Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 May 11

= May 11 =

Carlsberg Special Brew
Does anyone else find that after drinking 4 cans of this stuff, the next day their teeth feels awful and sticky? That's what I experience.--X sprainpraxisL (talk) 00:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Xerostomia or "cotton mouth" is a common symptom of hangover in general, not necessarily specific to one brand of beer. We cannot, however, diagnose the specifics of YOUR hangover, as that may represent a type of medical advice.  -- Jayron  32  01:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

babies and Christian baptism
Is there a name (and perhaps a wikipedia article) for the doctrine taught by some Christians that unbaptized children who die go to hell?--24.188.235.80 (talk) 00:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not sure that any mainline denomination, even those that practice Infant baptism, believe that directly. The article on infant baptism discusses a variety of beliefs and practices regarding it, but does not mention anything about an unbaptised infant going to hell for not being baptised.  -- Jayron  32  01:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I think St Augustine taught this. Also, I believe that Calvin or one of his American followers taught that hell is paved with the skulls of unbaptized infants.  I just wanted to see if this belief had a name.--24.188.235.80 (talk) 05:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There's a discussion that some believe that infants have the Original Sin and therefore baptism is a prerequisite for salvation. What happens to those that aren't saved? APL (talk) 01:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * One answer that has been proposed is Limbo, which according to Dante is technically part of Hell, but is not a place of punishment. IIRC, the Catholic Church does not officially take Limbo to be a doctrine, but considers it at least a possibility.  I don't think non-Catholic churches really talk about Limbo by name, though some may have similar concepts. --Trovatore (talk) 02:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a bit of Christianity that never made much sense to me. There are people in the world who have never even heard of the Christian god. My Sunday School teachers never could explain why they should go to hell. HiLo48 (talk) 02:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This bit is solved in Catholicism by virtue of having a concept of invincible Ignorance --129.206.197.125 (talk) 08:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * HiLo48 -- see Virtuous pagan... AnonMoos (talk) 09:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a nice approach. I guess my Sunday School teachers hadn't heard about this. HiLo48 (talk) 11:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * In the Latter-day Saint (Mormon) perspective, all children who die before reaching accountability (traditionally 8 years old) go directly to Heaven (see D&C 137:10). Those that never had the chance to hear and accept Jesus Christ's gospel will get that chance in the hereafter (see D&C 137:7). This is what LDS Temples are for-- we provide ordinances (such as baptism) vicariously to these souls in the hope that they accept them.  Kingsfold   (Quack quack!)  14:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * That's easy! Because they share Adam and/or Eve's original sin.  Apparently stealing from the tree of knowledge is hereditary, and Christian or not, they descend from Adam&Eve.  The idea that it's necessarily unfair for a person to be punished for the sins of their ancestors is a relatively new idea. APL (talk) 04:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

If the primary problem dealt with by Christianity is problem of consciousness's self-transcendence; then, the issue of original sin is the emergence of human consciousness. In this interpretive tradition, Christ's grace and the capacity for transcendence is provided by a hermeneutic leap into the arms of God—faith. The transcendent state, the beatific vision, is not available to those incapable of making a leap of faith. Making a leap of faith is impossible for the preconscious. If you associate consciousness with having language, then no, children without language cannot be saved. This is a problem because they grow into us, and resemble us, and makes us feel bad because we include children without language and some of us include fertilised matter that could become such a child under the idea of the sanctity of human life. I haven't read enough theology on this matter to provide illustrations of conclusions reached by theologians of Christianity—this is because it isn't my religious background. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The answer is a slam dunk. Matthew 19:14 Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Which is a bit of a stretch given the contents of other texts in the Bible regarding the kingdom of heaven. Sitz im leben and intertextuality mean that claiming biblical inerrancy on this point from a single verse is a bit of an eisegetical reading. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite a clear statement and an important verse, though. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Didn't Johnathan Edwards consign unbaptized infants to hell, in the 1740's, and justify it as fair and reasonable on the grounds that it Adam had not sinned, there would be no original sin, and they would have enjoyed automatic entrance into heaven? I could not find this argument in Sinners in the hands of an angry God but I associate it with him. Edison (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Non-Wikipedia sources attribute the doctrine of "Infant Damnation" to John Calvin, agreeing with Augustine. The Presbyterian Church in the US has denied that Calvin ever said or thought that . This whitewash has veen disputed: .  Has John Calvin's article been "polished" a bit? If Infant damnation is not adequately covered in some other article, it should have an article, as an important issue in the history of Christian theology, however embarrassing it might be to today's Christians. It appears to have been mainstream Christian doctrine from Augustine through the early Reformation. Edison (talk) 16:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

muslim sex in india
hi i want to know about muslim sex in india. i nwant know what are all the way of sex —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skhader.rocky (talk • contribs) 07:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * See the articles The Perfumed Garden, Islamic sexual jurisprudence, and History of sex in India. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.11 (talk) 07:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Since independence in 1947 the Muslim-majority areas of India were partitioned to form a separate state of Pakistan. Hinduism, the largest religion in India, accounts for 80% of the population; Islam, the second largest religion, accounts for only 13% of the population. The local sexual mores are more characteristically "muslim" among the 173 million muslims of Pakistan (97% pop.) and even more in Indonesia (86%). Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Pipless US
If the US and other countries do not have the equivalent of Greenwich Time Signals broadcast, then how do people set their clocks and watches accurately? 92.28.241.148 (talk) 09:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * In Canada there is the National Research Council Time Signal, but only once per day. Anyway, I suppose this can be done more easily and more accurately online these days. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

According to the Network Time Protocol, the internet time is only accurate to 1 or 2 seconds (and less in my experience). This must be difficult for marine chronometers etc. 92.28.246.1 (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * In the U.S., standard time signals have been continuously broadcast by WWV (radio station) since 1957. --Thomprod (talk) 12:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The US Naval observatory started broadcasting the first standard time signals on stationNAA in 1920. WWV started transmitting standard time signals from the Naval Observatory in 1945. Long before radio, standard time signals were transmitted over telegraph lines in the US, also from the Naval Observatory, starting with more local time signals and expanding rapidly nationwide. in 1865. Telegraphy was used in the UK starting in 1852 to send out standard time signals from the Greenwich Observatory, where chronometers were standardized to the passage of certain "clock stars" over the Greenwich meridian. Paper charts were used to compare when the observer pressed a button showing that a star passed the crosshair in the telescope, to when the chronometer said it should have, and the chronometer was adjusted, since the star was correct by definition. People all over the US and Europe had more accurate time signals in the late 19th century than are available by the internet today. No one really needed it but the railroads, but folks liked to set their pocket watch by the dropping of the time ball on some large downtown building at noon. Many businesses had clocks which were electrically set by such time signals. Edison (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * As Edison said, it was mainly the railroads in the US that needed an accurate time, since one could travel across many cities/timezones in one train ride.
 * The notion of using the telegraph to tell time began in 1877, when Western Union first received time signals via telegraph wire from the U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington, DC that would cause a giant ball atop the Western Union building at 195 Broadway in New York City to drop down a large pole. Similar to the time ball at the Royal Observatory at Greenwich, England, mariners on ships in the harbor used the time ball to set their chronometers for navigation at sea. Passersby in the street would look up at the signal to set their watches.


 * Western Union hired a clockmaker to transmit U.W. Naval Observatory time on the hour over the company’s network. A system sent signals over the telegraph lines several minutes before each hour of the day, followed by a pause and finally a last “click” directly on the hour. Every hour, on the hour, minute hands on clocks across the nation would snap to “12”, ensuring accurate, standardized time everywhere. - Jerry Horowitz: Western Union Time Service, also another article.


 * Interestingly, we don't yet have an article on Western Union Time Service, and the Western Union article mentions it only in a single sentence, despite it being something that was used by thousands of businesses, schools, and government offices all across the US for many years. Avic ennasis  @ 17:22, 7 Iyar 5771 / 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Practically, you read it off your cellphone. (What's a wa-atch?) 75.41.110.200 (talk) 13:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Back in the day you'd just pick up your landline and dial a three-digit number, but not anymore. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler  .☠  14:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Now you must dial a whole 10 digits. NIST WWV:(303)499-7111, NIST WWVH:(808)335-4363, US Naval Observatory:(202)762-1069 or (202)762-1401. Sperril (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The best way now is GPS, which according to the article is accurate to about 14 nanoseconds. anonymous6494 15:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I live in the US, and for the last decade or so, I have done it by visiting time.gov. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

When democracy failed
I need to give a debate about why democracy is not the best form of government. I've done everything but some sites keep saying 'True democracy has never succeeded and history proves this.' I tried search for this, though I can't seem to find it. Can you please give me few examples in history when democratic form of government failed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freakquency97 (talk • contribs) 10:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I doubt democracies never work, but many democracies result in coalition governments which sometimes don't work that well - current examples might be the problems approving the 2011 US federal budget and the apparent divisions in the UK's Conservative-LibDem coalition that have become more evident since the AV referendum. Another approach maybe to take a look at the articles on enlightened absolutism and benevolent dictatorship which may give you some reasonable counter-examples from which you can start, or maybe you could state "democracy is not the best form of government" and go on to say why an alternative might work better.  It is also worth noting that many dictatorial leaders use the rule of three to present their points in an effective manner - perhaps you could use a similar technique in your debate.  Astronaut (talk) 10:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Democracy allows 51% of the voters to do whatever they like, no matter what the rest of the population thinks. HiLo48 (talk) 11:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Erm, that's clearly not true, especially since you've just seen the link to coalition government... ╟─ Treasury Tag ► Regional Counting Officer ─╢ 11:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that you are asking for a few examples in which democracy failed suggests that the claim in the quote is false. Historically, we see dictatorships, kingdoms, and oligarchies being replaced by democracies. Rarely do you see the reverse. That's not to say that democracy is the best form of government (in fact, there in economics there is a mathematical proof that there is no form of government that will achieve the best outcome all the time). Wikiant (talk) 11:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As Winston Churchill put it: "Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You could always go back to the original, Ancient Greek version of democracy - only a few males could vote - and argue why that was no good. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Winston. And the best democracies have processes built in to limit their potential excesses. HiLo48 (talk) 11:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I would disagree with defining ancient Greek democracy as "only a few males could vote". Indeed, the system disenfranchised women and slaves, but there was not even a property qualification for voting - so a farmhand or a near-destitute city-dweller could vote, if they were a citizen. That's a much wider franchise than, for example, the United Kingdom had until as late as 1918. I would agree it's a good place to look for examples of "true democracy" not being very successful, though - most of the Greek writers of the time, and the immediately following centuries, went into some detail about its failings. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The quote about democracy is in reference to "true" democracies — and indeed, I have never seen any of these on a national scale (they have been tried only at city-wide, and maybe regional scales, to my knowledge). What I have seen are representative democracies, which add an additional layer of insulation between "the people" and "the policy," and I have also seen constitutional democracies, which add a huge layer of insulation between "the people" and "the policy". These latter innovations are all about avoiding mob rule or rule by the ignorant. This is what is meant by saying "true democracy has never succeeded" — you don't actually want "the people" to decide all of "the policy". If I were in this debate, this is the tack I would take. You don't have to argue in favor of absolutism or in favor of dictatorships or whatever. Just emphasize that even the "great democracies of the world" put in ample checks and balances to avoid the voice of the people being absolute.
 * For a more substantive argument, democracies are generally inefficient, and often have a very hard time making long-term decisions. (It's very hard to tax today for something in the far future.) They are always threatened by demagoguery, and the ability of "the people" to make rational political decisions is highly contingent on national attitudes, education levels, and prejudices. Even worse, many democracies are really just "so-called democracies." In India, for example, the level of political corruption is so high than considering it actually being governed by "the people" is quite a stretch. The consequences of this are many, but one if them is that the illusion of being under a democracy, when one is really not, arguably keeps people from demanding more effective change (the illusion of the vote is a "safety valve"). Anyway, all of these are rather common criticisms. The trick of a real debate is not to get into trying to justify absolutism, because that also has rather obvious problems. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There are many cases, not all in the developing world, of democracies being overthrown and replaced by dictatorships or slowly turning into dictatorships: Zimbabwe under Mugabe (a gradual decline of human rights, with rigged elections, etc); Serbia under Milosevic (similar); Chile under General Pinochet (the Chilean military overthrew the democratic government of Allende); Iran's shaky post-WWII republic crumbled and was overthrown in a coup; many former-soviet republics like Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, and Georgia have moved from democracy in the early 1990s to authoritarianism; and many African countries exist like Liberia in a mix of coups interspersed with elections.


 * In Europe in the 1920s and 1930s Italy, Germany, and Lithuania moved from democracy into dictatorship without external influence. In general you could say the 1930s saw a failure of democracy to contain a tendency for political extremism, with both communism and fascism prominent: Spain saw a civil war for similar reasons. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the most famous and one of the most-studied instance was the failure of the Roman Republic and its transformation into the Roman Empire. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

'''Thank you for your response everyone. Helps me a lot!''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freakquency97 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Per-capita millionaires
If America is wealthier than the UK, then why does the UK have more per-capita millionaire households in 2011 according to this http://www.businessinsider.com/facts-about-millionaires-2010-5#the-us-will-still-have-the-most-millionaires-in-2020-3 ? Thanks 92.28.246.1 (talk) 11:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You have to define what "America is wealthier" means. It could mean many many many different things:
 * The United States government has more money in reserves.
 * The United States government has a smaller deficit.
 * The total monetary holdings of all the states is more.
 * The value of the land and resources in the United States is more.
 * The entire sum of all monetary holdings of every person in the Unites States is more.
 * The entire income of all people in the United States is more.
 * The mean average income of all the people in the United States is more.
 * The median average income of all people in the United States is more.
 * The richest guy in the United states is richer.
 * ...just to name a few possibilities. So, unless you can nail down what it is you want to discuss, there is very little point in discussing anything as it will certainly be off topic. -- k a i n a w &trade; 12:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The income inequality is far more skewed in the US than the UK. (A nice graph of this.) This means that American wealth is held in far fewer hands. This would definitely affect the per capita statistics. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. Wealth and income are not the same thing. Wikiant (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There were lots of billionaire in Zimbabwe, at least until the ZimDollar was scrapped. --Soman (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Your per capita data point is a measure of what percentage of the households are millionaires, not a measure of the total number or a measure of how much money each household has. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe that's why I wrote "per capita". 92.28.246.1 (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

So you've go more chance of being a millionaire in Britain than you have in the US. Another table I saw a while ago indicated that Britain had the highest wages in Europe. Two surprises. 92.28.240.189 (talk) 12:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I would not be surprised if the UK had more people above one million, but had fewer over 10 or 100 or a billion. one thing that skews the US values is that we have some rather extreme wealth concentration going on.  I'd almost expect that it ends up that the UK has more millionaires but the US has richer millionaires. HominidMachinae (talk) 19:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I think people would prefer the first option. 92.15.31.51 (talk) 11:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Number of policepersons in the UK
Are there any statistics, or even a graph, of the number of policepersons per-capita over the years for the UK?

I'm wondering if there were more or less policepersons currently in proprtion to the population than in decades or even centuries in the past. Thanks 92.28.246.1 (talk) 11:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The number of officers is in Regional Trends, online at www.statistics.gov.uk. So is the population, so you can work it out over past years, and get a breakdown by region, too. You won't be able to make a valid comparison over centuries, though. Things were different before they had panda cars, traffic lights.... Itsmejudith (talk) 12:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ..and the word "policepersons". Ericoides (talk) 18:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Do people actually say that in real life? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've never heard it said. In the UK they either say "the police" (or the fuzz, cops, old Bill, strong arm of the law, rozzers, filth etc.) or "policemen and women". Ericoides (talk) 05:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Police officers also works, at least in the States. I don't think it matters whether they're "officers" as a matter of rank (not sure how ranks work in the police force anyway). --Trovatore (talk) 06:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right. We'd say that in the UK too. We use the term "rank and file police officers" for those who aren't officers, but, like you, I'm not sure of the ranking procedure... Ericoides (talk) 06:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no officer/enlisted distinction in the British police - everyone is an officer (even police community support officers). There can be the appearance of such a distinction (as the enlisted Army rank of Sergeant has been used as a police rank, and as some ranks use insignia similar to Army insignia), but legally there is no dividing line (and, indeed, although the ranks are set down by law (the Police Regulations 2003), the insignia is not, and a force could decide to use any insignia it wanted if it didn't like the existing system). Proteus (Talk) 12:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Does the Queen ever make a decision or refuse to sign?
I understand that the UK Queen has to sign legislation before it becomes law.

1) Has she ever refused to sign anything? 2) Has she ever made a decision (rather than being told what to do or say) about governing the country? Thanks 92.28.246.1 (talk) 11:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It has been argued that the Queen instructed her Governor General in Australia regarding the Whitlam supply crisis in Australia. People who follow this argument believe this to have been an abhorrent act by the Queen. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Did she? or is that just something made up? Anyway, no she cannot refuse to give the royal assent. DuncanHill (talk) 12:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I haven't looked into it, so I'm not going to make a comment as to the theory's veracity. As far as the people I've heard advocating this aren't conspiracy theorists, and nor have they advocated it as a conspiracy theory, and they're journalists and other information professionals acting in their professional capacity.  I suppose that it is a matter of waiting for the 50 year rule, or Liz's archives to become public. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you sure they are not conspiracy theorists? According to the published recollections of those who would know such things, the Queen specifically refused to intervene although she was actively "watching the situation". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Right on. This "theory" has no basis whatsoever.  From 1975 Australian constitutional crisis:
 * On 12 November, [Speaker of the House] Scholes wrote to the Queen, asking her to restore Whitlam as Prime Minister. The reply from the Queen's Private Secretary, Sir Martin Charteris, dated 17 November 1975, stated:
 * As we understand the situation here, the Australian Constitution firmly places the prerogative powers of the Crown in the hands of the Governor-General as the representative of the Queen of Australia. The only person competent to commission an Australian Prime Minister is the Governor-General, and The Queen has no part in the decisions which the Governor-General must take in accordance with the Constitution. Her Majesty, as Queen of Australia, is watching events in Canberra with close interest and attention, but it would not be proper for her to intervene in person in matters which are so clearly placed within the jurisdiction of the Governor-General by the Constitution Act. --  Jack of Oz   [your turn]  12:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * As regards your first question, our article on royal assent says: "In 1999, Queen Elizabeth II, acting on the advice of the government, refused to signify her consent to hearing of the Military Action Against Iraq (Parliamentary Approval) Bill, which sought to transfer from the monarch to Parliament the power to authorize military strikes against Iraq". For your second question, the United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy in which the monarch acts on the advice of his/her ministers; this is generally considered to be a good thing. It would be very worrying if any single person could take impotant decisions about governing the country without needing to take advice and without any form of oversight. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Elizabeth II doesn't make unilateral decisions, nor does she veto legislation - even though she could on both counts. If she were to do so? the British Parliament would quickly remove such reserve powers & make her a complete figurehead, just like the Swedish monarchy (where the King doesn't even open the Storting). GoodDay (talk) 12:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (I think you have the Scandinavian countries confused. The Parliament of Norway is called Storting and the Parliament of Sweden is called Riksdag. They are both opened by each monarch of those countries respectively. The Parliament of Denmark, however, is called Folketing, and is opened by the prime minister with the Queen merely attending as a guest.) P. S. Burton  (talk)  21:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Does the Queen ever exercise a sort of pocket veto (temporarily refusing to sign a piece of legislation in order to delay implementation). I could see this being a good thing if one party were trying to "force through" a controversial act before an election took place that could result in a change of Government.  Blueboar (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * See Royal Prerogative in the United Kingdom: "The monarch can force the dissolution of Parliament through a refusal of royal assent; this inevitably leads to a government resigning. By convention, the monarch always assents to bills; the last time the royal assent was not given was in 1704 during the reign of Queen Anne. This does not mean that the right to refuse has died; George V believed he could veto the Third Irish Home Rule Bill; Jennings writes that "it was assumed by the King throughout that he had not only the legal power but the constitutional right to refuse assent". This has been discussed here many times before - does anyone ever use the "Search archives" box at the top of the page?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The power of refusing assent is still retained by the Governors-General outside the UK. In New Zealand in 1944, Cyril Newall refused to sign orders-in-council on a point of principle to do with the abolition of corporal punishment; there was a brief constitutional crisis, and he more-or-less got his way. Shimgray | talk | 19:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

So the answers are 1) No (except once when the government told her not to). 2) No. 92.28.246.1 (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * As regards #2, there's at least one caveat - it seems to be broadly agreed that if the governing party no longer commands a majority in the Commons and wishes to call an election after being defeated on a vote, the monarch is not required to grant it - see, for example, p.20 here. Shimgray | talk | 20:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

So no offence, but she's really just a puppet of the government, and when or if the UK becomes a republic can be simply replaced by a rubber stamp. 92.28.240.189 (talk) 11:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing save our rubber stamp; don't let it rot in damp; nothing save our stamp. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, she could not be replaced by a rubber stamp. Rubber stamps cannot warn; they cannot advise; they cannot be consulted.  These are all constitutional rights held by the monarch; they cannot be held by an inanimate object.  And at the end of the day, some human being must physically take the stamp in their hot little hand and apply it to the document in question.  That person is then assuming the power of the monarch, the power to approve a law.  Who gave this person such power?  Where did it come from?  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  12:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The government who tell her what to do. I had the same role when I was a clerk in the Civil Service, but didnt get paid as much. 92.28.240.189 (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Surely there were (at least theoretical) circumstances where you had the right and/or responsibility NOT to stamp the document. Otherwise, all such documents would be automatically approved, and there'd be no need to stamp ANY of them.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  12:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I should have got paid more than the Queen, as my job was more skilled. 92.28.240.189 (talk) 12:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The Irish government did exactly that in 1936; the Constitution (Amendment No. 27) Act 1936 was basically a search-and-replace on the constitution to exchange various local bodies for the King/Governor-General. It wasn't entirely flawless (the Executive Powers (Consequential Provisions) Act 1937 had to retroactively fix various things in order to make the Supreme Court fully legal again) but it more or less worked. Shimgray | talk | 19:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Wales Split from the Kingdom of England?
When did Wales re-emerge as a political entity after being absorbed by the Kingdom of England? --CGPGrey (talk) 15:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * National Assembly for Wales has some useful history. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The Assembly was created in 1999. Was there no Wales as a separate, official entity before then?  --CGPGrey (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As does Welsh nationalism.  -- Jayron  32  15:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, there has always been a recognisable Wales. The Black Prince was the first Prince of Wales, so there had to be somewhere for him to be prince of. The Welsh Office was set up in 1964. Some editors may remember how Wales was regarded before then. There were Welsh miners, male voice choirs, the Welsh language. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It depends what you mean by a "separate, official entity". One summary explanation is at Politics of Wales.  Wales was always to some extent differentiated from England in legal terms - see Court of Great Sessions in Wales.  Arising from the growth of Welsh national sentiment and political pressure, in the nineteenth century (and specifically legislation like the Sunday Closing (Wales) Act 1881), Wales became recognised as an area in which separate legal provision should be made for some matters.  The Church in Wales was (unlike the Church of England) disestablished in 1920, a culturally significant marker.  The advisory Council for Wales and Monmouthshire was set up in 1949 and a Minister of Welsh Affairs in 1951, followed by the appointment of a Secretary of State for Wales and the Welsh Office in 1964.  So, it was a gradual process.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542 is also useful here. Wales had distinct counties even if it was politically unified with England. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There's also the ambiguity of Monmouthshire, whether it was part of England or Wales. Wales must have been a separate entity from England in order for the status of Monmouthshire to be an issue. Pais (talk) 11:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well now, that's a long story. More at Monmouthshire (historic).  Monmouthshire was always Welsh in ecclesiastical terms (which used to be more important that it is now) and culturally, in that over large parts of Monmouthshire many people spoke the Welsh language - more in the 19th century than later - and of course it was west of the Wye which was the boundary of England in Saxon times.  But, post-1542, in terms of the judges' circuits, and representation in Parliament, it fell within England, and many maps and encyclopedias showed the county as being in England.  From the 19th century onwards there was legislation covering "Wales and Monmouthshire", which showed both that it was not seen by UK legislators as being within Wales (otherwise the legislation would simply have referred to "Wales"), but also that it was to be treated as part of Wales.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Tangent time: An interesting parallel to Monmouthshire at England's other land border is Berwick-upon-Tweed. -- Jayron  32  12:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Rosh Hashanah in Israel
I was planning on viriting Israel (Jerusalem and Tel Aviv) for 5 days during the week, 25th - 30th September (trying to avoid the Shabbat). I've just looked at my calendar and it is Rosh Hashanah on the 30th. So I was wondering what it would be like in Jerusalem/Tel Aviv during this time, would businesses be closed and rail/taxi services disrupted (like the Shabbat)? My return flight leaves early in the morning on the 30th at 4am, would it also be difficult to get to Ben Gurion airport during Rosh Hashanah? Thanks, 86.148.165.21 (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Someone more familiar might be able to respond in better detail, but here's what I've gleaned form my search. Rosh Hashanah is actually two days, this year from sunset on Sept. 28 to sunset on Sept. 30. Businesses will be closed, though not in Arab areas like East Jerusalem. Public transportation may be a problem, but you can always get a taxi. Sounds like an interesting time to visit a synagogue, though! Lesgles (talk) 03:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm very surprised to find that Ben Gurion International Airport will be open on Rosh Hashanah. I recommend double-check with your airline - or with Ben Gurion themselves. Cities with smaller and less vociferous populations of religious Jews (Tel Aviv, Haifa, etc] will be less affected by the day than, say Jerusalem or Safed. However, I'd recommend a visit to the Western Wall earlyish in the morning, to see the prayers. Dress reasonably smart if you want to fit in on a festival - and it'd be sensitive for any women in the party to dress modestly. This site has some useful tips. --Dweller (talk) 13:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I checked for you, and unless they've changed things since 2009, it looks like the airport will be open. Public transport will be affected. I suggest you find/book a taxi several days in advance, as the numbers available will be greatly reduced. --Dweller (talk) 13:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of stock exchanges
I must begin with saying that macro economics is a completely blank spot in my education and understanding ;)

What is the purpose of stock exchanges in todays society - why are not all buyers/sellers using some much cheaper way to communicate trading among themselves? What does a company like NASDAQ and NYSE actually do? Act as a hub for sellers and buyers of stock? Why do they have value in themselves? It seems that you can sell and buy the stock exchange itself, what is the purpose of this? An electronic system like NASDAQ could be much cheaper if it was just a room of computers and a couple of IT maintenance guys in some hollowed out protected cave in the middle of nowhere, why isn't this the case? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.142.75 (talk) 19:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Quick answer: Stock exchange provide a safe, fast, efficient, economical and reliable place to trade extremely large, or small, amounts of money / script. They provide regulatory oversight through rules and investigations into breaches. Because they receive fees for every stock that is listed (and, in some places, for other transactions), they may be considered a business. Their income flow gives them an easily identified market value, and some even list their own shares on their own markets. DOR (HK) (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think 83 is asking why a stock exchange needs an actual trading floor anymore rather then doing everything over computer since 99% of trades are done on computer now anyways. Googlemeister (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think eliminating the trading floor is going to safe much cost. Also a bunch of computers in the middle of nowhere sounds like a bad idea, how are they going to connect to the internet or other networks? Nil Einne (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess the building/location of the NYSE is quite valuable, and whoever owns it could make a fortune by selling it. Of course I don't mean that the computers would lack a connection to the internet, but putting in it a desolate place to protect it from attack (like NORAD commando or something) would be quite good, since it keeps infrastructure that is quite important for society. Even better would be a decentralized trading system that exist like a VPN network withing the internet itself. If I had a company I would not like to pay these fees: "they receive fees for every stock that is listed (and, in some places, for other transactions)", since a transaction in a totally computerized trading system would cost as much as to send a common email which is next to nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.142.75 (talk) 21:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I doubt the building is worth even 5% of the value of the stock exchange. Also I think you're missing the point. I didn't mean to imply you want to put it in a desolate place so they wouldn't have an internet connection. I was saying most desolate places don't have internet connections. Also while there may be some advantages to putting the building in a desolate place, putting it there to avoid NORAD commandos seems an inherently bad idea. Attacking something located in a populated place generally raises far more difficulties then attacking something in an unpopulated place so I'm sure NORAD commandos would be quite happy if you put your building somewhere they don't have to worry much about collateral damage even if they just carpet bomb it. In a similar vein while being located in a desolate place may reduce the risk your building will become collateral damage, it also generally makes it harder for NORAD commandos and others to protect you. Nil Einne (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hehe oops I guess my wording was a bit unprecise, of course I don't mean that NORAD command soldiers would attack the NYSE, I meant that the housing of the computers that run the stock market should be protected like the NORAD command (center) is, see Cheyenne_Mountain_Operations_Center. Even if the building is worth just a small fraction of the stock market itself - it would still make quite a lot of money since it's located in the lower Manhattan. And the purpose of capitalism is to gain as much money as possible, isn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.142.75 (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure but given how relatively little the building is worth, you have to consider whether the cost of getting rid of it it is worth it. Also it's unclear to me why you think it needs that level of protection which is going to come at great cost (bearing in mind one of the reasons why Cheyenne Mountain Operations Center is useful is not just because of location but protection offered by those restricting access etc, something which the stock market will have too pay for themselves particularly in such an isolated location and the need to have multiple redundant datalines). I'm not sure whether even the stock market themselves think they need to remain in operation in the event of a catastrophic nuclear war in the US. A decentralised network of computers in well connected locations seems a far better bet something which I suspect is already used. Nil Einne (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The London stock exchange has been computerised for many years. There is no trading floor, and I don't think the traders are even in the same building. 92.28.240.189 (talk) 12:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't have any sources to back this up- nor do I have any idea where the actual servers for the NYSE are located- but I have a cousin who once worked in the NY financial district. He claims that, these days, the trading floor is less about buying/selling stock, and more about networking and "brushing elbows" with reps of the prominent companies that have traditionally kept a physical presence on the floor, despite the overwhelming majority of transactions occurring elsewhere and online. Like a status thing. Quinn &#10025; STARRY NIGHT  17:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So it has transformed into a social club more or less? Ah, human vanity... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.142.75 (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * while the days of people rushing out to the floor holding handfulls of physical trade orders are long gone, I wouldn't count the importance of the trading floor out yet. Some people have suggested they de-computerize at least some of the actual trading and put it back on the floor, as a defense against computer errors crashing markets (not as rare as you might think given the dire consequences, a mistaken key entry has taken down more than one company) and also as a defense against rapidly moving markets moving faster than the ability of human oversight to review. HominidMachinae (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yep. just over a year ago now there was a particularly large and unusual "sell" of stock that triggered millions of automated transaction (basically where you set your computer to automatically buy and/or sell based on the happenings in the market) and caused a brief collapse of the market. It recovered rapidly (later that same day, if I recall), but not without some substantial collateral damage (i.e.- a lot of stocks got purchased way under value during the snafu, and vice versa). Not exactly an answer to the OP's question but it is a good example of the potential problems with a 100% on-line stock exchange.  I'm sure we have an article mentioning this event somewhere. Quinn &#10025; STARRY NIGHT  00:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you're thinking of 2010 Flash Crash Nil Einne (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Pakistan and Afghanistan, ISI
A quick follow-up question to what is asked above... (edit: BELOW)

I did not find a thorough article about it here on Wikipedia, but am I safe in making the following assertion?

In short, Pakistan fears India, therefore it is currently involved in Afghanistan. If Afghanistan during the Cold War had been a safe haven for the Soviets, (China-leaning) Pakistan could have faced a semi-aligned India on the other flank, and effectively been surrounded. Whoever rules Afghanistan should be dependent on Pakistan - puppets if you will - so that India may not use Afghanistan against Pakistan -- a more real concern during Soviet occupation, now more related to keeping influence. Consequently, the Pakistani security bureaucracy - notably ISI and parts of the Army - are deeply involved in Afghanistan: So long as they provide safe havens and some funding, power groups like the Taliban will be dependent on them. I theorise the ISI and related groups may have become something of a state within a state - they see themselves to understand more clearly the perils of Pakistan than does the democratic opposition. Tangentially related, the many terrorist attacks against Indian cities in the recent years are from Pakistani state/ISI-sponsored groups.

One of the issues with this claim after 1989 is that Afghans and Pakistanis, supposedly sharing ancestry, religion and history, could be split apart by India. An amusing find suggests that may be a possibility. There is also Iran to factor in, which backed the Northern Alliance. Therefore Pakistani involvement in Afghanistan may also be focused on keeping someone else from gaining more influence.

I am not asking for a discussion, but if anyone were to know of any considerations I've blatantly ignored, I should treasure feedback on the subject. Thank you again. 80.213.11.105 (talk) 23:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh deary me, I have edited out my first question. I shall post the first question below, instead of reverting to the older edit. 80.213.11.105 (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

History: Pakistan West/Sino alignment and Nixon
Hello

I was wondering about a historical question regarding power politics, and was hoping someone here could help shed some light on it.

As I understand it, Nixon advanced on China through Pakistan in order to open America's political options towards the USSR and China alike - leverage to linkage. However, Pakistan was a member of SEATO long before Nixon's detente. How could presidents from Eisenhower to Johnson include Pakistan in the SEATO and CENTO while close ties to China developed? In addition to an answer to that question, here are some of my assertions (which I'd be keen to have scrutinised):

1) Pakistan at the time of Nixon's detente (ca '72) was a beneficiary of Chinese aid.

2) Pakistan was supported by China in order to counter the non-aligned (but Soviet-leaning) India.

3) Pakistani membership in SEATO and CENTO survived coups and civil wars unhurt.

I see problems related to this because of the somewhat intrusive, moralistic policies that Nixon's predecessors often pursued. Did they assess that Pakistan was more mouldable than India, more easily made an ally to counter a potentially hostile India? Basically, I understand how Nixon saw Pakistan's worth as a client/ally - but I don't understand the motivation of earlier administrations, often described as having less understanding of Asian culture and schisms in communism.

If you could help me, I would be terribly glad. Thank you in advance.

80.213.11.105 (talk) 23:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The American alliance with Pakistan was part of an effort to contain Communism through fostering relations with countries on the front line, such as Turkey, Iran and Pakistan, which was barely 10 miles from the USSR. I don't think the U.S. went into it consciously favoring Pakistan over India. The U.S. would have signed up India too, but India declined to take part in a U.S. military alliance because of its nonalignment policy. When Pakistan and India went to war in 1965, the U.S. put an arms embargo on both sides. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually they did go into it favoring Pakistan over India, because India "leaned Soviet" (a nice Cold War term for "fiercely preserved its independence and played both sides off each other for its maximum benefit"). There's a nice little article about this in this week's New Yorker. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that's an extreme oversimplification. Here is Ashley Tellis, a former State Department official, on U.S.-Indian relations:
 * The post-Independence Indian leadership led by Jawaharlal Nehru was eager to reciprocate American overtures of friendship and, despite their formal invocation of nonalignment in the face of the emerging Cold War, sought to develop a close strategic relationship with the United States that would provide India with arms, economic assistance, and diplomatic support. Although this effort was only partly successful, in some measure because the United States still deferred to Great Britain on issues relating to security in the Indian subcontinent and more significantly because the emerging U.S. vision of containment left little room for informal allies like India, U.S.-Indian relations nonetheless remained very cordial from 1947-62. The United States during this period soon became the largest aid donor to India, and Washington viewed India as an important theater in the struggle against global communism despite New Delhi’s reluctance to become formally allied with Washington in its anti-communist crusade.
 * I think the U.S. would have been happy had India decided to become a military ally, but Nehru decided to keep his distance. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's certainly an oversimplification, but the point is the same: the US became extremely tied to Pakistan during the Cold War because they were willing to formally align themselves militarily with the US. India was not, and did flirt with Soviet assistance at many junctions. The US often overcompensated in other respects with India in attempting to keep them from becoming reliant on Russia instead. It was a clever game that Nehru played, to be sure. The point is: Pakistan didn't play the game. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Recommended reading: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/16/110516fa_fact_wright P. S. Burton  (talk)  12:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)