Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 March 7

= March 7 =

Writers born in and writers who lived in Louisiana
Who were the well-known writers that were born in Louisiana? Who were the well-known writers that lived in Louisiana? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.148.80 (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * See Category:Writers from Louisiana. -- Jayron  32  01:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That category is a mish-mash, including a lot of names of persons who are only marginally writers, or only marginally from Louisiana. For example, Katherine Ann Porter is usually associated with Texas, not Louisiana, and Robert Penn Warren with Tennessee, even if his most famous novel is set in Louisiana; Elmore Leonard was born in New Orleans, but his most famous books are set in Detroit, MI. Among those whose connection to the state are not under question, most famous are (in alphabetical order) Arna Bontemps, Truman Capote, Andre Dubus, Ernest J. Gaines, Shirley Ann Grau, Walker Percy, Anne Rice, John Kennedy Toole and Tennessee Williams. --Xuxl (talk) 15:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

website that compares the languages Turkic
Is there a website that shows a sentence in English and then translates into different Turkic languages like Turkish, Azeri, Qashqai, Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Uzbek, Turkmen and Tatar and other existing Turkic languages like for example "I am black", "I am twenty-three years old" and etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.148.80 (talk) 00:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * See the answers given to three parallel questions on the Language desk. —Tamfang (talk) 09:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Grand Budapest Hotel
There are presently numerous press items quoting film director Wes Anderson about the influence on "Grand Budapest Hotel" of the 1920s and '30s Viennese world of playwright and author Stefan Zweig. Which of the author's works might we read for some background, in advance of seeing the film that's due to open soon (and probably close soon after) in local theatres? -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Beware of Pity and The World of Yesterday are mentioned in this newspaper article. ---Sluzzelin talk  12:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Why can Christians only claim affiliation to one church?
Some Christians claim they are Methodist. Some Christians claim they are Catholic. Some Christians claim they are Orthodox. Some Christians claim they are Lutheran. Some Christians claim they are Quaker. Some Christians claim they are Amish. Et cetera. Why are they mutually exclusive? What if a person only takes part of the teachings from one denomination (i.e. the Amish teaching that following the Bible does not guarantee salvation and weighty emphasis on humility and simplicity) and only takes part of the teachings from another denomination (i.e. Lutheranism but only four Solae, because the person may prefer the Roman Catholic view of prima scriptura). 140.254.226.194 (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * People can claim whatever affiliation they want. Your beliefs are your own, whatever anyone else's opinion. For acceptance into these individual denominations, however, you usually need to demonstrate your loyalty to it, sometimes by a simple statement or profession of faith, sometimes by elaborate ritual like baptism. Sometimes the denomination will expressly forbid participation in another. If you are an "independent" worshiper or believer (that is, you believe in God and Jesus but don't go to church), you can pretty much do whatever you want. Mingmingla (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * [edit conflict] In terms of private belief, there is no reason why a Christian can't hold beliefs from different strains of Christianity, and no doubt some Christians do this. In terms of church membership, however, a person cannot, for example, belong to the Roman Catholic church without either accepting the church's dogma in its entirety or risking a charge of heresy and excommunication. Some Orthodox and Protestant churches impose similar requirements of doctrinal adherence. In some Protestant churches, it might be possible to adhere to beliefs from other Christian traditions without a risk of expulsion, but even then, if a person were to share those heterodox beliefs with their pastor, the pastor might impose pressure on the congregant to conform, since one of the premises of Christian church membership and worship in most Christian churches is adherence to a shared body of beliefs. The main exceptions, to my knowledge, are Quakers and Unitarians, who welcome people with a wide range of beliefs. (Not all Unitarians, however, consider themselves Christian, and some Christians consider all Unitarians non-Christian.) Marco polo (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not merely Christianity. In Islam, if you're Sunni, you're not Shia, and vice-versa.  In Judaism, if you're Reform, you're not Orthodox or Conservative (and if you're Orthodox, you may or may not be Hasidic).  Buddhism and Hinduism are a bit more open, but what's true and acceptable for the Nyingmapa will get you thrown out of the Gelugpa, and possibly prompt a Zen school to have a restraining order put on you; and a California Krishna Consciousness commune would still call the police if they saw a practicing Aghori.
 * Sometimes, the differences are philosophical ones that cannot be reconciled. Most Reformed Churches teach Calvinist predestination and symbolic interpretation of Communion as official doctrines, both of which simply cannot be reconciled with the Catholic Church's teachings on Thomistic free will and Transubstantiation.
 * Sometimes, the differences are a matter of practice. I like stain glass windows in a sanctuary, maybe some icons and even the occasional statue, but some other Christians think all that's heathen, and want bare walls in their church.  My granddad's church has their "worship center" (not a sanctuary, by their own admission) set up like a concert hall, which some might regard as modernist materialism, letting the corporate media drown out the message so that people worship the media rather than who the message points to.
 * There are some denominations that are generally open to cross-denominational members. The Baptist church I grew up in had a number of members who identified as Episcopalians, Methodists, and I think a few Presbyterians.  The local Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) wouldn't mind at all if I joined and continued to refer to myself as a "Zen Baptist Humanist."  Ian.thomson (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Why won't they give me a Whopper when I eat at McDonald's? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * As has already been pointed out, one can claim any belief. Pi in Life_of_Pi is an adherent of three religions. Strictly speaking, one can claim to be an adherent of any church too. The problem here is only whether or not those churches will claim to accept YOU into their flock. The main reason why one church would not accept you to be part of another church would be if that church denies the teachings of your church. For example, the word "protestant" comes from "protesting against the catholic church". Therefore, the catholic church has very specific rules against accepting anyone to also be protestant. Star Lord -  星王 (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Square peg, round hole. "Jesus is the only incarnation of God", "Jesus is in no way divine, but only a good man", and "Jesus may have been one of many avatars of Vishnu" are all rather opposing views. About the only way to confuse thing more would be to throw in the Christ myth theory. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Confucianism, Taoism, Chinese Mahayana Buddhism and Shintoism aren't mentioned here. Or the syncretism of African religions and Neo-Pentecostalism. 140.254.226.194 (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I mentioned Zen, earlier, which started off as the Chan school in China, and is a branch of Mahayana. Many of the Chinese Buddhist schools were quite distinct from the Tibetan Mahayana Buddhist schools, rejecting a great deal of tantra and placing more emphasis on logic.  Taoism had its own apocalyptic works, such as Nuqing Guilu, which was quite clear that Taoism is the one true religion and other religions are demon worship; and this attitude allowed it to become a driving force behind the Great Anti-Buddhist Persecution.  Whether or not Confucianism is classified as a religion or as a philosophy is a matter of debate, even among Confucians.  Mainstream Shinto does differentiate itself from offshoots such as Tenrikyo.  Folk religions, regardless of region, can be syncretist, but usually borrow from more organized religions that would not encourage such mixture.  Ian.thomson (talk) 18:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I see only a few search returns for the Nuqing Guilu, but it sounds like an interesting work - do you know a link for it? I think there is a big contradiction in our modern-day attitude of saying that memes are real but demons are not, so a work that purports to offer methods of fighting demons seems worthy of a glance. Wnt (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I only have secondary sources, that uh, fell off the back of a truck. For an WP:RS, Routledge has a big-mass two volume encyclopedia on Taoism that describes it some (I can't remember if it has its own entry or if it was described in the entries on demons and apocalypticism). Unless you're living in or near China, it'd probably be less exciting because most of the demons are rather tied to specific locales.  If you're just reading casually, you might be interested in the works of Jerry A. Johnson, a American Taoist priest (no, really) who's written quite a bit on Taoist religious and magical practices (I would not stop someone else from citing his works, but I would not do so myself).  And if your interest in demons extends beyond China, I'm working on an overhaul for the list of demons in the Ars Goetia and an article on one of the inspirations for the Ars Goetia.  Ian.thomson (talk) 03:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Many churches have membership. That is you sign up and and are on the books of one particular congregation of one particular denomination. To become a member you have to agree to certain doctrinal and sometimes financial obligations and as a member you gain certain privileges (voting, financial, etc.) If you move, you need request your membership be transferred to another congegration. If that new congregation is in another denomination, there may be extra steps to have your membership accepted. In these churches you can only be a member of one denomination so would only ever identify yourself as one type of Christian. Rmhermen (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * To give an example, rather than generalities. A Roman Catholic can celebrate full mass with communion and so forth at any Catholic church in communion with the pope: Assyrian {Chaldean} Catholic, Byzantine Catholic, etc.  He can attend any Christian service he likes, but he can't participate in the sacraments (no communion) or make any statement of faith like their version of the Nicene Creed that contradicts the Catholic Church.  I.e., they should mostly stand silent.  1f Catholicism is attacked they shouldn't attend.  Attending Jewish ceremonies is difficult.  Jews have an area for gentiles to observe.  The Birkat haMinim is offensive to Christians, and a reason not to attend if recited.  (Hearing it caused a woman I know to break of an engagement.)  Attending Hindu or Muslim ceremonies, for example, would be very problematic--you'd have to ask your Bishop, who'll want to know if you'd be condoning an attack on the church (e.g., Islam) or participating in forbidden worship (e.g., Hindu). As for affiliation, Catholics are required to belong to a local parish church (of their Father's denomination if the differ in rites), and the parish church will necessarily be of one denomination/rite within Catholicism.  μηδείς (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * For "Assyrian Catholic", do you mean Assyrian Church of the East? 140.254.227.86 (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * From the article: "the modern Assyrian Church of the East is not in communion with any other churches, either Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, or Catholic."
 * I assume Medeis was referring to the East Syrian Rite, maybe the Chaldean Catholic Church. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Come on, people, I was confirmed at baptism, and baptized as a swaddling, as is cromulent in the Byzantine rite. My father's the one who was risen by West Catholic Jesuits, he knows this stuff. μηδείς (talk) 05:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Come on, people, I was confirmed at baptism, and baptized as a swaddling, as is cromulent in the Byzantine rite. My father's the one who was risen by West Catholic Jesuits, he knows this stuff. μηδείς (talk) 05:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Borrowing against a 401K
I've heard it said that when you borrow against a 401K that you're paying yourself the interest. Can someone explain that to me? Dismas |(talk) 16:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * When you borrow from a 401k, you are required to repay the loan with interest. Since you will collect any amounts you repay after retirement, you are in fact paying interest to yourself.  Marco polo (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The bank doesn't take any of that for providing the loan? Dismas |(talk) 17:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The bank isn't providing any money. You are drawing against your deposits. There may be fees involved. Rmhermen (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This is one of those questions we can't answer because of the legal implications involved. Ask a lawyer or your fund manager. μηδείς (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It can be answered and it was. I wasn't asking for myself but in more of a general sense which is just exactly what everyone but you seems to have read.  Again.  Dismas |(talk) 20:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Kingdom of Hawaii last survivor
Who was the last surviving person to have witness the Overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii or were connected to Kingdom of Hawaii (last former citizens)?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's actually an interesting question and one I am not sure actually has an answer. Because this pertains to who witnessed the overthrow or may have been alive to understand what was happening and survive longer than anyone else from that period, it may be nearly impossible to answer. Now, who was the last surviving person of note "involved" may be a little easier to answer but still very difficult because not everyone who may have been involved has been fully recognized. This period in history is very difficult to unearth but, I suppose one could simply look to all peoples listed in the numerous documents and see who was the last man or woman standing but still may not be truly accurate.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Parliament of USA?
Does the USA have a similar kind of parliament that pretty much all northern, western and central European countries do, among a lot of others? If not, what body performs the same function? How do USAn politics work compared to, say, Canadian, British, German, Swedish or Finnish politics? J I P &#124; Talk 17:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * United States Congress. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * USA has a legislature, as do Canada, UK, etc. But USA's legislature is a congress, not a parliament. See also presidential system and parliamentary system. One key distinction (from the final link): A parliamentary system is a system of democratic governance of a state in which the executive branch derives its democratic legitimacy from, and is held accountable to, the legislature (parliament); the executive and legislative branches are thus interconnected. In a parliamentary system, the head of state is normally a different person from the head of government. This is in contrast to a presidential system in a democracy, where the head of state often is also the head of government, and most importantly: the executive branch does not derive its democratic legitimacy from the legislature.
 * Does that clear it up? SemanticMantis (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It clears things up somewhat. It says that in a presidential system, the executive branch does not derive its democratic legitimacy from the legislature, and apparently isn't accountable to it either. I don't think it still means that the executive branch is free to dictate any laws it wants to just like that, right? At least the president himself can't do that. It's also interesting to see that apart from Mexico and a bunch of other North American countries (except Canada), the USA is pretty much the only fully presidential republic in what one would call the "western world". This is excluding South America, which is geographically in the western hemisphere. J I P  &#124; Talk 18:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * As for how it works, since I haven't taken any civics courses on other nations, I'll just give an overview of how it's supposed to work:
 * Congress is divided into the the House of Representatives (one per so many people) and the Senate (two senators per state). Each election, people vote for a senator (every six years) and a representative (every two years).  Pretty much any citizen can suggest a bill to either their representative or senator, who probably modifies it, and puts it before whichever house they belong to (representatives or the Senate).  They argue about it, amend the bill to appease everyone, and then either pass it or drop it.  It then goes to the other house (HoR to the Senate, and vice versa), where it's argued about and amended further, possibly killed, but maybe passed there.  If there are substantial changes, it may be kicked back to the first house, until both sides agree on something.  Then the President gets the chance to pass it or veto it (in which case Congress has to get a two-thirds majority to pass it instead of a regular majority).  Then a citizen or group of citizens can go to court over the law (maybe because they were arrested under it, maybe because they sued the state).  If the case gets to the Supreme court, they can declare it unconstitutional and illegal, thereby nullifying it (or at least preventing the law from being enforced).
 * Every four years, the President is elected, not directly by the people, but by the electoral college, which consists of Congress. There is a popular vote because many congresspersons do go with their constituents' will even if it's against party lines (e.g. a Republican may represent an area that voted Democrat, and he may put his vote in for the Democratic presidential candidate).
 * The President, pretty much at any time, can appoint judges (though there has to be some congressional approval). This usually doesn't happen unless one of them dies or steps down, though.
 * All this forms the system of checks and balances, i.e. congress, the President, and the Supreme court all have ways to stop the other branches of government from screwing up too badly.
 * This is under ideal conditions, and does not reflect the role lobbyists, special interest groups, career politicians, the media, Gerrymandering, voter suppression, and the myth of voter fraud affect things.
 * As for how people can come to be elected into those offices, it's a complicated mess even under ideal descriptions. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That is not how the electoral college works. Electors are not U.S. Congressmen but party electors. See United States electoral college. Congress only gets involved when the electoral college can't make a choice. Rmhermen (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed "no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector." (Article II section 1.) —Tamfang (talk) 05:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The difference in the U.S. is that the U.S. has a clear Separation of powers which includes a series of "checks and balances" between the three branches of government. The U.S. government is organized into three branches:
 * Legislative Branch (Congress) passes laws by voting on legislation
 * Executive Branch (The Cabinet of the United States and the Federal Agencies headed by the President) is responsible for enacting the laws passed by Congress. That is, congress says what the U.S. government is to do, it is the executive's role to do it
 * Judicial Branch (the court system headed by the United States Supreme Court) interprets the law and enforces violations of it.
 * Thus each branch has a narrowly defined role. There's often considerable bickering between branches, however, as to how the legal apparatus works.  For example, by its role of Judicial review, the courts have the ability to invalidate a law which violates the Constitution of the United States.  Courts do, at times, interpret the constitution different ways, sometimes confining their rulings to the explicit text, and other time basing their rulings on implied Constitutional principles like the right to privacy.  This leads to accusations of "legislating from the bench", especially from Congress which doesn't like to have its laws invalidated.  Likewise, though it is the executive branch's role to enact the laws that Congress passes, they have CONSIDERABLE leeway in enacting those laws, and they may at times alter or change the intent of a law (or even completely ignore it).  So there's a constant tension between the branches as they negotiate their roles within the system.  If you really want to know how the U.S. government is designed to work, the Federalist Papers really do a good job explaining and justifying and providing rationales for how the U.S. system was set up.  -- Jayron  32  19:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * And of the Federalist Papers, Federalist No. 51 is probably the most important read to understand the basic set up of the U.S. federal government and how it works. -- Jayron  32  19:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * No, it's the Executive Branch that enforces violations of the law. The Judicial Branch only ratifies them. —Tamfang (talk) 08:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The biggest difference, to my mind, is in the separation of power, which is much more pronounced in the US than in Sweden. In Sweden, for example, on votes on one color/flower/party, and that is it. The winning party gets seats in Parliament in accordance with the votes they get. The Prime minister is normally simply the party leader of the largest party. In effect, he holds relatively more power than the president, since he often is both the chief executive and leads the main party, and especially powerful if the party has more than 50 percent of the votes. In the US, the president has a lot less to say about which laws are passed, since the congress and senate are voted on separately. Even if congress, senate and president happen all to be of the same party and that party is in dominance, the US president can not get laws passed as easily as the Swedish Prime Minister can get laws passed in Parliament. Star Lord  -  星王 (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There is one small flaw in the above explanation: Sweden does not have a president, but a king. But if you substitute my own home country Finland for Sweden, then the above should apply to at least some degree. (There is even the difference that, to my understanding, the King of Sweden has no political power whatsoever, but is purely a ceremonial figurehead, whereas the President of Finland has some small traces of political power remaining.) J I P  &#124; Talk 19:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * So, according to my understanding, the congress is like the parliament in European countries, and the cabinet is like the government, and the president is like the president (but not like the King of Sweden, who doesn't get to actually decide anything). The judicial branch seems somewhat like the same in both systems. There are of course differences between what powers each branch actually holds, but I guess the overall analogy is like this. I, of course, am but a layman - I should ask my stepbrother, as he has currently a minor career in Finnish politics. J I P  &#124; Talk 20:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I am aware that we have a King here in Sweden, JIP, and that he is irrelevant to any discussion about our government. In Sweden, the Prime minister is the one with the power. The point that I am making is that in most cases, since the separation of power is weaker in Sweden, the prime minister has a lot more say in Swedish matters than the President of the US does in US matters.

A more interesting comparison might be to compare the US to the EU, and its respective states to each other. The Swedish population is only the size of Georgia, in both cases, most of its laws are dictated in another place, Washington and Strasbourg respectively, and in both countries the interest in voting participation to that central authority is low, despite the the number of laws passed there. European states do have some things that sets them apart, namely culture, language and the option of leaving the union, but in legal matters, I think the grand scale comparison is more interesting today. Star Lord -  星王 (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, and it's the same situation here in Finland. Although the President of Finland has some small traces of political power left, in practice the main power is on the Prime Minister. In fact, there have been discussions in Finland whether we even need the whole president any more. J I P  &#124; Talk 20:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * One of the most interesting cases of separation of power might be in South Africa, where they really seem to have taken separation of power seriously, by having three capitals. Pretoria (executive capital), Bloemfontein (judicial capital) and Cape Town (legislative capital) to make sure that they do not interfere with each other. This is a far cry from Sweden, where in the past I have felt that the term "Monarch", in the original sense of the word - Only One Person Rules - should really have been applied to the elected Prime minister of Sweden. Star Lord -  星王 (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * From a Swedish perspective, where there is a powerful prime minister and a king with no real power, here is how the US system is different: The US president has some, but not all of the powers of the prime minister as well as the symbolic role of the Swedish king.  Like the Swedish king, the U.S. president is the symbolic leader of the nation and is the one who meets with kings or queens on foreign visits as the head of the US state.  Like the Swedish prime minister, the U.S. president is the head of the government.  The U.S. president appoints all of the cabinet officials, and all of the heads of government departments (I think known as ministers in Sweden).  The president, with his department heads, sets government policies for the application of laws, but cannot himself make laws. One of the president's greatest powers is control of the military. The president can order the military into action almost without effective limitation. However, unlike the Swedish prime minister, the U.S. president does not control the U.S. law-making body, known as Congress.  The president cannot introduce bills into the legislature for passage as laws.  Only a member of Congress can do that.  Only Congress can formally declare war, but in fact the United States has been involved in a number of undeclared wars due to the president's ability to command the military without the need for approval by Congress. The president may be able to use his influence to get laws passed, but even his own party members are not required or even fully expected to do as the president wishes.  The U.S. president may veto, or reject, laws passed by Congress, but Congress may override the president's veto with a 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress.  So the system is very different from a parliamentary one in which parliament is supreme.  In the U.S. system, there is a separation of powers among three branches of government (legislative (Congress), executive (president), and judicial (courts)), such that each of the three branches is able to limit the power of the others and, ideally, prevent abuses of power.  This is what is known as the system of "checks and balances".  Marco polo (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * In Sweden, most suggestions of law come from the "riksdagen" (corresponding approx to congress), but these are almost all rejected, much to the dismay of "riksdagen". Instead, the suggestions of law that actually passed (about 97%) come from "regeringen" (approx cabinet), where the Prime Minister sits with those he has appointed to help him. "Riksdagen" is still the place where these laws are formally passed. Star Lord -  星王 (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The third part of the separation of power is judicial. Sweden does not even have Constitutional court, and its Supreme Court does not handle constitutional matters. Star Lord -  星王 (talk) 22:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * German, France and Italy have implemented clear separations of power, whereas Canada, Britain and New Zealand have muddier separation of power. Instead of separation of power, the latter three have each implemented less formal systems of checks and balances. Star Lord -  星王 (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * User:Marco polo's answer above is a excellent one. I would simply clarify that given the exigencies of modern warfare Congress has seen fit to pass various war powers acts which authorize the President to use force under specific situations for a limited time and subject to his making reports to the Congress and their review.  Politically, it has been almost impossible for the Congress not to back presidential military action since the Carter and Reagan administrations.  GWB famously sought congressional permission for his actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, but not declarations of war.  Obama's claim in Libya was that we weren't actually in hostilities, so he didn't even need to report to Congress.

JIP's question seems to imply that "pretty much all northern, western and central European countries" each have similar political systems to each other when compared to the US. But they are not very similar. The one thing that is similar is that most are part of the EU, and therefore their politics are largely decided elsewhere. Star Lord -  星王 (talk) 09:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think the EU compares remotely to the US federal government. The EU is still a relatively loose union; I think it's a gross exaggeration to say that the policies of its member states are largely decided at the EU level.
 * In the US, while it's true that most of the laws that directly regulate individual-to-individual relations are at the state level, federal law is nevertheless extremely important. For example, in almost all cases, your federal tax bill is substantially higher than your state tax bill, and the social insurance plans for the elderly (Social Security and Medicare) are at the federal level.  The EU really has nothing like that. --Trovatore (talk) 10:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this reply. I am annoyed when people claim that the EU is a tightly-coupled federal nation just like the US. It's not even a nation at all, but a union between independent nations. J I P  &#124; Talk 10:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Most Europeans get annoyed by such claims. Usually such claims are born out of ignorance. The EU is not tightly coupled and it is certainly not a nation. Not all have the same currency, they all have their own military force, EU does not have any federal institutions, each state can all leave the EU whenever they want. The list goes on. But on a purely legislation-based perspective 70% of the local legal decisions made by the local council the city where I live are EU-related, either directly or indirectly, and most people in my city do not have a clue about this, or even what kind of laws are decided where at what level, city, state or higher. Star Lord -  星王 (talk) 12:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It would be interesting to compare how large the corresponding proportion of laws were local and nation-wide in some large city and state within the USA, just as a comparison. Star Lord  -  星王 (talk) 13:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Many people in the U.S. (especially the Southern U.S.) say the same of this country - that it is a union of independent states. After all, the actual constitution is written that way.  See interstate commerce clause and states' rights. Wnt (talk) 02:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Didn't the Constitution give all outward facing powers to the US? Germany can still make treaties, run their own nuclear weapons and wage war. New Jersey cannot. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * About Germany. Essentially, that is correct. I know this is nitpicking, but there would be a number of limitations: 1 Germany does not have their own nuclear weapons. Technically, I think they are still forbidden to have nuclear weapons. NATO has nuclear weapons in Germany. 2 If Germany wanted to make alliances and declare a war it would first have to contend with some restrictions on this set by Common Security and Defence Policy and NATO. 3. It is hard to see a situation today where Germany would want to declare war without NATO. Some other EU members are not part of NATO, some are less restricted by Common Security and Defence Policy (but that will pass), and some have more scenarios where war might be more probable, like England, Greece and Turkey. Star Lord  -  星王 (talk) 10:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Why did I pick the "most important" EU state? My next choice would've been France. I thought England was not really a country. Unless they cecede, or Wales and Northern Ireland follow what Scotland might and cecede, leaving England alone. I'm not even sure if this is legal. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * England is both a country and a nation, but not an independent state. Britain is a country and a state, but its claim to be a nation is more shaky and is why people go on about WW2 (because it is basically the founding myth of Britain as a nation). Constituent country might have helpful information. But England cannot go to war by itself: in this case, refering to England when people mean Britain is like calling the Netherlands 'Holland'. 86.161.109.226 (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I should have written the UK. I belong to generation so old that most people used "England" when they spoke of Great Britain or the UK, a time when even the Scots I knew would not get offended by that. Star Lord  -  星王 (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I did some digging. The German constitution forbids Germany to declare war. It was clear when I read the German article https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kriegserkl%C3%A4rung that it could not, but I now have more sources and details about it. I read all the wikipedia articles in all the languages on the subject, and they were abysmally unclear on the subject for the vast majority of countries. At least the case is crystal clear for the US, Elizabeth II and Japan. The more I dig, the more countries I find that can not formally declare war today because it would be illegal for them to do so.    Star Lord  -  星王 (talk) 10:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The Declaration of Independence and the first constitution (the Articles of Confederation) are written in terms of an alliance of sovereign states, but where is such language in the second Constitution (that of 1787)? —Tamfang (talk) 08:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, the original Articles of Confederation set up the USA as a loose coalition of independent states. That did not work out well, which is why the new Constitution was drafted & ratified, giving the Federal government power over interstate commerce, international treaties and taxation. The country still ran a bit loose for quite some time, but our Civil War solidified the Federal government's power in those matters. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 15:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * One ought to specify for whom it did not work out well. —Tamfang (talk) 07:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Current events: Bridgegate
Here is something I don't understand about the Bridgegate scandal. Some individuals are being asked (or ordered) to turn over documents. Some of these individuals are refusing to do so, under the "self-incrimination" protections of the US Constitution. See, for example, this article:. So, here is my question. Isn't it true that any documents created by a government employee (during the course of their employment) is property of the government? And not property of that individual employee? I assume this is the case. So, what exactly is at issue in a case like Bridgegate? Are they asking for other (non-governmental) documents, emails, texts, etc., that the employee did at home, away from the office (i.e., outside of work)? They shouldn't have to request the documents created at work, as they belong to the government; they do not belong to the individual employee. So, can someone clear this up for me? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You are basically looking at executive privilege. Government agents argue that they don't have to turn over "work product" they themselves have created.  That doesn't extend to subpoenaing someone else who has the records in question.  NJ state law may differ on this.  And I don't think there's any settled federal law on this doctrine, since it has been used explicitly as recently as Clinton, if not more recently.  (Looking at our article, GWB and Obama have both evidently used the doctrine.) μηδείς (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I guess I didn't word my question properly.  So, for now, let's ignore the reasons for which someone might not hand over the documents.  I'd like to focus on ownership.  My question is: who exactly holds ownership of the documents?  In other words, who do they belong to?  Do they belong to the government?  Do they (in this case) belong to the people of the state of New Jersey?  Does the creator (employee) own them?  Does a specific branch of the government own them?   Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't want to be making stuff up, but typically they would belong to the State of New Jersey (with the states being the sovereign entities involved) or the individual if it is a private communication made not using government property, like a state issued blackberry. Would the call of a governor directly calling his wife to tell her he'll be home late be "owned" by the state? Presumably the record of the call would be, but I doubt any court would require him to divulge the contents of what was said.


 * In this specific case the emails were archived and discovered. I know Federal law requires corporations to maintain databases of official emails.  That law may or may not apply to the states (I suspect it doesn't) but the state itself is likely to have such a law.


 * "Communication" is such a broad issue, that asking who "owns" a communication which we don't even know if it was made orally or written or electronically is going to be hugely problematic, and goes back to issues of work product (was it campaign-related or duty-related) and so forth. The primary principles to keep in mind are that the state is sovereign, so the state will ultimately control waht it pays for.  How such control is exercised (the legislatures keeping their own minutes) and what actually gets recorded are two more concrete difficulties. μηδείς (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I guess I am still stumped. I don't see how a public official (e.g., a state governmental employee) can say "I know that this item is the property of the State.  It is not my property.  It belongs to the State.  It does not belong to me.  Nonetheless, I refuse to hand over this property that does not belong to me in the first place, and belongs to the State".  I am just stumped by this logic or line of thinking.  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * But if no one else knows of the existence of the document? There is no foolproof system of government.  It requires honorable men with interests no based in rent seeking.  That's the reason for a free press, checks and balances, term limits, divided government, and a loyal opposition. μηδείς (talk) 05:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, here is a related thought / question. Do they (investigators) really need the individual to provide the emails and/or text messages?  Can't the government just ask the email provider (Yahoo or Gmail or whatever) for copies of the emails?  Can't the government just ask the telephone provider (AT&T or Verizon or whatever) for the text messages?  Those entities must have all of this information.  If the individual employee refuses to hand it over, why can't the government just get it from these entities?  The government is the "owner" of the email account and the cell phone account.  So, shouldn't they have access to their own accounts and to information within their own accounts?  Any thoughts on this aspect of the matter?   Thanks.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Current events: Trial of Oscar Pistorius
I have a question about the trial of Oscar Pistorius. His story is that he thought he was shooting at an intruder/burglar who was hiding in the bathroom. Here is his chronology of events: He was in his bedroom; he thought that his girlfriend was also there in bed, with him. (He didn't know that it was the girlfriend who left the bedroom and went to the bathroom.) So, he goes to the bathroom and shoots at what he thinks is a burglar but in fact is his girlfriend. So, according to his story, did he say why he left the bedroom and went to the hallway/bathroom area in the first place? What prompted that action on his part? I missed this. What reason did he give? Or did he just say something generic like, "I heard a noise coming from the bathroom"? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Closing per WP:BLP. Do NOT ask for speculation.  If you want a source for a fact or a quote, add it outside the hat, please. μηδείς (talk) 22:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Re-opening.
 * Joseph asked for a fact: ... did he say why he left the bedroom and went to the hallway/bathroom area in the first place? What prompted that action on his part?  I missed this.  What reason did he give?  Or did he just say something generic like, "I heard a noise coming from the bathroom"?.
 * Absolutely no speculation involved there. If these things have been reported, we can report them here without breaching BLP in any way.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Jack. Exactly.  I am asking about a fact that happened in the past.  (Most likely, within the formal document that Pistoruis had to offer at the beginning of the investigation a full year ago.)  How that involves speculation, I have no idea.  How that invokes BLP, I have no idea.  And, in fact, since all of this is happening in an open court, it's probably public information anyway.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)
 * I have no idea about the BLP thing either but I've learnt to just let it slide rather than worrying my pretty head about it. Had you asked "Did he intend to kill Reeva?", that would have been a problem.  But you clearly didn't.  You chose your words carefully, as always.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Again, closing editorial commentary outside the courtroom. The OP has asked a non-speculative question below. μηδείς (talk) 23:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, re-opening. Exactly where is there any speculation?  And about what, exactly?  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  00:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, Jack, this is not talk space. The ref desk is required to offer sources just like article space for BLP, and the OP himself has reworded the question. μηδείς (talk) 05:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, again.  In essence, my question could be re-phrased as something along the lines of "What did Pistorius say on June 5, 2013 (or whatever date his statement was presented to the court)?".   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't find that specifically, but this article may address some of your questions about why-this and why-that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There were no questions asked about "why" anything. They were all about "what" he gave as reasons.  The whole point of the trial is to gauge whether those stated reasons were in fact why he did it.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  00:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, the point of the trial is to determine whether the evidence squares with his story or version of how it happened - or vice versa. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And in fact this item, linked within Trial of Oscar Pistorius, would likewise seem to answer the OP's questions - particularly, why did he enter the bathroom. e says a feeling of dread came over him, and he shot through the door of the stall. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing the point. Nobody disputes that he shot her.  He claims he was shooting what he thought was a burglar behind a door, but the prosecution maintains he knew full well whom he was shooting.  That's the issue.  If everyone accepted what he said about why he pulled the trigger, there would be nothing to have any trial about.  Joseph is asking what he said; in a case like this, whether that is really and truly "why" he did it or not is very much the question to be settled by the court.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  04:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "What he said" has been covered. He said he shot while standing on his stumps, as he had not taken the time to attach his blades because he was kind of in panic mode because somehow he thought there was a burglar in the bathroom. He fired through the door, yelled at his housemate to call 911, and discovered to his horror that it wasn't a burglar, it was his housemate. That's his story. The police analysis is (or was) that he was, in fact, standing on his blades. If they demonstrate that claim, then it tends to erode the credibility of his story. If they fail to demonstrate that, then it tends to improve the credibility of his story. But that's his story. The OP needs to read the links in that article and here, and tell us whether he has further questions or if it's clear now. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * What does talk space have to do with anything? BLP applies there just as much as anywhere else.  The OP reworded his question only because you advised, erroneously, that his original formulation was contrary to BLP because it contained speculation.  Well, that is just not true.  I asked you to point out where this alleged speculation was, and you have failed to do so.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  12:54 am, Today (UTC−5)


 * I've restored your objection. I also reported this to BLP before you made that objection.  This is a living person, and every searchable part of WP needs refs supporting otherwise defamable remarks, at the least.  This is not the ref desk talk page. μηδείς (talk) 06:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You continue to avoid my questions, and I remain completely unconvinced that any breach of BLP has taken place on this thread. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  06:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know for sure who made them since they were unsigned, but I have removed some rather dumb hattings here by removing completely the posts. Please remember if you believe a BLP violation has already occured, it's serves little purpose to hat and doesn't help deal with the BLP violation. The only reason you may hat a discussion relating to BLP, is if you believe a post may lead to a BLP violation but none has occured yet. This may apply to the first posts, but from the closing summary did not apply to the posts I removed. I don't personally know if a BLP violation occured but I generally prefer to defer in favour of BLP. Nil Einne (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

As I wrote earlier, if someone acts in some way, then the reason why he did that is often not known to the person himself, because it's usually result of subconscious processing of information. Especially in case of danger you will act fast on "autopilot". One has to consider that if you could always give a simple explanation why someone did what he did, then you could replace the brain of that person by a simple programmable pocket calculator. In reality such calculator would fall way short of even being able to function as the brains of a fruit fly. Count Iblis (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The moral of this case is that there ought to be a law against shooting through a frickin' door. It never seems to end well.  If you want to kill somebody, at least have the courtesy to do it to their face. Wnt (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The heavily armed burglar will watch the door, before you can open it properly you will already have been shot dead. Count Iblis (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Burglars aren't usually there to stay, so why would you be the one needing to open the door? Obviously that would be a tactical disadvantage, but you don't have to. Wnt (talk) 15:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Are foods allowed to be dropped into the offertory plate?
Are foods allowed to be dropped into the offertory plate? Instead of dropping bills and coins, can you drop fruits and vegetables instead? The fruits and vegetables may be alms, because they can be consumed. Instead of being tithed money, can you give a tithe in terms of your weekly consumption of grain? Every week, you may buy a sack of grain. You keep 9/10 of it for yourself and donate 1/10 of its weight to the church. 140.254.227.86 (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Churches might do food drives, where food is gathered for the poor, homeless, etc. It doesn't go into the offering plate, though.  I think a church would probably exempt anyone who had to pay in food from tithing, unless they're some prosperity cult.
 * Paying with food instead of money is sort of the origin of blackmail, if I remember correctly (though with taxes instead of tithes). Pre-modern tax-collectors would sometimes accept food only to tell the taxpayer that it wasn't enough, coming back for more and more than if the peasant had just paid with gold.  Any "church" that would do that I'd gladly set fire to in the name of Christ.  Ian.thomson (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I would think the typical size of the typical collection plate would make the OP's idea impractical. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

If you are asking this about a church you go to yourself, this is not really a question that Wikipedia can answer. The best thing to do would be to ask your priest/pastor/minister. The more general answer is that in the past tithes were sometimes paid "in kind", which includes agricultural products. You will also see from our article on the offertory that alms given at this time have sometimes included other things than money. You may have slightly misunderstood one thing about tithing, though: you do not give 1/10 of your consumption (or whatever the proportion is in your community), you give 1/10 of your production or earnings. So if you earn $1000, or pick 1000 apples from your orchard, a full application of tithing would mean you would give $100, or 100 fairly chosen apples, to your church, even if you only spend $500 taking care of yourself, or only eat 500 apples. That is, your tithing is a gift to the church (and thus to God), based on the work you have done. (Also, notice that the rules about tithing differ from church to church, and even vary in different parts of the Bible; see the article on tithing for more details.) RomanSpa (talk) 00:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Basically, the collection is to cover the running expenses of the church and you can't pay the electricity bill or insurance premium with fruit.
 * However, in the Church of England most parishes observe a Harvest Festival in the autumn, when parishioners bring gifts of food. This is either donated directly to someone that needs it, such as a homeless people's shelter or a hospice, or sometimes the food is auctioned off to the congregation at the end of the service and the money raised is given to a project in a developing country. People don't put the food in a plate, but at a given point in the service, people bring their gifts to the front of the church and it is laid in front of the altar. Alansplodge (talk) 00:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it depends on the church. Some collections may be taken to cover running expenses, but at some churches collections are taken for the "poor of the parish", or for a wide variety of charitable organisations, both local and of wider scope. RomanSpa (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * We're, again, overcomplicating matters for the OP. Under normal circumstances, when the "plate is passed", they are asking you for a cash donation if you can spare it.  The church doesn't want your leftover celery.  Could you maybe, possibly, find a church that collects food somewhere in the entire world?  Probably.  But if the OP wants to know how most Christian churches work, the passing of the plate is for the collection of cash for a variety of reasons; including both the churches operating budget (to pay the salary and/or living expenses of the clergy, to pay the electric and water bills, insurance, etc.) AND to pay for the church's various missionary activity, including charitable work and proselytizing work.  That's what the plate is passed for, that's what it is used for.  There's no need to hedge on the standard procedure and expectations here on the off chance some weird church actually expects a small sack of grain from any of the attendees.  The church passes the plate for money.  Don't put an apple in there.  You'd confuse everyone, quite probably insult people.  It is absolutely OK to put nothing in the plate; no one would notice or care.  Many church members tithe electronically nowadays anyways.  We do; my family tithes by automatic bank draft once a month, so we put nothing in the plate.  No one would care if you put nothing.  Or, you put in money if you are led to by your heart.  -- Jayron  32  02:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In olden times, farmers would store their harvest in two barns, the smaller one called a "tithe barn" which was to hold 10 percent of the farmer's crop, which would be donated to the church, presumably for distribution to the poor. Pretty hard to fit a tithe barn into a collection plate. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but the point is, the OP is not asking about "If I lived 300 years ago and was expected to give from my grain stores, what did people do back then" He's asking about people going into a Christian church today when the plate is passed.  Put a check or some cash in.  Or don't.  Those are your options.  Either of those is very much acceptable especially putting nothing in the plate  No one will think bad of a person who did put nothing.  Doing something like putting food in the plate would be weird and possibly insulting.  -- Jayron  32  03:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't do it. I've been to churches where worshippers have left gifts of food, toys etc. at the altar rather than in the offertory box or on the plate. Maybe that would suit your purposes better. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with several commentators above. Few if any churches would welcome this. For starters even if a church did welcome contributions of perishable food, just dumping it in the collection plate is unlikely to be welcome. Depending on the country, coins may be common and even without coins, passing the plate, hands putting in donations etc could easily damage the food. Not to mention even one or two pieces of fruit or vegetables would easily fill the plate, let alone the amount that would be necessary for a decent donation in many countries.
 * Of course, even most charities and churches which do welcome food usually don't want perisable food (like fresh fruits and veges) from random donors, they'd usually want some sort of coordination to make sure they can resonably use the food.
 * Also as I understand it, in many cases even donating non-perisable food like canned goods is often not particularly helpful, frequently (depending on stuff like country and size of the organisation), the organisations can get it a lot cheaper than you ever can so unless you are actually producing it, it's dumb for you to buy it to donate plus you create coordination and similar problems. If you bought a lot of canned food and find you don't want it, you could undoutedly find a church or other charity which would accept it by asking, but this doesn't mean it makes sense to tithe in that fashion.
 * Nil Einne (talk) 14:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps other agricultural products would be more compact. Goethe said that "the Holy Church's stomach alone can take Ill-gotten goods without stomach-ache."  I'm not sure how the priest would react to find a few tiny bags of heroin on the collection plate, but I imagine some of the parishoners would be grateful. :) Wnt (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)