to pardon state offenses." I haven't read either case closely, and the DC circuit citing a district court is not entirely dispositive, but I can't imagine any other court would seriously consider disagreeing with it --68.51.75.10 (talk) 07:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, this is a serious response, thank you. You're probably right.  I just don't think that can be taken for granted from general impressions picked up in civics class. --Trovatore (talk) 09:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I know that at least a few of the people above who answered similarly are going on more than their civics class education for the answer. This is an interesting way to ask other people to do legal research for you, particularly when you're this abrasive towards what are ultimately proved to be correct answers. Shadowjams (talk) 10:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. I wasn't asking for legal research.  I was pointing out that people were assuming more than they knew.  Which in fact they were.  Even 68's answer is not definitive, as he admits. --Trovatore (talk) 06:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Bashing of Religion
Why when theres certain problems in our world religion gets involved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlennRichardAllison (talk • contribs) 19:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Because many religions espouse an explicit desire to be involved in every aspect of human life? SemanticMantis (talk) 20:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Well don't you agree that it gets alittle out of hand sometimes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlennRichardAllison (talk • contribs) 20:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The reference desk is not a forum or a soapbox for opinions. Ariel. (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, I guess... GlennRichardAllison Mr. 900 Jr. bowling —Preceding undated comment added 21:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC).

Malaysia and Muslim population of Philippines and Thailand
Isn't Thailand and Philippines suspecting Malaysia for supporting the insurgents in their land? I mean Moro rebels and Southern Thai Muslims rebels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.40.106 (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. According to various sources I found, there were accusations of Malaysian support for southern rebels in Thailand during the 1990s, but more recently there has been cooperation between the two countries in trying to end the rebellion.  At worst, Thai authorities may not be satisfied with Malaysian efforts to eliminate private support for the rebels on the Malaysian side of the border.  As for the Moro rebels in the Philippines, I can't find any evidence that the Filipino government accuses Malaysia of supporting the rebels.  I can only find evidence that the two governments have cooperated in efforts to suppress the rebellion.  Marco polo (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There may be some support from Malaysians but while the Malaysian government may not always agree with some of the actions of either governments and may for a variety of cultural and religious reasons have sympathy for some of the demands of the rebels I don't think it's commonly claimed they offer much support not surprising considering I'm quite sure they don't want the same thing spreading to Malaysia. I'm also not to sure many Malaysians whether in government or ordinary citizens were particularly pleased with these particular Moro rebels Abu Sayyaf. Note that some former (and I expect current) Moro rebels also have views about the North Borneo dispute that aren't likely to resonate well with most Malaysians either Nil Einne (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * With respect to the Philippines, rumors have been swirling that Malaysia supports the so-called memorandum of agreement on ancestral domain between the Philippine government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front because when the MILF declares its territory independent of the Philippines (this declaration was one of the reasons why the MoA-AD was shot down by the Supreme Court), Malaysia will annex the territory and exploit Mindanao for its natural resources. Some in Mindanao have even called for Malaysia to be replaced by another country which will mediate talks between the Philippine government and the MILF because of those rumors.  There's also the Sabah dispute to talk about: rumors have also circulated in the past that Malaysia covertly supports Muslim rebels in the Philippines because with the Philippine government busy trying to fight the MILF, it won't pursue its long-dormant claim over Sabah. --Sky Harbor (talk) 07:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

What makes a song catchy and danceable?
Some songs appear to be just as rhythm-oriented, complex, and talentfully-performed as others, yet are boring somehow, or just never catch on. Other songs seem frankly rather retarded and simplistic or use annoying bits of music like the "place in france" melody, yet become major hit singles and fill the dance floor.

What exactly determines what makes a song become something that fills up the dance floor and sticks in your head?

173.11.0.145 (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If we knew that, we'd be out there writing hit after hit and becoming multi-millionaires. Honestly. -- Jack of Oz   [your turn]  22:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Just four chords, apparently. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a good question, and one that has been wondered since the ancient times. Firstly, you must realize that your concept of what makes good music is ingrained in you from the time of conception. This is based largely on geographical location and the era in which you were born. E.G. Plato's idea of good music was probably much different from Justin Bieber. Next, good contemporary local music is mostly based on the Octatonic scale and the triad, which is what the four chords linked above consist of. This is all not to say that you may enjoy music from Feudal Japan, but that would msot likely be because of the idea of the music rather than its harmonic qualities. Lastly, something must be said about the Music Industry, hype, and transient stardom. This is a veritable plague on music today (in my opinion). It seems to be cyclical, though, as almost everything in Earth's history has been, and we may very well be om the cusp of a revolution in music. That is, with the distribution of free msuic, illegally for the time being, but many believe art should not carry a price. And we all know that an unjust law is no law at all. schyler (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * What exactly determines what makes a song become something that fills up the dance floor and sticks in your head? A good hook, a lot of promotion, and a strong dose of luck. Pfly (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Having a beat helps, but it has to have the kind of beat that accommodates dancing. One of the complaints about much of the Beatles music, ironically, even the early stuff, is that you couldn't dance to its beat. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Songs, as memes, are designed consciously and subconsciously to be memorable. It should not be surprising, then, to find that some are really memorable. When you've figured out the secret you'll have figured out the secret to music. Maybe one day we will. I hope so. 66.108.223.179 (talk) 01:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Despite the best intentions of the composers, you would be hard-pressed to find a song that everyone likes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)