Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 November 25

= November 25 =

Mokus or Districts in Hawaii
Does anybody know the proper division of mokus or districts in the different Hawaiian Islands? There seems to be ancient divisions, usually six districts or twelve in the case of Maui, and then there are the modern divisions which reflect the population and economical status today, ie. Maui's twelve districts merged to four districts. Does anybody know the modern districts for Oahu and Kauai? And also the ancient division for Kauai? These maps of Kauai seems to disagree with each other.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Biarritz Ceramic Plate
In the 1930's the English ceramic company Wilkinson produced some rectangular (sometimes square) flat plates with a round or oval recessed section in the middle. They were called "Biarritz". Why?203.173.205.90 (talk) 02:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * According to this site, Biarritz was the name registered by Clarice Cliff in 1933 for her series of square and oval plates: The Biarritz shape range was instantly registered to stop copyists ~ it clearly worked as none of Clarice's competitors produced oblong and square plates! I can't find anything that says why she chose the name Biarritz, though. Perhaps others will have more success. Bielle (talk) 04:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't really say why she chose Biarritz, but one of her other ranges was called "Bizarre", and she may have liked the closeness of the two words. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Biarritz was (along with Monte Carlo) THE most fashionable resort for the high society in Europe. According to Clive James; "Reigning monarchs from all over Europe headed for Biarritz in special trains. Deposed monarchs went into exile there. Maharajas moved in. There was a commingling of crowns, a tangling of tiaras. Even after the Empire fell, the season didn’t slow down for a minute. In fact it lasted the whole year round. The English, a hardy breed, were there all winter. The Russians were there in the autumns, the French and Spanish in the spring and summer. The Empress Elizabeth of Austria was a regular. So, eventually, was the Prince of Wales, who acquired much of his girth in the Biarritz pastry shops and as Edward VII continued to favour the town with his massive presence, thereby laying the foundations of its lasting fondness for the English." Alansplodge (talk) 09:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Replacement capitals: United States
Does the United States have any potential replacement capital cities in the event that Washington DC gets occupied by a foreign force? Was a replacement capital considered in the Civil War, since there was fear Maryland would secede and Washington would be surrounded by Maryland and Virginia from all sides.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Presumably. A former hidden "emergency capital" was The Greenbrier resort in West Virginia, the resort sits over a (now declassified) secret bunker designed to house Congress in the event of an attack on Washington D.C.  There are quite likely other facilities nearby to Washington D.C. to be used in the event of an attack or other disaster.  Similarly, the Raven Rock Mountain Complex was designed as a "backup Pentagon".  See also Continuity of Operations Plan which is the official plans by which the U.S. government maintains continuity of government in the case of a wide range of potential problems.  -- Jayron  32  03:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a guess, but I'd assume they would've moved to Philadelphia during the Civil War (mainly because it's the closest major city, and was a past Capital). Also, Washington was burned during the War of 1812, but there's no indication the government set-up a temporary capital afterwards. Hot Stop talk-contribs 14:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In 1812 then-President James Madison fled to Virginia (reportedly leaving his wife behind) and many others fled the city, but the British were only there a few days so there was no need for an alternative seat of government (War of 1812). The Union strategy in the Civil War seems to have been to stay in Washington DC at all costs: it became perhaps the most heavily-fortified city in the world and would have been hard or impossible to besiege, as any attackers would themselves be vulnerable and the city could still be  supplied up the Potomac (Washington, D.C. in the American Civil War). --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If I recall correctly, the book "Reveille in Washington, 1860-1865," by Margaret Leech, says there was a day when Confederate General Jubal Early was just outside Washington, in sight of the Capitol building in 1864, with a force adequate to capture the city,  and government officials, but he did not know how poorly the city was defended that day, with a severe lack of combat forces to man the ramparts, so the opportunity was lost. Edison (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It should also be noted that the idea of needing a single national capital isn't necessary in the modern world. Pre-age-of-information world (i.e. before the telephone/TV/internet/airplane etc. days) it made sense to keep all of a nations government functions in close proximity, so that various government functions could work together smoothly and didn't need to travel or communicate by letter to make quick decisions or work well.  In the modern world, there's no need for that given the ability to use technology to communicate and work together instantaneously.  Some countries have spread out the functions of the national government in this way, South Africa has three official "national capitals", each of which assumes some of the functions of a traditional national capital.  Indeed, if one were trying to design a nation "from the ground up" in the modern world, the idea of concentrating all government functions and people in a very small geographic area seems like a fantastically bad idea, from a secutity point of view.  Certain things (for different security reasons) may need to be handled in a face-to-face manner, but in general, the basic functions of government could, today, happen just as well spread out over many locations instead of within a square mile or so.  -- Jayron  32  23:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Then there's always the strange ritual of the European Parliament migrating to Strasbourg -- something which the 26 EU countries other than France would be just as happy to dispense with... AnonMoos (talk) 01:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There are lots of decisions made regarding the European Union which are done for purely political reasons (i.e. so one country or another can avoid losing any of the various silly pissing contests that always occur due to the nature of European politics). In other words, the seat of the European Parliament is diffused over several cities (Strasbourg, Brussels, Luxembourg) largely because of the silly politicking that goes on, and not for practical purposes.  European politics is very convoluted because each nation that is part of the Union is very intent on a) protecting its own sovereignty as much as possible and b) refusing to give any other nation the appearance of supremacy or favoritism within the Union.  That odd balancing of sovereign national interests against the interests of Europe as a whole is part of what is screwing the Eurozone currency right now, and is one of the major problems that has faced the Union since its inception.  -- Jayron  32  01:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * However, the French seem to have been particularly adept at negotiating some very sweet deals for themselves in the early beginning, which have persisted to the present -- so the agricultural policy was originally set up to heavily favor French farmers, eventually necessitating a 5 billion pounds a year UK rebate to compensate. The whole migratory parliament thing is pretty much pure nonsense -- siting the parliament permanently in Strasbourg would be one thing, but imposing an artificial migration pattern is not really a useful way to "diffuse" capital-city status... AnonMoos (talk) 07:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Marxism
Why is Marx's theory about scientific socialism incorrect? Actual communist revolutions were obviously not due to spontaneous uprisings of workers, mostly didn't happen in industrialized countries, and did not lead to dictatorship of the proletariat, let alone a stateless society. Considering the enormous social and economic inequalities in 19th century Europe, and the despicable state of the working class, why did revolution not happen? --140.180.13.218 (talk) 08:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Because the average citizen just isn't that interested in being a warrior. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Some revolutions did happen. These in turn led to social, economic and political reforms in other countries, which thus were able to avoid local revolutions. Flamarande (talk) 12:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Marx has a little info, and Marx's theory of history may help. Marx predicted that the working classes in the industrialised world (i.e. Western Europe, N America) would become increasingly impoverished as they were exploited ever more ruthlessly, until conditions were so bad that they were forced to revolt. In actuality, living standards improved even for the poorest people in the west (along with improvements in health, increased democracy, etc), as society moved from the industrial capitalism of Marx's day to consumer capitalism. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * 140.180.13.218 -- Several semi-classic comparative studies have concluded that the absolute magnitude of oppression is really not the main cause of revolutions. If people have no standards of comparison, and no real idea that things could be better, then they're not usually very rebellious.  Instead, the moment of maximum danger is usually when things have been slowly improving for the lower classes for a time, but then they suddenly stop improving, and people get the idea that a malevolent conspiracy is thwarting their aspirations for yet further improvements.  In any case, Marx's predictions of a continuous intensification of contrast between a few very wealthy capitalists and masses of ever more impoverished workers (a trend supposedly irreversible short of revolution) mostly didn't come true, and in the second half of the 19th century, people were as often motivated by agrarian or nationalist disputes as by industrial grievances... AnonMoos (talk) 13:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Flamarande's point is significant. Marx severely underestimated the ability of state governments to modify themselves into a "just good enough to avoid revolution" state of things. Labor laws, labor reforms, transparency of government, and things like that, however terribly flawed they still left the state, took a lot of the "edge" off of late modern capitalism. Add to it that Marx was somewhat stupid about certain things (the role of technology in transforming capitalism, for example), and you're left with a lot of predictions that never occurred. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not at all certain that Marx was incorrect. interpretations of Marx are often incorrect, but that's not all that relevant. For instance, Marx himself wasn't really interested in actual revolution: revolution was a limit-case scenario that he used to point out the flaws in a particular kind of capitalism.  It was later Marxists who transformed that limit-case scenario into a call for active revolution (on that weird 'if it's going to happen we ought to do it now' logic), and that call only really had appeal in nations like Russia that were on the verge of revolution anyway.  What you saw in more advanced nations was pretty much what Marx anticipated - progressive exploitation of the non-capitalist classes.  In fact, the market collapse from the mortgage debacle that we're still suffering through is a textbook example of Marx's theory in action - greedy exploitation leading to excessive strain of the lower classes and government efforts to extract more money from the populace to protect capitalist interests…  -- Ludwigs 2  15:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Marx's theory of history though definitely predicted lots of things that did not occur, and many of the things that did occur are blatantly against his predictions. I don't hold him in special disregard for that — he was a very smart 19th century economist, and there are limits to anyone's predictions of the future. His approach is definitely not "scientific"; no Hegelian approach to history can be called that. Some of the economic arguments he made were very smart and hold true; most of his predictions about the course of history, though, are pretty inaccurate. An interesting point about Marx is that of course his predictions about the future did not contain things like "self-proclaimed revolutionary Marxists", or the reactions to his works. In other words, Marx himself had a fairly strong influence on the course of history, but as far as I can tell never took that into account in his predictions of how history would work. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, the plight of the poor can be blamed on others, not just the upper class. Blaming the Jews was big, of course, but also any other ethnicity or nation worked.  This approach seemed most popular in fascist nations. StuRat (talk) 15:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The long sequence of wars in the 19th century (Napoleonic Wars, Crimean War, American Civil War, Italian Wars of Independence, Austro-Prussian War, Franco-Prussian War, imperial wars in Africa and Asia, Indian Wars in North America...) also offered diversions. This period also saw the rise of Italian and German nationalism in particular.  Why fight capitalists when you can fight the French? --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it is absolutely imperative that we look at Marx himself when we talk about Marxism (As opposed to Leninism and Maoism). The key to understanding Marx's theory of history is the idea of technological determinism (i.e. that the political and economic system is determined in large part by a society's level of technology.) It was Marx's prediction that socialism (Collective ownership of the means of production) wold occur as a result of advances in technology that would greatly increase factory productivity. In Marx's mind, this would lead to far fewer factory workers (high unemployment) and an overproduction of goods that wouldn't get bought up, leading to an economic slump. After this, the displaced workers would rise up and seize the factories for themselves (the dictatorship of the proletariat) which would begin socialism. I think the key reason why this didn't happen is that Marx didn't realize that the workers displaced by technology would get new jobs in developing sectors like the service industry, leading to the formation of a middle class that really messes up Marx's view of class structure. Rabuve (talk) 17:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What you're calling technological determinism I've always heard as Dialectical materialism. That article gives some good background on Marx's philosophy of history, too. Llamabr (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Except for Mr.98, I've not seen this level of bullshit for quite some time:
 * Marx's theory of history changed throughout his career as an author. Marx's theory of history included technological determinism at a very vague level; but, tended to be socio-economically deterministic (in a complex method of determination involving interaction between mutually significant factors.  The key determining elements in History for Marx were the social organisation or production, and the method of ownership.  Technical advancement was by mid to late Marx (ie: Capital Marx), described as a secondary phenomena and Marx incidentally points out that advanced technology is not implemented because of socio-economic reasons.
 * Marx's predictions for capitalism were plural, and depend on the interpretation of his work. The primary ones are:
 * Tendency of the rate of profit to decline. I think this has more or less been demonstrated across 7 year business cycles (periods of productivity stasis in the means and tools of production); and, given Wallenstein type systems}} arguments, or [[Regulation School, or Autonomist type arguments about Fordism and Post-Fordism demonstrated by reference to the continuing necessity of primary accumulation or imperialism basically indicating that closed capitalist economies suffer from a declining rate of profit.
 * Emiseration of the working class. Mr.98 notes key features (Social-democracy, Labourism, and Fordism) that have limited in the first world the absolute emiseration of the proletariat.  However, the vastness of proletarian misery, and the relative misery of former non-proletarians, through third world proletarianisation and white-collar proletarianisation in the first world indicates that the standards of living of those newly incorporated into capitalism have dropped dramatically.  Further, the share of return to labour, a key economic indicator, has reduced constantly over the period if capitalism is analysed as a world system, and in most nations except the US, the return to labour has reduced periodically and dramatically, most recently since the mid 1970s.
 * Secondary predictions are:
 * The mass development of a revolutionary consciousness in the proletariat of various first world nations. He was dead wrong.  Capitalism was more than capable of developing a "buy off" of first world workers, through imperialist super profits, and at times by reducing the profitability of the national bourgeoisie.  Workers too had more consciousnesses formed than in itself and for itself--all genuinely derived from the experience of labour.  Some have argued that this was because Capitalism was continuously expanding through primary accumulation in this period, and we're now in a situation where primary accumulation has ceased.  However, this is not convincing as people have in the past (Lenin, Imperialism; Marx) believed that primary accumulation ceased.
 * That revolution would occur in the first world due to an absolutely emiserised proletariat. As we've seen emiseration has been relative rather than absolute in the first world; and, secondly, that revolutions have occurred in all capitalist nations during the 20th century: Germany, The General Strike in the UK, Hungary 1919 and 1956, France 1968 and Czechoslovakia 1968.  But also there were proletarian revolutions in Coastal China, Korea, Vietnam, Rural India, Rural and urban Philippines, etc, etc, etc.  Marx was wrong in cause and wrong in actuality with this prediction; but his prediction is a useful start point for theorisation of proletarian revolutions.
 * That proletarian revolutions would be the result of mass fundamentally democratic parties of the working class itself using techniques and methods derived from the experience of production. He was partly right (Paris, Germany, Russia 1917 I and II, Hungary 1919, Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968, France 1968).  But he did not predict militarised parties of the children of the bourgeoisie and management forming a spearpoint aimed at coup d'etat organised on fundamentally anti-democratic lines and in practice destroying proletarian independence and democracy (See Simon Pirani for the Soviet Case).
 * There are a number of expert texts discussing Marx and his works, which are very available to the non-specialist reader. Dave Harvey and Harry Cleaver are approachable recent Americans.  In addition, almost all readers can attempt Wages Price and Profit (as the Maoist Title has it) it is short and aimed at the generalist workers reader.
 * Out of the people who still use Marx in a predictive manner, there is a wide variety of approaches to Marx's broad historical predictions. Most people still assume that a society directly controlled by workers in a democratic form will come about (ie: not the fucking pastiche "dictatorship of the proletariat" which relates to Marx's theory that all states are dictatorial); probably leading towards a stateless society.  Marx's prediction here can be seen in the prefigurative forms of workers councils in control of society, Hungary 1956 is the best example here; radically different to Lenin's claims about appropriate behaviour.  On the other hand; some people persist in believing that workers can't lead themselves, but still have a belief in worker's power.
 * Finally, Soviet ideology often described Marx's methodology as Dialectical Materialism; most current practioners of Marxism refer to Historical Materialism, and limit the use of Marx's method to human society, rather than all space and time. It is also worth considering that Marxist studies are a vast field, and that in the English language most historians are interested by EP Thompson's method which emphasises the idea that material reality supercedes theory, and that theory must be independently demonstrable in every instance used.  Mr.98's characterisation of Marx as a 19th century economist is an excellent one here.  Apart from the core texts, I'd refer to much more contemporary theorists.  Mandel (last time I checked) felt Capitalism still had a good thousand years of life in it.  A projection based off the survival of the "feudal" relationships of production, distribution and exchange indicated that serious challenges to feudalism began about 1000 years into the life of that set of relations in the West, and Feudalism survived another 300 years in some forms after that.  If we assume that productive capitalism began in Holland in the 1600s; and that Mandel and myself in my depressed moments are correct, Capitalism could survive until 2900.  Fifelfoo (talk) 04:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You use a very broad and generous definition of the term "proletarian revolution". I would tend to doubt whether there has ever been a "proletarian revolution" in any very specific and meaningful sense of the term (i.e. a revolution whose supporters and leaders were both predominantly industrial factory workers, with their rallying grievances mainly about issues directly relevant to industrial factory workers, and which brought down a government or came close to doing so) at any time in human history... AnonMoos (talk) 07:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * the generous definition relates to Marx's definition of the proletariat, which is far broader than the industrial manufacturing working class. Marx's economic writings certainly privilege the point of production, but his journalistic writings are far more wide ranging regarding revolutions. Personally the role of the shop stewards committees in the German and Moscow 1917 II revolutions combined with Hungary satisfy me completely. The KAPD was larger than te KPD while the revolution was on. Moreover Marx uses revolution in two competing senses—guns on the streets, and more significantly a major and fundamental change in the order of economic life. The first has occurred, young workers were armed Hungary and the industrial working class hegemonised legitimacy post Nov 3. The latter obviously has not occurred. At least, this is the basis on which I defend my description of a number of events as proletarian revolutions. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Loss of Irish historical records
The thread up above (Why is genealogy so difficult) got me wondering what were the wider implications of the destruction of the Irish archives in 1922 - that is, beyond the loss of material for genealogists. I don't mean the political implications of the battles, but rather the loss of the historical archives themselves. Did back-up archives exist, or were there any serious constitutional or other implications of the loss of the records - for example, if some people claimed that certain records had existed but others claimed they had not? Presumably there were implications for those writing the history of the island. How were they overcome? More generally, what implications, if any, did the loss of those archives have on archiving practice more widely? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The loss was tremendous on all levels: historical, genealogical and practical. Many people were unable to prove who they were or who their parents were. Virtually all births, marriages, deaths, land deeds, wills, papers going back centuries went up in flames. Priceless documents relating to the arrival of families in Ireland are gone forever. I came across this dearth of information when I was researching the Fitzgeralds of Offaly for articles I had created. I'm not sure what steps the Irish Government took in the wake of the disaster. Remeber there was a nasty civil war going on at the time.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Have we got any sources on the resulting disruption? It seems on the face of it to be worth an article on its own.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It certainly would be a good topic (Four Courts fire, 1922, perhaps). A few sources which may be of some interest:
 * A selection of material which survived the actual fire (not much) is noted in, along with contents of the "modern" record office. It also notes (p. 52) that BMD records for around 40% of parishes escaped, because the original registers were still kept locally and had not yet been transferred. (Presumably a higher proportion of records in all parishes for the last few years survived, partly because they were still in use and partly because there was a general reluctance to transfer valuable records around a country in the middle of ongoing conflict...)
 * A short history of the early years of PRONI is in, which describes the sorts of records which had been retained on a district level as well as sent to Dublin, and so could be copied for the new archive in Belfast - copies of wills since 1857, for example. It also mentions the "State Papers relating to Ireland", which is a good reminder that much "constitutional" material was held in London rather than Dublin.
 * is a history of Irish public records, the second part of which (p. 33 on) discusses the fire, as well as listing material which survived locally - again, wills, but also a substantial amount of recent administrative papers, most deeds of land conveyance, local government material (except for Dublin itself), and large swathes of manuscripts which had gone astray and ended up in Trinity, or one of the other major libraries.
 * is a history of the Four Courts itself.
 * I did not find very much discussing practical short-term disruption (at least, not so far), and it would be interesting to know how - for example - the new Irish records office handled a request in 1935 for a birth certificate for someone born in 1890 in a parish whose records had not been retained locally. Shimgray | talk | 17:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * FAQ The General Register Office may help if you are in a position to visit the Irish Life Mall office in Dublin. Most BDM records are extant back to mid 19th century. For some inexplicable reason the indices are not on the web, even for a fee. I live locally and visit frequently, but its still unnecessarily inconvenient. RashersTierney (talk) 22:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure if it was mentioned already but Irish governments and the guardianship of historical records, 1922-72 is the definitive work on this subject. It covers the material lost and the efforts made to re-source from other repositories and collections. RashersTierney (talk) 17:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Useful sources - unfortunately I can't access them readily. But I look forward to reading the article when someone else writes it!  Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Me too. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  23:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

quote search
Just wondering, anyone know of any interesting quotes on the theory that with humans being a part of nature, nothing we do can be considered unnatural?148.197.81.179 (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well it's not a theory, more a question of how you choose to define "nature" and "unnatural". If you consider everything to be natural and nothing to be unnatural, the words become meaningless. As for quotes, do you mean like Huxley defining chastity as "the most unnatural of all the sexual perversions"?--Shantavira|feed me 08:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "Natural" vs. "artificial" would be the dichotomy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * There's the ancient Greek quote παντα καθαρα τοις καθαροις, which is vaguely similar... AnonMoos (talk) 15:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * That expression is found at http://mlbible.com/titus/1-15.htm.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of if someone said to me that something was not natural, some social construct, resource exploitation, or as mentioned above some 'perversion', that I could respond with... Backing up my arguments with reference to famous writers, philosophers, or whoever. 148.197.81.179 (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The Bible contains the word natural and the word unnatural.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The steering system of an automobile might become temporarily misaligned in relation to the automobile, but it continues to be a part of the automobile.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * That's pretty much the opposite of what the OP is talking about. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Short story about a lawyer cheating an naive person from country
Sorry, moved to Reference_desk/Entertainment because that seems more appopriate. Gulielmus estavius (talk) 16:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Assange extradition case
Why will the UK extradite Julian Assange even though it's clear that he wouldn't get a fair trial in Sweden and would likely be extradited to the US, where he would be tortured and/or executed? --70.250.212.95 (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You have not provided any evidence that he would a) not get a fair trial in Sweden b) that he would ever be extradited to the U.S. c) That he has been charged with any crime in the U.S. d) that the U.S. would have any plans to torture him e) That the U.S. would have any plans to execute him. Before you ask questions, you need to present evidence that your propositions are true, or at least reasonable.  -- Jayron  32  20:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In Sweden, people accused of rape are given secret trials. In the past, Sweden has turned over people to the US who have ended up in secret CIA torture facilities. --70.250.212.95 (talk) 22:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The secret CIA torture facilities were about trying to extract information about continuing terrorist networks. I'm not defending that, in the slightest, but it's a different thing than the kind of prosecution attempt they'd have against Assange. It would also completely taint any actual attempts to convict him later, which would be stupid.
 * Presumably the trials are in camera in Sweden to protect the privacy of the victims. I'm not sure why you'd assume those could still not be fair, though. There are ways to have fair, in camera trials with sufficient oversight.
 * As for execution, it's not likely. The Espionage Act is pretty vague but most experts agree that it would be exceedingly difficult to get a death penalty sentence against him. (If I recall, you'd have to successfully argue that Assange was intentionally trying to help foreign enemies of the United States, which is not an easy thing to do, given that Assange has never said he was trying to do that, and there are plenty of plausible alternatives.) Anyway I don't know why you'd think the UK would be any more happy with Assange than the US is — they're all in the same boat there, when it comes to governments that don't like leaking. The only objections would be capital punishment, and, at the moment, the US has not charged Assange with anything, and certainly not a capital crime, and so I doubt there's any strong reason for anyone in the UK to deny this extradition on the basis that the US might charge, that Sweden might extradite, that conviction might occur, that capital punishment might be sentenced, etc. etc. etc. There's a lot of mights there. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the trials are secret to protect the defendant, actually. The alleged victim can be protected by having them give evidence from behind a screen and forbidding anyone to say their name (which is how it works in the UK, I believe). The only reason I can see for keeping the entire trial secret is so that, should the defendant be found not-guilty, they don't have to deal with people saying "there's no smoke without fire" and assuming they are guilty and just managed to get away with it. That is particularly true for defendants that work with children. One false accusation of sexual assault against a teacher can completely destroy that teacher's career, even if there isn't a shred of evidence that it ever happened. For that reason, some jurisdictions keep the accusations secret until and unless they are proven. --Tango (talk) 14:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Entirely possible. The irony, of course, is that for Assange compulsory publicity (leaking) is a necessary thing, and compulsory privacy will smack of secrecy, the thing he hates the most. There are all sorts of funny fault lines on the intersections of compulsory/voluntary publicity/secrecy/privacy. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * For Assange, compulsory publicity for governments is a necessary thing. He does not necessarily believe that individuals should not have privacy, especially individuals accused of a crime.  --18.248.5.115 (talk) 04:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Answering the basic question (Why will the UK extradite Julian Assange): because EU law requires the UK to extradite him. Consider too that Sweden would need consent from the UK to extradite Assange to the US, would never do that if he could face the death penalty, and that Sweden is far from having a corrupt, inept or unreliable legal system. I sincerely don't know why people got that excited about Assange being judge in Sweden (which is widely regarded as a place where human rights, including presumption of innocence, are respected). 88.9.214.242 (talk) 01:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My suspicion is that they'd be unhappy for him to be judged anywhere, because they generally believe every place is corrupt, and the charges are bogus. I suspect this is wrong on a number of counts, but you have to keep in mind that the Wikileaks outlook is fairly suspicious of anything that smacks of attempting to delegitimize Wikileaks. Which of course would be especially unfortunate if the charges were true. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought I saw a story some months back that said Wikileaks was teetering on bankruptcy. If so, they might shut down without Assange or anyone else getting waterboarded. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, their financial services have been plugged up. For all of the talk about how the internet lacks any laws, borders, etc., it turns out everything still needs money, and there are relatively limited ways to transmit, store, and collect money. And those are of course heavily regulated by various states. I don't think anyone's going to waterboard Assange — your waterboard people who know things you don't, not people who know what you know (but wish they didn't know). --Mr.98 (talk) 16:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The talk among legal scholars in the US is that Assange hasn't committed a crime violating US law. The only people who committed crimes were those who leaked secret information.  Assange only raised the argument that he would be extradited to the US because he is trying to escape prosecution for his multiple rapes.  The US government already attempted prosecution for with the Pentagon Papers and failed.  Both the UK and the EU have found that Assange will receive a fair trial.  A fair trial does not mean an automatic judgement of acquittal.  Courts which grant fair trials can still convict for one or more crimes.  Perhaps the OP believes having sex with unconscious women isn't a crime? Gx872op (talk) 14:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Modern European monarchies
Why do several supposedly democratic European countries still have monarchies? --70.250.212.95 (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keeping up with traditions. They are just mainly symbols or figureheads of those countries today.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And it creates a system where the monarch and head of governmnt are accountable to each other, preventing either one becoming too powerful, as in many supposed republics around the world where a single leader is free to become a dictator with little trouble.148.197.80.214 (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The government is absolutely not accountable to the monarchy in a constitutional monarchy, because the monarch has no political power (and in the UK, isn't even allowed to vote). Legally, bills passed by the legislature might require royal assent to become law, but if the monarch ever uses this power to oppose the public will, you can be sure that an uproar and possibly the abolition of the monarchy will follow.  --140.180.13.218 (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If the monarch doesn't agree with a democratic decision, they can always take a day off -  Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * See Constitutional monarchy. Pfly (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * See also (as one example) Republicanism in the United Kingdom, and its section on Arguments in favour of constitutional monarchy. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Your IP is American. You never had your own king and you needed a revolutionary war to get rid of a foreign one. Democracies tend to keep a monarchy if it gave up power more or less voluntarily and doesn't interfere with the democracy. Officially the monarch may still have the right to some interference but if they don't attempt it then it's not considered a problem. By the way, Democracy Index ranks many European constitutional monarchies above USA, and some things in USA makes many Europeans wonder why a supposedly democratic country does it. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The U.S. comes in at 8.18 on that scale... U.K. at 8.16, the leader, Norway, with a 9.8. You're still a "flawed democracy" all the way down to 6.00, so even giving the Index full credit, the spread between the top is quite small. Shadowjams (talk) 02:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

If you look at a country like Canada -- which is not only a monarchy but one without its own monarch -- it basically comes down to the harmlessness of the current set-up, the constitutional difficulty in replacing it and the question of who takes over as head of state in place of the king/queen, as an elected president comes with its own problems. I'm guessing it's the same for Spain, the UK, Norway, etc. The Brits aren't exactly suffering under the tyrannic hand of Queen Elizabeth. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Toopua island?
Looking at this text "The article said the federation comprised the islands of Bora Bora. Toopua (?), Tupai, Maupiti, and Mopelia. The flag was red with five white stars in a horizontal line in the middle. Other early Pacific flags were for the kingdom of" from. Where is Toopua?
 * Bora Bora states "The surrounding islets include: Motu Tapu, Motu Ahuna, Tevairoa, Motu Tane, Motu Mute, Motu Tufari, Motu Pitiaau, Sofitel Motu, Motu Toopua and Toopuaiti. According to this photograph's caption, Motu Toopua is near Vaitape Harbour. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What made it stand out over the other islets of Bora Bora to be considered one of the stars on this flage?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Scottish unionists and Scottish separatists and their flags
Do Scottish unionists use a darker blue background color of the Scottish flag rather than the sky blue waved by Scottish separatists? --Cerlomin (talk) 22:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Traditionally a lighter blue has been popular, though I've never noticed anyone making an explicit political distinction. Note that the Scottish Parliament, in its copious spare time, standardised the flag at a lighter blue than the Union Flag, Pantone 300 [ ███████ ] - this is now official, as these things go, and so it's probably inaccurate to assume that a sky blue flag implies nationalist opinions. Shimgray | talk | 23:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No.Flag_of_Scotland. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  23:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Next question. --Cerlomin (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)