Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 November 8

= November 8 =

Newt Gingrich's moon base idea
Newt Gingrich suggested that once 13,000 Americans are living on the moon, they can apply to become the 51st state. Is this 13,000 number a reference to anything? A SF story perhaps? Or did he just pull it out of his rear-end? Apparently the actual minimum population required in order to apply for statehood is 60,000.A8875 (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Constitutionally, the minimum is whatever Congress says it is. Maybe Newt could kill two birds with one stone by establishing an orphanage on the moon... AnonMoos (talk) 01:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * As opposed to shipping aborted fetuses there? What is the purpose of your political comment?, Anon? μηδείς (talk) 02:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Orphanages were one of Gingrich's most prominent past half-baked ideas (and it didn't have much to do with abortion, either). Take a look at "Newt Gingrich: 8 of the GOP idea man's more unusual ideas"... -- AnonMoos (talk) 04:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe they count six times as much, owing to the gravity of the situation. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Can't find anything by way of reliable sources one way or the other about the minimum population needed for a new state, although some non-RS commentary out in the big old Internet seems to be suggesting that the 60,000 limit in the Northwest Ordinance only applied to new states created from the Northwest Territory and wasn't to be considered a binding limit. There is another suggestion floating around out there that a new state has to have a population greater than that of the smallest existing state (by population, so New State > Wyoming) but again, I can't find anything reliable to support that, so I think AnonMoos has it right as above. I am not going to plough through the Outer Space Treaty at this time in the night, but if memory serves me, while a nation can't claim the Moon in its entirety, much like spacecraft, a base on the Moon does remain the property of the constructing nation. (Open to correction here, of course) Going by precedence, for example in the Enabling Act of 1802, a representative body of those living there would have to be established and that would negotiate the terms of admission to the Union. As for a SF inspiration, there are probably a lot out there although I can't think of any that would include that number. But one vague memory from my childhood springs to mind from when the TV station here in the late 70s 1 used to buy failed (and therefore cheap) US pilots to fill in the Saturday afternoon schedule, and that is a thing called Earth II (not be confused with 1990s series). Not quite a new US state and not on the Moon, but the method of determining whether it should be independent was kinda cool.  FlowerpotmaN &middot;(t) 02:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note 1: Yes, just the one TV channel... really.  FlowerpotmaN &middot;(t) 02:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

AnonMoos is correct. Congress admits new states, and congress also declares the rules for admitting new states (with some restrictions under Article 4). Someguy1221 (talk) 02:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Our article History of Nevada mentions that that state was admitted although it probably did not have the 40,000 customary minimum, but that is unsourced and I've also read it was to give Lincoln additional Republican votes.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * See 51st state. (We're going to have to rename that article!  And probably split up the content when we rethink the name)  There are all manner of differently sized entities - American Samoa, Guam, Virgin Islands - that want statehood, but people will appropriately be reluctant to hand out a lot of different Senators to just a few people.  (The U.S. Senate allocates two per state, regardless of size)  As Puerto Rico is 29th in the U.S. according to population, this is not really a valid complaint in their case. Wnt (talk) 17:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Good luck custom -- only in England?
Does the belief that shaking hands with a chimney sweep can bring good luck only exist in England, or are there similar good-luck customs in Continental Europe as well? Thanks in advance! 24.23.196.85 (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * + 1. Touching a chimney sweep (Germany). --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 01:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Original research, but my mum had a little souvenir model of a sweep that she bought in Paris in the 1950s. Not sure about shaking hands though. Alansplodge (talk) 01:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! 24.23.196.85 (talk) 06:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * In America it is good luck to shake hands with Dick Van Dyke. μηδείς (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I know! 24.23.196.85 (talk) 23:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Precedent for marriage referendums?
In the recent election, three states ratified same-sex marriage at the ballot box. It has been noted by gay rights advocates that this is the first time such referendums have yielded a favorable result. However, is this merely a case of "first in the USA" or is it actually "first in the world"? I can't recall any other political entity legalizing same-sex marriage by popular vote. It seems to me that in every place where it is legal, it has come about as a result of judicial decision or enactment by a legislature. (Indeed, the practice of holding a referendum on such an issue is pretty rare outside the United States.) So would it be accurate to characterize the referendums of November 7th 6th as the world's first ratification of same-sex marriage by direct popular vote? L ANTZY T ALK 06:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, that would be correct. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 06:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Nitpick: The referenda were on November 6. --  Jack of Oz  [Talk]  07:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In my defense, opinions differ. L ANTZY T ALK 08:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Famous people surviving catastrophes early in life
I remembered today that as an infant Elvis Presley survived the F5 Tupelo tornado of the 1936 Tupelo–Gainesville tornado outbreak. What other cases from history are there where someone who grew up to be relatively famous/influential survived some kind of catastrophe early in life (or even anytime before accomplishing what made them well known)? Thanks, Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 09:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * How famous? The Dunera Boys were an interesting bunch. HiLo48 (talk) 09:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Andy Murray was at the school in Dunblane when the massacre took place. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. "As an eight-year-old, he hid in the headmaster’s office as Thomas Hamilton brought terror to the school, shooting dead 16 children and a teacher."  Article here.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The entire Lutheran movement may never have happened had Martin Luther not been caught in a lightning storm on 2 July 1505 and prayed to St Anne to save him if he promised to become a monk. Having survived, he felt bound by his oath, one thing led to another, and the rest is, literally, history.  --  Jack of Oz  [Talk]  11:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Joseph Fraunhofer was buried under rubble when the glassmaker's workshop were he was working as a teenager collapsed. He was pulled from the rubble by the Prince-Elector of Bavaria and went on to become an influential physicist. Gabbe (talk) 11:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Elsie Bowerman was the first woman barrister at the Old Bailey. As a 22 yr old, she had survived the sinking of the Titanic. --Dweller (talk) 12:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * André Laguerre, the man who essentially invented modern sports journalism, survived the Dunkirk evacuation after his ship was sunk. He had a really interesting life.  -- Jayron  32  14:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * But what about all of the famous and influential people that didn't survive an early catastrophe? Blakk   and ekka 17:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That Kennedy guy with the very big exploding aeroplane was one of those, I think. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Speaking of the Kennedys (and who doesn't), during WWII John F. Kennedy survived the ramming by a Japanese destroyer and sinking of Motor Torpedo Boat PT-109, which incident killed 2 of his colleagues and badly injured some others. He later went on to have a mildly successful political career.  --  Jack of Oz  [Talk]  18:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * George H. W. Bush was shot down over the Pacific during World War II. Duoduoduo (talk) 20:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr. wasn't all that famous or influential when he died. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Are we considering fictional characters: Kal-El. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Another one. Sir John Gorton was shot down no less than 3 times during WWII, enduring major facial scarring.  But he survived and became one of the funkiest Australian Prime Ministers in the past 50 years.  Probably the only one I'd tar with that epithet.  --  Jack of Oz  [Talk]  04:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Althought the article for Wilford Woodruff (the 4th President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) doesn't go into it or tell any of the stories, he survived a whole bunch of horrific stuff as a child. I'll try to find some links.  Kingsfold   (Quack quack!)  19:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Elsie Bowerman was a survivor of the Titanic and later went on to become the first woman admitted to practice law before the Old Bailey. 216.93.234.239 (talk) 07:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * above. Gabbe (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

In "The Book Thief", what is the author, Markus Zusak, trying to say about certain issues in relation to conflict?
What is the author trying to teach/say about conflict through the characters and events that take place? Examples include:
 * Max (being a jew) and his conflict against society (individual vs society),
 * Hans and his conflict against society (individual vs society),
 * Death experiencing inner conflict in relation to humanities ways (inner conflict),
 * Liesel and her conflict with words and her brothers death (inner conflict).

Anyway those are just a few examples of conflict I picked up on, through these, and other means, what is the author trying to teach about conflict? Any help is greatly appreciated :) 220.233.20.37 (talk) 11:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You evidently wanted to make a list on separate lines, so I helped you by inserting bullets to achieve that format. I also linked the title and author to help readers remind themselves of the context. Hope you don't mind. —Tamfang (talk) 21:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, thats completely fine, thank you. Now, I just need an some answers. 220.233.20.37 (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Yet another US election question - small-town results
This story reports the results from Dixville Notch, New Hampshire, where the votes were five each to Obama and Romney. Surely announcing results at this level of detail comes close to violating the secrecy of the ballot, especially as at least one voter told interviewers how he had voted (of course he could have been lying, I suppose). Is there any minimum number below which the results would not be disclosed? AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Dixville Notch is simply reporting the results after the polls close, which is perfectly proper. I don't think there's a minimum, and I suppose there are examples of only one person voting in a precinct, which would make for certain identification of the voter's votes.  I have never heard that anything has been done about it, perhaps because if there's only one person voting in that precinct, it must be a trivial election.  Just after midnight is the only time you can vote there; I assume anyone unable to be present votes absentee, and given the small number of voters, such things are tolerable in the greater good of having a story every four years which brings publicity, and I daresay tourism to an otherwise unremarkable and remote hamlet in the mountains.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Dixville Notch is basically a curiosity. It's a tiny unincorporated village in the mountains of New Hampshire that decided like, 50 years ago, that they were going to make the news by being the "first in the nation" to vote.  It's kinda their thing.  You can look back through media reports for decades, and the results from Dixville Notch make the news on Election mornings all the time.  It isn't any small town, it's just Dixville Notch.  (Though occasionally some other little village tries to steal their thunder.  I think some media outlets this year also reported the results from Hart's Location, New Hampshire as well).  That is, don't read anything into it.  It's just Dixville Notch, and it's just what they do.  It doesn't mean anything institutional about the U.S. election system.  -- Jayron  32  13:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I do have an institutional question about the US election system. In Australia, electorates tend to be more or less equal sized by population and for the most part polling places also tend to cover comparatively sized populations, all centrally determined by the Australian Electoral Commission. A town can't just "decide" that it wants to count its votes by itself, so I think it would take a really unusual and unexpected combination of circumstances for a tally board to only have 10 votes on it. How are such mechanical things determined in the US? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Dixville Notch is not an electorate nor is it a municipality. It's a few mountains and a post office, and a few homes, in northern New Hampshire, and a resort hotel which this helps with publicity.  It forms a part of districts which elect various legislators, but it elects nothing by itself.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Wehwalt, I undersatnd that it is not an electorate - in Australia the smallest unit which would have its own vote tally would be a polling place, and I have assumed that by the fact that Dixvill Notch publishes its own tally, that it is a polling place (or the equivalent concept - "precinct", I think, based on Jayron's explanation below. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, in the U.S. it comes down to our own unique brand of federalism (see Federalism in the United States). In the U.S., elections are a state issue (there are no "nationally elected" office, except indirectly, even the President is indirectly elected).  The way state sovereignty is handled in the U.S. elections are one of those things that the Feds aren't involved in, except in a few issues.  The Supreme Court has interpreted that, constitutionally, there a few basic principles that every state election has to follow (mostly regarding access to the polls, i.e. states can't discriminate who can vote based on race/ethnicity etc.)   However, beyond that elections are considered part of state sovereignty: each state gets to decide how to organize and run its own elections, including the format of the ballot, the hours when polling occurs, the locations and sizes of voting precincts, etc.  In the U.S., population distribution is very uneven, so there are some locations where tens of thousands of people could reach a single polling station on foot, while in others you could have a few hundred people scattered over hundreds of square miles.  Thus, the number of people in a "precinct" in New York City (that is, the number of people who are assigned to vote at a single location) would by necessity be very different than in, say, northern New England.  -- Jayron  32  14:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, very clear explanation! --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * One consequence of leaving-it-to-the-states is that the polls close at widely different times. The folks in Alaska might still have been voting when all the networks agreed that Obama had clinched it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think another aspect is that the only people who would have standing to sue for privacy violation are the actual residents, so if none of them mind nothing will be done. If a state wanted to designate one of us as a "precinct" and publish our votes, we could sue. Wnt (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

when did scientists first get paid?
As you know, natural philosophers do their business for free. They never get paid before. When did they first get paid? Is it happened in Paris? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003winner (talk • contribs) 13:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Robert Hooke was paid to be secretary of the Royal Society. There are probably earlier cases in Europe, and then there are the Islamic world, India, China and Antiquity to consider. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Define "scientist" and "paid". Jābir ibn Hayyān (AKA "Geber") was a "court alchemist" in the court of the Abbasid Caliph.  Under any reasonable modern definition, Geber did "science" (he did controlled experiments, expanded the corpus of scientific knowledge, etc. etc.).  He had a job, received compensation, and did science as part of that job.  I doubt he was the first nor only medieval Persian/Arabic scientist.  -- Jayron  32  13:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * And maybe Archimedes could qualify. King Hiero of Syracuse commissioned him to design siege engines for the defense of the city. Undoubtedly Archimedes received some kind of compensation for his work. It might be argued that he served more as an engineer than a scientist, but considering that Archimedes invented all his machines himself, through the use of mathematics and experiments, I think it would be fair to call that science. - Lindert (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Not to mention Imhotep, the earliest scientist we know by name, I believe. He worked officially as chancellor to the pharoah and high priest of Ra. Looie496 (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Galileo is generally considered the father of modern science. Like many if not most scientists, Galileo was a paid teacher.  So I would say that scientists have been paid from the very beginning.  Of course, it is true, as Jayron points out, that there were earlier alchemists and others who did work that, though not in our modern scientific tradition, is difficult to differentiate from what scientists do.  John M Baker (talk) 16:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * During the Renaissance, "natural philosophers" were often supported by royal or aristocratic patrons, who provided facilities and finance to allow them to carry on their work. John Dee worked for Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester and Elizabeth I of England among others. However, his useful work in astronomy, mathematics and navigation were somewhat overshadowed by his obsession with talking to angels - the boundaries between science, religion and superstition was still something of a grey area. William Gilberd, who discovered the earth's magnetic field (compasses had previously been thought to point to an undiscovered magnetic island), was employed at the court of Elizabeth I as a medical physician. Alansplodge (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It's reasonable to assume that the first paid scientist existed in antiquity. That is, before historic records.  StuRat (talk) 18:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Any day now! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * A better question than asking when a scientist was first paid is to ask when science became a profession — that is, something that more than just something that rich and/or extremely eccentric people did in their spare time because they were curious, or something that rich guys paid lackeys to look into because it was a sign of how rich they were. When did it become something that someone could say, "hey, I'd like to do that for a living!" There isn't a single "the first time it happened" sort of answer to that question, but rather shifting trends. Many people date the founding of the Royal Society of London as a key moment, here, because it gave official sanction to this sort of investigation and started things like the first regular journals. But generally speaking historians like to say that the 19th century is when it really became fully professionalized, when "science" started to look like how we do it today (in terms of training, class backgrounds, publication systems, reward systems, shared values, etc.) as opposed to the stuff that looks nothing like modern science (e.g. how Newton trained and worked). It is not coincidental that this was the point in time in which "scientist" was coined as a term. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's a relevant quote from Bachelor of Science: The first university to admit a student to the degree of Bachelor of Science was the University of London in 1860. Prior to this, science subjects were included in the B.A. bracket, notably in the cases of mathematics, physics, physiology and botany. --  Jack of Oz  [Talk]  22:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Our article on the Holocaust reads that Freemasons were also targeted, how did the Nazis know who was a Freemason?
Isn't it a secret? Netwwork (talk) 14:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This doesn't directly answer your question, but, when you think about it, how did the Nazis know who was Jewish? Or a Communist? The Nazis were never ones to let the facts get in the way of a bit of mass-murder; hence, suspicion was often all that was needed.
 * An article from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum offers a bit more insight: basically, the mechanics were similar to the ways in which other 'Untermensch' were identified - through a network of informers, along with a highly sophisticated system of record keeping. When a Grand Lodge was raided, the archives would be captured and used to identify members. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 14:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, membership in a Masonic Lodge is not necessarily kept secret. A lot depends on the country, of course... in places where Freemasonry is illegal (and especially if the Masons are persecuted) membership will be kept secret.  However, in most western democracies there is no need for secrecy.  Freemasons tend to be quite proud of their fraternity, and will let others know of their involvement (American Freemasons are know for taking this pride to extremes - wearing great big Masonic rings and lapel pins, placing Masonic bumper stickers on their cars, etc.)  This was the case in Germany, prior to the rise of the Nazis... being a Freemason was actually thought of as a good thing (at least in some circles of society)... membership was considered socially prestigious. So it was not kept secret. Blueboar (talk) 15:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * WHAAOE, as the saying goes. See Suppression_of_Freemasonry. Also, I should correct something I wrote earlier: the Freemasons would not have been characterised as 'Untermensch', that term being reserved for members of races which the Nazis considered 'subhuman' - the Jews, Slavs and Gypsies. The broader term for those the Nazis found undesirable - including the disabled, Communists and Freemasons - was 'Lebensunwertes Leben' - Life unworthy of life. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, sorry. "Lebensunwertes Leben" was identified on pseudo-biological principles, and included racial criteria, birth defects, and so on. Young, healthy, blond, "arian" communists and freemasons were not killed for pseudo-biological reasons, but simply because they were politically opposed to the Nazis. They were targeted systematically, because they had the organisation to mount significant resistance. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The terminology that the Nazis used for Freemasons and other "subversive" groups, I believe, was "enemies of the state" -- same as in the USSR under the Communists. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 23:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Are people such as Michael J. Fox, Jim Carrey allowed to vote in both Canada and the U.S.?
They hold both citizenships. Netwwork (talk) 14:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably... I don't know about the rules in Canada, but in the US holding dual citizenship does not disqualify you from the vote. If you are a US citizen, you are entitled to vote.  Where you are entitled vote depends on your stated place of residence (ie where you are registered).  Blueboar (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Holding a second citizenship does not affect a US citizen's right to vote in the US. If he lives outside the US he can still vote in the last place he resided in the US.
 * Anyone know about whether they can also vote in Canada? I would be extremely surprised if they cannot, because a dual citizen can even legally be the Governor General of Canada, as Michaëlle Jean was before public pressure led her to renounce French citizenship. Duoduoduo (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Ever since the Afroyim v. Rusk court decision, it's U.S. policy to treat dual citizens exactly the same as purely-U.S. citizens. However, official policy also discourages people from acquiring dual citizenship or acting on it, because it tends to cause trouble with other countries (which the State Dept is too polite to specify).  The U.S. Embassy in Canada explains it a bit, but sadly doesn't hint as to whether Canada is one of the troublemakers. The only exception is that "no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."  In other words, see Valdas Adamkus: he was a U.S. citizen until he became the President of Lithuania, at which point he was still a dual citizen, but he became ineligible from working for the U.S. government.  As it happens, Mr. Adamkus renounced his U.S. citizenship because the Lithuanians made it pretty obvious that they expect that of their presidents. --M @ r ē ino 15:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem like we care too much in Canada: the current leader of the opposition in parliament is Thomas Mulcair who has dual citizenship with France and Canada. Mingmingla (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I wonder why that isn't in the article. There are lots of references to it. Bielle (talk) 23:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Any Canadian citizen living abroad can vote in Canadian federal elections, provided s/he has lived outside of Canada for less than 5 consecutive years, and s/he intends to return to Canada. Having also a foreign citizenship is not a factor per se. (Of course, if the person's foreign citizenship is acquired by naturalization in a foreign country, it probably means that he's spent too long outside of Canada to be eligible to vote anymore). -- Vmenkov (talk) 01:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Is it true that Hitler first killed his dog to test the pills?
Netwwork (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This article by Louis Bülow says; "He (Hitler) had lunch as usual at 2 o'clock in the afternoon with his two secretaries and his cook. He now began making systematic preparations to commit suicide. He supervised the poisoning of his beloved dog Blondi and her pups and shortly after 3 p.m. he and Eva Braun bade farewell to the staff, assembled in the bunker, and retired to their private room to carry out their decision." So in this author's version, it seems to have been was out of concern for the dog. "Louis Bulow, is the director of the www.auschwitz.dk website and writes essays on the Holocaust." Note that Hitler actually shot himself in the head, although Eva Braun did take poison. Alansplodge (talk) 17:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Do we know for sure that President Obama will be able to appoint more Supreme Court judges?
One of the issues that seemed to come up a lot in the US election - especially in discussions around abortion - was that the winner of the election might potentially be able to shape the direction of US affairs for years to come, through the appointment of Supreme Court judges. Yet I notice from that article that SCOTUS judges have lifetime tenure. Is there any guarantee, therefore, that there will be vacancies to fill? Have any judges expressed a desire or wish to retire? I note that a number of the judges are in their 70s, but other than death, presumably they could choose not to retire until there was a president more suited to their own viewpoints. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 15:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You are correct. The Justices have always had lifetime tenure, and in recent years, they have made a custom of retiring during the term of a president with similar views as them.  Right now, all of the Justices are fairly healthy and clearly enjoy their jobs, but the oldest Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, is 79, a double-cancer survivor, and has a Constitutional philosophy that is almost totally identical to President Obama's.  So most people expect Ginsburg will step down some time over the next 4 years.  --M @ r ē ino 16:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * That was certainly the case with William O. Douglas, a great champion of civil liberties, who basically held on to the seat (and his principles) as long as he was physically able. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Stephen Breyer is also in his 70s. Given his relatively liberal philosophy, he might also be expected to retire during Obama's term to assure that he is not replaced by a conservative. Marco polo (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Scanning the lists of justices, and looking at the current slate, it seems that, on average, there's a new justice every 3-4 years or so. That is, most presidents appoint 1-2 justices in a 4-year term and 2-4 justices in an 8-year term.  Reagan added 4 justices (O'Connor, Stevens, Scalia, and Kennedy), Bush Sr. added two (Souter and Thomas), Clinton added 2 (Ginsburg and Breyer), Bush Jr. added 2 (Roberts, Alito) and Obama has so far added 2 (Kagan and Sotomayor).  I would hazard that 1-2 would probably be added in the next term, based on age and health I'd say that Ginsburg is probably the next to retire.  -- Jayron  32  21:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Stevens was a Ford appointee; hope no article lists him as Reagan.John Z (talk) 19:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * However, a lot of the recent appointees are relatively young (for SC Justices), and that will skew the historical averages. Blueboar (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was prepared to build a case for exactly that, and spent the better part of thirty minutes researching and creating a nice little table to make exactly the case you were. The reality is that the recent nominees have been almost exactly average for all nominees across history.  When I compared the current court to the one from 100 years ago, the ages of that court, at the date they were appointed, were 55, 61, 49, 54, 65, 51, 53, 54, and 56.  The 65 year old was Horace Harmon Lurton, the oldest ever Supreme Court appointee, and a statistical outlier.  The current court ages, at the date of appointment, were 50, 50, 51, 43, 60, 56, 55, 55, 50.  The range looks quite similar, with most people being appointed in their early-to-mid 50s, with a few older and a few younger.  -- Jayron  32  23:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Also looked at the 1812 court. The ages of that court, on the day they were each appointed, were: 45, 36, 33, 50, 42, 58, 32 (there were only 7 back then).  So that court was much younger than either the 1912 or 2012 court.  It'd be interesting to see a graph of the age of each appointee the date they were appointed, but it looks like there isn't any validity that current justices are appointed at a significantly younger age, I mean 3 people on the 1812 court were appointed in their 30s, I can't imagine anyone being appointed so young today.  -- Jayron  32  00:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * A few years ago I counted up and found that 110 supreme judges had been appointed during the first 110 terms of Congress. It would make sense (to me at least) to remove the "jackpot" threat by allowing the President one appointment every two years, irrespective of "vacancies".  I worked out how the size of the Court might fluctuate under such a rule assuming that the same judges were appointed in the same order and retired (or died) when they did in the real world. —Tamfang (talk) 02:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This news item from Electoral-vote.com gives an overview of the situation, including a neat visual of the justices from oldest to youngest. --BDD (talk) 23:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

From Breyer's appointment in 1994 til Rehnquist's death in 2005, there were no retirements in or new appointments to the Court. In particular there were zero appointments in Clinton's second term and in GW Bush's first term. Obama so far is considered to have moved the court slightly rightward (he replaced two liberals with two moderates) and if Ginsberg or Breyer retires it will be approximately the same situation again (i.e. he'd replace some older judges with younger ones but the overall ideological balance wouldn't change much). AFAIK none of the conservative majority is showing signs of going anywhere anytime soon (even the oldest of them can still potentially sit through several more Presidential terms) so any change to the court's overall tilt will come from one of Obama's successors rather than Obama. If Romney had been elected, it's the same picture: he'd have gotten to replace older conservatives with younger ones but not change the immediate balance. (Added: unless Ginsberg's health forced her to retire during a Romney administration, or (maybe less likely) Breyer has some currently unanticipated problem). 67.119.3.105 (talk) 07:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Supplementary questions

 * Given the American propensity to elect everyone from the President almost down to the check-out chicks at the local supermarket, how come Supreme Court judges aren't elected?


 * And given the term limits the USA is so fond of, or the age limits that apply to supreme/high court judges in many other developed countries, how come they don't apply to US Supreme Court judges, thus removing from them the possibility of exercising the very "political interference" they're supposedly above, which they can appear to exercise by choosing to resign during a presidency when they're most likely to be replaced by a like-minded judge? --  <font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz  <font face="Papyrus">[Talk]  12:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The theory is that justices do not need so much to be representative of the people as to have integrity, wisdom, and impartiality, especially the latter. (Notwithstanding that, judges in some states are elected.)  Avoiding frequent appointments is a way of promoting impartiality, although the ability to time resignations shows that no system is perfect.  The idea is that justices should not think that they have to please the executive in order to be re-appointed.  Many people believe that there should be a maximum retirement age, but there is no agreement on this or on what the maximum age should be if one is imposed.  Many famous justices continued to produce impressive work at quite advanced ages.
 * As to the premise of your first question, while our 18th century constitutional founders wanted to move the country toward democracy and away from a monarchical system, they also had a profound distrust of the people. The original constitution provided for direct election of only U.S. Representatives; Senators were appointed by state governments, Presidents were elected by the Electoral College, and other governmental officials were nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.  We now have direct election of Senators, and the Electoral College now is widely acknowledged to be an anachronism, but the nomination and confirmation of other government officials works largely as the founders intended.  John M Baker (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec)::Concerning judicial tenure, a related historical event is given in Article Three of the United States Constitution:
 * The Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937, frequently called the court-packing plan,[1] was a legislative initiative to add more justices to the Supreme Court proposed by U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt shortly after his victory in the 1936 presidential election. Although the bill aimed generally to overhaul and modernize all of the federal court system, its central and most controversial provision would have granted the President power to appoint an additional Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court for every sitting member over the age of 70½, up to a maximum of six. 
 * While I can't find anything in Wikipedia about it, the idea of judicial tenure (and I would assume (?) the idea at the time it was written into the Constitution) is that it shields the court from being intimidated into making rulings that the president wants for political reasons rather than making rulings based on the actual constitution or actual acts of Congress. Sure, it's politicized now in terms of liberal or conservative presidents appointing justices with a liberal or conservative judicial philosophy, but once the judge is appointed s/he can call them as s/he sees them. Just look at Chief Justice Roberts, appointed by George W. Bush, voting to uphold Obamacare, or Justice David Souter appointed by a Republican and turning out to be on the liberal wing of the court.


 * As for appointing rather than electing justices, again the idea is that too much democracy is a bad thing in practice. Some US states elect rather than appoint their state supreme court justices, and it leads to (opinion alert!) unseemly electioneering that is not focused on the idea of upholding existing law, but rather is focused on telling the public what they want to hear. You could say the same thing as a reason not to elect the president or governor, but then who would appoint them? Electing an official to appoint judges is like electing officials to pass laws -- it's still democracy, but representative democracy rather than direct democracy. Duoduoduo (talk) 16:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The lifetime appointments of US federal judges is part of the system of checks and balances devised by the Framers. The various systems of installing officials (direct election, indirect election, or appointment) each were seen as gameable in their own way, so they used all three systems with mechanisms to keep each other in line.  Federal judges in particular get lifetime appointments (including a Constitutional guarantee that their salary won't be lowered) to keep the other branches from being able to exert undue influence on them.  At the Supreme Court level judges are sometimes seen moving leftward as they stay in office longer and become more disengaged from the political process.  The two that retired during Obama's first term were the most liberal judges on the court (Stevens and Souter) and they were both Republican appointees.  In states where judges are elected, there's often a sense that (just like any other politicians) the ones at the higher levels are basically there to serve their campaign donors. I do have to wonder what happens if Congress tries to legislate that the US Supreme Court is being reorganized, so that the currently serving members still keep their high salaries as the Constitution promises, but their duties are changed so they have to adjudicate traffic tickets all day instead of dealing with anything of weight or influence. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Pencil milling
Why is computer-aided manufacturing needed to produce pencils? Can't they be made with normal non-electronic machines? 2001:18E8:2:1020:158B:CBB9:66C2:7B38 (talk) 16:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * According to the article, pencil milling is the name of a generic manufacturing technique that has little to do with the making of actual pencils. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 17:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes they can be made without computers. Pencil says that they were first made around 1560, in more or less the same form that we have them now. Staecker (talk) 17:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Pencil milling doesn't involve pencils at all. The term is a reference to "A final finishing technique primarily intended to address corners and concave areas not handled by toolpath strategies used earlier in the program." Bus stop (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * A brief overview of the process for making coloured pencils can be seen here. Alansplodge (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Aw, for a moment I thought you were citing "I, Pencil". —Tamfang (talk) 20:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Human nature evolution
If you have a 3000-year-old book that records human experiences with God, as if "God" is a real character, then how relevant would it be to a modern-day person? Can human nature evolve within 3000 years that modern people would have no idea what ancient people thought and thus would find a hard time extracting a personal religious/spiritual meaning? 140.254.226.238 (talk) 16:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The existence of Christianity and Judaism should be plenty of empirical evidence that modern people do find at least one such book relevant (although strictly I don't think any of it is quite 3000 years old). I think it's disingenuous to present a question that is obviously about one or more real religions as though it were an abstract hypothetical. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Dating the Bible is a topic on its own, but most of the Bible is not as old as 3000 for sure. Regarding your question on evolution I have to say that I don't believe species evolve that fast. 3000 years is nothing during evolution. OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You couldn't get significant genetic evolution in 3000 years, but you could get essentially unlimited cultural evolution. The adult human brain can hold probably over 1000 gigabytes of information.  Our genes hold well under 1 gigabyte of meaningful data.  Thus the content of our adult minds derives much more from our experiences than from our genes. Looie496 (talk) 17:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * How can you calculate how much information the brain can hold? OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You can count the number of information-storage elements (modifiable connections between brain cells), and multiply by the capacity of each individual element. That involves a lot of guesswork, but however you do it, you end up with numbers orders of magnitude higher than the genome holds. Looie496 (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This is interesting: "Maybe being born earlier is better if you’re a cultural animal." I am agreeing with the statement above (by Looie) that "You couldn't get significant genetic evolution in 3000 years, but you could get essentially unlimited cultural evolution." Bus stop (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a book The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind that argues precisely that human consciousness changed drastically around 1200 BC, and that people before that experienced reality much differently than we do now. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 06:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, I suspect that the average first-worlder, at least, has very different basic mental constructs than the illiterate Bronze Age nomadic shepherd tribesmen who were the intended audience of the original Old Testament; from taking literacy and the ability to access a written text for granted to an intrinsic bias towards Cartesian reductionism and materialism. Thus, even if the original text was intended to be considered infallible, the fundamentalist approach today is not any kind of return to original intent. Furthermore, background default attitudes today are different, often because of the pervasive influence of the Bible itself; for one, the Binding of Isaac story which can upset folks today must have had a very different effect on the original audience, living in a time when child sacrifice was actually prevalent and (spoiler) letting Isaac go was a surprise ending; but after thousands of years of reading that story, it's the original suggestion of child sacrifice that seems abnormal. Gzuckier (talk) 06:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's even ironic in a way. A lot of major religions today began as rebellions against conservative older traditions. The concept of being kind to slaves and women were probably radical in Abraham's time. The total pacifism extending even to animals and plants of the Jains were probably laughably strange to the Vedic priests and their ritual sacrifices. Buddha leapt past not only the older pantheon of Hinduism but made the rigid caste society of Hinduism irrelevant by proposing that individual souls can achieve greater enlightenment than even divinity. Sikhs did the same thing a few centuries later by advocating total equality, regardless of gender, beliefs, or caste. The concept of questioning the high priests and forgiving sinners instead of stoning them was outright blasphemous in Jesus' time that it eventually led to his death. Protestantism, even more so, as it began as very literal rebellions against the total church control of literacy and hence Biblical interpretation. Ahmadiyyah, Baha'i, Quakers, Unitarian Universalists, etc. all had similar origins of attempting to get past the fossilized and sometimes oppressive older traditions that more often than not, have lost their relevance already. Fast forward a few thousand years later, and it's now the followers of most of these once revolutionary religions who have become the older traditions, defending themselves against newer ideas seeking to do the same thing they once did.-- O  BSIDIAN  <font size="3" face =times new roman>†  S  OUL  10:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Native American voting patterns
Especially in the wake of this most recent US presidential election, I've seen plenty of stories about how Hispanics voted, how Asians voted, how Jews voted. But although I consider myself a pretty big political junkie, I don't think I've ever seen solid statistics on how Native Americans vote. They're often presumed a Democratic constituency, which seems reasonable, but I'd be interested to look at some real numbers if anyone has them. --BDD (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * If you can't find direct numbers, you might look at numbers for areas which are largely native American (that is, reservations). StuRat (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree -- it doesn't seem like they'd generally show up in exit surveys, but could look at numbers in Navajo country or certain parts of South Dakota... AnonMoos (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * They vote overwhelmingly Democratic, from what I understand. They apparently swung the US Senate election in North Dakota this week. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 06:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Do Indians living on reservations have the right to vote in US elections? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You're joking, right? Of course they do. Pfly (talk) 10:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems a fair question from a local, given a lot of history and given this quote from Indian reservations: Because tribes possess tribal sovereignty, even though it is limited, laws on tribal lands vary from the surrounding area. These laws can permit legal casinos on reservations, for example, which attract tourists. The tribal council, not the local or federal government, generally has jurisdiction over reservations. Different reservations have different systems of government, which may or may not replicate the forms of government found outside the reservation. Most Indian reservations were established by the federal government; a limited number, mainly in the East, owe their origin to state recognition.  --  <font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz  <font face="Papyrus">[Talk]  12:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Baseball Bugs -- some Indians didn't have the right to vote at times before 1924 (though I don't think it was as simple as "living on a reservation"); see Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 (which should have guaranteed Indians the right to vote, but according to our article, doesn't seem to have been fully implemented in that respect until 1948)... AnonMoos (talk) 12:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Pfly, it's not as obvious as "of course they do". For example, US citizens residing in any of the five inhabited territories (including natives of four of those five territories, who are citizens by birth) don't have the right to vote for president. Duoduoduo (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I was just surprised that Bugs, who seems to know a lot about the United States, didn't know this. Pfly (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As an aside, if Native Americans reservations did not have the right to vote there would be odd holes in election results maps by county, like this one. In that one, the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation jumps out as a very blue county in South Dakota. There are a few counties that are entirely within reservations. Pfly (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

India own 51st state issue
Did countries around India or have relationship with ever think that they were a state of India or the political pundits says Bangladesh, Pakistan or Canada or UK is like "51st state" or "29th state" of India? The latter is my own idea because Canada and UK have larger Indian diaspora than US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.231.220 (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, Bangladesh and Pakistan used to be part of India. See Partition of India.  The reality is that the modern nation of India was historically never a unified state, excepting when such unification was imposed by an external empire.  There were always a wide variety of states and nationalities that existed on the Subcontinent before the British came and sorta crammed them all together and declared them a single entity.  Even after the splitting off of Pakistan (later to split into Pakistan and Bangladesh) there has always been an uneasy tension within India regarding all of the various ethnic and nationalist and religious and other geographic and other divisions.  Prior to the Mughal, and later British, domination of the Subcontinent (both externally imposed empires), there just was no single nation or unified state.  India is no more ethnically uniform than Europe, and used to be as politically divided, the idea of "India" as a single state is relatively modern.  -- Jayron  32  18:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Sikkim was annexed in the 1970s... AnonMoos (talk) 19:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * But the 1961 Indian annexation of Goa was first. Alansplodge (talk) 23:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And Hyderabad State was annexed by force in 1948, if I'm reading this right. What's your point, Moos or Alan? —Tamfang (talk) 01:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sikkim was a non-colonial territory associated with independent India, but distinct from it, for over 20 years... AnonMoos (talk) 06:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * There is an equivalent to the "51 state" argument around Nepal, were conspiracy theories of a possible future annexation do float around ("Sikkimization"). It is very much centered around the changing demographics of Nepal, as Hindi-speakers could be or soon be the demographic majority of the country. --Soman (talk) 21:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

India's Own Jesusland but Hindu kind
Which states does Hindu nationalists consider as part of land of Shiva and which states do they consider as part of Pakistan and Bangladesh because of their social stance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.231.220 (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that to Hindu nationalists the term "land of Shiva" means Kashmir. Looie496 (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * There are a number of traditional quasi-religious terms such as "Bharat", "Aryavarta" etc. The original definitions of these terms had nothing to do with the modern borders of Pakistan etc... AnonMoos (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

French Polynesian mayors
I already asked this once but the answer was insufficient and the person who answered just referred to an article I was editing. How do you contact the government of French Polynesia for a list of mayors of Rurutu, a tiny island under their jurisdiction? I really want to know the actual dates of the terms of Toromona Teuruarii as mayor. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You can contact the government of French Polynesia using information from their "Contact us" page here. Knowledge of French is likely important when doing so, as unsurprisingly the website is in French, as well the person responding to your email or answering the phone will likely be a native French speaker.  Incidentally, I got there in two click from the Wikipedia article you linked: The first external link in the Wikipedia article is titled "Government of French Polynesia" and that page has a prominent link in the title bar that says "Nous contacter" which, even if you didn't speak a single word of French, would have been a good guess for a page to contact them... -- Jayron  32  18:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Parliamentary procedure?
I was watching Prime Minister's Questions today and noticed something I haven't seen before soon after this. Why was the Speaker of the House chastising the Prime Minister? I noticed nothing out of the ordinary, but evidently he did something wrong? Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 19:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The members of parliament are only supposed to address the Chair directly, and are not supposed to talk at other members directly. The use of the second person pronoun (you) is definitely against the rules.  You can talk about other members, but not to them.  You'll notice that Cameron begins his rebuttal fine: he addresses his remarks at the chair physically, and refers to his opponent in the third person.  The Speaker doesn't get upset until Cameron turns his attention to the other MP and begins to speak directly to him, and start addressing his remarks "You..." rather than "He..."  -- Jayron  32  19:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) When the Prime Minister responded to one of the Leader of the Opposition's questions, he addressed the Leader as "you." However, parliamentary procedure requires that all remarks in debate be addressed to the Speaker, rather than to another Member. Thus, the Prime Minister had technically violated the proper procedure. It was not a very serious violation, but the Speaker's comment suggests that he has raised the point with the Prime Minister before. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * (ec x 2) Under Standing Orders, all communications are directed to the Speaker, and all references to other members in the House are in the 3rd person. Even then, it's not by their names but by their titles ("The honourable member for Wherever" or "The Minister for Reprehensible Affairs", or "The Leader of the Opposition", etc).  Therefore, when a member directly asks another member "Would you do X?", as Cameron did to his Labour opponent across the table, the Speaker is entitled to assume the question is directed at him.  Which is why the Speaker denied he would be doing any such thing.  The Speaker of course realises he was not being addressed in actuality, but this was apparently the 10th time he's asked Cameron to respect these parliamentary procedures, so he's understandably a little frustrated.  --  <font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz  <font face="Papyrus">[Talk]  19:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "So let me ask him: Would you use the veto?" As a matter of formal grammar, this isn't asking the opponent a direct question, this is urging the Speaker to allow him to do so (which would of course be denied, but so what?).  Cameron would be on firmer ground if he said: "So I would ask him (if we were to meet outside the House): Would you use the veto?" —Tamfang (talk) 20:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think so, I'm not sure that the Speaker would have allowed such a weak attempt to circumvent procedure at that point. You're really not supposed to directly address other MPs during open debate, and using slight linguistic tricks like that would probably not be kosher.  If he said "I would ask him if he would use the veto"  he'd be fine.  The issue is the use of the second person pronoun, which is never supposed to be uttered under any circumstances.  Even a weak framing statement like you gave wouldn't be enough to make it within rules, AFAIK.  -- Jayron  32  21:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * To simplify it a bit more: there isn't a staff grammarian on site to parse every phrase to decide, in the moment, what is and isn't a technical violation of Parliamentary Procedure based on the strict rules of grammar. The Speaker is charged, broadly, with the role of maintaining order within the house, and is the final arbiter of what is, and isn't, a violation of House rules.  -- Jayron  32  21:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand that the point of such a requirement (which many other bodies follow as well) is that it can help to reduce interpersonal conflict — if you have to address your issues to the chairman instead of speaking directly to your opponent, you're likely going to be calmer, since you probably don't have anything against the person to whom you're speaking. Nyttend (talk) 21:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Jayron, I think it's slightly overstating the case to say the 2nd person pronoun "is never supposed to be uttered under any circumstances". The prohibition is between members on the floor of the House.  But if a member is addressing the Speaker, maybe about a point of order, it's permissible to use 2nd person pronouns to refer to something the Speaker said, for example ("Might I respectfully indicate that your ruling is in direct conflict with one you made yesterday in identical circumstances").  --  <font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz  <font face="Papyrus">[Talk]  21:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably, but not much. I'm sure one could find some convoluted situation which would unambiguously be allowed, but from a practical matter, one is not supposed to address anyone except the Speaker.  The OP asked what the violation of Parliamentary procedure was in the debate in question.  The simplest answer is that Cameron said the word "you".  -- Jayron  32  23:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * But remember that the Speaker should be referred to as 'Mr Speaker', not 'you'. Whilst there might not be an outright 2nd-person ban, I'd expect your sentence to be rendered something like 'Might I respectfully indicate, Mr Speaker, that this ruling is in direct conflict with one made yesterday'. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 22:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Was it luck or police failure?
I read the article on Jeffrey Dahmer and couldn't believe how police had the opportunities to catch him and let him get away. First in 1978 when he committed his first murder, pulled over by police who didn't check the bags in his back seat which contained human remains. And secondly, the Laotian boy returned to his apartment by three police officers who didn't care about the smell in the apartment and let the boy alone with Dahmer who later murdered him. What's wrong with the Milwaukee Police Department? Netwwork (talk) 22:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * As for the first case, if the police didn't have probable cause to search the car, they wouldn't have searched the car. Not every traffic stop merits a search. Dismas |(talk) 22:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. But the 2nd case is absolutely inexcusable.  However, the officers seem to have appealed and gotten their jobs back.  Apparently total incompetence in a police officer leading to deaths of civilians is not just cause to fire them.  See John Balcerzak.  StuRat (talk) 05:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The police deal with a world that you and I only have a miniscule understanding of. They see a lot of weird stuff, and they might have thought this was just routine weirdness. That possibility should be considered. Although another possibility that could be considered is that they were late for their appointment at the donut shop. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hindsight is 20/20. Of course it's easy for you, sitting in the comfort of your home with perfect information about everything that happened, to wonder how the police could possibly have let Dahmer get away.  As far as the police were concerned, they found a bumbling and incoherent Laotian boy who couldn't communicate his situation, a much more coherent Dahmer, and a stinky apartment.  "Serial killer" isn't exactly the first thing that comes to mind, nor should it be.  --140.180.252.244 (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * They didn't have to know he was a serial killer to do basic police work, like checking IDs. Had they done so, they would have discovered that Dahmer was a convicted child molester and the Laotian was a child, actually the brother of someone he was convicted of molesting. StuRat (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you the same user AmericanMarinee who asked this very same question back in September?


 * No, I'm not, in fact I read that but wanted new answers. Besides, that account wasn't blocked why would I create another one If I were him?. Netwwork (talk) 20:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

How legally binding is "conceding" an election?
For one of our election related articles someone just used the Edit summary "Florida hasn't been decided, yet. A Romney concession is irrelevant." It made me wonder. Is there any legal significance to a candidate "conceding" the election? What if someone concedes based on misleading information, later proven to be false? I would assume that a final vote count means a lot more than what is said and done during the count. I'm Australian, so I'm interested in more than just the USA. HiLo48 (talk) 23:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * My take on that is that the result is what the votes say it is, as advised by the official electoral authorities. It's not what any politician or any commentator says it is.  If a concession could be given any official weight at all, then so could a spurious claim of victory.  --  <font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz  <font face="Papyrus">[Talk]  23:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't have to get snippy about it. --Trovatore (talk) 23:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh? Double huh?  --  <font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz  <font face="Papyrus">[Talk]  23:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * After the network(s) projected GWB as the winner in 2000, Gore called to congratulate him. His advisers later got back to him and said "not so fast", and Gore contacted Bush again.  Bush said something like, "You mean you're taking it back?" and Gore retorted with  the quote I gave. --Trovatore (talk) 23:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Ya wanna use quote marks next time you're quoting someone?  It's easy to get people off side.  Wars have started over less.  --  <font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz  <font face="Papyrus">[Talk]  04:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thought there was just a chance you (or someone) would have recognized the quote. Then it would have looked clever. --Trovatore (talk) 04:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with the editor who made that edit summary. Since US election results aren't really official until over a month later, network projections and candidate concessions are what we go by in the meantime. I don't think they're legally binding in any sense, but Romney conceding Florida is absolutely not irrelevant. --BDD (talk) 23:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I think he was right on. Projections OK; what a candidate thinks, not so much.  Candidates are not a reliable source for what happened in the election. --Trovatore (talk) 00:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * x3 I would guess that the answer for the US is 'not at all', since Al Gore was able to withdraw his concession to Bush in United States presidential election, 2000 when it became clear he might have a chance in the Florida shenanigans. In the UK, of course, the ruling party is the one which can command a majority in the Commons, so in the case where there is no overall majority, a concession by one of the parties would have more standing, as it did after the 2010 election, when Gordon Brown conceded that he would not be able to govern either alone or with the Lib Dems, leaving the way open for the ConDem coalition and for Call Me Dave to kiss hands. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I understand, the concession is basically saying "Okay, you won, congratulations". Remember that the popular vote doesn't legally mean anything as far as the actual election of the president, and Obama hasn't automatically won the presidency just because electors pledged to him are the majority, since the official vote is over a month away.  You'd be crazy if you were to suggest that there's a realistic chance of lots of Obama electors being faithless and voting for Romney, but technically speaking it would be possible for that to happen without laws being violated.  Since the only thing that officially matters is the electoral vote, a concession by one of the candidates doesn't matter; all of the Romney electors will presumably still vote for him next month.  Nyttend (talk) 00:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually as our article attests and discussed here before, quite a few states have laws which punish faithless electors so I don't know if it would be accurate to say 'without laws being violated' although this won't invalidate a Romney victory. Our article doesn't give a list, but it would surprise me even with the resonably large electoral college margins expected for Obama that it would be possible for it to happen without at least one state with such laws being involved. There is also at least 2 states which invalidate the votes for faithless electors but I expect there isn't enough states with such laws to mean it's impossible for enough electors to vote for Romney instead of Obama. Of course as our article attests the constitutionality of neither of these actions has been tested so it's possible the laws are invalid. Nil Einne (talk) 04:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that I wasn't clear. What I meant was that if all of the Obama electors changed their minds and voted for Romney instead, it wouldn't violate the constitutional process.  I wasn't attempting to address the state laws, which at any rate aren't something prohibited by the Constitution to the states.  Nyttend (talk) 07:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't quite get what you mean by the last comment. If you mean that the constitutionality of the laws punishing faithless electors is clear cut I would question that. As I mentioned, our article specifically it hasn't been tested (albeit unsourced). The fact that the constitutionality of pledges (rather then punishing electors or invalidating votes) was tested, and in fact initially failed (Ray v. Blair), suggests it may not be as clear cut as you believe. Nil Einne (talk) 14:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it is possible that a candidate's post-election actions can have an effect, not concessions per se but not completely unrelated. Specifically, recounts are not always automatic; sometimes they're driven by specific challenges on a candidate's part.  A candidate who has already conceded might conceivably be at a disadvantage in a courtroom when asking a judge for such a recount.  Legally, I imagine, it's entirely irrelevant, but judges are human beings.  If I recall correctly, Gore did not publicly concede on election night, but only privately to Bush.  If he had made an actual concession speech, I would guess that it might have hurt him quite a lot in the subsequent proceedings. --Trovatore (talk) 04:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * There's several examples (Gore being one) of a "concession" being withdrawn. But the situation Trovatore describes may be happening in Arizona right now: the rule was if you showed up at the polls and didn't have required ID, you could vote on a provisional ballot which would not get put into the usual pile.  It's set aside and you have 5 days to show up at the election office with ID and if you do that, your provisional ballot gets counted.  There was a very close election (I don't remember offhand which one) where candidate B conceded after getting slightly fewer votes than candidate A (enough fewer to not have significant chance of winning in a recount), and then people figured out that there were tens of thousands of provisional ballots that hadn't been counted, and -won't- be counted unless the voters followed up with ID within 5 days.  B was (I think) an underdog in the first place, so the theory is that his supporters who voted provisionally may have seen the concession speech and not bothered with getting the ballots validated.   I don't know if anything is being done to pursue that.  67.119.3.105 (talk) 05:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The simple answer is NO, it's not legally binding to make a concession speech. A speech is just a speech. However, it can influence whether or not a recount is done. Since Obama doesn't need Florida's electoral votes, and since recounts are expensive, they might just table it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In Florida there is an automatic recount if the initial count difference is within 0.5%, and apparently no way for a a candidate to get a recount if the difference is larger. Allen West is a little over 0.5% behind and is apparently demanding a recount anyway.  This was also an issue in the Bush v. Gore festivities in 2000.  Gore asked for recounts in 4 counties where he was within 0.5% and not in the other counties, and was accused of cherry picking because he didn't ask for the whole state to be recounted (since he didn't have a legal basis for doing so).  It became apparent afterwards that he would have had much better chances with a statewide manual recount, because of the inaccuracy of the notorious punch card automatic counting equipment in use in some of those counties at the time.  67.119.3.105 (talk) 09:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm very skeptical that concession would be legally binding anywhere, because that would mean that the ballot itself was not legally binding. I wouldn't expect a democratic country to put in a loophole by which the freshly elected majority candidate can be deemed not the winner based on some comment he made, although, of course, you never really know. Wnt (talk) 09:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That brings us full circle to pretty much exactly what I said above. The thing is that, if there were the remotest possibility that a recount in a certain state might upset the apparent result, there's no way the apparent loser would be conceding anyway.  They concede when all hope is gone, not when there's any hope left.  --  <font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz  <font face="Papyrus">[Talk]  12:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Wnt, the issue in Arizona (above) isn't that the concession is legally binding (it wasn't), but that a certain substantial subset of the ballots weren't legally binding without further action by the voters (showing up at the election office to present ID after the election). And after the concession, voters hearing of the concession may have decided the election was over, and not bothered to perform the individual action, so their ballots never became binding.  Jack of Oz, Florida in 2000 was a famous incident where a candidate conceded while the election outcome was still unclear.  The (withdrawn) concession, along with events like the Brooks Brothers riot, helped fuel the narrative surrounding the legal wrangling that followed. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 17:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's just as binding as campaign promises. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)