Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 April 23

= April 23 =

"ST"


What is the meaning of "ST" in "Heavy Duty Mechanic - Scrap (ST)"?Curb Chain (talk) 03:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sarah Tudge? She is the person assigned to handle the applications, according to the announcement. Looie496 (talk) 03:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, what about ,,?Curb Chain (talk) 05:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ???? All of them have her as the assigned contact so.... Nil Einne (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Right. I'm just feeling that posting a job with the initials are just not usual practice so I feel that it must mean something else?Curb Chain (talk) 23:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see why you believe that. Have you looked at many job listings? I haven't really, but I have noticed before it's hardly uncommon for a job listing to have some sort of ref in the description to make internal routing & recognition easier (I presume) which sometimes includes the contact persons initials. In this case it appears the initial alone are considered enough by the advertisers (who aren't always the company itself, in fact I would say the practice is more common when the advertisers aren't the company itself but a recruiting company or similar which is hardly surprising). Within about 5 seconds of visiting the page of the site you're using I found a similar example (archive ) albeit with the addition of a number and there are several with that same ref  (archive ). I'm sure I could look at any number of job listing sites and see something similar since as I've said, from my limited experience, it's very common. Nil Einne (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure enough another 5 seconds later, same recruitement company as the one I linked, but different contact person (archive ). I can't remember BTW if the ST cases was a recruitement company or the company looking for the position and the links no longer work (although a search for her name suggests she works for the same recruitement company as the other two) but either way, I see no reason to think Looie496's suggestion is wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to show this isn't unique to Canada or that particular recruitement agency, about 15 seconds after looking at Malaysian job sites (which admitedly came after a ~3 minute look at NZ sites), I have  (archived ) and another 45 seconds later  (archive: ) Nil Einne (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

"Greatest country in the world"
Is there any historical or psychological reason why Americans frequently call the US the "greatest country in the world?" I frequently hear this phrase in American media, especially in Fox News Channel. Besides, I don't remember Canadian, British or even Chinese media call themselves the "greatest country in the world", so why the US? Is there a historical reason as to why Americans frequently do it while other countries don't do it as often? Was the trend common during the Vietnam War or the Cold War? (Except for a few nationalists, in most countries they would say that they love their country, but not necessarily call it the greatest). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You're right that Canadians don't call Canada the "greatest country in the world". What they call it, and I quote, is "the best country in the world".  The implication that "best" is in the sense of "morally best" is not remotely subtle.  --Trovatore (talk) 03:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The concept has a name, it's called American exceptionalism (that is, the idea that American's call their country the best in the world, not that it actually is.). -- Jayron  32  03:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Try to keep up. It's Canadians that call Canada the "best" country.  Americans call America the "greatest" country. --Trovatore (talk) 03:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's only true insofar as bestness is correlated to one's inability to recognize synonyms. -- Jayron  32  04:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's different. The "greatest" country is the one that, take your pick, accomplishes the most, is the most powerful, perhaps does the most good, is the most generally awesome.  The "best" country is the one that most does the right thing, whether or not anyone notices.  I think that's pretty much how the terms are intended in the two countries, and the word choice is not an accident. --Trovatore (talk) 04:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I see, so Canadians are best at redefining commonly understood words to meet their particular needs in making a silly point. That's definitely something to hang national pride on.  -- Jayron  32  04:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how many times I heard "best country in the world" while I lived in Canada, but it was certainly more than once. I don't ever recall hearing anyone call it the "greatest country in the world".  It was clear to me that they meant morally best, and I think that is the commonly understood sense of the phrase.  --Trovatore (talk) 04:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, because no one ever uses the words greatest and best interchangably, and if I called Babe Ruth the best baseball player ever, the preponderance of English speakers would think I mean he was the morally best baseball player. -- Jayron  32  04:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Come on, it's not the same thing and you know it. You're just being argumentative at this point.
 * By the way, while I found the phrase (and the Canadian moralism behind it) irritating, Canadian moralism does have its points. See for example Roméo Dallaire.  --Trovatore (talk) 04:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, you're the one who first called me out because I didn't use your idiosyncratic definition of the word best. I raised no issue until you started demanding that my statement was somehow wrong.  I was trying to show you that it wasn't.  It is perfectly acceptable to use best and greatest as synonyms of each other, and now that it is inconvenient for you to do so, you're backpedalling.  Which is it?  Was I wrong to use best as a synonym of greatest or not?  -- Jayron  32  04:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You were responding to me, by the indentation. I had clearly made the point that Canadians said "best", and that it was not an accident.  You ignored that, which might have been fine, except that you were responding to me, and ignoring the main point of a short post.  --Trovatore (talk) 04:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Except that there is also a clearly moral component to American exceptionalism as well, being best morally does not preclude one from being best in other ways (perceived or actual). Americans don't merely think of themselves as the most advanced, Americans also think their country has a monopoly on freedom and liberty, and that it is truly uniquely positioned (as in the only country in the whole world), in a moral sense, to spread that freedom and liberty throughout the world.  If you'd read American exceptionalism, such an idea would have become apparent quickly.  In other words, American exceptionalism is about Americans' opinion that America and only America has the moral right to spread its ideals throughout the world, and that the very concepts of goodness and freedom and liberty come from America as a gift to the world.  That's American exceptionalism, and given what that was, it clearly relates to your post on Canadian moral superiority.  -- Jayron  32  05:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Americans may also think the US is the best country, but that's different from thinking it's the greatest country. A subtle difference but relevant in context. --Trovatore (talk) 05:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Everybody can claim to be the "greatest" at something. Usually it's self-aggrandizing. And there's no circumstance in which everyone will agree with you. And so nationalism of this kind is a little distasteful. But why are you so convinced the U.S. is the worst in this respect? Do you mean that in absolute terms? Relative terms? Shadowjams (talk) 05:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not really sure what makes you think that I think that the US is "the worst in this respect". Just that I said Canadians don't claim to be "the greatest"?  That's one country, and anyway the claim to be "the best" is at least equally irritating. --Trovatore (talk) 06:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * To me, when I hear Canada being described as the "best country in the world", the main implied meaning is "to live in", not some moral superiority. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, could be. But that's not how I interpreted, who was it, Paul Martin maybe? when he said it.  Didn't seem to fit the context, not that I remember exactly what the context was. Anyway, what about the comment on your user page, about being Canadian so people must like you? --Trovatore (talk) 06:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No moral superiority implied. It's just pretty well accepted that Canadians are generally well liked. Maybe because we're not too pushy/arrogant/visible on the world scene. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It probably has to do with the US being the most recent nation to dominate the world. I imagine you would have found a similar sentiment in Britain, when it was at it's peak. StuRat (talk) 03:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Stu is quite astute. The article Pax Britannica covers a similar mentality towards the peak of the British Empire, whereby Britain saw itself as the undisputed superior power, and that the very weight of its Empire established worldwide peace and goodwill in its wake.  The notion is demonstratably false, as LOTS of horrific wars occured during the time period (e.g. Revolutions of 1848, Franco-Prussian war, Opium Wars, Crimean War, Boer Wars etc. etc.) many of which involved Britain directly.  However, like American exceptionalism, it still stems from the view that hegemony carries a moral component, that somehow becoming a major power occurs because one is morally right, and that moralism + hegemony grants the country truly unique moral rights and responsibilities with regard to its dominant position, especially the right to spread its values around the world.  -- Jayron  32  05:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly I could not agree more with Stu in this instance. How about the other side of that coin? That other countries criticize the other major power. Sometimes fair, sometimes unfair. And by the way, if Canada calls itself the best, the U.S. certainly isn't the only country to make bold claims. At least the U.S. has some reasons (canada does too... this is a snipe at north korea... not your country, and if you're from north korea.... find yourself an embassy). Shadowjams (talk) 05:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

As Giacomo Casanova wrote, "It is a belief shared by all nations, each thinking itself the best. And they are all right." Deor (talk) 06:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

"Greatest" doesn't necessarily mean moral superiority; it's often used to denote power, as in "Rome was the world's greatest empire for hundreds of years". In that sense, the US is objectively the greatest country in the world in terms of economic/military power, industrial/scientific prowess, cultural dominance, and almost every other criteria. Similarly, some Canadians could mean "best country to live in" when they say "best", and they'd probably be right. 12% of the Canadian population lives in Toronto, Vancouver, or Calgary, and all 3 are in the top 5 of the world's most livable cities. --140.180.1.1 (talk) 06:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I lived in Toronto for a year.  Beautiful city, but livability?  Give me Los Angeles any day. --Trovatore (talk) 06:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The trope about Canada being the best country in the world dates back to the mid-1990s and the first few editions of the United Nations' Human Development Index which placed Canada in the top spot (bunched up with Scandinavian and other European countries; never mind that the HDI is not designed to compare countries at the top of the chart and that differences in ranking among the top 20 or so are essentially meaningless.). The Chrétien government jumped on this for propaganda purposes at a time of tension with separatists in Quebec and started trumpeting the "best country on the world" line all over the place. In future editions of the rankings, Canada fell back a few places, and the trumpeting by the federal government ceased, but the idea had been established in the mind of many Canadians that somehow, the world had validated us as the "best". And so it continues to this day. --Xuxl (talk) 10:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I hadn't known that. That does put a different spin on it. --Trovatore (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

People in many countries call their country the best/greatest etc. In India, there is a song, Saare Jahan Se Achcha meaning "Better than the entire world". -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  10:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Objectively speaking, the really greatest countries is the world are Hong Kong (in terms of economy) and Netherlands (in terms of civil liberties). -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  10:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * (Bear with me, my mind and Google-fu are letting me down somewhat) The BBC recently broadcast a three-part documentary series on why we English believe we are the greatest nation in the world. I can't, however, find it on the BBC website to give you a link. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the British Empire once introduced modernization throughout the entire world. Even modern Americans are also descendants of the British. So we can say much of the world is contribution of the British. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  12:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The historical and psychological reasons for the claim by some Americans to have "the greatest country in the world", as others have said, involve conflating dominance with moral superiority. There is the feeling that dominance is the result of moral superiority.  It is also a very useful sentiment for ruling classes to exploit to justify acts of aggression and brutality abroad.  They can say, "Because we are the greatest country in the world, they should be grateful that we are liberating/protecting/aiding them." That kind of statement rallies US public opinion behind foreign interventions, which are presented not as the prerogative but as the moral responsibility of the world's greatest nation.  In short, the claim is part of an ideology of imperialism.  This kind of claim is not generally made by Americans on the left because they understand its connection to imperialism, which they oppose.  However, it is often made by the right (for which Fox News is a voice), because the right backs an imperialist agenda.  The claim was made a little less stridently or often in the wake of Vietnam, when many Americans doubted American "greatness", but the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 was partly about reviving the "greatness" claim.  Marco polo (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Somewhat OT but I definitely wouldn't assume best country in the world has an morally best implications. I can't speak for Canadians thoug. Nil Einne (talk) 16:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I was about to say that claiming to be "the greatest nation" was a particularly un-British piece of boastfulness, when I found that our former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, had said exactly that in his 2007 resignation speech: "This country is a blessed nation. The British are special, the world knows it, in our innermost thoughts, we know it. This is the greatest nation on Earth." He was a master of blowing-one's-own-trumpet.
 * As to the use of the phrase in US culture, there are many pages of Google Books results from the first three decades of the 20th century, when America was certainly an economic powerhouse, but in terms of international relations was isolationist and inward looking (except for 1917-18) and was a military minnow in comparison to Britain and France. The earliest American use of the phrase that I could find was The Yale literary magazine, Volumes 12-13 (1847) p.275; "But the truth is, we are the greatest nation on earth, and we feel it. Whether we, who are now on the stage of action, deserve much credit for it, or not, the fact is so." Alansplodge (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised you don't remember the "this sceptred isle" speech - Richard II, Shakespeare ! --TammyMoet (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well yes, point taken; but old Bill Shakespeare goes to a bit more effort than just crowing "We're the greatest!". Also, the speech finishes on a self-critical note; "England, bound in with the triumphant sea / Whose rocky shore beats back the envious siege / Of watery Neptune, is now bound in with shame, / With inky blots and rotten parchment bonds: / That England, that was wont to conquer others, / Hath made a shameful conquest of itself." How very prescient. For the full text, see Prophecy of the dying John of Gaunt Alansplodge (talk) 00:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

They must have the best food there, and it must be getting better and better there, see here:

"Americans are not just getting fatter, they are ballooning to extremely obese proportions at an alarming rate." Count Iblis (talk) 02:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Is Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead out of copyright in Canada?
If I understand correctly, her work Anthem is in the public domain since it was published under a pseudonym and more than fifty years ago; I have heard the same thing about 1984 by George Orwell (Eric Blair). Is the same true of The Fountainhead? -- ✶♏✶ 06:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Was The Fountainhead published under a pseudonym? The word "pseudonym" does not appear in our article on it (but then neither does it appear in our article on Anthem).  --Trovatore (talk) 06:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh wait, are you saying "Ayn Rand" itself is a pseudonym? Canada is a common law country, which should mean that your name is what you call yourself and are known as.  Didn't she use that as her actual name? --Trovatore (talk) 06:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Who exactly told you Anthem was out of copyright? According to List of countries' copyright length, in Canada anonymous works have a 50 year period, but anonymous is not the same as pseudonymous.  Also note that we cannot provide legal advice, but only idle speculation. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

George S. Messersmith and William Phillips
Hello learned ones ! Recently, while writing for the WP french article on George S. Messersmith, I read somewhere (maybe on a doc with an URL beginning with http://www.fleetwoodpa.org/messersmith_george/ , but it appears that my very small computing skills do not allow me to go back to that ref....) that "Messersmith wrote in 1933 to William Phillips that USA should try to side with USSR, so as to check nazi Germany". Who might be this William Phillips ? Disambiguation in WP en displays a reasonable choice between a scientist, a diplomat, an editor...

Thanks a lot beforehand for your answers, and feel free to enter into the french article, I found some interesting facts on WP de (and the poster "en travaux" is there only to repel the crows who might be attracted by that freshly sown-in plot...) Arapaima (talk) 07:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The article William Phillips (diplomat) states that "he was Under Secretary of State again from 1933 to 1936" (i.e., the most important man in the United States Department of State after the United States Secretary of State). It's almost certainly him. --Xuxl (talk) 10:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A page at the fleetwoodpa site that you (Arapaima) referred to does link to the texts of two letters that Messersmith wrote to Phillips (the one identified by Xuxl above) in 1933, but neither mentions the Soviet Union. I'm so far unable to find evidence of a letter expressing the pro-Soviet sentiment you refer to, but a thorough search of the Messersmith Papers at the University of Delaware may turn up something. There are a number of messages to Phillips there. Deor (talk) 10:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot to both. Deor, you're right : hint at USSR is not in the letter to Phillips, but further down the doc. visible on fleetwoodpa.org  Arapaima (talk) 07:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Unimpeachable source - yea or nay?
Is there such a thing as an 'unimpeachable source', in terms of the source being 'beyond doubt', or, 'beyond reproach'? ... I ask because I claimed in an academmic paper I wrote a few years ago that my Father's war diaries were an unimpeachable. BenyochDon't panic! Don't panic! (talk) 08:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are involved in a debate about what counts as a reliable source on Wikipedia, please take it to Reliable sources/Noticeboard. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, no debate in Wiki, Cola'. Question arises from an academic paper I wrote. I will adjust Q to reflect this. Thanks. Benyoch...Don't panic! Don't panic!... (talk) 09:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my mistake! --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Reproach" suggests a rather strong negative judgement on the source, so I would think that many sources would be unimpeachable if it is sufficient that they are beyond reproach. Denniston is certainly beyond reproach as a source for the Greek particles.  Are any sources beyond doubt? I suppose it depends on what you mean, but I'm sure some authors have written works with nothing but tautologies, which would certainly be as far beyond doubt as possible.  Even if no one has done this, it certainly would not be hard to do so.  Take the following as a complete work: (∀x)x=x. -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 10:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Atethnekos, your idea of 'beyond doubt' offers another dimension, but I think it refers mainly to the content rather than the author - yet I am not so sure either way. Thanks for your thoughts. Benyoch...Don't panic! Don't panic!... (talk) 13:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I did mean to refer to the content; sorry, I used that metonymy of using the author's name to refer to the content the author wrote. E.g., "I was reading Shakespeare" but not actually, just his works. -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Urggh. My understanding of the current state of text analysis in historiography is that many historians agree that texts, or sources, are inherently unreliable in such a variety of ways that no source is "unimpeachable."  In particularly the "literary turn" has emphasised that language itself is untrustworthy, in ways in which people who have never engaged in hermeneutic type analyses find convincing.  On top of this is the standard misreporting, bias, and faulty memory.  Even if your Father wrote his war diaries daily, and in the act, the limitation of his perspective means that the diaries themselves will not provide adequate context regarding the object of analysis (even if that object is the interior state of your Father's mind).  Most historians try to get around this problem by triangulating the object of inquiry using multiple sources, source types, and reading techniques.  "Unimpeachable" in this context sounds hyperbolic, almost to the point of irony.  Your father's war diaries could certainly be "trustworthy" in that they didn't say what didn't happen, did say what happened within the limits of their decision about what would be important (ie: not omitting shameful acts, but still not necessarily diarising the colour of his underwear on a daily basis), and from the vantage held, said what was perceived to be happening at the time at which things were happening (and not with 20 years of hindsight and self-justification).
 * For example, I used a translated, published, diary of an anti-communist Hungarian student, who died on October 23, to indicate that the MEFESZ and DISZ student meetings immediately prior to the October 23 protest march were not aimed at toppling Communist Party rule in Hungary, nor interested in confronting the Party. Now despite the translation and publication problem—both of which are surmountable by pointing to the intensity of scrutiny displayed by pro-Soviet authors into anti-Soviet publications—this diary is very trustworthy.  It was written on the day of the events, and the author died before the subsequent events coloured his recollections of the meeting.  The author's politics were so rabidly anti-Party that you'd expect them to pounce on any sign of anti-Party activity to praise it.  So it is a trustworthy source to claim that the Hungarian students were not plotting revolution; this can be triangulated against post-Revolutionary reports by MEFESZ and DISZ survivors' recollections which are tainted, to make a reasonably strong claim that Hungarian students weren't plotting revolution. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Or to put it more briefly, your father's war diaries are an unimpeachable source for what your father wanted future readers to know, but they are not necessarily an unimpeachable source for reality as it actually occurred. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Urggh, urggh! :) I am good for trying to figure out what the author meant and intended, and making a solid, yet fallible effort to do so. The decision by the diarist to include what was important excludes a lot, I would presume. In relation to your last sentence, what do we say about the diaries if my father 'wanted future readers to know' ... 'the reality as it actually occured'. If he wanted to convey some other 'reality' then he becomes a novelist, and the work is impeached as an unreliable source as to what actually happened. The reader/historian today must surely impose their assessment and that may include an unfair impeachment. Benyoch...Don't panic! Don't panic!... (talk) 13:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The deal is, you're not going to get a better answer than this: The human mind does not experience reality, nor can it express reality. Your mind filters the reality you experience in many ways, and even at the most basic level, and it approximates that reality.  Even if we look at something very basic, like having you report on the color of an object.  I can ask you a simple question, like "what color is this object" and you can say "yellow".  However, what is yellow?  Is it something which reflects light of a specific single wavelength of light at 580 nanometers ?  Yes, that's one possibility.  But you will also experience as yellow many other things, such as a grid of tiny green and red dots (that's how your television set produces yellow for you), or a mixture of a number of different wavelengths of light, etc.  That is, you can be made to experience the color yellow in contexts where no actual light of that wavelength exists.  So are your senses able to detect reality correctly?  How do you distinguish between pure yellow color, and a composite of non-yellow colors your brain thinks is yellow?  If you take this concept, and layer on top of it all of the various aspects of emotion and pyschology and the like, there is no perfect human representation of reality.  There are only acceptable approximations.  To put it simply, there is no way that any human report of an event is perfectly complete and accurate.  There are only human reports of an event which are inaccurate, but acceptably so, and depending on the context, that definition varies.  Is your father's diary an acceptable source for his experiences in the War?  Quite possibly.  Are they an acceptable source for what other people experienced in the war?  Maybe less so... -- Jayron  32  14:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 'The deal is, you're not going to get a better answer than this:...' rather diminishes the contribution of all other wiki commentators here - but thanks for your considered and detailed thoughts, anyway. Benyoch...Don't panic! Don't panic!... (talk) 03:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In my experience, Jayron is almost always (and sometimes annoyingly) right about most any matter you'd care to bring up. Specifically, the best you can hope for in his diary is that he wrote honestly about what he saw and experienced. If so, then his sincerity would be unimpeachable. That doesn't mean his facts are. Or aren't. But in any case, I bet they would make for some fascinating reading. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * A personal diary is like any other eyewitness account: it can't be taken as gospel about facts. The best you can say is that it reflects what the writer wanted to write. Now, if other personal journals independently make similar observations, then you start to have some reliability, or at least consensus. One of the recent TV programs about Titanic pointed out that eyewitnesses gave conflicting testimony as to whether the ship cracked in two before, or while, it sank. Some were absolutely certain that it did, and others were absolutely certain that it didn't. Both couldn't be right. Yet their own personal "truth" was "right" to them. The "real" truth was that it did. However, that doesn't prove that anyone lied about it. They may just not have been in position to notice it - especially, as Cameron's team calculated that the angle of tilt was rather less dramatic than the stereotype (and his film) would indicate. Eyewitness accounts are both useful and suspect at the same time. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Some useful thougts, Bugs, although I have a different perspective on the reliability of 'eyewitness accounts' and the (alleged) 'facts' they convey. I would think that, unless a writer is entirely deceitful on a matter, that what they wanted to write actually reflects the facts of the matter -- from their perspective. Differences of opinion on the same event can be as much about different perspectives (e.g. titanic) as about the problem with conveying meaning and the interpretation of that meaning? And, yes, 'both useful and suspect' as you say -- quite a tension to rsolve. Thanks for your thoughts. Benyoch...Don't panic! Don't panic!... (talk) 03:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, it's not even an unimpeachable source on your father's own life and experiences, as people have a natural instinct to justify themselves or gloss over their shortcomings. --Dweller (talk) 10:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And exactly which parts of the diary has my Father justified himself or glossed over his shortcomings? If all people exhibit such failings, then that fact does not affect a diary's contents as far as they were intended to be read. Strangely, the contents are reliably unreliable, I suppose. But that's all another story. Thanks for your thoughts. Benyoch...Don't panic! Don't panic!... (talk) 03:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm reminded of what Will Rogers said in the intro to his autobiography, which went something like, "An autobiography is where you talk about all the things you wish you had done, and leave out the things you wish you hadn't done." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Patron "saints" of England?
In the Edward the Confessor article, it says that he was replaced as "one of the patron saints of England" by St George by Edward III. Who were the other patron saints of England that are referred to here? --TammyMoet (talk) 12:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The other one was Edmund the Martyr. Our article also says he was replaced by Edward III (although it doesn't mention Edward the Confessor). Adam Bishop (talk) 12:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you! --TammyMoet (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

French legislative election, June 2012
Can anyone find a poll predicting the results of the French legislative elections in June. I read French and tried searching Google News with the terms "elections legislatives sondages" but couldn't find any actual polls. I am wondering whether Hollande, after his likely presidential victory, is likely to face a "cohabitation" or whether he will be able to pursue Socialist policies unfettered. (I am following French politics closely because I think they are pivotal for the euro zone at this point and consequently for the global political economy.) Thanks for any leads. Marco polo (talk) 14:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, there's an article here that attempts to predict the outcome of the legislative elections. It looks like they are basing their predictions on pretty scant information, but they seem to think that the same party is likely to win both the presidential and legislative elections (I took the liberty of linking your question to the relevant article). 81.98.43.107 (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The results of the second round of the presidential elections are likely to have a large impact on the legislative elections, as a newly-elected President has historically had a significant coattail effect on the subsequent legislative elections. As a result, polls conducted until then are not particularly useful. --Xuxl (talk) 14:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting that this suggests that French voters aim to avoid cohabitation (presidency and parliament controlled by different parties). The opposite seems to be true here in the United States.  Marco polo (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As a student of politics I should point out that I disagree. The fundamental issue at stake is that voters overwhelming vote for the same kind of people in multiple elections with little time difference between them – simply because their preferences do not change. I don't think that's a particularly controversial statement. The same is basically just as true in the US as France - the slight difference being, I would suggest, that parties in the US are more ideologically varied than in France, giving more room for a single individual to agree with a Republican Presidential candidate than the Democrat, but his Democratic House nominee more than his Republican (think Southern Democrats here, for example).
 * To answer the OP, I'm afraid I could find legislative prediction either, only party ratings. - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 16:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Out of the last 20 US Congresses, 14 had at least one house controlled by a different party than the president at the time, and 9, or almost half, had both houses controlled by a different party. In several cases, a president started with a Congress controlled by his own party, but control shifted in one or more houses during the president's term of office.  In recent US history, the party of the president has been likely to lose control of Congress during that president's term. That to me shows a US preference (whether it is really the preference of US citizens or that of money in politics) for divided government.
 * No, Americans want everyone in the government to be of the party they identify with. The deal is that the only people who vote in midterm elections are people who don't like the President, so we end up with a lot more divided government than otherwise.  But that isn't because individual voters want their President and Congress to be controlled by different parties.  Far from it.  Its because it is because a President tends to bring in people of his own party during the years when they are elected (see coattail effect), whereas in midterm elections the only people who show up to the polls are the people who are pissed.  The lone exception I can think of is the Reagan Democrats who basically represented the mass-exodus of labor from the Democratic Party; they still identified with their local Democratic candidates but supported the conservative social polices of the Republicans.  A generation later, those Reagan Democrats have all, by-and-large, become Republicans as well.  In more recent years, party politics has become more divisive and dogmatic.  Now, more than in the past, Americans are more likely to vote "straight ticket" and select only people from their own identified party.  -- Jayron  32  20:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I suspect there's something to both points. Midterm elections have always favored the opposition, but there probably are a fair number of voters who are afraid of what both major parties would do if they had control of both the legislature and the executive. --Trovatore (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * When we had monolothic governments, they led us into seemingly never-ending wars, in Vietnam and Afghanistan respectively. Whether the public is sufficiently wary of that situation, is hard to know. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Ahem. There have been polls!  Just barely in the plural.  http://www.sondages-en-france.fr/sondages/Elections/L%C3%A9gislatives%202012 gives the result of one in the Paris 2nd, and one from 6 months ago in the Charente-Maritimes first.  Neither of which exactly threw up surprises for those single constituencies.  Generally though, yeah, the surveys seem rather more focused on the Presidential --Saalstin (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Rivals in Europe politics
Who are the main rivals of Labour Party in Norway? Who are the main rivals of Swedish Social Democrats? Who are the main rivals of Social Democrats in Denmark? Who are the main rivals of Labour Party in Netherlands? Who are the main rivals of Social Democrats in Germany? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.106.179 (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm familiar only with Germany. The traditional rivals of the German Social Democrats ( SDP SPD) are the Christian Democrats (CDU/CSU).  Over the past decade or so, though, a new rivalry among parties on the left (SDP, Alliance '90/The Greens, and Die Linke) has made the old binary opposition no longer accurate.  Marco polo (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The party is called SPD. --Wrongfilter (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We have a lot of articles like Politics of the Netherlands which you can check. In the Netherlands, the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy is the biggest right-wing party, though there are others with significant votes (Christian Democratic Appeal, People's Party for Freedom and Democracy). --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Try Politics of Norway. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  17:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Wrongfilter for pointing out my embarrassing typo, which I've corrected above. Marco polo (talk) 19:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And Politics of Denmark and Politics of Sweden. --Saddhiyama (talk) 07:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Some law questions
1)what is the degrees of murders ? What's the difference between manslaughter and homicide?

2)what would happen if a paroled person would not return to jail after the period ends? Max Viwe &#124;  Wanna chat with me?  19:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The article on murder should help with your first question (quick summary: "it's complicated"). As for the second, generally, that's the expected outcome &mdash; when you're paroled, you are not expected back in prison unless you violate the terms of your parole or commit another offense.  --Trovatore (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the OP is confusing parole (which is basically a looser version of house arrest) and work release, which is sometimes also called "furlough" in the U.S. In work release, a person lives at prison, but is allowed out to work in the community.  In parole, a person can both live and work in the community, but has certain restrictions (must check in with a parole officer, can't travel outside of the state, etc.)  In cases of both parole and furlough, the expectation is that the person abides by their restrictions, failure to do so would result in more restrictive punishment, but as long as a person follows the rules, it is expected that, at the end of their sentence, they be given full rights and privileges back again.  -- Jayron  32  20:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Except that, with some types of offence, the end of the formal sentence does not mean the end of the effective penalty. For example, sex offenders are typically required to go on to a register and are permanently barred from working with certain groups of people.  Also, any ex-prisoner is going to find gaining employment more of a challenge than might otherwise be the case, because many employers are wary of hiring ex-cons.  Yes, they can choose not to reveal their history straight up, but many employers require a police records check as part of standard short-listed applicant processing. Others just ask the applicants; if they admit it, they risk not being employed; if they deny it, and their criminal record is later discovered, they risk being sacked.  Walking out of prison is not the end of the sentence by any means.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  21:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The difference between murder charges and manslaughter is whether the accused is of the same race, nationality, ethnic group, language, and class as the prosecutor. StuRat (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * And what about gender and sexual orientation?88.9.107.123 (talk) 21:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sexual orientation, yes, but they might very well go easier on suspects of the opposite gender, if the prosecutor is straight and hopes to be "thanked" in a rather personal way. StuRat (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Stu, is that a soapbox in your pocket, or are you just pleased to see me? AlexTiefling (talk) 22:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a homework question to me. If you can't browse your way over to our murder and homicide articles, you should get an F. And Stu... come on man. As an IP told you earlier this month, you don't have to respond to every single thread. Shadowjams (talk) 23:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey, I am not a school student anymore.I'm just asking the question for my general knowledge.I want to summary in short, as i am finding difficulties to interpret information from the article.By the way, what is dispute with User:StuRat? Max Viwe &#124;  Wanna chat with me?  00:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There are varying degrees of the "severity" of homicide, usually a function of the circumstances. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The answers to these questions will depend on the country you're talking about. In the UK, for example, there are no "degrees" of murder. --Dweller (talk) 09:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So, in the UK, if someone jumps out from the sidewalk and you accidentally hit him, are you send to the slammer for the same length of time as if you did it on purpose? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * They don't have degrees of murder, but they do have manslaughter. I suspect they also have torts corresponding to wrongful death when there is no crime, and probably also notion of homicide that is a pure accident (no negligence) and therefore not even a tort, but that's just speculation on my part; I'm certainly no expert on UK homicide law. --Trovatore (talk) 02:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * For BB's scenario, the USA has Vehicular manslaughter and the UK has Causing death by dangerous driving.   D b f i r s   13:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm no lawyer, but in our excellent Murder in English law article, it makes clear that our definition of murder includes intent. --Dweller (talk) 13:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. In practice the judge decides the degree of the offence in murder cases; for instance, the pre-meditated murder of a long time abuser is likely to attract a more lenient sentence than sadistic killing of a weaker person. Killing without intent, but with the reasonable expectation that the act would cause significant harm is manslaughter. Running someone over when you're drunk or driving very badly is causing death by dangerous driving. Killing someone by an unforeseeable accident is just an accident. Alansplodge (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, in the UK, there is a temporary licence, occasionally called temporary parole, where the individual is expected to return to prison. If they don't, it is apparently a specific offence of failure to return; police will attempt to capture them, and they may have time added to their sentence, eligibility for future parole removed, etc.  There's some information here. Warofdreams talk 09:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Repsol
Why does Repsol have an OTC price and a non-OTC price? See here: [] and here []. And why are both prices not the same? Can't you buy in one market and sell in the other? 88.9.107.123 (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Anarchism
Is anarchism left-wing or right-wing?

Bowei Huang 2 (talk) 23:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Neither. Anarchism is a school of thought which is neither inherently left or right-wing and consists of a number of variants which may be either or neither of these. Robert Nozick for example is a 'Minarchist' who believes (I'm simplifying here massively) that all that matters is private property rights and so no state should exist beyond a police force to enforce such rights. This is usually considered very right-wing. By contrast Anarcho-Communism is (as the name implies) very left-wing. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism#Anarchist_schools_of_thought . 130.88.172.34 (talk) 00:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * A minarchist is a libertarian who is not an anarchist, so why drag him in? ¶ While it's true that the positions of some libertarians (including some anarchists) can be summarized as "all that matters is private property rights", that phrasing is misleading unless it's specified that our conception of property rights does not end with landlords; it includes, for example, freedom of speech, freedom of travel, and a right not to be poisoned by pollution (your property begins with your body). —Tamfang (talk) 07:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * To the extent that Left and Right have any consistent meaning over the centuries, they seem to me to represent emphasis on equality (in varying senses!) and stability respectively. You may note that individual autonomy is not strongly correlated with either of those.  Communism is seen as aligned with the Left, and vice versa; but I think this is largely historical accident, because Communism's big successes have been against very traditional (thus Right) regimes.
 * Some of my friends describe themselves as "Right anarchists" (or "anarcho-capitalists") in contrast with the "Left anarchists" who, given a choice between abolishing the State and abolishing private property, would preserve the State. I am coming around to the view that this is a tactical and substantive error.  Though "anarcho-capitalists" may be put off by some of the language used by Kevin Carson (who describes himself as "left-libertarian" and "free-market anti-capitalist"), I doubt that they would find much ground to disagree with his thesis that the State, far from protecting us against big business, is its chief enabler and friend.  Carson and Roderick Long use the word capitalism as Marx coined it, to mean the system of State protections and subsidies that discourage competition and thereby keep wages lower than they would otherwise be (because in a freer market the worker could more readily threaten to go start a new business).
 * It has been said that "free people are not equal, and equal people are not free"; but I reckon that free people are more equal than governed people. Therefore, anarchism is of the Left. —Tamfang (talk) 07:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The various forms of "social anarchism" have much in common with radical left-wing perspectives (anarcho-communism with communism, anarcho-syndicalism with syndicalism, etc). Individualist anarchism, with which Tamfang, above, appears to identify, can have something in common with certain right-wing viewpoints, such as Ayn Rand's Objectivism, although its core social outlook is very different from most of the right. Warofdreams talk 09:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Does individualism or Objectivism aim to preserve a rigid social class system? Does either aim to concentrate authority, like fascism (and any Communist Party ever in power)?  Does "right-wing" mean anything, anymore, other than not-Welfare-statist? —Tamfang (talk) 21:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Does it mean even that? I have the impression that Marine Le Pen's party is very welfare-statist, and we are reliably informed by the mainstream media that she's on the "far right". --Trovatore (talk) 21:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't mean that. Our articles have decent summaries - left-wing means desiring to bring about greater equality, right-wing means supporting or accepting inequality.  In various countries, at different times, many other ideas have become associated with the left- or right-wing, but those are the key ones. Warofdreams talk 08:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't really buy that. That's Norberto Bobbio's formulation, and I don't agree with Bobbio on much.  How egalitarian was Mao or Lenin or Stalin, or is Hugo Chavez?  --Trovatore (talk) 08:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That broad principle did fundamentally inform all of their ideologies, even though they may have been inconsistent, counter-productive, self-important and/or enjoyed personal privilege. Where they did things entirely at odds with egalitarian aims, those acts aren't conventionally described as left-wing, although they are sometimes justified by left-wingers as necessary or expedient. Warofdreams talk 09:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This sounds to me like left-wing apologetics rather than a neutral analysis of the various philosophies. --Trovatore (talk) 09:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * First time I've seen apologetics which included a long list of criticisms and not a single word of praise! Warofdreams talk 09:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The issues is not left-wing vs right-wing. The left-right spectrum is outdated. The issue is individualism vs collectivism. The first holds the individual is the supreme being in the universe and their own ruler. So there may be difference between Bill Gates and the hawker in the street in terms of capital accumulation, but they are their own kings. No external agency can interfere in their business. On the contrary, collectivism does not recognize the individual, instead it views the individual as part of an imagery larger super-entity (such as society, nation, religion etc). Thus all forms of collectivism, fascism, communism, welfare statism, dehumanizes the individual. Collectivism denies the existence of the individual in favor of a collective. It holds the individual is incapable in governing themselves, so an external ruler is necessary to protect and discipline them. This goes against what Benjamin Tucker said, "if the individual has the right to govern himself, all external government is tyranny". -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  10:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

"We are an anarcho-syndicalist commune..." &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 14:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Feminism and Sexism
Is feminism left-wing or right-wing? Is sexism left-wing or right-wing? Bowei Huang 2 (talk) 23:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. And Yes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Is trolling yin or yang? --Trovatore (talk) 00:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "I unsheathed my Bowei knife..." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you're interested in an answer, feminist movements and ideologies is a start. Feminism has more often been associated with the left-wing, although there certainly has been a right-wing feminism.  Overt sexism is principally associated with the right-wing, but there have been important critiques of sexism within left-wing groups and cultures. Warofdreams talk 09:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have yet to see a revolution in which the women do not have to do all the cooking and cleaning up after men.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * List of conservative feminisms might be of interest, although the links are more useful than the article itself. Warofdreams talk 09:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a poorly written list. Individualist feminism is in no way conservative. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  12:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)