Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 February 20

= February 20 =

Waltz played S01E01 American Version of House of Cards?
Can anyone identify the waltz played at the pre-inaugural ball in (the last few minutes of) S01E01 of the American version of House of Cards? It sounds Russian Romantic to me. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 05:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If anyone thinks they can identify a waltz, I will email a link. μηδείς (talk) 02:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Shostakovich's "Waltz 2" (in C minor and E-flat major) from the 7th movement in Suite for Variety Orchestra (adapted from his Op. 99: Music to the film The First Echelon)? ---Sluzzelin talk  05:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's it, excellent. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 23:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Color changes over historical time
I am trying to find any article in wikipedia on color perception changes over historical time. It is not obvious to me whether to ask here, linguistics or science, so this will have to do.

Specifically, what people have called different colors. For example, Homer used only 3-4 words for different colors. Some languages have only three words for different colors. In my lifetime, and in the languages I know, even primary colors have changed from what they used to refer to. The largest shift in colors came with the introduction of Windows 3.0, which I attended, and which homogenized and shifted color perception in languages all over the world. Boundaries of colors changed in a Voronai Tessalonation style, new words for certain colors were introduced in many languages, and some names of colors were displaced by others, and later replaced by the new ones (like the shift from "brandgul" to "orange" in swedish).

I have read several books about this in books related to cognition, but I can not seem to find any article to read or build on. On top of that ,the subject seems to me to warrant a full article, not just fleeting references.

I have tried look for "color shift", "color change" and "peter gärdenfors", since he wrote a book (which I can not find right now, it might have been "Conceptual spaces") mentioning this.

Any suggestions as to where I might find such an article? Or do I really have to start a new article? DanielDemaret (talk) 08:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There's a rather technical discussion at Linguistic relativity and the color naming debate (a horrible title IMHO). That points to the article on the book Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution.  Rojomoke (talk) 09:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I am aware of those articles. They are related, but do not quite cut it. DanielDemaret (talk) 10:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * If you can't find a book, you can't start an article. Articles based on OR will be deleted. Sleigh (talk) 09:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I know. I found it, though. It was "Conceptual Space". There are other references also for other examples that I could use. DanielDemaret (talk) 10:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This reminds me of an article I once read, which claimed that the name "pink" did not exist until the last two centuries: the name for what we now call "pink" was "light red". is that the sort of thing you are looking for? --TammyMoet (talk) 12:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. There are a lot of colors like that. I would not be surprised if there were more than seven colors a hundred years ago in English, and even fewer in Swedish. Now there are many thousands of names for colors. DanielDemaret (talk) 14:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Before that, the description was more like "the color of the sea" or some other likeness. Strike the previous... Heraldic colors were probably more than seven. But not much more.DanielDemaret (talk) 14:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Just checked. Funnily enough, I found exactly seven heraldic colors :) Or, Argent ,Azure ,Gules ,Purpure ,Sable ,Vert. DanielDemaret (talk) 14:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And purpure is doubtful. (The lion of the kingdom of León is the most prominent example, and it's sometimes red.)  But heraldic colors are constrained by the need to be distinguishable in a number of media (dyed cloth, painted wood, stained glass, ...) and in poor light; meseems that would have made the palette smaller than what people recognized for other purposes. —Tamfang (talk) 05:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * In Swahili, according to my brief study thirty years ago, 'white' and 'black' and 'red' are true adjectives but all other colors are 'of the color of [noun]'. —Tamfang (talk) 05:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Our article Distinction of blue and green in various languages suggests blue is an adjective in Swahili although derived from English. BTW, our article pink suggests the name is recent (although from the 17th century so way more than 100 years ago) but the colour itself has been described since ancient times in Western literature. (The earlier article suggests pink is still not always considered unique in some languages.) Nil Einne (talk) 06:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I think this article by the American Psychological Association may be what you're looking for. This is just an abstract, but also seems to point to what you're requesting (Turkish speakers versus English speakers differentiating blue colour chips). This full article is also from the same periodical, but deals with Russian blues rather than Turkish ones. Matt Deres (talk) 13:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 青 in Ancient Japanese and Chinese used to mean a wide range of colours: blue, red, green, and even black sometimes. Now it means blue in Chinese, and either blue or green in Japanese (c.f. 隣の芝生はいつも青く見える - "the grass is always bluer on the other side" is the Japanese version of the proverb we all know). Side note: there is a lot of discussion saying that pink (or 'magenta') doesn't exist - it's not on the spectrum. It's just light red - we don't have a special single word for light blue (besides skyblue, but that is still a comparison, like others said above). However, neither do black, nor white, nor grey, nor brown appear on the spectrum, so that is all nonsense). KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for all your answers! I feel like writing a article about it soon. Gotta find a good name. Now is the time to try out my new Nickname, btw. :) Star Lord (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Afroyim v. Rusk and John Demjanjuk
Today's featured article, Afroyim v. Rusk, quotes an "expert" as saying in 2005, that on the basis of policies adopted in 1990, it is now "virtually impossible to lose American citizenship without formally and expressly renouncing it".

How does that jibe with the case of John Demjanjuk, who was denaturalized in 1977 and again in 2004? I know that the rationale was that he had supposedly lied during the naturalization proceedings, and it seems to be folklore that lying to obtain naturalization is the one cause that permits denaturalization. However, this is not mentioned as an exception in the Afroyim article. Is this just a flaw in that article, or is there something I'm missing? --Trovatore (talk) 09:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There may be a difference between "was a naturalized citizen and had a valid citizenship revoked" and "was discovered at a later time that his citizenship was never valid". If I have five dollars and you take it from me, that is different from me thinking I had five dollars, then when I search my pockets discover I was mistaken.  Same thing here.  If the ruling is "He was a valid citizen, but now based on what he did since then, we're revoking citizenship," that is a different situation than "upon investigation, it turns out he never became a citizen in the first place."  -- Jayron  32  11:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Jayron32's intuition is correct. As the Supreme Court ruled in Fedorenko v. United States, "there must be strict compliance with all the congressionally imposed prerequisites to the acquisition of citizenship. Failure to comply with any of these conditions renders the certificate of citizenship "illegally procured," and naturalization that is unlawfully procured can be set aside."  Afroyim itself explains that naturalization unlawfully procured can be set aside.  387 U.S. 267 n.23.  It would probably be worth adding a sentence to the Afroyim article to explain the distinction (and of course the Fedorenko article could use a lot of work).  John M Baker (talk) 15:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It's a bit like a divorce (= a valid marriage was dissolved) vs. an annulment (= an acknowledgment that, despite appearances, a valid marriage never existed). --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  18:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, sure, that's the theory, I suppose. Still, according to the records, Demjanjuk was at some times a US citizen, and at other times, not.  What if (as actually seems fairly possible) he never was a Nazi guard at all, and therefore had not lied?  Then do we say he was never denaturalized, and in fact remained a US citizen until his death, just an unrecognized one?  In any case, I think the Afroyim article should explain the theory, problematic as it might be, and probably with more than just "a sentence". --Trovatore (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the explanation is that he was never a citizen, but it was thought that he was for a time. Again, no matter how strong I believe I have five dollars in my pocket, if I later find out it was never there, the time I spent believing that doesn't mean it was taken away from me.  The time people spent believing that Demjanjuk was a citizen doesn't mean that he actually was.  He doesn't become a citizen simply because he believes he was one; nor because others believe he was one.  If his naturalization didn't actually happen, he never was a citizen in the first place.  -- Jayron  32  20:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * But as I say, if he didn't lie (which quite possibly he didn't), then according to the theory, he was a citizen, right? Even though according to current records, he wasn't?  This theory has obvious problems; if you accept it, then it means you never quite know who's a citizen and who isn't, but letting that go, it still needs to be explained carefully in the article.  Not just "a sentence", because it's a rather important exception to the stated rule as most people would read it. --Trovatore (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You are not alone in seeing the problems - Stevens' Fedorenko dissent ends: "I remain firmly convinced that the Court has committed the profoundest sort of error by venturing into the unknown to find a basis for affirming the judgment of the Court of Appeals. That human suffering will be a consequence of today's venture is certainly predictable; that any suffering will be allayed or avoided is, at best, doubtful."John Z (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * But Trovatore, you never quite know anything. Perfect knowledge is an illusion; even our own assurances of the reliability of our own senses and memories is taken on some measure of blind faith.  There's a level of Solipsism in all of this.  We act on what we believe to be the truth; as do courts, as do all people.  Based on the best evidence we have, we proceed with what we believe to be true.  There are no assurances.  There is only "We're doing the best we can with the evidence before us".  If the evidence before the court told the court the naturalization procedure was invalid, he was never a citizen.  If the evidence before the court had convinced them otherwise, they'd have ruled otherwise.  If I believe I have five dollars in my pocket, I make the stop for the coffee I want.  If I find out it isn't there when I go to pay the cashier, I don't get the coffee.  Belief leads to action, change in evidence leads to change in beliefs leads to change in action.  There is no perfect knowledge of absolute truth.  -- Jayron  32  03:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, but I don't think you're quite coming to terms with the point here. For all practical purposes, Demjanjuk acquired US citizenship in 1958, lost it in 1977, regained it in 1998, lost it again in 2004.  That's the way most people will see it.  You can say, if you like, that according to legal theory he either never had it in the first place, or else had it continuously from 1958 to his death, depending on whether he was or was not a Nazi concentration-camp guard.  But that's a very abstract viewpoint, and not at all the prima facie interpretation of the sequence of events (certainly it is not how it is described in Demjanjuk's bio).  On its face, there is a clear contradiction between the events described in Demjanjuk's bio and the almost-categorical claims of the Afroyim article, and I think it's the latter that needs to be corrected. --Trovatore (talk) 03:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, what is practical purposes? We're discussing abstract concepts here, not physical objects.  Look, if you really want to get down to brass tacks here, either a) we accept that a valid interpretation of Demjanjuk's situation is that the citizenship never existed or b) that since we're dealing with abstract concepts, it comes down to the fact that he was an undesirable and the U.S. government wanted to make a statement to that effect, and just freaking did it.  a) is how you provide a valid justification for b).  Since justifications for abstract concepts like "citizenship" are going to be nebulous at best; that is we can all agree on whether a physical object like my 5 dollars in my beaten-to-death example really existed or not, there's no way to make a similar reasonably agreeable statement on whether citizenship "exists" or "not".  What color is citizenship?  How much does it weigh?  What material is it made out of?  Since those concepts sound completely ridiculous, we get at the crux of the problem.  If it has no physical form, how do you define if it does or doesn't exist?  And if you can't, it's REAL easy to play games with it in this way.  -- Jayron  32  04:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Practical purposes are, you are a citizen if the authorities treat you as one.
 * I am also a bit frustrated that you don't mention the possibility that Demjanjuk, in fact, was telling the truth all along, in which case (according to your viewpoint) his citizenship was always valid. Do you take the view that, if he was telling the truth, then his citizenship was always valid, or not? --Trovatore (talk) 04:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I take the point of view that the U.S. Government is more powerful than me, and will do whatever the heck it wants to because it has power and and that my opinion means doodlysquat. The rest of whatever comes after the Government's actions is merely whatever bullshit they can tell the masses to keep them quiet and appeased.  -- Jayron  32  04:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Objection, judge. Witness's answer is not responsive. --Trovatore (talk) 04:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * On a more philosophical note, one thing the US gov cannot do, no matter how powerful it is, is change the past. The claim that Demjanjuk's citizenship was never revoked, but simply never existed in the first place, makes sense only if the citizenship is a real thing.  But if it is a real thing, then it either did exist or it did not, independently of what the US government now says about it.  (This is a point that people seem to be missing a lot these days.  Lance Armstrong, for example, did win seven Tours de France.  Legitimately?  No.  Nevertheless he did win them.  That's just historical fact.) --Trovatore (talk) 04:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, being able to revoke legal acts ex tunc (i.e. from the point where the act occurred) is an important part of most legal systems. For example, if I have a patent which is found invalid (a decision which applies ex tunc), I cannot sue someone for infringing that patent in the period between when it was granted and when it was found invalid.  It is true to say that I had a patent for that time, but legally, it is considered to have never existed. MChesterMC (talk) 10:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Why this ultra specific tuning is used in music?
Why non [ 12 tone equal temperament, with octave, and A4 being 440hz, and note order being c c# d d# e f f# g g# a a# b ] tunings arent used today?

I mean there is a reason to it be this way, my real question is why its use is so super ultra specific, like not having some considerable amount of musicians using 13 tone equal temperament (with the rest of the rules stuff being equal) or with some using A4 being 400hz, some using a4 as 450hz, some ordering notes as C C# Db D E E# F F# G A B Bb.......

So not having musicians using minor variations of the "theme", and so the good tuning being really the very ultra specific tuning I said in the first part my text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.78.220.93 (talk) 11:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * When all musicians playing the same piece of music are not all playing the notes at the same frequencies, it doesn't sound pleasing or correct. Everyone needs to be together, so a set of "standards" developed over history. For various arbitrary (but still real) historic reasons all instruments are tuned to concert pitch; most anglophone countries use A440 (pitch standard), but some continental European traditions use slightly different frequencies. The issue is not that it MUST be 440. The issue is that it all should be THE SAME, so that musicians can all start playing a piece of music together and all have the correct notes right away. Beyond that, the tradition of the 12-tone western scale can be found at articles like note, Chromatic scale, Equal temperament, etc. -- Jayron  32  11:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It's complicated. A musical culture uses the notes and intervals it's used to, and other notes and intervals feel wrong or strange. There are other musical traditions that divide the octave differently - see microtonal music. As to where our twelve notes came from, the interval of a perfect fifth, which increases the frequency by a ratio of 3:2, was felt to be the most consonant interval. The circle of fifths - C increased by a fifth is G; G increased by a fifth is D; D increased by a fifth is A; A increased by a fifth is E; E increased by a fifth is B; B increased by a fifth is F#; F# inceased by a fifth is C#; C# increased by a fifth is G#; G# increased by a fifth is D#; D# increased by a fifth is A#; A# increased by a fifth is F; F increased by a fifth is C - produces the 12 notes of the octave. As Jayron notes, the exact frequencies of those notes have come to be standardised so people can play together. --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * To further complicate matters, if you follow the circle of fifths past an octave using the same fractional math that got you the first fifth (the 3:2 ratio), you don't get to the octave (2:1 ratio) note. You instead get to a note which is slightly off from the octave.  This difference is called a comma, and the reason for equal temperament is to reduce the comma to a tolerable level.  The idea is, to make both the perfect fifth and the octave work correctly on keyed or fretted instruments (like a guitar or piano), you simply cannot do it perfectly, so you "fudge" the differences and spread your "fudge factor" out along the entire scale.  If you didn't, the further you get from the root note of your scale, the more perceptably "wrong" it sounds.  When you spread the "wrongness" out in little bits over the whole scale, it sounds fine.  In simpler terms, equal temperament is meant to allow musical pieces to be truly transposable and sound right, and to minimize problems with Enharmonic notes being different.  -- Jayron  32  11:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * There are twelve tones in the chromatic scale because 312 happens to be close to a power of two. The next time the "circle" of fifths almost closes (with a small comma) is at 353 (which gives 53-tone equal temperament), and the next time after that is 3665. Some intermediate scale sizes have other desirable properties (for example, 31-tone equal temperament has a good 5/4 major third) but most of them are bad choices for purely mathematical reasons.
 * There are seven tones in the major scale because that's the fewest consecutive notes in the circle of fifths that fill the octave with no gaps larger than a whole step (two semitones). If you use only six consecutive notes you get a hexachord, which has a minor-third gap between la and do/ut.
 * A440 is entirely arbitrary, as far as I know -- BenRG (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Re: arbitrary, I believe that at one point they were going to use A439 Hz as the international standard, but they were having trouble generating it with the equipment of the day because 439 is a prime number. Also, I think you meant (3/2)53 and (3/2)665 etc., since 3/2 is the fifth ratio, and 2/1 (power of two) is the octave ratio. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * A couple of other things: Five consecutive notes in the circle are the fewest that give you gaps of at most three semitones; this is the pentatonic scale, which is also widely used. Although the cyclic WWHWWWH pattern of the major scale is dictated by the circle of fifths, the fact that it starts with do is semi-arbitrary; I think it's because of the hymn ut queant laxis, which is also the origin of most of the solfege syllable names, except do (formerly ut) and ti. -- BenRG (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see nobody has yet mentioned that equal tempering allows musicians to change to a different key without having to use a different set of frequencies. Looie496 (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Mmm, almost. Equal temperament allows pianos, organs, harps, fixed pitch instruments etc. to play in all the keys and have it sound the same. Even before equal temperament a pianist could play in all the keys (see Well Temperament) but some keys sounded better than others. As far as I know, string, wind, and brass instruments still don't play in equal temperament because they have the ability to modify the pitch they're playing to play perfect intervals whenever they want. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

arbitration where parties can't agree on an arbitrator
I see common arbitration language saying an arbitrator will be agreed on by the parties. But is it common that they will actually agree? Can't they just refuse each other's selections - and does this happen? (including in bad faith.) What happens if nothing is specified for this case? --91.120.14.30 (talk) 11:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The point of arbitration is not to pick a winner; the point of arbitration is to arrive at a solution to a problem where two parties cannot agree on how to solve the problem. If one or the other party is primarily concerned with defeating the other party, rather than coming to a solution to a problem, arbitration is useless.  A truly neutral arbitrator should be available; if a party is picking an arbitrator not by the criteria of impartiality and skill, but on the criteria of whether or not the arbitrator will pick them as the "winner" and the other party as the "loser", there's really no point in arbitration in the first place.  If parties cannot agree for legitimate reasons, then a third party may be asked to step in and appoint an arbitrator; but again if the parties don't agree to allow the decision of said arbitrator to be binding, then arbitration isn't likely to be helpful from the outset, regardless of anything else.  -- Jayron  32  11:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Very interesting - thank you! I had just been thinking of it in terms of a cheaper version of court.  (While being less rigorous).  In other words I was thinking it's the parties trading some Due Process for a cheaper process.
 * I forgot that in the end it's not at all actually binding and requires cooperation. The whole purpose is a bit different from how I was thinking of it.  --91.120.14.30 (talk) 12:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I have seen contracts that stipulate a particular arbitrator and one that made the decision of that arbitrator binding to both parties. I do not know how "legal" or binding such contracts were. Contracts can be disputed in court. DanielDemaret (talk) 14:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Arbitration is generally binding on the parties, where the arbitrator makes a judement based on the evidence presented (sometimes it will be non binding, but the parties are expected to take it as at least persuasive, otherwise there's no point). It may be chosen over court because it's (often) cheaper, not public (and therefore there is no risk of having to disclose potentially confidential documents, and less risk of damage to repuation if you lose), and generally easier to enforce abroad than court judgements (due to several enforcement treaties).  Mediation is a process similar to arbitration, where a neutral third party works with the other parties to try and come to an agreement, but the mediator has no power to bind the parties (though (s)he will try and convince them to enter into a binding contract).  Generally, a contract will specify arbitration (or mediation) and the rules by which the arbitration shall proceed.  Unless there are exceptional circumstances (e.g. specifying an arbitrator who has since gained a major conflict of interest with one of the parties), I wouldn't expect arbitration terms to be found invalid in a contract, since the party accepting the contract agreed to them at the time the contract was entered in to.  MChesterMC (talk) 10:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Most Terms of Service lately make clear that they choose the arbitrator and/or legal venue. Problems with UFC's Fight Pass online service, for instance, must be weighed in their backyard of Clark County, Nevada. See Cracked's #1 terrifying user agreement you've probably accepted. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Importing and exporting stuff
Hi,

I live in Dubai and I'm thinking of starting a small import/export business. I never studied anything about economics so I have no clue how it works. Can anyone ship stuff (using DHL for example) to any country? Or do I need a license? Is there a maximal quantity of stuff I can import in a country? I'm thinking of exporting from Asia to import to Africa. Thank you so much for your help! 92.97.189.131 (talk) 18:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * We cannot provide you with legal or professional advice. If you have a request for a reference, such as how to contact a business school in your area, we will be glad to help. μηδείς (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This will all depend greatly on the laws of the two nations involved (and possibly any your cargo must travel through). Some issues you may encounter:


 * 1) Export/import restrictions. Some things can't be legally imported in some places (or exported from some), such as some weapons, endangered animal products, art and antiquities which don't have a clear provenance (so could be stolen), & certain drugs and alcohol in some places.  In addition, sometimes some otherwise legal products can't be imported to protect the local producers of that product from foreign competition.


 * 2) Taxes/tariffs. There may be additional taxes or tariffs from importing items.


 * 3) Limits. There might be limits on how much of certain items can be imported.  Those limits could be per importer or a total for the nation, in which case all importers must stop, once the quota is reached.


 * 4) Inspections. Customs officials will often want to inspect incoming/outgoing cargo, which can be time consuming and cause delays.


 * For your particular case, you'd need to contact customs officials in your nation for the rules. StuRat (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Or, as Medeis suggested, get proper training in import/export business management rather than just start out asking about nuts and bolts issues. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  19:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Something else I should mention is that importing/exporting is often an opportunity for corrupt government officials to solicit bribes. They might hold up a shipment indefinitely, until you "grease the wheels".  Hopefully such corrupt government officials don't exist at your end, but you might have trouble at the nations from which you are importing.  It's important to research this before setting up imports from a specific nation, since once bribes are included in the cost of doing business, you may well find that doing imports from that nation is no longer profitable. StuRat (talk) 06:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * No, Stu. You shouldn't be mentioning anything else.  The OP needs to consult a professional or study the subject formally. μηδείς (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * So if they contact the customs officials in the nation they want to import from, and ask for a list of their requirements, do you really think they will mention the need to pay a bribe ? StuRat (talk) 17:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You will need to know your CIF from your FOB. Most shippers use a customs agent, which will be another slice out of your profits, but the aggravation of dealing with customs and excise bureaucrats as an amateur is such that their services will seem cheap. I'm afraid that you appear to know so little about your proposed venture that it doesn't look very promising. 86.181.15.48 (talk) 07:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The UAE ranks 26th on the Corruption Perceptions Index. He's at low risk of bribery, but has a large expatriate community to benefit from.81.145.165.2 (talk) 12:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

contact info. for Inchegeri Sampradaya in India / contact info. for english speaking Disciples of Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
My skill set does not include "deep" research ability. i am seeking contact info. for the Sampradaya of Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj. It is my desire to travel to India where I can study under the guidance of Sri Maharaj's disciple(s). If it is not possible for you computer geniuses to provide this defined info. could you please try to find some info to his disciples. My homeland is Canada, but "wintering in Mexico until arrangements for my journey are set. I ask you to please draw on every resource at your disposal.   Thank you. Wes  — Preceding unsigned comment added by WesskyR (talk • contribs) 19:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, Wikipedia has an article, Nisargadatta Maharaj, which includes a number of links to other websites which may be useful. There is an active discussion group and a Facebook group is mentioned, if you use that social network. The Wikipedia article lists a number of Nisargadatta Maharaj's disciples, but the only one who himself has an article is deceased. One disciple living in Australia is Sailor Bob Adamson who apparently teaches on the subject. Another is Stephen Wolinsky. Googling the names of other disciples mentioned in the article may prove fruitful.-- Kateshortforbob talk  20:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

How did the Catholic Church rise to power and become abusive during the Middle Ages?
How did the Catholic Church rise to power and become abusive during the Middle Ages? And has it made any efforts toward reuniting with Protestants since then? 140.254.227.23 (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You have already posted multiple questions while having promised not to post more than one a day, Venustar84. You have been shut down by User:AndyTheGrump for seeking debate, and are now posting not under your user name.  Please abide by the good behavior you have promised to follow. μηδείς (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Robert's Rules of Order
Robert's Rules of Order (11th Ed) has an incidental motion called "Suspension of the Rules". When a suspension of the rule motion is tabled it is not debatable and cannot be amended or have any other subsidiary motion applied to it. My question is why cannot it not be debated? The fact that it is absolute and not debatable seems so undemocratic. Anyone know? ** CanadianGuy 99.241.162.219 (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Suspension of the rules doesn't answer your question directly, but does outline the circumstances in which it might be used, and the safeguards usually in place. Dalliance (talk) 13:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I gave it a read. Good summary of the rule. Unfortunately I am knowledgeable of it's use. I am just wondering what the political science / political philosophy / parliamentary procedural rational or precedence is that makes it undebatable. It just seems like a strange (and very powerful) motion not to have debate on. Thanks anyways.  ** CanadianGuy

99.241.162.219 (talk) 00:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * My take on it is that suspending the rules is done when the rules get in the way, so having more rules dealing with how to suspend the rules would be counter to the point. Just have the vote and either suspend the rules or try to continue using the normal process, as endlessly debating which option to use gets to be like a peace negotiation where nobody gets to discuss peace since they are too busy arguing over the shape of the table. StuRat (talk) 00:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)