Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 July 16

= July 16 =

Hindu sects by ethnic groups of South Asia
Which ethnic group/s practice shaktism? Which ethnic group/s practice Shavism? Which ethnic group/s practice Smartism? Which ethnic group/s practice Vaishnavism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.43.102 (talk) 02:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you had a look at our articles: Shaktism, Shaivism, Smartism and Vaishnavism? Vespine (talk) 04:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Basilica of San Isidoro
In the Spanish wiki, it talks about an excavation of the Pantheon of the Kings in the Basilica of San Isidoro in 1997 in which the bodies of Ferdinand, the son of Ferdinand II of León, and Sancha Raimúndez were found to incorrupted. Was there any photographs from the excavation?--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 03:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * A google image search for "cuerpo Ferdinand II León Sancha Raimúndez" suggests not. μηδείς (talk) 04:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Why does it seem like the Spanish excavate more of their royal tombs than other parts of Europe? It seems nearly all the Kings and Queens of Castile and Leon and their children were exhumed at one point and studied in modern times. The Spanish wiki seems to devote a lot of space to describing their burials unlike most articles on the English wiki.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 03:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Republic vs Democracy
One occasionally hears someone bewail a metamorphosis of These United States from a REPUBLIC (good!) to, or at least toward, a DEMOCRACY (bad!). But I don't think I've ever heard it set forth what features define this transition. To me, the defining difference is direct participation by the populace; but there's no prospect of referenda on the Federal level.

Is it the extension of the franchise?

Or perhaps they're a bit confused, and think a republic follows Republican Party policies while a democracy follows Democratic Party policies?

Perhaps this has been done to death, but I can't think of a good keyword to search for it. —Tamfang (talk) 04:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Or you might just read republic and democracy. μηδείς (talk) 04:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I withhold my honest response to that suggestion. —Tamfang (talk) 06:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Every time this question gets asked, someone drags out a chart like this. It is actually quite informative:
 * {| class="wikitable"


 * || Democratic || Not Democratic
 * Republic || United States || North Korea
 * Monarchy || United Kingdom || Saudi Arabia
 * }
 * The thing to remember is that a Democracy is a state where the general population has meets a minimum stanard of personal freedoms and access to political power. This has little to do with the form of government that a country has; rather it has to do with who has access to the machinery of state, and how much that machinery of state interferes in the day-to-day lives of the people.  A republic is any state which is not a monarchy, a monarchy being a state ruled by a member of a hereditary ruling class.  Thus, a republic just means that executive power resides with persons who don't owe their position to an accident of birth.  It has nothing to do with how legitimate or illigitimate, how benvolent or oppressive, how open or restrictive a government is.  Republic just means "not ruled by a monarch".  Thus, there are places which are both democractic and monarchical (the UK or Sweden, for example) where there exists a monarch, but where all people have access to the machinery of the state (anyone could win a meaningful election) and where the state does not restrict individual freedoms unduly.  There are also very non-democractic republics, states ruled by brutal dictators who allow power only for themselves and their cronies, and where the people have little to no personal freedoms.  The labels for the U.S. political parties are brand names.  They have zero ideological basis.  That is, the Democratic party doesn't believe in "democracy" while the Republican party doesn't support "republicanism".  They are simply convienient, and completely arbitrary, labels for the two main political groups.  They haven't even had any historically consistant political positions which have lasted more than a few decades.  If you want to know more about the party system in American politics, start with First Party System and work forwards.  When you get to the bit where the two main parties become "Republican" and "Democratic" (basically the Third Party System to today) and try to track any continuity about the party politics between eras.  You won't find much.  On a "European" scale (left/center left/center/center right/right) the two U.S. parties are basically both center-right parties who differ by issue on whether they are "center" or "right", but otherwise are pretty much both center-right parties.  And they've pretty much always been this way.  American politics isn't based on big ideologies.  It is based on taking small issues and blowing them up into huge topics where one can highlight one's difference from one's eletoral opponent, ignoring the fact that on most ideological matters, no one has any real desire to change anything.  -- Jayron  32  05:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Monarchy || United Kingdom || Saudi Arabia
 * }
 * The thing to remember is that a Democracy is a state where the general population has meets a minimum stanard of personal freedoms and access to political power. This has little to do with the form of government that a country has; rather it has to do with who has access to the machinery of state, and how much that machinery of state interferes in the day-to-day lives of the people.  A republic is any state which is not a monarchy, a monarchy being a state ruled by a member of a hereditary ruling class.  Thus, a republic just means that executive power resides with persons who don't owe their position to an accident of birth.  It has nothing to do with how legitimate or illigitimate, how benvolent or oppressive, how open or restrictive a government is.  Republic just means "not ruled by a monarch".  Thus, there are places which are both democractic and monarchical (the UK or Sweden, for example) where there exists a monarch, but where all people have access to the machinery of the state (anyone could win a meaningful election) and where the state does not restrict individual freedoms unduly.  There are also very non-democractic republics, states ruled by brutal dictators who allow power only for themselves and their cronies, and where the people have little to no personal freedoms.  The labels for the U.S. political parties are brand names.  They have zero ideological basis.  That is, the Democratic party doesn't believe in "democracy" while the Republican party doesn't support "republicanism".  They are simply convienient, and completely arbitrary, labels for the two main political groups.  They haven't even had any historically consistant political positions which have lasted more than a few decades.  If you want to know more about the party system in American politics, start with First Party System and work forwards.  When you get to the bit where the two main parties become "Republican" and "Democratic" (basically the Third Party System to today) and try to track any continuity about the party politics between eras.  You won't find much.  On a "European" scale (left/center left/center/center right/right) the two U.S. parties are basically both center-right parties who differ by issue on whether they are "center" or "right", but otherwise are pretty much both center-right parties.  And they've pretty much always been this way.  American politics isn't based on big ideologies.  It is based on taking small issues and blowing them up into huge topics where one can highlight one's difference from one's eletoral opponent, ignoring the fact that on most ideological matters, no one has any real desire to change anything.  -- Jayron  32  05:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that North Korea really is a monarchy, as they've now passed the hereditary leadership on to the third male heir in the line of descent. They may claim to be a republic, but then, they also claim to be democratic. StuRat (talk) 08:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * For what it might be worth in this discussion, first,
 * Republic and Democracy may be more direct links to these two terms.
 * Second, assuming the OP is from the United States and the question is posed in this context, the Madisonian usage Republic may be more helpful.
 * For instance, I was taught in the 4th grade that "republic" denoted representative or indirect democracy, whereby the people elect persons to represent them and their interests in their government, as opposed to direct or so-called "town-hall" democracy. Under this definition the United States is both a republic and a democracy. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Direct democracy only works in small communities (the magic number is about 150, a number noted Malcolm Gladwell, though he was neither the only nor the first, as the largest size of a functional community where everyone can participate fully in the community). For any group larger than this, there will arise too many issues for every person to remain informed enough to make an educated decision one way or the other.  The minutiae of running a fully functioning political unit, be it a city, province, or nation are far too complex for every person to devote themselves to.  How any person do anything else, like hold down a steady job, if they have to research, ponder over, deliberate, and vote on every issue facing the country.  It becomes patently rediculous to consider running a large nation via so-called "direct democracy" where literally every decision affecting the nation must be voted on by the general population.  It is so complex that even the people we elect need to themselves appoint a second group of people, which specialized knowledge, to handle various issues.  The same people who are experts in food safety may not know diddlysquat about road engineering standards, and neither person knows how much electric utilities should charge their customers.  So the people you elect must themselves find and appoint people who do know about this stuff so they can make those decisions, and implement them.  The U.S. is a republic because the executive power isn't restricted to a hereditary noble class, and it is a democracy because people have the freedoms necessary to take part in political life.  Voting does not make one a democracy, nor does lacking a monarch.  -- Jayron  32  06:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course you are correct about the impossibility of running any government larger than that of a very small town by direct democracy. For many Americans, the basic confusion arises from the use of the term "republic" to specifically mean "representative democracy". In fact I had been taught, incorrectly, that "republic" meant not "public matter" (res publica), but rather "from the people" (re publica). Milkunderwood (talk) 06:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Every moderately educated person ought to know most of the above already, but I suppose we had to get it out of the way, so thanks for that. Maybe tomorrow someone will touch on my actual question, which was not so much "please compare and contrast the consensus definitions of republic and democracy" as "If someone of the opinion mentioned is reading this, can you please explain what you mean by that?". —Tamfang (talk) 06:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Reading your response here, and then returning to read your original post again, in full, I have to say that I don't understand your question. Milkunderwood (talk) 07:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Or, let me ask: Who is you? Was the OP posted in the hope that someone might jump up and say, Here! Me! I think a REPUBLIC is good! And a DEMOCRACY is bad! And I'm here to tell you why! -- That's the best interpretation I can come up with, I'm afraid. Milkunderwood (talk) 07:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

At least once a year I find myself asking, "How could anyone have misunderstood me?" And I try to stop worrying over whether I'm obscure or – er – some other explanation fits the data better.

There are (I claim) people who make a certain assertion, whose meaning clearly contradicts what I think I know, if the words are used as I customarily understand them.

Now, plenty of people say, with no sign of insincerity, things that seem clearly false; but in most cases either they are lonely in their belief or they have some well-known set of different premises (e.g. God exists and has certain firm opinions, and affirmation of the consequent is not a fallacy) from which their assertions follow by a recognizable chain of inference. Here we have a strange statement — "the USA started as a Republic but has become / is becoming / is at grave risk of becoming a Democracy" — made by a large number of people whose premises I cannot guess. So I ask, see? I don't really expect one of Those People (whoever They are) to answer, but I hope it's not unreasonable to think that someone here may have been lucky enough to hear such a person spouting off long enough to explain what they mean by it.

The question I'm raising here is not "Why do some people think a Republic is better than a Democracy?". That's boring and old. My question, again, is: What makes some Americans consider the entity represented by the Stars and Stripes to be now, or in transition toward, or at risk of becoming, a democracy rather than a republic? Insofar as those words mean different things, rather than different aspects of what can be the same thing, what makes it more one than the other? What changes, real or imaginary, constitute the alleged transition? Does the assertion embody an atypical sense of the word republic and/or the word democracy? Is the assertion based on some belief, contrary to mine, about the history and structure of the Potomac regime? In short, whaaaat? Is my language hard to follow? —Tamfang (talk) 08:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks. This really does clarify the question (for me). I guess I must hang out with the wrong crowd, because I've never encountered this attitude/ belief/ misapprehension/ paranoia/ whatever, even third- or fourth-hand. Sorry to not be more helpful; but at least I do understand now what you're looking for. I don't suppose Michael Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things might help. Or possibly Thomas Frank's What's the Matter With Kansas? Or as Frank McCourt's teacher tells him, "There's great ignorance in the world." Milkunderwood (talk) 09:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC) See if attending a Tea Party rally might turn up something useful.


 * I suspect that such books would merely mock the "yahoos" rather than try to understand them. —Tamfang (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * My guess would be that any person making such a statement uses very specific definitions of republic and/or democracy. These definitions might not be 'wrong', when you read the rationale for them, but they might be very, very different from how most other people interpret these words. As an example, most political science books I have read use 'democracy' as a shorthand for 'representative democracy' as this is what the word is often used to mean, since most 'democracies' have some sort of representational government, rather than direct democracy, whereas people here in this thread state that they were taught that's the definition of a 'republic'. To me, saying something like the US is transitioning from a republic to a democracy sounds like conspiracy jargon (i.e. 'republic' and 'democracy' have very specific meanings). I think if you really want to know, the next time somebody says such a thing, just ask them 'What's so bad about a democracy? I like being able to vote for the president and the people who write the laws!' And, since conspiracy peddlers enjoy talking about their conspiracies, they'll give you all the details you need, so as to dispel any misunderstandings you might have about the current regime! V85 (talk) 11:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I was intrigued by this question so I googled the phrase "US no longer a republic becoming a democracy", and that gave me an explanation (I think) of what could be meant by such an assertion. No surprise, the hits the search garnered were pages with grand and patriotic titles such as 'Heritage Foundation', and 'This Nation', and some obvious right-wing hits such as 'Red State'. The basic idea promulgated by the pages I visited is that the US was founded as a Republic (or a Constitutional Republic), the goal of which was not to ensure democracy, but the maximum amount of freedom, for all.
 * The definition of a Republic used is the same as mentioned above: representative democracy. People elect their representatives who decide what the laws are going to be. So far so good, however, there are certain properties that are attached to the idea of a republic: One such idea is that those who are elected are noble people who will uphold the Constitution at all costs (and if they don't, the president and the supreme court will act as a check on them). A second idea is that the US is set up to guarantee freedom and liberty, i.e. the least number of restrictions on people, and, of course, property rights ('property' here also means 'income', so that the higher the income tax is, the bigger the infringement on your property). So, in the republic, the noble law-makers do all they can to uphold the principles of the Constitution, and the legislative process is characterised by being slow, thorough and principled, so as to ensure that all laws are in accordance with the Constitution, and assures the maximum amount of freedom for the individual citizen.
 * Democracy, on the other hand, is defined as direct democracy, or as these websites term it - mob rule or mobocracy. This happens when the legislative process no longer is in the hands of the noble, educated class of legislators, but in the hands of the general public, leading to the tyranny of the majority to the detriment of all others. Here, the legislative process is no longer protracted or principled, but whimsical and spur of the moment. Since people do not think of what is good for the country, but only what is good for themselves. Typically, what the (non-productive) majority wants are handouts from the government, to the detriment of the nation's economical production, as handouts to those with less money will require that those with more money pay higher taxes. Democracy, therefore, can promote a high degree of freedom for the 51%, but could greatly reduce the freedom of the 49% who are forced to pay for the freedom of the majority. And similarly, you just need 51% of the legislators in the state assemblies of 38 states to ratify a Constitutional amendment to the detriment of all others. And, in this line of thinking, this mechanism direct democracy is what led to the decline and eventual collapse of Ancient Greece and Rome.
 * What I have not been able to find is exactly how the US has changed from a Republic to a Democracy. The obvious way is that various pieces of legislation are now put to a vote through mechanisms such as ballot initiatives (i.e. the people, rather than legislators, vote on which pieces of legislation should become law). However, this way of thinking also seems to have an element of contempt for certain classes of people, leading me to believe that they might also want a restricted, rather than universal, franchise. Obviously, you don't need a ballot initiative to increase the top tax rates, all you need is the majority voting for pro-taxation candidates.
 * At this point, most of these websites go on to discuss how the Constitution never mentions the word democracy, but in Article IV, Section 4 states "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government". Read: The US was meant to be a Republic, not a Democracy. This is then followed by various quotes by the founding fathers on how horrible majority rule is, the most prolific of which is one by Benjamin Franklin, who, when asked what type of government the Constitution had created, replied "A Republic, if you can keep it." And Madison chimes in, stating that "Representation sometimes necessary as a defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions". (This quote section often also includes various quotes by the founding fathers on how important God's word is when ruling a state - i.e. the US is a Christian nation.)
 * However, none of this addresses the role of money in politics, and how corporate campaign contributions would affect the whims of the populace. But, given the type of people who support this concept of 'republic, not democracy' and their aversion to taxation, that isn't very surprising. V85 (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I was taught in grade school (or at least "learned" somehow at that time) that a republic is a state with an elected representative government. This was in the SF Bay Area in the 90s. I've heard the sentiment you describe and I think this essay sums up what it means. I found the essay by searching for united states "becoming a democracy", which also turned up a Youtube video by the John Birch Society. The video description pretty clearly confuses the types of government with the party names. I didn't watch the video, but I suspect it agrees with the first essay. -- BenRG (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's just silly. Any person with a modicum of historical understanding doesn't believe that the names of the political parties in the U.S. have anything to do with any political ideology (as already noted by many outside of Wikipedia, and by me above, the two U.S. parties have fundementally the same ideology on a grand scale, and differ mostly on political minutiae, minor issues that allow them to make their differences seem bigger).  During the early 20th century for example, the Republican Party was the progressive party, which fought for social justice and against business interests in favor of labor (i.e. Theodore Roosevelt and his trust-busting policies), while the Democratic Party was the party of, among other things, white southern segregationists (the Solid South).  Fast forward 100 years, and the party politics has been put into a blender.  Both parties essentially represent business interests, there is absolutely zero political support for labor in the country.  Labor, which had in the 1940s shifted to the Democratic Party, was abandoned by both parties in the 1980s, and U.S. politics left the economic sphere entirely.  Since the mid-20th century, the U.S. party politics revolves solely around social issues, and neither offers a distinctly different economic or political ideology.  Neither has any plan to change a single iota of the U.S. political or economic system, so neither represents a different political ideology.  The names don't mean anything.  Its also why I kinda like the whole "red-blue" metaphor: the colors are arbitrary, just like the party names.  -- Jayron  32  17:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Exactly . Here in Spain the Republicans are left-wing. So, more than one Spaniard find it amusing when some American confuses the Republican with the Fascists. 18:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.148.233.179 (talk)


 * To tack on to some of the above comments: America's Constitution: A Biography by Akhil Reed Amar shows how the Founding Fathers of the United States used the terms Republic and Democracy interchangeably. The book then goes on to explain how the Constitution helped or hindered the march towards a more democratic society.  I highly recommend it for anyone interested in the political science, even non-Americans.--M @ r ē ino 21:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Very good answer, V85. There are right-wing elitists in all countries who fear that democracy threatens their position. But in the US context, no, it isnt coincidence that the words they are playing with, seeking to redefine subtlely, just happen to be similar to the names of the two political parties. - one of which they like, the other they dont. We are in an election year after all and any marginal linguistic confusion they can create in the minds of the casual reader which might help the Republicans (Republic = something to do with the Founding fathers) and damage the Democrats (Democracy = something to do with mob rule) is entirely intentional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.85.213 (talk) 01:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Aliyah Data By Country 1882-1918 and 1919-1948
As evidenced on the Aliyah page, I managed to find some data for the U.S. and certain European countries during this time period, but is there a place/source where I can find aliyah data for every or most countries during these two time periods? Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 04:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * According to the chart in the statistics section, in 2010, 254 people migrated from Israel to Israel. --Dweller (talk) 15:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Um, no. 254 Israeli-born people moved to some other country sometime before 2010 and then moved back to Israel in 2010. Also, what you wrote has nothing to do with my question. Futurist110 (talk) 23:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * While it wasn't an answer, it was entirely to do with your question. If they moved to another country, surely they migrated back from it, rather than from Israel? If they hadn't migrated in the first place, they couldn't have migrated back. --Dweller (talk) 09:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This link lists the main countries' statistics. If you have a specific country in mind, you can list it here and I'll try to find the statistics. -- Activism  1234  05:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like: -Iraq -Poland -Romania -Morocco -Tunisia -Algeria -The United States (alone, without Canada)

If you're able to find any of these, then that would be great. However, I think that you misunderstood my original question--I asked for aliyah statistics for various countries (not continents) before 1948, not since 1948. http://www.yivoencyclopedia.org/article.aspx/Population_and_Migration/Migration_since_World_War_I --I want data for various countries similar to Table 3 in this link, though it would be nice to have exact data rather than rounded-off estimates. Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 08:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Goldman Sachs Economic Paper No. 93
Does anyone know where I can find a free copy of it online? Unlike some other Goldman Sachs economic papers, I cannot find this one online. Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 04:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Try WP:RX. 71.212.249.178 (talk) 07:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The full citation is:

Texeira, Carlos, and Rumi Masih, 2003, "South Africa Growth and Unemployment: A Ten-Year Outlook," Goldman Sachs, Global Economics Paper No. 93, May 13 Smallman12q (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 01:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Sara Lawrence / Sarah Lawrence
Hi--

Looking for the college, and not knowing the exact spelling of the first name, I type sara lawrence into the searchbox, and am provided with the following three suggestions, only, in this sequence:
 * Sara Lawrence-Lightfoot
 * Sara Lawrence
 * Sara lawrence

I know I'm not looking for "Lightfoot", so I try the second suggestion, which turns out to be an article on a pregnant Miss World beauty contest winner, and the article has no hatnote - it leaves me at a dead end.

The third suggestion, spelled with the lowercase "L", does indeed take me to Sarah Lawrence College, which article does have a disambiguation hatnote.

I have no idea what sort of hatnote would be most appropriate for the pregnant Miss World, but I feel sure the vast majority of readers misspelling the name as "Sara" are looking for the college. My own inclination would be that despite the difference in spelling, a search entry for either spelling should preferentially point to the college, with the hatnote there including a pointer to Sara without the "h". Besides not knowing how best to phrase a note to help readers find their wanted page, I've never written a hatnote, and do not know the procedure. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Like this. 71.212.249.178 (talk) 07:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't agree. I believe you should go with the closest spelling match. Hence I've redirected Sara lawrence to Sara Lawrence and added a hatnote to Sarah Lawrence (disambiguation). Clarityfiend (talk) 07:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you both; I'm good with either solution (and am glad I didn't try sticking my own foot into it). Milkunderwood (talk) 07:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I've also added Sara Lawrence College. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, that's even better - thanks very much. Milkunderwood (talk) 10:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Incestuous marriage in European royalty
Why did the trend of forbidding incestuous marriages in the Church during the early Middle Ages stopped? The Catholic Church seemed to uphold consanguinity for the longest time during the early days of the Church; Henry I of France had to look all the way to Russia to find a royal bride that he wasn't related to. But by the end of the Middle Ages, marriages between cousins were allowed and seemed to be encouraged in the royal families of Europe. Especially Spain and Portugal, who were Catholic nations; shouldn't they out of all the nations of Europe uphold church laws. I know there were dispensation processes but did they actually ask for the Pope's permission for nearly every marriages between cousins and uncles/aunts and nieces/nephews.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 05:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Until 1917 the Roman Catholic Church required dispensation for unions between couples related as first, second, or third cousins (equivalent to a coefficient of inbreeding, F ≥ 0.0039), with a wide range of reasons accepted as grounds for consanguinity dispensation, e.g., the small size of the local population, advanced bridal age, or lack of dowry (13). As a result of misunderstanding after the switch from the Roman to the Germanic system for calculating degrees of consanguinity, during the late 11th to the early 13th centuries the requirement for dispensation expanded to include fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-cousin marriages (F ≥ 0.00006), a level of regulation that rapidly proved impractical at local level (10). Because Luther had attacked the dispensation requirements for consanguineous unions as representing the rules of the church rather than of divine intention, and as a revenue-raising device (10), after the Reformation the Protestant denominations largely accepted the Levitical marriage proscriptions with no restriction on first-cousin unions." citing (10): Goody, J. (1985) The Development of the Family and Marriage in Europe (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, UK), pp 48–60, pp 134–146. 71.212.249.178 (talk) 07:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That doesn't explain the situation in Catholic areas of control or the nuisance it must have been if every marriage within the Royal Houses of Portugal, Spain, Austria, France, Bavaria, the Italian states, and all other Catholic nations had to receive permission from the Pope to marry since all royals were interrelated by the close of the Middle Age, if not first-cousins, then second or third. The strongest occurance of inbreeding was in Catholic Spain where first-cousins inbred for generations and uncles married nieces.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 07:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Politics, sooner or later, trumps such considerations as canonical correctness, so if it hadn't happened in the late Middle Ages dynastic survival and dynastic ambition would have made the barrier against propinquity unsustainable soon thereafter. Nor did it matter which nation's dynasty was involved: in the Middle Ages all European dynasties were Roman Catholic. The ban on consanguinity wasn't made for royalty, and they eventually concluded that it wasn't in their best interest to be bound by it. Probably the reason it began to be broken so often in the late Middle Ages was because the vast number of independent lords were beginning to be conquered and annexed by the great dynasties (Habsburg, Valois, Plantagenet, Hohenzollern, Welf, Wettin, Savoy, Oldenburg, Nassau, etc. leaving fewer families of high enough status for a ruling family to inter-marry with appropriately. Dynasties inter-married either to: 1. end hostilities and preserve peace (by arms or trade, e.g. Napoleon I and Marie Louise of Austria; or the marriage that resolved the Schleswig-Holstein Question by wedding Denmark's heiress, Louise of Hesse to Prince Christian of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg; or the 1913 marriage of Viktoria Luise of Prussia to Ernst August of Hanover, Duke of Cumberland who thereby became reigning Duke of Brunswick); 2. to secure allies in order to wage war or to defend against war (Mary, Queen of Scots and Francis, Dauphin of France vs. England's Tudor queen.); 3. to join together territories by marrying an heiress of one territory to the ruler or heir of another (Eleanor of Aquitaine to Henry II of England; or, to unite Spain, Isabella I, Queen of Castile to Ferdinand II, King of Aragon; or Mary, Duchess of Burgundy to Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor), 4. to keep a territory (or claim) in the family by marrying its main heiress to a male belonging to a cadet branch of the dynasty (e.g., Mary, Queen of Scots, secondly, to Lord Darnley; in the Affair of the Spanish Marriages, Isabella II de Borbón y Borbón, Queen of Spain and child of an uncle/niece marriage is finally compelled to wed her effeminately gay cousin Infante don Francisco de Asís de Borbón y Borbón; or Maria I of Portugal married her uncle, Infante dom Pedro of Braganza; or, as recently as 2009, when divorcee Princess Anna Bagration-Gruzinsky undertook very public nuptials with Prince David Bagration-Mukhrani, which it is hoped will eventually unite and strengthen monarchists of Georgia in support of restoration of their son, Prince Giorgi Bagration, purportedly born 2011 (no photo of mother or baby has been seen since the birth's announcement almost a year ago), who is now the heir-eventual of the two feuding branches of the House of Bagrationi. Given the high mortality of children until the modern era, marriage to a princess brought a good chance that a son-in-law would inherit a crown or fortune by the death of his wife's brothers (Austria's marital policy for generations consisted of this ploy, which succeeded in retaining for them the crown of the Holy Roman Empire until 1806, and was known as Bella gerant alii). Nonetheless, yes, intra-marrying dynasties almost always sought Papal dispensation for marriages to their relatives -- because failure to do so voided the marriage, disinheriting any children and undermining the point of the alliance, which was to aggrandize the dynasty's power by kinship instead of conquest. Such dispensations came to be readily granted unless the betrothed couple were siblings or ancestor/descendant -- marriages likely to arouse public disgust because they breached the prevalent (though not universal) worldwide taboo against marriages between people raised together in a home (e.g. John V, Count of Armagnac's "marriage" to his sister Isabelle, for which the Pope refused -- and the Count then forged -- a dispensation). Marriages beyond those boundaries probably didn't evoke widespread disapproval (given low populations and limited transportation -- cousin marriage must have been, if not common, commonly desired). FactStraight (talk) 09:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Nicely written, you do get your facts straight. Thanks.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 10:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If I may add to that, in the Middle Ages consanguinity was not so much an impediment to marriage (among royals/nobles) as it was an excuse to annul the marriage if things didn't work out. Didn't produce an heir? Oh well, they were related within the prohibited degrees anyway. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not just an excuse, but probably often presciently biologically accurate, given that malformations due to inbreeding disproportionately affect zygotes just like any other genetic malformations. 71.212.249.178 (talk) 19:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not really. As our article on cousin marriage says, a baby born of two random individuals has a 3% chance of a significant birth defect; a baby born of two people who are first cousins has a 5% chance, the same as a baby born to a 40-year-old woman.  More distant relations (second and third cousins, who are also within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity) have only a very slightly elevated chance.  Repeated close marriage (such as what went on with the Spanish and Austrian Habsburgs) greatly increases the odds of problems. --Carnildo (talk) 02:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

What is the title of the book by George Markstein
(Hello learned ones !) which inspired the Yves Boisset's 1982 french film Espion, lève-toi ? Thanks beforehand for your answer. T.y. Arapaima (talk) 09:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082342/, but this doesn't really answer your specific question. Have you tried researching Markstein en francaise? Or might either http://www.amazon.com/George-Markstein/e/B001HPWTYW/ or http://www.bookfinder.com/search/?author=george+markstein&title=&lang=en&isbn=&submit=Search&new_used=*&destination=us&currency=USD&mode=basic&st=sr&ac=qr be of any help? Milkunderwood (talk) 10:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Milku, there is no article "en français" on Markstein in WP fr (but you give me the idea to write it)...From the links you were kind to handle me, I gather that the book might be "Chance awakening" (1979) : there is in the film an ominous character named Chance (Michel Piccoli) who rouses up the somewhat rutted down french secret agent (Lino Ventura). Anybody who has read "Chance awakening" can confirm ? Thanks a lot. Arapaima (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * George Markstein did write a book called Espion, lève-toi, ISBN 2070487377. There's no guarantee the film and book have anything more in common.  Zoonoses (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm just getting fresh info. from our Ref. Desk (in french : "L'Oracle") : "Espion, lève-toi" is the translation in french of "Chance awakening", , it has been issued by Gallimard in the famous "Série Noire" (cf http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Oracle/semaine_29_2012#Quel_est_le_livre_de_George_Markstein_qui_a_inspir.C3.A9_le_film_Espion.2C_l.C3.A8ve-toi_.3F

) Thanks to all, t.y. Arapaima (talk) 07:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Defending social differences
What philosopher (or other similar thinkers) defended social differences? Who claimed that they were just or necessary? Ochson (talk) 13:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Jesus. John 12:8. Inevitable rather than just or necessary. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  16:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Linking to John 12:8. OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe not even inevitable, just that it will not happen in the future (worldwide socialism hasn't happened, even though it's not impossible for it to have done so (most revolutions were squashed c. 1920), so far He's right. Do enough all-time (c.30AD - 2012 so far) human being arguments for social differences even justify it with John 12:8 to be self-fulfilling prophesy? If so then He'd sort of be "making it happen". (or maybe He meant that there will be always be poor in the area they would've given the charity to (had they had the money instead of the jar), still I don't think that area has ever not had poor) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Please define what you mean by social differences. μηδείς (talk) 16:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That's hardly difficult to understand. OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It's quite easy to read into, but perhaps the OP is not interested in the fact that Orthodox Jews will not drink wine poured by goyim. Some clarification would be helpful. μηδείς (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That's exactly what I had in mind: the fact that Orthodox Jews will not drink wine poured by goyim. I hope anyone got my meaning, and didn't start thinking about money and privileges. Ochson (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, it could mean different things. One would be economic differences, i.e. some are rich, some are poor. A different definition could be something akin to feudalism, i.e. people have very limited, if not no, social mobility, and have different roles, duties and responsabilities, depending on the status of their parents. Yet another way of phrasing it could be the feminist concept of patriarchy, that due to their gender, men benefit from society, while women are oppressed and excluded from participating in the work force or public life. V85 (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Ayn Rand? or any liberal and individualist ideology will draw the conclusion that social differences are a given.OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Is this a homework question? Looie496 (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It might be useful to start by distinguishing social differences and social inequalities. Multiculturalism celebrates differences, and most mainstream currents at least pay lip service to diversity. Social inequality was defended by conservatives of many kinds, less so now than in the past. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Social differences are social inequalities. How you call each depends on your perspective. 79.148.233.179 (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd say some amount of economic inequality is inevitable, as long as people are free to make any economic decisions on their own. However, the degree of economic inequality can be controlled by the government, via progressive taxes and benefits for the poor (free education, housing, food, clothing, medical care, job training, job placement, income supports, etc.).  So, you can have a society where the richest have 10X the incomes of the poorest, or one where they have a billion times as much. StuRat (talk) 19:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Think that John Rawls would give rise to more thoughtful discussion than Ayn Rand... AnonMoos (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * And you would be wrong in that supposition--except that the OP still hasn't defined "social differences" as economic inequality. Perhaps we should be talking about the Mos and Por phratries of the Khanty people. μηδείς (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't want to discuss that. Perhaps I'm just a phraty cat. :-) StuRat (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The fact that Orthodox Jews will not drink wine poured by goyim is what I think about, when I think about social differences. Obviously, the Mos and Por phratries of the Khanty people are also an interesting sub-topic. Let's not get to far away from the topic discussing about economical differences or GINI coefficient for example. (This comment was made by the sockpuppet Ochson μηδείς (talk) 03:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC))


 * Mitt Romney's former employee at Bain Capital, Edward Conrad, thinks inequality is great. However the peer reviewed secondary literature continues to prevail in opposition, because, well, see Chart 4 here. 71.212.249.178 (talk) 05:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's so boringly biased you make me yawn. Conrad defends economic liberty, which may lead to differences in net worth, and the New York Times, known for its leftist bias, publishes a hit piece by a journalism major who calls this support for inequality. Yawwwwwn.  Oh, wait, this thread was started by a sock puppet.  Nevermind. μηδείς (talk) 06:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Conrad has made several on the record statements in favor of income inequality. I don't think the article is biased; or if it is, not in the way you suggest. And to paraphrase Wilde. the value of a question has nothing whatsoever to do with the person asking it. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 06:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Philosophers justifying slavery e.g. Aristotle. Edmund Burke believed hierarchic social divisions were natural and should be respected as such; Thomas Carlyle supported enlightened dictatorship in the German model; Friedrich Nietzsche and Plato opposed democracy; Alexis de Tocqueville was a conservative who believed France had the right to oppress its colonies.  A lot of philosophers have held beliefs opposed to female equality.  David Hume believed blacks were innately inferior to whites.  Etc. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Ethnic groups of South Asia buddhism
Which ethnic groups of South Asia besides Bengalis have people who practice Buddhism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.41.47 (talk) 13:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * All have some people who practice Buddhism, unless, I suppose you count groups defined by belonging to another religion, such as Parsis, Jains or Sikhs. Sri Lankans are the most obvious group to mention. There is a lot more information in our article Buddhism. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Buddhism is a universal religion, not an ethnic religion (despite the claims of some Hindus) so ethnicity is irrelevant.--Shantavira|feed me 16:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * What Hindu claims that Shantavira? OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Apparently "70% of Sri Lankans are Theravada Buddhists" and "Sri Lanka has the longest continuous history of Buddhism of any Buddhist nation". According to Buddhism in South Asia; "The only two majority-Buddhist nations in South Asia are Sri Lanka and Bhutan. Buddhists are also found in Nepal, India (especially in Ladakh and Sikkim) and Bangladesh in small minorities." Alansplodge (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * ALL. You can find Buddhists everywhere. 79.148.233.179 (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

174.89.41.47 -- I'm not sure I really understand your question, because a number of other ethnic groups (Sinhalese, Burmese, Tibetans, Thais, etc.) have much higher rates of adherence to Buddhism than Bengalis do. AnonMoos (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, you see my question meant the ethnic groups of India, the major ones like if there are Buddhists who are Assamese, Marathis, Telugus, Kannadigas and Malayalams or Oriyas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.230.113 (talk) 02:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Army list / POW look-ups
Who was Private P G Arbuthnot Seaforth Highlanders POW no 16859 at Thorn Podgorz camp, Poland - Stalag XX-A, soldier no 2818895. Also Gunner R Arbuthnot Royal Artillery POW at Luckenwalde, Bavaria, Germany - Stalag III A,  soldier no 1487870? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  15:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * What kind of answer do you want to "Who was he" ? —Tamfang (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Christian name(s). Birth date? Parents' names. Place of origin? Anything extra. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  19:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Seaforth Highlanders has UK and Canadian units. I think they both have websites that you could try emailing?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Where did "learn their language, marry their women" originally come from?
I only know it from the Simpsons or the Cleveland Show or Family Guy, it seems like it should be from a book or movie or something. It was something nonsensical like "we can't beat the spiders so we will learn their language, learn their ways, marry their women and become them." Maybe it was American settlers or Ancient Romans saying this originally. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

File:X-Dominion for India.png
It seems Canada shipped 150 of these locos to India. It was some kind of funding plan that I can't find in any articles. It wasn't the Marshall plan I am sure.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's an article describing Canada's wartime Mutual Aid Plan, albeit from an Australian rather than an Indian perspective. Deor (talk) 23:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. I wonder if it is worthy of an article or section in Canada's war history. I may try my government websites for more info. It seems it was a Canadian act only so it may have been unimportant in the en:wp battles for article inclusion. I found the image at the LAC and it got me curiuos is all.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Found a link: http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/mutual-aid Probably only worth a section somewhere. I will start it as an article and let the AfD decide where to stuff it?--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems there were two funds. Billion Dollar Gift and Mutual Aid. Article started, now to see if it survives.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Ultra-orthodox Jews in Israel and serving in the army
Shouldn't they be eager to serve? It's clear that they are surrounded by Arabs who do not have a high opinion of them, to say the least, and they could not survive without the army. Ochson (talk) 21:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, but in the IDF they would be obligated to uphold the orders of their superiors, which might include things they oppose, like removing Jewish settles from Palestinian land. StuRat (talk) 21:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * StuRat -- only a relatively small minority (those aligned with Neturei Karta or similarly-thinking) are pro-Palestinian in any meaningful sense.  That isn't why most of them object to serving in the Israeli Army... AnonMoos (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * StuRat didn't say they are pro-Palestinian, they say they are against removing Jews from Palestinia. Ochson (talk) 21:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "Palestinia" is not a word, and I think that the majority of them don't really care too much (there's a quasi-"left" fringe of Neturei Qarta and similar, and a quasi-"right" fringe of militant orthodox settlers and settler advocates, and a broad middle, many of whom don't care too much about political issues other than enforced Sabbath observance and making sure Yeshivas receive a suitable subsidy from the government)... AnonMoos (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The Latin-based languages generally call the region "Palestina". It is French, and hence English, in which it's called "Palestine". Why they would be "Palestinians" instead of "Palestinans", I don't know. But it could be worse. If the etymology is correct, that word comes from "(land of) Philistines". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Oops -- You're correct that I originally misunderstood StuRat's remark. Sorry for that... AnonMoos (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * But, wasn't there any less radical solution than not serving at all? They could perform non-combat functions, or stationed at units not responsible for doing things they oppose. And I suppose there are also rabbis in the IDF, would even this job be too much? Ochson (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Ochson -- they really are not pacifists as such. Rather, they think that the life's work of Jewish males should ideally be to study the Talmud full-time.  A few are actively hostile to Zionism (see "Neturei Qarta" above), while a much greater number are indifferent and apathetic to it, and many of their leaders fear that mixing with "secular" Israelis in the army might diminish their faith... AnonMoos (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, they are not pacifists, but they should know that they wouldn't survive without some sort of organized military force. So, why isn't then an ultra orthodox militia? Just imagine that all Jewish males behaved like them, who would defend Israel? Ochson (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ultra-orthodox Israelis and Religious Zionism, while intersecting, are not equivalent categories and some ultraorthdox are strongly opposed to the the Israel's political ethos and its secularism, notably the Satmar community and the fringe Neturei Karta movement. It is therefore not accurate to assume that the ultraorthodox, a diverse body, are necessarily in support of the settler movement.


 * My understanding is that the Haredim's objections are:


 * Political - a few do not support the Zionist movement and its bodies
 * Religious - some do support the IDF but prioritise Torah study and a religious lifestyle, and fear assimilation within a secular military.
 * Social - Some Haredim distrust mainstream government and their policies which they perceive as uninterested in their socio-economic welfare. ' Ankh '. Morpork  21:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Can I remind everyone that this isn't a forum for debating what ultra-orthodox Jews 'should or 'shouldn't' do. We have articles on Judaism, and on the Israeli Defense Forces, as well as on Torato Omanuto, which specifically relates to conscription in relation to Haredi Judaism. There should be enough information there for Ochson to find the answers requested. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok Andy, good links that solve my question. Ochson (talk) 22:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I have also read something recently (I can't recall where) which said ultra-orthodox Jews also justified their Torah study as being as important to the fate of Israel as actually serving in the army. So they don't necessarily see not serving as not standing up for Israel — if you really believe that religious activity will have secular-world results, then it can be one and the same. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is an interesting article on this topic. ' Ankh '. Morpork  23:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A lot of people offered great explanations here, so I'll just give a quick summary of the main reasons. It's not because they don't want to remove Jewish settlers, as someone said above - there are people like that who do serve in the IDF. It's mainly due to religious reasons - not that they believe it's against Judaism to serve in the IDF, but rather because they'd prefer to spend their time studying their religion (think of monks in a monastery) than serve the country that provides welfare for their families. You can see how this makes so many Israelis angry.  And to be clear, we're talking about ultra-Orthodox people here - not religious Jews necessarily, for example modern Orthodox Jews do serve.  A small, tiny minority of ultra-Orthodox do take a position against Zionism (again, while receiving the welfare!), but this doesn't represent the 98% of other ultra-Orthodox Jews.  There have been programs to help integrate these Jews into the army, such as serving in the army for 2 years instead of 4 and being allowed to study Judaism for half the day... But it hasn't provided a good solution for all, since the majority don't serve in the IDF, and in a country of about 6 million, you want to get everyone you can to defend your country (and 20% of the population are Arabs, which many Israelis also insist should serve or perform some type of national service, but you can imagine this is more complex to tackle).  The Tal Law was a law created about a decade ago that exempted most of the ultra-Orthodox from service, thinking that this would make them happy and satisfy their needs etc, but it's not good anymore, and the Israeli government is focused on changing it, although all the committees recently formed have resulted in verbal fights and breakups... So we'll see what happens. -- Activism  1234  05:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

USSR, a Republic?
Going by what a "republic" really means ("A state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives"), was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics actually considered a republic? I've tried looking it up but there wasn't really a straight answer. Thanks. 64.229.5.242 (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In theory. Being a single-party state as well as the total control by Lenin and later Stalin made it a totalitarian and authoritarian government in practice.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  23:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That isn't 'in practice' - that is 'in your opinion'. In any case, 'what a "republic" really means' is likewise opinion rather than anything else - so there isn't an answer to the question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, except that there are answers to this, produced by the humanities and social sciences, and they mostly start by critiquing the OP's assumptions. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * True - though the answers given tend to be of the 'opinion' variety. Personally, I see much to be for anthropologist Alfred Radcliffe-Brown's description of the State as being "a fiction of the philosophers" - what actually exists is instead a complex web of relationships of 'power' and 'legitimacy'. The snag is that if you start looking at things that way, you soon find that abstractions like 'the people' and 'authoritarian' tend to become less useful. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So Lenin and Stalin being totalitarian dictators and contolling virtually every aspect of the government is just "opinion"? A president you did not choose and can not depose is not an elected representative. The OP is not asking if your definition of republic is the same as his, but if the Soviet Union really gave power to the masses through elected representatives. For which the answer is obviously no. Now for what republic really means, there's a thread of that above.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  01:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes actually, go read some of the bloody history. Sheila Fitzpatrick might be a good start on the complexity of "actually existing socialism."  Lenin lost votes in the Party.  Stalin relied on a massive basis of support (and "tail-ended" the nomenklatura). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, what? Which one? Was it the part where Lenin disbanded the Russian Constituent Assembly after the Bolsheviks didn't get the majority of the votes, claiming that the parliament can not represent the workers? Was it the part where not contented with a one-party system, Lenin also banned factions within the party? Was it the fact that candidates for elections were assigned by the state, not running on their own free will? The Cheka? As for Stalin, "massive basis of support" and "tail-ending the Nomenklatura", how? By eliminating opposition in an even bloodier fashion with the NKVD including assassinating Kirov and Trotsky? Stalin virtually ran the Nomenklatura even when Lenin was alive, how could he "tail-end" it?-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  04:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Simple question. How did Lenin or Stalin carry out such actions? What mechanism did they have which allowed them to do this? Where did their power come from? Simply asserting that they had the power to do this or that is no explanation of anything. It doesn't even tell us what 'power' is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Guns? Murder? That's really simple. μηδείς (talk) 04:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope. How does Stalin get hold of the guns? How does he get away with murder? Anyone could call themselves an authoritarian dictator, anywhere. What did he have to make it work, if it didn't involve some form of support from others? And would he have remained an 'authoritarian dictator' without such support? You have given us a simple answer - so simple that it doesn't even begin to actually answer the question. Try harder... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL. The State is fiction and we're not supposed to be able to tell one from another, nor even attempt to, because it's too complex. Sure. This is kinda like someone asking a question on why most nurses wear white uniforms, and you shurgging it off with high-brow justifications that white is actually composed of the entire spectrum of colors and thus nurses technically wear blue too! How illuminating.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  06:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest you look at any modern account of the specialists campaign (which is why I suggested Fitzpatrick), and the beginnings of the agricultural campaign. "Intentionalism" is a broadly rejected causative theory. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * There seems to be a pretty broad usage of the term "republic". Obviously, the general public in the USSR had no say in what the government decided to do. But basically anything that isn't a monarchy seems to get labeled a "republic". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Is that really what "republic" "really means"? The Wiktionary definition (republic) gives that definition, but it also gives the definition of it simply being the opposite of a monarchy. I think that second definition is the more commonly used, and English is defined by usage. --Tango (talk) 23:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * According to the Soviet political theory, the leadership was elected, or at the very least endorsed, by the people. There were elections in the Soviet Union throughout the period of CPSU rule; it's just that it was only in the final years that the elections had more than one candidate standing in them. The question about the Soviet Union possibly raises the question of whether South Africa from 1961 to 1994 was properly called a Republic, since only a minority section of the people elected representatives. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * And of course, given that for much of its history, the United States also excluded a significant section of its population from participation in the democratic process (on dubious 'racial' grounds), one could likewise argue that it wasn't 'a republic' by the OP's definition. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * To be fair, "the people" that I mention in the definition means those who are able to vote (from what I learned in a civics class, anyway), considering, of course, that not everyone had the right to vote. So technically, countries that didn't allow everyone to vote could still be considered a republic, since "the people" (who can vote) vote for their leader. 64.229.5.242 (talk) 01:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not to mention dubious sexist grounds... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The representatives were chosen by those who were allowed to vote, and those who were allowed to vote usually had a choice of two or more. In the USSR or any number of other places you'd care to name, there was only one name on the ballot. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tango. Certainly for anyone who lives in a monarchy, republic simply means a country with a president not a monarch. The old debating society standby of "Should Britain/Australia/Sweden become a republic?" just means should we get rid of the monarchy - only. Its not a debate about the merits of the other features of the US, French, Soviet or Guatemalan system or if we should copy any other part of their arrangements.

So from that perspective, yes, when they got rid of the Tsar (well, killed him), USSR for Republic was the logical name for the new state. Russia was no longer like Britain; it was now like America and France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.85.213 (talk) 01:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The Tsar was overthrown by Kerensky and the liberals in the February Revolution. The Bolsheviks murdered the Tsar and his family, but did not overthrow him, and established the USSR only after a long and bloody civil war. μηδείς (talk) 01:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Something can be a republic without being a good republic. Nazi Germany was a republic until they passed the authorizing act or whatever they called it making the fuehrer's will supreme. The Soviet union had the form of a republic. The only difficulty with calling the Soviet Union a republic is that the Bolshevik's never had the consent of the people, so I would argue it was not a republic because of that fact. μηδείς (talk) 01:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Suggest you read Simon Pirani on the urban working classes' rather explicit consent, in their revolutionary organs (the workplace soviets) to the Bolshevik NEP line. "Consent" is a slippery business in politics, but up until 1941 there was significant workplace control for ordinary Soviet urban and industrial workers.  Rural workers, of course, got it hard.  At least in terms of urban workers, the most common constructions of legitimacy existing amongst revolutionaries who accept that "workers democracy" is central, this was "legitimate" (and "fucking stupid").  Attempting to construct the appropriate consent as "the people" when the Left-SRs, urban anarchists, Bolsheviks, and miscellaneous pro-Soviet forces generally agreed with converting Soviet order 1 into direct seizure of power is unusual.  For one, the Soviets seized power, and had always constructed their legitimacy in terms of "representing" or "mobilising" actual workers.  (Never mind that being composed of an delegated by and of workers is the long standing construction of workers' democracy itself)...  Fifelfoo (talk) 01:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Links might be helpful, not that I, personally, am interested in reading communist apologetics; it's kind of hard to take seriously claims that urban workers supported the revolution when those who didn't were shot. μηδείς (talk) 02:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought I've rabbitted on about the importance of Pirani's findings quite often. His website contains both freely available political works, and more restricted academic works, on the topic.  His dataset were primarily Bolshevik party reports from Moscow in the period towards the end of war communism and before the full NEP became implemented (though there is little reason to believe that Moscow is unrepresentative, given that the Moscow workplace soviets were more Left-SR, and Internationalist Menshevik, as well as some serious factory anarchist than other sites).  Pirani reconstructs the workings of Moscow workplace soviets, and their relationship to the Bolshevik Party controlled geographic soviets.  I mean sure, any anarcho-communist worth their salt can point immediately to the Tabov, Kronstadt and Mahknovishchina persecutions—but few people are willing to note the complicity of the Soviet working class itself in the destruction of its own political power.  Pirani is valuable for this, and valuable for the "softness" of his conclusions, the chief of which is that urban workers tolerated the deal where they lost power but got consumer goods.  It is certainly a worthier thesis than simplistic accounts, and Pirani has the local workplace soviet demands lists to demonstrate his thesis. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely - on the other definition, "Republic is the opposite of dictatorship", (which, as I implied, is a definition never used in Britain, or even known about), the USSR didn't qualify. So British politicians would complain about the D in GDR but never the R in USSR. 77.101.85.213 (talk) 01:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are responding to me (use @medeis or indent to indicate that) you have missed my point. I do not deny that a republic can become a dictatorship, I gave an example.  What I deny is that a government which never had the consent of the people can call itself a res publica: "public thing". μηδείς (talk) 02:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * @ 77.101, if the name's the focus, the USSR never claimed in its name that it was a republic. It claimed to be a union of republics.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  02:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Very good point; when I hear "Republic of ____", I think of a unitary state, while the USSR was officially a federation. Nyttend (talk) 03:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Except India is called 'Republic of ....' but is a federation according to any common definition. In fact Federation shows 'Republic of' is the most commonly used term although not a majority. Note also 'X Republic of' (where X is zero to two words) seems to be a majority, particularly if you exclude those that aren't republics although some of these imply they are federations from the names. Nil Einne (talk) 17:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Can't a country be both a federation and a republic? If the Australian republic referendum, 1999 had succeeded, we would have become both.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  22:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This is all a question of definitions, and how the word 'republic' is defined, and terms like 'republic' and 'democracy' are sometimes used interchangeably. The definition in the OP is the same as that conventionally used for representative democracy, not necessarily republic. The article Republic states very early on that 'In modern times, a common simplified definition of a republic is a government where the head of state is not a monarch'. If we use the OP's definition of republic, then even constitutional monarchies, such as the UK, would, in fact, be considered republics. If we use the definition that 'republic' is a form of government which is not a monarchy, i.e. where the head of state is not hereditary, the USSR is a republic.
 * However, if we accept the OP's definition of 'republic', the question is how the USSR measures up to the notion of 'A state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives'. (Once the word 'supreme' is added, there seems to be something more Soviet-y about the sentence.) The Soviet Union did have a democratic Constitution, with universal suffrage and direct election of all government bodies. The Soviet Constitutions provided the Soviet citizens with many freedoms and is very democratic on the surface, granting many freedoms and rights to the citizens and the right of the Soviet republics to secede. Going by its Constitution, the USSR would also seem to be a 'republic' according to the definition that a 'republic' is a 'representative democracy'.
 * However, there's always the pesky issue of theory vs. practice. While the Constitution did guarantee universal suffrage, there doesn't seem to be much point to it, when the same Constitution declared the Communist party to be the vanguard party, and all other parties subsequently are banned. However, the existence of parties aren't necessary to have a representative democracy, so long as the electorate are allowed to choose from a number of non-affiliated candidates ('independents'), but, if there is only one candidate, this doesn't seem very democratic, as one doesn't have much of a choice.
 * So, the question is, what is a republic? If a republic is simply not a monarchy, the USSR was a republic (but then we have the question of how to interpret the People's Democratic Republic of Korea: is it actaully a monarchy, although it claims to be a republic?) If, we define a republic as a representative democracy, as per the OP, the question is how democratic or how representative does your representative democracy have to be, to be a 'republic' (as per the OP)? Is it enough to have universal suffrage? The USSR did. Is it enough to have direct popular elections of government bodies? The USSR did. Is it enough to have regular elections? The USSR did. However, the clincher, to me, whenn it comes to being a representative democracy is the amount of choice the electorate has come election time. If there is only one candidate in each constituency in each election, that doesn't really count as a representative democracy.
 * Personally, I'd say the USSR was a republic (in that it wasn't a monarchy), but it wasn't a representative democracy. If your definition of a republic is representative democracy, then yes, the USSR wasn't a republic. V85 (talk) 06:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If DR Congo and North Korea can be called republics, and democratic ones at that, then the USSR can too. @Fifelfoo, what about Rosa Luxemburg criticizing Lenin for not actually giving power to the masses? I don't know how it is in Australia, but in Europe Marxists tend to distance themselves from "actually exisiting socialism", not condone some of its more dubious actions. 109.97.179.148 (talk) 08:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a question of defining the labels, and of being able to see past what an organisation or country calls itself when describing it. If we define a republic as a representative democracy, the interpretation would be that those countries call themselves something they are not. If we define a republic as ≠ monarchy, then we could accept that they are republics, but probably not democratic. In a similar way as you could start a political party and call it the Xenophobic nationalist fascist party but argue for increased immigration to your country and multiculturalism. V85 (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Both attitudes are fairly substitutionalist, both Rosa's and Vladimirs. In Rosa's case: you can't be given what must be taken.  This would verge off into a critique of montagnard bourgeois politics (for which I suggest Peter Weiss' Marat/Sade, including the film).  Regarding politics on the ground, much like in Germany, in the Russian empire many workers formed work place councils during the late teens.  Unlike in Germany, the state (here primarily Bolshevik controlled geographic councils, not generally populated with workers) was reliant upon the apparent support of workplace councils.  Like in Germany, the state eventually crushed the workplace councils' power, but not all at once.  Lenin could never "give" such power over, either personally due to his substitutionalism, nor practically because it has to be taken.  The state lead the workers councils' by the nose in Russia in 1917-1921.  (Contrast to Hungary in 1956.) Fifelfoo (talk) 08:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)