Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 May 15

= May 15 =

Draw France
Hello all. I have a strange desire, to be able to draw France (at least somewhat) accurately and to scale freehand and from memory. How should I go about learning to do so? Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 00:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Trace it may times until you have both a hand and a brain memory of the shape. Bielle (talk) 01:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Remember that France is nicknamed "L'hexagone", so if you want to draw it, start with a hexagon. From there, you just need to memorize the quirks of each of the 6 sides; like the Normandy peninsula, the little "S" curve of the French Riviera, the curve of the Bay of Biscay with the Garonne estuary in the middle ending at Bordeaux, the Notch out of the east side occupied by Switzerland, the odd little bit around Geneva, etc.  But start with the Hexagon shape, and just remember the quirks of each of the 6 sides.  That's how I taught myself to do it.  (I like to sketch maps from memory as well... It's a little nerdy thing I like to do).  -- Jayron  32  01:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Remember to draw the non-European portions of France! Fifelfoo (talk) 02:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Canadian politics
What caused Canada to become so far-right? It used to be more progressive. --75.40.204.106 (talk) 02:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Far right ? How do you figure ? StuRat (talk) 02:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Stephen Harper. --75.40.204.106 (talk) 03:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the recent Canadian election isn't just a rightwing victory, it also marked consolidation of a progressive space in Canadian politics. The NDP, which has some quite radical MPs, made important strides and established itself as the main opposition party. --Soman (talk) 03:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "Far-right" is too strong a term, but certainly there has been a significant shift toward the right, and the apparent collapse of the Liberal Party is startling. As for why the Conservatives have won a majority, who can say for sure? Perhaps it has something to do with the dire economic times. Perhaps it has something to do with the NDP's rise at the Liberals expense, a fracturing of the center-left allowing the right to win. I doubt anyone can explain why without doubt. Myself, although I try to follow Canadian politics, usually find it rather too complex to grasp. If nothing else, things have really been shaken up. And, from what I understand, the NDP may be hard-pressed to leverage its new found power as the opposition party. The tiny number of Americans like me who live near Canada and pay attention are interested to see how this all plays out in the future. Pfly (talk) 11:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll have to join in disagreeing that the Conservatives are "far right". The "right" in Canada is not very far to the right, compared to the US; Harper is probably more "liberal" than Obama, for example. But that is part of the problem with Canadian politics, or at least the Canadian electorate. Pfly says it's complex, and it is, and Canadians don't understand it either. Campaigns and elections are conducted as if we're voting for a president in an American-style system. On the other hand, Harper is fairly authoritarian and the core of the party is really the old Reform Party, who were further to the right than the old Progressive Consevatives. He hasn't done much to get rid of Canada's "liberal" or "socialist" systems like health care etc, but he has only ever had minority governments before. Now he has five years to do whatever he wants.
 * The reason the last minoity government fell was because they were held in contempt of Parliament, yet apparently everyone immediately forgot about that, and now they have all the contempt they want and no one can do anything about it. So why did people forget? I think the biggest reason is that Canada did not suffer anything like the economic meltdown in the US and other parts of the world. Harper and the Conservatives took full credit for that, although it was mostlu just because of the way our banks have worked for decades. Still, it was very schrewd to take credit for that, and he played it up during the election campaign - I'm not sure he had any other campaign points at all, actually.
 * Maybe one other point - that the Liberal Party leader, Michael Ignatieff, is untrustworthy and possibly "un-Canadian". This is another aspect of the Americanization of Canadian politics, and of the mentality of Canadians in general. Ignatieff is rather cosmopolitan (he's from a family of Russian aristocrats, and spent more time in the US and UK than in Canada), and he's an awkward academic. I'm sure we can agree that American politics is very anti-intellectual, and this is becoming a trend in Canada too. If Ignatieff had won, there would almost certainly be the same kind of "birther" movement in Canada as there is in the US. (And nevermind, of course, that Harper is as much of an intellectual book-writing university-professor egghead as Ignatieff...Ignatieff just never learned to hide it.)
 * So, that's my take on it. Too much thoughtless Americanization, along with Harper's luck of already being Prime Minister when the rest of the world's economy fell apart. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would doubt that the flag-waving attacks on Ignatieff are something new to Canadian politics. Blasting one's opponent for not being Canadian enough goes back to John Turner's attacks on the Mulroney government in 1988 or even to Robert Borden's on Wilfrid Laurier's Liberals in 1911. Anyway, it's important to remember that the Conservatives won less than 40% of the popular vote. Every Canadian election since 1993, with the possible exception of 2004, has been decided largely by which side of the political spectrum was most divided. In 1993, 1997 and 2000, the center-right was divided into the Tories and the Reform/Alliance. In the last three elections, a resurgent NDP has split the center-left vote with the Liberals. -- 174.116.177.235 (talk) 00:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Life expectancy in the Soviet Union
Hey, me again :) I read a statistic (not on WP) that said in the post-Stalin Soviet Union the life expectancy was higher than that of the US.. But how do we know they didn't just make that statistic up as a propaganda tool? Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 04:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The Soviet Union was truthful with its demographic statistics, which has been used by historians and demographers to calculate supposed excess mortality statistics (deaths purported to be caused by human action, specifically the action of the state). There are no reasons to doubt Soviet demographic statistics. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * As for whether that info is believable, I suppose it is possible. The main health problem in the US is the lack of universal medical coverage, which results in many premature deaths among the poor.  (In recent times obesity has become a contender for the main health problem, but not back then.)  The main health problem in the Soviet Union was alcoholism.  So, which was worse ?  This probably depends on the exact years you researched. StuRat (talk) 08:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Life expectancy in the USSR was 68.6 in 1958-59, 67.9 20 years later and 69.6 in 1986 . In the U.S., life expectancy went from 69.9 in 1959-61 to 73.9 in 1979-81 and 75.4 in 1989-91 . -- Mwalcoff (talk) 09:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

St George statue at the UN Headquarters
I was walking by the UN headquarters today when I noticed a large bronze sculpture at the very northern end of the lot. The gates were closed so I couldn't get a good look, but it was definitely a man on horseback stabbing some kind of monster with a spear that had a cross on the butt. It seems to me that this is probably St George, but the scene and the attendant Christian iconography seems pretty provocative for something on UN grounds. I haven't been able to find anything about this on either the UN headquarters page or the UN art collections page, so I was wondering if anyone knew 1) what the statue is of; 2) what it is called; 3) why it's at the UN. Thanks! 24.215.229.69 (talk) 05:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Good Defeats Evil" --JGGardiner (talk) 07:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that the artist hails from Georgia, which is thought to be named after St George and has St George's cross as its flag, so I suspect a little bit of influence there. Alansplodge (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

First President
Who was the first person to be president? The earliest I can find so far was John Perrot, but were there any others? 148.197.121.205 (talk) 08:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * First person to be president of what? HiLo48 (talk) 08:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This states that the term was used for heads of university colleges from the mid-15th century, and Andrew Dokett was President of Queens' College, Cambridge from 1448. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * John Perrot was Lord President of Munster. That article says Humphrey Gilbert may have held the title after Perrot was appointed but before he arrived in Ireland.  No specifics though. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The first citation for the OED of "president" as head of a religious house is 1387: Elfworde, bisshop of Londoun and somtyme abbot of Evesham, wolde have bene president [L. præsidere] at Evesham.; while Elfworde would have been bishop several centuries earlier, the term probably wasn't used them. In more figurative use, there's citations from around the same time - And ther my Lord of Chester, the Presedent [L. Præses] of ȝour Nation, hadd his Wordis to hym in swych a wyse (1417). "President" as the senior member of a (general) board or committee takes a century longer to come into play, c. 1490, and it's this sense that became reused for "president" as head-of-state. Shimgray | talk | 10:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Logical positivism
I want to know about logical positivism, but find it difficult to understand the concept. If someone simplify the concept, I will be grateful to them. Please help, thanks! --Ding Dong Kangaroo (talk) 08:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The Verificationism article summarizes the basic principle of Logical Positivism - "A statement or question only has meaning if there is some way to determine if the statement is true, or what the answer to the question is." Vienna Circle goes into a bit more detail, but is still quite accessible. Tevildo (talk) 10:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It helps to understand what is meant by Positivism in this context — Positivism is a name for a half-dozen totally unrelated philosophies. In the context used here, it is in reference to the Positivism of Ernst Mach. Mach argued that the only statements about the world that could be considered to be scientific involved those that were just direct sensory observation. So Mach didn't believe in atoms, for example, because there was (in his day) no way to directly observe them. Even though the idea seemed to make a great deal of sense, Mach just wouldn't hear it. Machian positivism is rather extreme, in this sense: it basically says "no theories that can't be directly observed." The goal was getting rid of all manner of useless metaphysics and so forth.
 * Now the logical positivists said, "that's swell." Let's throw out metaphysics and all of that junk, let's start over making knowledge from scratch, based on direct sensory observation. ("Metaphysics" was a catch-all word for them for all things non-scientific and probably untrue. Into this category they probably would have put things like aether theory, psychoanalysis, and a boat load of political ideologies.) Except, they said, what if we pieced together enough direct sensory observation, and turned that into truths that were higher than the observations alone? You couldn't just do this willy-nilly (or else you'd be getting into metaphysics), but you could, slowly and carefully, using the iron laws of analytical logic (hence the Logical), scaffold these "small" observations into larger inferences. This is the heart of Logical Positivism — it is the positivism of Mach plus the mathematical logic of Russel and Whitehead, meant to be a winning epistemological combination. (Many have since pointed out the ways in which this approach by itself is problematic. Karl Popper is the most famous critic, of the "verificationism doesn't eradicate metaphysics, only falsification" does approach. Thomas Kuhn was another critic, of the "even sensory observation is not without interpretation" school.)
 * The logical positivists loved to cite Einstein as the example as someone who did what they idealized, in part because he was so successful, in part because Einstein was, in his early years, a Machian. Einstein's 1905 paper on Brownian motion, for example, is an attempt to use Machian principles to prove that atoms exist — you can infer that they exist from direct physical observations. Mach was not convinced — he was not a fan of inference — but the logical positivists loved that kind of thing. Special relativity was (in their minds) a perfect example of this as well: take some basic sensory observations (e.g. the Michelson-Morley experiment), run it through some hard core logic (speed of light seems constant, what are the logical consequences?), and voila, you have the theory of special relativity.
 * So that's an historical/philosophical background to where they were coming from and what they were arguing against. I find that sort of thing helps me understand what a given group was doing more than a statement of their principles, because by itself, verificationism (or even logical positivism) seems like a "ho hum, so what?" sort of thing. If you put it in context, it's more clear what they're about (and not about). --Mr.98 (talk) 12:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * In the field of linguistics, the influence of Logical Positivism manifested itself as "operationalism" (a form of behaviorism), or the belief that if you can't directly measure something, or give a procedure by which it could be measured, then it either doesn't exist or is completely irrelevant to scientific research. This was the dominant paradigm in the United States in the 1950's, but subsequently is considered to have been an overall somewhat negative influence on the development of linguistics... AnonMoos (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Films filmed all over Europe like Bourne series?
I really like films set all over Europe, like the Bourne series. Are there any other films like that? It doesn't have to be action genre, but I really love the landscapes or filming from all over Europe. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.157.228.177 (talk) 08:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The Day of the Jackal first springs to mind. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * And I guess The Da Vinci Code, and in a similar vein The Ninth Gate. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * National Lampoon's European Vacation is good for a few laughs. --Viennese Waltz 13:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Some of the James Bond films were like that: Goldfinger, for example. --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  19:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Ronin is an action movie with a deliberately strongly European character, although it's not all over Europe, just in France. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Eurotrip, although that was actually filmed entirely in Prague, apparently. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Also Trafic by Jacques Tati. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * In a different vein, If It's Tuesday, This Must Be Belgium comes to mind. John M Baker (talk) 23:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

5th fleet in Middle East since when?
Hello all.

In the cold war, prior to the formation of the US 5th fleet (based in Bahrain, covers east-of-Suez Middle East), what were the US Navy's troops in this area? I'm interested in knowing if there were ever shows of force in this region, and if so who might have conducted such shows.

Thank you in advance! 80.213.11.105 (talk) 13:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Before 1979-1980, the main flashpoints were along the Mediterranean, so the United States Sixth Fleet would have been most relevant... AnonMoos (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The U.S. 5th Fleet was reformed in 1995, so from Timeline of United States military operations we find a number of operations: Persian Gulf War, handled by 7th fleet; Somalia saw the offshore Navy and Marines under CENTCOM, not the Joint Task Force Somalia which caused some operational issues; Persian Gulf freedom of navigation in 1987-88 and 1989 intervention in the Phillipines were Seventh Fleet. Look like the Persian gulf was generally handled by 7th Fleet. Multinational Force and Observers in Sinai looks like it is Army only. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Scotland Economy and Independence
Is Scotland an economic drain on the UK (as most people seem to think) or a bonus as the Scottish government claims? --CGPGrey (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * For a start, I'd question whether 'most people' think this. I'd also question whether economic theory is able to answer such questions with any degree of confidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me rephrase: "Most (English) people (I've spoken with)". --CGPGrey (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Presumably it depends how you count North Sea oil... AnonMoos (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of the oil is off the Scottish coasts, so if they go, they might well take it all with them. We first started exploiting these oil reserves around 1979, so take a look at the British economy of the 1970s for some idea of the situation that might result. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 15:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you count the North Sea oil that is geographically Scottish as economically Scottish, then I think Scotland is a net contributor to the Treasury. If you don't, then it's a not. So, if Scotland were to go independent (which is unlikely, given the most recent polls I've seen) what would happen to its economy would depend on how the UK's natural resources were divided up. As far as I know, there haven't been any formal discussions on that topic yet. They would take place after a successful referendum. --Tango (talk) 17:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * With the important caveat that "net contributor to the Treasury" is as of now, and it's relatively marginal (IIRC, on the order of a billion a year). If the dividing line of oil and gas fields changed from current estimates, or - more likely - if the oil price dropped significantly, the balance could shift quite dramatically. Shimgray | talk | 18:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The ammunition for this argument comes from the Barnett formula which is a way of distributing government spending across the Home Nations. It's really complicated (read the linked article) but it produces these figures:
 * ''"In actual monetary figures, this would work out as (per person):
 * England £7,121
 * Scotland £8,623
 * Wales £8,139
 * Northern Ireland £9,385"'' Alansplodge (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's only one half of the equation, though. You need to look at both spending and revenue. The Barnett formula means spending is significantly higher per person in Scotland, but if you divide the enormous oil revenue by the rather small population of Scotland, you get a larger revenue per person as well. --Tango (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes that's true - I said it was a complicated issue. On the subject of oil, there's a rumour that the boundary dividing the Scottish legal jurisdiction from the English, which at present runs due east from the border, in the event of indepenance would have to be re-drawn following the general trend of the border (ie north-eastwards). Apparently this is a protocol of the UN in border disputes. The only reference I can find on the net is here in a comment added to a news article. Not a reliable source - does anyone know? Alansplodge (talk) 21:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a civil-jurisdiction border running due east, and it's likely (though not not certain, of course) that this would be redrawn to a line of equidistance come independence. However, this might not affect the oil figures that are being thrown around.
 * The official analysis in the Scottish Government Expenditure and Revenue Estimates takes its boundary definitions from this study, which uses the fisheries boundary as an arbitrary line. It looks like, more or less, the fisheries boundary is already fairly close to the line of equidistance - it certainly doesn't follow the due-east course of the civil boundary. As such, formalising that split might not make much difference to the revenue estimates... Shimgray | talk | 00:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking at the comment you linked to, incidentally, it seems they're working on the assumption that an international boundary would follow the general straight-NE line of the land border. It wouldn't, of course - it has to be an equidistant line, not simply a perpendicular one, and as Scotland bulges out towards the North-East, it's going to force the equidistant line towards the horizontal. Looking at this map, by my reckoning the "due East" line would encompass all the northern fields; the equidistant line finishes about where the Judy gas field (in red) is; while the commentor's suggested due-NE line would finish somewhere around the Mungo/Lomond condensate fields. There's really not much in the gap between the last two - going from a "normal" international boundary to an extremely favourable one for England wouldn't make much difference. Shimgray | talk | 00:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * On the 'sauce for the goose/gander' principle, if Scotland were to secede from the UK, Shetland might decide to secede on its own account, or reunite with Norway - I heard the only-semi-humorous slogan "It's Shetland's oil" a good deal when I was a Scottish resident. This would appreciably alter an independent Scotland's national revenue. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.232 (talk) 07:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Diplomatic missions of Canada
Why Canada does not that much diplomatic missions in the whole world? is it because its land mass is not that big? USA has that much land and that's why they have that much diplomatic missions in the whole world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.106.140 (talk) 15:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The U.S. has about 10 times the population of Canada, nuclear weapons, a UN Security Council seat, and a military presence in many regions of the globe. And for some smaller countries, the same diplomat could be accredited as both ambassador to the U.S. and representative to the United Nations... AnonMoos (talk) 15:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And just to add, Canada's land mass is second in the world only to Russia. Mingmingla (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * AnonMoos, can you provide an example of a country that uses the same diplomat as ambassador to both the U.S. and the UN? I would have thought this impractical, since the UN meets in New York and ambassadors to the U.S. are stationed in Washington.  John M Baker (talk) 23:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not the kind of thing that lends itself to an easy Google search, but I know it was done in the past -- for some smaller countries the expense of full-scale legations in both places would not have been justifiable, and in the 1970s there were hourly DC-NY shuttle flights... AnonMoos (talk) 05:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Flipping through my 2003 Statesman's Yearbook for likely candidates, I saw that Tonga had the same ambassador to both the U.S. and the U.N.; what was more interesting was how many tiny and very poor countries undertook the expense of keeping different diplomats to each. (I suspect that many rulers, governments and ruling parties like to have both of these prestigious and attractive, if costly, posts to dispense as patronage.) Conversely, even countries with big diplomatic establishments, such as the U.S. and U.K., will often accredit the same diplomat to more than one small neighbouring nation in an area like West Africa. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Canada-Bangladesh
How is the relationship between Canada and Bangladesh? good or bad or unnotice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.106.140 (talk) 15:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well they are both members of the Commonwealth, so they should have a "cordial" relationship I suppose. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * According to Foreign relations of Bangladesh - "Relations between the two countries are positive and there is approximately 24,595 Canadians of Bangladeshi origin living in Canada." See Bangladeshi Canadian. Exxolon (talk) 18:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * ...and don't forget about the hordes of Canadians yearning to emigrate to Bangladesh. :-) StuRat (talk) 03:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no idea about how warm or cool or intense or indifferent the substantial relations between Canada and Bangladesh might be, but as fellow members of the Commonwealth, they exchange High Commissioners (as each does with the UK), rather than Ambassadors. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the OP asked that because none of the Prime Ministers of each nation have ever visited each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.17.44 (talk) 18:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well Bangladesh hasn't been around as long as Canada has. No doubt they'll get round to it. In the meantime, they'll probably meet at Commonwealth conferences. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

American mail boxes
Watching the start of the video here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqdSX_JmsXE, a woman leaves a house and puts a letter inside the American-style mail-box. Does this mean that the post-person customarily collects mail from them, not just delivering it? Thanks 92.15.25.241 (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes. Notice that she puts the flag up on the box. That's a signal to the letter carrier that there's outgoing mail in the box. Like many people, I don't have a flag on my box, which is mounted on my house, so I just clip outgoing mail to the outside of the box so the postman doesn't miss it. —Kevin Myers 16:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC) In bad neighborhoods, the flag can be a signal to thieves, and is avoided. —Kevin Myers 17:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * In Canada, it's very common in rural areas. Your mail must be already stamped. Bielle (talk) 17:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You can't do that in the city, though. (Not in Canada, anyway.) Adam Bishop (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I had assumed that a raised flag was a signal to the resident that there was mail for them in the box. Is the flag not used for that purpose? 92.24.177.93 (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I've never known of anyone who doesn't get mail every day. It's just assumed that there will be mail in the box every day.  The flag is simply to notify the mail carrier that there is outgoing mail.  If they don't see the flag, they'll assume there's nothing in the box to go out.  So, if the flag isn't up, they may miss the fact that you've put something in the box to go out.  Dismas |(talk) 23:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've known lots of people who don't get mail every day, but it's still up to them to check their mailbox. Essentially, the flag is for the convenience of the letter carrier.  Of course, if the resident did put mail in the mailbox for pickup, then the lowered flag would signal him or her that the letter carrier has come by.  John M Baker (talk) 23:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I live in rural Canada. (I've never seen mailbox with a flag on it in the city where I lived previously for 4 decades.) The letter carriers here drive from mailbox to mailbox. (There are sometimes miles between houses.) If the red flag is up, then they know that there is something in the mailbox -either yesterday's mail or something for them to pick up. If the latter, they take the stamped envelope out. If there is no new mail for the household that day, they put the flag down. If there is new mail (or yesterday's mail is still in the box), they leave it up. If, when they drive up to the mailbox, the flag is down, and they have new mail, they insert the new mail and put the flag up. Mr 98's experience notwithstanding, I have never known it to be otherwise. I have never found mail when the flag was down, or failed to find it when the flag was up.  The letter carriers even send around flyers on how the flag is used when you move to a new address. Bielle  (talk) 01:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No, in the U.S., mail carriers do not put flags up. If they did it would just lead to more stolen welfare checks. Rmhermen (talk) 03:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * My mailbox is on the side of my house, and not visible from the street, so there's no flag. This does cause a problem when I try to send mail, yet have no incoming mail.  On those days it doesn't go out, and I have to try again the next day.  On the plus side, my mail has never been stolen (that I know of). StuRat (talk) 03:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * To state the obvious, why not drop your outging mail in a public mailbox? They're bright red in the UK; I believe the ones in the US are dark blue.  Astronaut (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Not everyone lives near one of those. There are fewer collection boxes in the US than there used to be, a decline that predates 9/11, which resulted in many boxes being removed. In my town of 25,000 people, the once ubiquitous collection boxes have all but disappeared from the neighborhoods. I would think that neighborhood collection boxes would be cost effective and convenient for the Post Office, but apparently they think otherwise. —Kevin Myers 19:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Most towns that I can think of only have one of the blue collection boxes and it's at the post office.  (there are actually two of them, one for "local" mail and the other for everything else)  Dismas |(talk) 20:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * My nearest collection box is about a mile away. I suppose I could walk or bike that far, in good weather, but the neighborhood isn't safe, so I'd actually drive.  They also only pick up from that box early in the morning, so my mail likely wouldn't go until the next day, anyway.  Then the box is on the wrong side of the street, so I need to park my car and dart across the street to get to it.  I find a 90% chance of my mail being picked up at my house to be a preferable alternative.  In cases where something absolutely has to go out that day, I drive it to the post office, some 5 miles away. StuRat (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Remember, many Americans live in low-density suburban or exurban neighborhoods where putting mailboxes around wouldn't make much sense. Why go looking for a mailbox when you can just have the mail carrier pick it up when he or she drops off your mail? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The same would apply to a lot of New Zealanders but we have public mailboxes. I presume from the POV of New Zealand Post it's more cost effective then having the carrier pick up mail from individual boxes (which is done for rural delivery) Nil Einne (talk) 03:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Since they are already going to the private mailboxes for deliveries, there's very little additional cost to do pick-ups at the same time. On the other hand, going to a series of public mailboxes for pickups does incur an additional cost. StuRat (talk) 15:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Astronaut, the large public mailboxes are indeed dark blue in the U.S. now, but they haven't always been. This is an interesting article on the history of public mailbox colors in the U.S., but the image for 1955-71 is wrong. Mailboxes of that era looked like this (no white stripe in the middle). (This is the sort of thing anachronism-spotters look for in movies set in the past.) Incidentally, when I was a kid in a suburban neighborhood, our mailbox's flag was broken off for a few years till my parents got around to buying a new one. So when we had outgoing mail, we just left the mailbox door open as a signal that there was mail inside. But no one in our neighborhood would have been so rude as to steal someone else's outgoing mail. Pais (talk) 21:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The last pic also seems wrong. It says the current mailboxes are dark blue, which is correct, but that pic has a greenish-blue mailbox, at least on my screen. StuRat (talk) 22:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks right to me. Maybe the larger image looks better for you? Pais (talk) 08:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The eagle looks blue, but not the mailbox. It still looks bluish-green.  Does the eagle look the same color as the mailbox to you ? StuRat (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * To me, the eagle is a brighter blue and the mailbox is a darker blue, but they're still both what I would call blue, not bluish green. Maybe our screens are different, or maybe our perception of the light spectrum is different. Pais (talk) 10:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

understanding a religious concept
What is the main distinction between orthodox, fundamental and evangelical (in general)? ^/^/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dexter3720 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * When applied to religions, orthodox means accepting and obeying traditional beliefs and practices, fundamental means being or involving basic facts or principles, and evangelical means of or in keeping with the Christian gospel especially as in the first 4 books of the New Testament. See the disambiguations Orthodox, Fundamentalism and the article Evangelism. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would have said that the term "evangelical" was more about telling others about the Gospels - see the opening line of the WP article. It comes from the Greek " euangelistes" - literally "bringer of good news".. But all these words have lots of baggage in a Christian context. Alansplodge (talk) 22:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Evangelicalism is the article you want for the third term, not Evangelism. Rmhermen (talk) 01:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, (in the United States anyway) the differences between Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christianity are almost as much cultural as theological. Protestant Fundamentalist Christianity is really a subset of Evangelicalism that holds to somewhat more literal theology with a strong focus on more traditional practices and lifestyles. Qrsdogg (talk) 01:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say "orthodox" and "fundamentalist" (not "fundamental", which isn't a religious term) can be used of members of any religion, but "evangelical" can only be used of Christians. Pais (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

WB elections
A user had a question about this on the article talk page (which is more suited to the refdesk) so i thught id answer it here in case others have any more questions. the question is based on the current ITN page West Bengal state assembly election, 2011

More for the refdesk but has your question been answered? The key issue being land reform per the page's campaign and background sections (might want to see the latter). the gorkhaland issue wasnt that big (as its only 3 seats per the page results of the GJM)
 * Further also note the thrashing the comms. got in the last election for the national government. itll be interesting in the next few weeks to note who gets the national Railway Ministry portfolio that the WB CM-Designate currently holds. (a position usually held by ministers from the poorer North Indian states (which in turn has been condemend as an opportunity just to fill jobs in their home states)) The 2008_attacks_on_Uttar_Pradesh_and_Bihar_migrants_in_Maharashtra was against migrants from others states coming to another state (Maharasthra in this recent case) to take railway board examinations.(Lihaas (talk) 21:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)).

Racial segegration
What food terms was used to describe the whites during the racial segegration? I know blacks were chocalates but what about the whites? -- Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! •  Contributions ) 22:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "Vanilla" is what a quick and obvious Google search on racial segregation chocolates suggested to me in its first result. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► sheriff ─╢ 22:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh ok. I didn't use the correct search term: http://www.google.co.uk/search?btnG=1&pws=0&q=racial+segregation+chocolate and reference desk is faster, I think as I hope there are more history geeks than me. THx anyways. -- Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! •  Contributions ) 22:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No, you did use the correct search term. That link you just gave me has, as three of its first four hits, the answer to your question visible. The Reference Desk is not supposed to be 'faster' than really basic Google searching. It's not your personal librarian. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► international waters ─╢ 22:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that Google's personalized search results can be vastly different for the same search - example. I didn't see the word "vanilla" at all in the first page of results for myself. Avic ennasis   @ 13:52, 12 Iyar 5771 / 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Cracker ? StuRat (talk) 01:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "White bread" isn't strictly racial in meaning, but it's usually applied only to suburban white folk. APL (talk) 03:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * List of ethnic slurs might be of some help to your search. Avic ennasis  @ 13:52, 12 Iyar 5771 / 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Also I didn't know if its correct or not. You guys might know more than me! -- Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! •  Contributions ) 14:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Did she ever truly rule?
Did Suzanne, Duchess of Bourbon ever truly rule? First her mother was her regent, then it seems her husband was her co-regent, and she died very young. When was she declared of legal majority? How long was her mother her regent? Thank you.--85.226.45.95 (talk) 23:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * She was 29 when she died. The oldest age of majority for France I found mentioned was 25 for women so she had at least four years of rule. Even if her husband was co-regent, she was "truly ruling" as well. Rmhermen (talk) 01:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Did her mother step down as regent when Suzanne married? Neither on French wikipedia or here, there are any mention of her making any political act by herself, so perhaps she was merely a ruler de jure and never de facto? First her mother was the regent, then she married and her husband became her co-regent; did she ever really rule in any way but on paper? I get the impression that she was not very independent. --85.226.45.95 (talk) 08:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)