Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 September 24

= September 24 =

Singing terminology
What is the musical term for a group singing performance in which the lyrics sung by one part of the group trails that of another, as in Mamas and Papas California Dreamin'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.15.225 (talk) 04:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that's a type of imitation (music). Looie496 (talk) 04:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * A Medley or a Mashup, perhaps?--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   11:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Round (music) might be the term you want, although it means an entire song layered on top of itself (I don't remember the whole of California Dreamin' being sung in this way). Oh, I see the "imitation" article links to round. Card Zero  (talk) 11:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say a canon --ColinFine (talk) 16:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Average age that politicians were elected
Has such data ever been collected? I'm mostly interested in the case of Canada or the United States. 184.163.160.61 (talk) 12:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I know you said you were interested in Canada but I have the figures readily to hand to calculate for the UK. The average British MP in this present Parliament was elected at the age of 14,987.1 days, or 41 years 12 days. The alpha and omega are both Liberal Democrats: Charles Kennedy, elected in 1983 at the age of 23 years, and Gordon Birtwistle, elected in 2010 at the age of 66. By party, the averages are Conservatives 40 years 205 days, Labour 41 years 148 days, Liberal Democrats 40 years 307 days. The others and minor parties average 42 years 343 days. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This chart from The Wall Street Journal gives some cursory information, indicating that someone has collected that data. — Michael J 01:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. In fact I only needed some hard facts that demonstrate that not giving particularly tempting income incentives to politicians would somehow deter bad governance; as most of them have already made a living for the most part up until their election. Raskolkhan (talk) 21:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * A few years ago (in the mid-1990s) a study found that, on average, new British MPs took a pay cut on coming into Parliament. I would be surprised if that pattern were substantially different in other Western democracies. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

List of Constituencies of Netherlands, Belgium, France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Switzerland, Norway
Does Wikipedia have lists of constituencies or parliamentary seats of Netherlands, Belgium, France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Switzerland? like how Canada and United Kingdom does? I am asking because I wanted to see if the riding is very far-right when it comes to electing far-right parties like Danish People's Party, Party for Freedom, and etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.33.131 (talk) 15:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If we have them, they're probably in Category:Lists of constituencies. But only Finland seems to be, of the countries you've listed. --ColinFine (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Link added for France. I know Netherlands elect on a national list, IIRC Norway use their counties, Spain use the provinces - most of the information you want is in the article on each relevant Parliament/Chamber --Saalstin (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Note that a fair number of the countries you mentioned elect candidates through party-list proportional representation rather than first-past-the-post. In a system of proportional representation, a far-right party that receives 5% of seats in the national legislature might do so with 5% of the total votes spread over the entire country. They wouldn't need a majority of votes in any specific geographic subdivision (or "constituency"), per se, to get elected. Gabbe (talk) 10:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * As per Sweden, you can get parliamentary, county council and muncipal council results for 2010 election at national, constituency, municipal and polling station level at http://www.val.se/val/val2010/slutresultat/R/rike/index.html . Parliamentary constituencies are generally the same as the Counties of Sweden, except for the 3 largest ones that are divided into smaller constituencies. --Soman (talk) 08:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

In the 2010 parliamentary election, the highest voting percentage of the far right (SD) was registered in Almgården (http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almg%C3%A5rden,_Malm%C3%B6 ), with just above 30%, http://www.val.se/val/val2010/slutresultat/R/valdistrikt/12/80/0912/index.html --Soman (talk) 08:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

looking for maps
Is there any way I can find a map of the world, or at least Asia, Africa and Europe, in the year 992BC with major coastal towns and cities marked on?

148.197.81.179 (talk) 19:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Not too sure that there were very many "major coastal cities" in the world in 992 B.C., since civilization was still somewhat concentrated in the Nile and Mesopotamian river valleys. Colin McEvedy has an 825 B.C. map in his "Atlas of Ancient History", and the only major coastal city shown is Tyre... AnonMoos (talk) 20:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You might find something by following the sources in the very few maps at Commons:Category:Maps showing 10th-century BCE history. -84user (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Other coastal cities at the time included Athens, Byblos and Sidon on the Mediterranean. Some other cities were near the coast, such as those in the Nile Delta, and Linzi in what is now China. Warofdreams talk 23:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * However, I doubt whether Athens had much real importance in 992 B.C., which falls pretty much into the "Aegean dark ages" (after the fall of the Mycenean palaces and before the rise of the city-states). The 825 B.C. map shows Tanis, Gaza, and Sidon as smaller than Tyre, and doesn't show Athens at all. AnonMoos (talk) 01:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. The Zhou dynasty 1000 B.C. map shows the area of Chinese rule barely touching the coastline... AnonMoos (talk) 01:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Еще Раз-Путин?
I read that after having served two four-year terms as president, and then gone on a four-year shirtless media tour, Vlad the Unstoppable will, unless he is stabbed, poisoned, drowned and penectomized, return in 2012, for another two six-year terms. Is this correct? μηδείς (talk) 21:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * President of Russia: The Constitution of Russia also restricts the period during which a person can hold the office of the President to two consecutive terms. There is no limit to the total number of terms that a President may serve, just a limit on successive terms.


 * The Term length in the infobox says: Six years beginning in 2012; four years until then; renewable once.


 * So, it seems constitutionally OK. But, of course, WP is not a crystal ball.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  21:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * There's been a lot of discussion amongst Russia-watchers about whether Putin will go for the Presidency again, or stay in as the Prime Minister. It's clear that at the moment he's making a show of demonstrating that most politicians are loyal to him and not Medvedev. Whether that is because he is planning to run against Medvedev, or just because he is putting Medvedev in his place before letting him proceed again, is anyone's guess at this point. Both options have their political strengths and weaknesses. There was an article on this very recently in the New York Times. Update: Actually, it turns out that just today it is reported that Medvedev has proposed that Putin run for Presidency in the next election, and Putin has apparently accepted. So it seems pretty fait accompli. There is no political opposition of any strength to Putin in Russia. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, just spotted this. From what I understand, there's nothing illegal about what Putin's doing at all. The President of the Russian Federation decides what is legal and illegal as there is no actual check on power interestingly enough, but that is knowledge from three years ago, though even without that, he is able to rub for the reaon that Jack cited above. It's a bit unorthodox for us Yankees, but it's their (Russia's) law. There was never any real doubt that Putin would return. 12 more years 12 more years! :p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 26 Elul 5771 05:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I only comprehended about half of that, Sir William. You totally lost me with the bit about it being the Yankies' law.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  10:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, whoops, I messed that up. I meant it's unorthodox for us Americans, but it is Russia's law nonetheless. I have corrected it now. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 26 Elul 5771 15:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The reason it isn't illegal isn't because whatever the President says goes in Russia, it's because the Russian constitution says it is legal. It's not clear that Putin is 100% "above the law," though he definitely runs enough of things there to appear that way. But if he was flagrantly and obviously breaking the law left and right it's not clear that people would just shrug it off. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * When I say that, I mean any constitutional changes he wants, he gets as the Duma is a rubber-stamp parliament and there is no check on his power any more (those were slowly eroded away according to what I have read and heard from scholars of Russian politics). I probably should have been specific as to what I meant. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 26 Elul 5771 15:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeees, I think that would be best. Saying precisely what one means is not exactly unheard of around these parts.  :)  -- 19:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I always am caught between going by WP:CLUE, which risks people not getting what I am talking about, and WP:NOCLUE, which results in annoyed replies of "I know what you are talking about". I am starting to favour no clue more as it tends to be the case in my daily life. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 27 Elul 5771 15:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Why are Russian politics so predictable?
So, ever since my AP Comp Gov class when we studied Russia back in... 2008 or 2007 I think; I came to the realise that the question of who holds the Russian presidency (the only office with actual power in the Russian Federation) can be predicted years in advance (this was after one of the top Scholars on Russia from Columbia U basically hammered a similar point home for us. I said to myself that after Putin fulfilled the two consecutive terms, he would have someone take his place and then come back four years later. I saw in 2009 or 2010 that Medveadev had changed the law so that any president after him will have two six years terms available rather than just the two four year ones. I knew who that was for then. This morning I looked at the Russian Elections of 2012 page and was I surprised to see that Meveadev endorsed Putin as his sucessor? Not at all. So, why do I have a good feeling that Vladimir Putin will be president in 2023 (possibly with none of the no-more-than-two-consecutive-terms-at-one-time still in place to stop another election bid)? Or, the better question is, why is Russia like this? Why does it seemingly not have the ability to be a liberal democracy? (Not that Putin's elections are not the will of the people even without vote-rigging, but still) Is there any indication within the Russian populace as well that the majority dislike this arrangement? Sorry if this is a bit incoherent and rambling btw, but it's a bit late. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 26 Elul 5771 05:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent, if you are correct then Russia will have more chance to ascend back to socialism! → Σ  τ  c . 05:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Putin will win just as surely as the Sun will set in West. Unless the Communist Party can pull of a coup of some sort (any type in this case, but best to wait for the oil money to dry up :p) Also, please excuse me if the OP sounds like a rant. I am wondering basically what studies have been done of the Russian political psyche I guess that make this sort of thing possible. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 26 Elul 5771 05:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * American politics are way more predictable, a right-wing candidate has won every time since 45! Public awareness (talk) 08:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Barack Obama is right wing? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 17:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Well you know it's always going to be someone business friendly, etc in the US. In Russia, you know it's going to be the same guy twelve years from now (barring any unforseen occurences that render him incapable of executing the office.) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 26 Elul 5771 17:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Have you read Democracy Derailed in Russia by M. Steven Fish? Gabbe (talk) 10:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Can't say I have. Is it good? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 26 Elul 5771 17:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I spoke to a couple of Putin supporters in Moscow. I question why, with Putin clearly amassing as much power as possible, they weren't alarmed. They said they wanted the President to be more powerful – Russia is a big country, they said, and they were both fearful of the federation breaking up as it had in the 1990s, and of the rich exploiting the vastness of the country. I believe that it is the fundamental difference that the more extreme Putin becomes the less (and not more) problem he has which creates this situation. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems like there is a desire in Russia to have a strong central authority. It seems to have always been that way. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 26 Elul 5771 17:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

what are actors who appear in porno films but don;t have sex in the film called?
what are actors who appear in porno films but don;t have sex in the film called? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.245.224 (talk) 22:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Extras? Bielle (talk) 23:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Why does North Korea seem to be so obsessed with its military?
I'm astonished that a country with is pretty much as poor as many African countries and makes my country (the Philippines) look like Singapore when it comes to its economy be so obsessed with their military, and nuclear weapons. I know they have a Military first policy but couldn't they at least pour more money into helping their starving countrymen and improving their way of life instead of improving their military because of their fear that South Korea will attack them (usually because the North attacked them first)? I know that their military is one of the largest in the world, but at what cost to everything else? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The people who make the decisions and who run the country are not poor. It's their own wealth they are protecting. HiLo48 (talk) 23:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * We have an article Son'gun. However, you should be aware that in the North Korean leadership view they're single-handedly facing down the United States (not merely South Korea), and they have cynical motives as well (a perusal of Chapter III of Goldstein's Book might be illuminating...). -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The belief of constant existential threat is one of the most common and most effective ways to justify extreme measures of control. By militarizing the entire country under a strict hierarchy, you make sure that the employment rate is near 100%, and that nearly everyone is under strict observation and discipline. Nuclear weapons are useful for avoiding forcible external "regime change" of the sort seen in Iraq, Afghanistan, Grenada, Cuba (failed), and so on. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What Mr.98 said. If Libya, Iraq, or Afghanistan had a military like North Korea does they would not be currently occupied by the US/US funded forces. Cuba only survived because they were backed by the USSR military, than when the USSR collapsed, the US didn't have a good excuse to invade them anymore. The US thought they could take Vietnam. If the US knew they were as strong as they were/as hard to defeat as they were, Vietnam would not have been ransaked. So, pretty much all nations that don't bow to the west must be prepared to defend themselves by force. Public awareness (talk) 07:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * To say that doesn't necessarily mean that the North Korean people wouldn't be better off under a more Western-style regime; nor does it mean that "the West" (vaguely construed) necessarily forces an iron will on other nations. It's just a realpolitik statement about a country that sponsors terrorism, acts belligerently to its neighbors, and commits huge human rights violations against its own people. If you want to do all those things and have the US keep a good distance from you, make sure to have a couple of nukes in your back pocket, or something comparable. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Governments can be as evil as they want so long as they are pro-US. Suharto, Pinochet, Mubarak, Israel; the US backed them all heavily with military equipment. Public awareness (talk) 18:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Only Suharto in the above list remotely approaches the North Korean leadership level of destroying the well-being of the inhabitants of one's own country. Nice how your list puts Israel as a whole on the same level with named dictators -- thereby implying all kinds of things which mostly aren't true... AnonMoos (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC) AnonMoos (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The short, top of the head, list wasn't about dictators, it was those who mostly fit the "sponsors terrorism, acts belligerently to its neighbors, and commits huge human rights violations against its own people." description 98 wrote. Israel fits all three with their near daily bombings of civilian buildings and sniping of civilians, to their constant occupation of Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, and the many systemic rules which make Israel an apartheid state. Public awareness (talk) 19:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's nice -- fewer people have died on all sides during the whole last 75 years of Jewish/Israeli vs. Arab fighting than died in one year in Darfur, yet the curiously-selective indignation of people like you remains unaffected... AnonMoos (talk) 19:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How many died during racial segregation in the US or apartheid in South Africa? very few? I guess that means there was no real problem. I guess most people, including "people like [me]" hold "developed" nations to a higher standard than others when it comes to human rights and belligerence. I am quite pleased that South Sudan did win its independence, it's a shame little was done to support their fight. Hopefully Palestine will win its independence too and the Israeli colonization and military occupation end. Public awareness (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please stop soapboxing on the Reference Desk with irrelevant material, thank you. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * North Korea has a reputation to uphold. It ain't easy being part of the Axis of Evil, ya know? It takes a continual commitment, which means time and money. ←baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Since the North Korean government has no claim to legitimacy, a strong military is needed to ensure that the population won't rebel (or, if anybody does, they will be killed). StuRat (talk) 02:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep. Like in The Wizard of Id, when they said all government funding was being channeled to the military: "When the revolt comes, we'll be ready." ←baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)