Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 January 8

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 8

How many official Dictators to time of Roman Empire

I see in List of Roman dictators that many were not really Dictators. How many individuals were actually Dictators counting Lucius Cornelius Sulla. Julius Caesar counted himself as Princeps and Augustus was the first emperor of the Roman Empire. Was there no Dictators from Fabius Maximus to Sulla? I see a gap from 202 BC to 82 BC - what is the reason for this?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 15:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

There were dictators between Fabius Maximus and Sulla (the last in 202 BC) but only a couple. The reason for the gap was that the main use of the dictatorship (to put out popular uprisings) became a non-issue. The popular uprisings of the earlier period were done so that the common people (plebs) could achieve political equality with the aristocracy (patricians). This was accomplished by around 295 BC. The next 90 were were dominated by 3 major wars, and the dictators during this century were mostly appointed to fight the wars. After the wars ended, and the plebs had long since achieved equality (in theory anyway) there was no real need for the office anymore. Plus, the popular assemblies had placed several popular checks on the office, and so its usefulness by the aristocracy in the senate (who appointed the dictator) to fight popular aggitation disappeared. Thus the use of the ultimate decree of the senate, which the assemblies (notably under Gaius Gracchus) tried to declare unconstitutional, but were unable.RomanHistorian (talk) 07:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Just for clarification on this page, Julius Caesar was in fact a dictator, by official legislation; Augustus was the one who took the title Princeps, hence the term Principate. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

This is covered in the Roman dictator article: "From 202 BC on, the dictatorship disappears altogether. It was replaced by the Senatus consultum ultimum, an emergency act of the Senate that authorized the two consuls to take whatever actions were needed to defend the Republic... In 82 BC, after a 120-year lapse, and the end of the civil war between the forces of Marius and Sulla, the latter was appointed by the Senate to an entirely new office, dictator legibus faciendis et rei publicae constituendae". The article also covers Julius Caesar and Augustus' titles. Warofdreams talk 16:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

O.K., then I see from the List of Roman dictators there probably were about 51 individuals that were actually Dictators that had a single term and additional 11 Dictators that had multiple terms. Sound right?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 17:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The article Roman dictator is not very well sourced, and misunderstands Roman constitutionality at several points. Like several other articles on Roman government, it is well intentioned, but errs because it digests its source material without making careful chronological distinctions, and is fascinated by fantasies of absolute power, which the dictator did not have until Sulla. The article assumes, for instance, that the powers seized by Sulla were powers of the earlier dictatores, when of course Sulla used a preexisting but long-abandoned title as a thin disguise for his monopoly of power. The dictatores of the Early Republic in fact were military commanders who had limited power, if any, in the civil realm. This has come up in the course of an article I'm working on: see Dictatores and Celtic Italy (in draft). It makes no sense to say that a Senatus consultum ultimum, or emergency act by the senate, replaced the dictatorship, which is an office; the two things are apples and oranges. The military office of dictator was created to deal with problems created by Roman expansionism and military actions abroad (mainly Italy) in the Early Republic and into the Middle; as Rome acquired more territory to police and govern, the number of praetorships eventually increased to handle this (see T. Corey Brennan's far-ranging book The Praetorship in the Roman Republic[1]), as did the frequency of prorogation, hence the awkward office of dictator was no longer needed. What Sulla and Caesar did with the title dictator is like what Octavian, Antonius, and Lepidus did with the formerly innocuous commission of triumviri — used a non-threatening name to cloak an extraordinary seizing of power. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't take the time to count the entries at List of Roman dictators, but I can assure you that both Julius Caesar and Cornelius Sulla held the official title of dictator, and I also concur with Cynwolfe that the use of the Senatus consultum ultimum did not replace the office of dictator. Neil Clancy 02:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the way I see the amount of Dictators in the List of Roman dictators. There are 51 individuals that were actually Dictators that had a single term and additional 11 Dictators that had multiple terms. The 11 are:

1. Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus
2. Mamercus Aemilius Mamercinus
3. Quintus Servilius Priscus Fidenas
4. Marcus Furius Camillus
5. Titus Manlius Imperiosus Torquatus
6. cius Furius Camillus
7. Marcus Valerius Corvus
8. Lucius Papirius Cursor
9. Gaius Maenius
10. Fabius Maximus Rullianus
11. Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus Cunctator

Looks to me as 62 total Dictators to Sulla. Does anyone see something different than this in the List of Roman dictators? --Doug Coldwell ^talk 14:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You left a message on my talk page asking for additional input, but I don't think I've got anything to add. I haven't counted the list, but if you have, then that will be the correct number. Warofdreams talk 17:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This question is unanswerable. The sources don't agree, and there was no fasti of dictators like their was of roman consuls. Most dictators weren't even appointed during times of military emergency, but rather times of civil unrest. Many (most famously the legendary Cinncinatus) served for just a week or two, thus making it very hard to know the true number. They usually were appointed to put down popular uprisings (sessio). The last true dictator was appointed in 202 BC. Sulla and Caesar were appointed to the office, but their office was autocratic and thus not the traditional dictatorship. Sulla may have at least believed his office was the traditional dictatorship (notwithstanding the fact that he seized it, for an indefinate time period, by force) but Caesar probably wasn't so blind to think this for himself. His office, like the principate under Augustus, was little more than autocracy disguised in a cloak of constitutional legitimacy.

According to tradition the Roman Republic was founded in 509 BC and the dictatorship created in 500 BC. These dates are fiction, as 509 BC is conviently one year ahead of the founding of democracy in Athens, and the Romans believed they always had to be first on everything. The Republic itself probably wasn't actually even founded until sometime after 500 BC, which means that the office didn't exist as long as legend claims. All records were destroyed during a sack of the city around 380 BC so all recorded history before this year is probably legend. We don't even have some degree of confidence of actual events until around the year 300 BC, when the dictatorship should (per the sources) be about two thirds into its lifespan. So the question of how many dictators (historical and legendary) are claimed by the sources may be plausibly answerable but there is no agreement among them, and many simply mention the acts of specific ones in the context of the events of the day. The lack of a fasti means that most of what is mentioned of them is ancedotal. The question of how many (historical) dictators actually existed will forever be unanswerable. RomanHistorian (talk) 07:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Painting identification

What is the title of this [image], and who is the artist? 69.111.79.27 (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It's by Norman Rockwell. See Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell). 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Magazine called the Nineteenth Century, for March 1890, concerning bookshelves.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica 11th. edition, and repeated here in Wikipedia, says "The whole question of the construction and arrangement of book-cases was learnedly discussed in the light of experience by W . E . Gladstone in the Nineteenth Century for March 1890". I expect the "Ninteenth Century" was the name of a magazine or periodical. Does anyone know where I can see this particular article on the internet please? 89.243.209.101 (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

There's an article at Nineteenth Century (periodical). 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I am looking for a particular article in that periodical, not an article about the periodical. 89.243.209.101 (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It's on the Internet Archive, under its renamed title "The Twentieth Century" - here is vol. 1. Since there were two a year, March 1890 should be vol. 27, and of course Internet Archive has every volume except 26 and 27. You can search the index here, and the only article by Gladstone in 1890 is "The impregnable rock of Holy Scripture". Doesn't sound like it's about bookcases...Gladstone has an article in the next issue but that's called "Mr. Carnegie's Gospel of Wealth". Google Books also has most of the other issues, but vol. 27 is only a useless snippet view. Is there something particularly troublesome about bookcases that the Internet needs to censor? These resources are awesome when the stuff is available, but it always seems like the one little exact thing you need is the one they don't have. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is the article in question ("On Books and the Housing of Them," p. 384). In the U.S. I get a Full View of that volume. Unfortunately Google may limit access in certain countries. --Cam (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That brings up the same snippet view for me. That's dumb. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Aha! I found a transcription of the article which should be legible by all. --Cam (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

For much more on the subject of books and bookcases, see Henry Petroski's 1999 book The Book on the Bookshelf. --Anonymous, 22:31 UTC, January 13, 2010.

how similar/different are anglican and methodist?

if i am anglican and i switch from anglican church to methodist church, how similar/different are the beliefs, practices and songs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.62.174 (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Where are you from? The Anglican and Methodist churches can be a little different in different places. Also, what kind of Anglican are you? High, Low? Do you have an opinion on the current disputes that might cause an Anglican schism? Adam Bishop (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

singapore. attended an anglican school for ten years. dont have an opinion on the disputes. am aspie btw if this helps. --59.189.62.174 (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, you might start with our articles on Anglicanism and Methodism, but as noted above, both "Anglican" and "Methodist" encompass a wide variety. You can get a rough idea of the overall theology and beliefs of each, but "practices and songs" will generally devolve to variation at a congregational level, something that the Reference Desk simply won't be able to provide. I suggest you find local Anglican and Methodist pastors and ask them. Even if they're not able to personally walk you through the specifics, they'll quite likely be able to refer you to classes, lectures, texts, or other reference materials. Similarly, visit various services to see how the practices and songs work. I'd specifically suggest determining which services include communion, as the practice of that particular sacrament is often of great importance. — Lomn 17:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

In England, Methodist and "Low Church" Anglican services have much in common. "High Church" or Anglo-catholic Anglicans are much closer to Roman Catholic and there are many degrees in between. Anglicanism and Methodism have shared roots; John Wesley was a lifelong Anglican priest and the Methodist movement had a great effect on the Church of England in the 18th Century. Generally I've found that there's much less ceremony and dressing-up in the Methodist way of doing things but the bare bones of the thing is much the same. The Church of England and the Methodists have had a good look at the issue of uniting the two, but came away with a formal covenant in 2003. See Methodist Church of Great Britain#Ecumenical relations. Alansplodge (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) In the UK, unless you're contrasting particular congregations at opposite ends of their respective 'spectra' (e.g. High Anglican v Reformed Methodism), they're fairly similar, and indeed the two denominations debated union from the 1960's onward; obviously they differ on some, mostly minor, doctrinal and other issues, but the overwhelming majority of the beliefs, practices and hymns appear to me (from a position of disinterest) to be the same - I assume you've already read some of our articles on both traditions?

I (though not from a religiously practising family background) attended a Methodist boarding school in the '60s-'70s, where we had the option of an Anglican Church or Methodist Chapel on Sunday mornings, and like many pupils I alternated at will - the main difference seemed to me stylistic and decorative (e.g. a nice old stone church in the countryside v a modern-built, rather austere chapel in town. We were also taken to occasional special Anglican services in the local Cathedral en masse.

Bear in mind that both traditions contain a fairly broad range of sects/sub-denominations, and that the character of any particular church/chapel/congregation often has more to do with the selection of individuals leading or predominant in it rather than the broad tenets of its parent denomination. Since (as far as I know) most congregations of either denomination allow anyone to attend services, there's no reason not to attend a range of different chapel's services and see how they strike you. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest attending a couple of Methodist services and just see what it's like - nobody will mind you "gatecrashing". You can then catch the minister at the end and ask a few questions. --Tango (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment on the setting and liturgy: the Methodist chapels tend to be more austere even than Anglican churches. The convenor (person who leads the service) will sit at a table in the middle of one of the ends of the church. There might be a pulpit for the preacher. A choir may sit behind the convenor, depending on what service you attend. There will be no crossing yourself or genuflecting in the Methodist church. They never used to "greet one another with the sign of peace" when I used to attend, but then neither did the Anglican church I went to until it was made compulsory! The service will probably follow much the same format, i.e. hymn - prayer - hymn - notices - hymn - sermon - hymn. Prayers will be spoken rather than sung. Methodists don't recite the Creed, but they usually say the Lord's prayer. Some of the hymns may be the same: Methodists, of course, like to use Wesleyan hymns, and they also tend to use newer songs (such as those written by Graham Kendrick) more than Anglicans. Of course, this may vary according to the tastes of the congregation. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

John Wesley actually considered himself to be an Anglican... AnonMoos (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Allport's 1935 paper "Attitudes"

Does anyone know if the text of this is available (for free) online anywhere please? Allport, Gordon. 1935. "Attitudes" in A Handbook of Social Psychology (pp. 798-844). Worchester, MA: Clark University Press. Allport died in 1967 so it may not yet be out of copyright. 89.243.209.101 (talk) 16:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It does not appear to be available. You can see the copyright status here. I hope this helps. JW..[ T..C ] 19:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

How authentically Buddhist is...

the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism?--ProteanEd (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

How authentically motorcycle is an apple? The answer to the two questions is the same.--Jayron32 19:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the whole of the Pāli Canon is translated into English yet but that should give you a start for looking up the various thoughts expressed in that essay. ;-) Dmcq (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The OP makes the mistake of calling a puerile essay a policy which it is not. Here is a summary of Buddhist teachings about Right Speech (Samma vaca). Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Wrongfully executed people

Hello. Is there any evidence saying how many people were executed wrongfully in the US? I've read a few articles but none of them answers exactly this question. 83.31.105.218 (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You may want to contact the Innocence Project, their website is here. They specialize in this sort of thing. --Jayron32 20:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. They don't give such information on their website, so probably this number's very low. 83.31.105.218 (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Wrongful execution has some stats about allegedly wrongful executions in the US, right up at the top of the article. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps list of exonerated death row inmates might be of interest to you as well? A lot of the people on those lists would have ended up in "wrongful executions" if it had not been for the advancement of technology that would not have been foreseeable when they were convicted. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It's difficult, because you're probably looking for number of people who have been executed and since found innocent by the legal system. That is not necessarily the same thing as the number of people who have been executed and didn't do the crime, or who were executed but wouldn't have been if the law was strictly followed (or they had access to more money). For one thing, people interested in the accused's innocence are far less likely to fight for it in the courts after they are dead. For another, the people involved in the system that put the accused to death have an interest in them not being found wrongfully executed. As such, short of a time machine allowing one to witness each of the crimes, any number given for "how many people were executed wrongfully in the US" is either going to be "the number of people executed and since found innocent by a court" or an estimate. Which are you most interested in? 86.178.73.74 (talk) 15:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Then there are the borderline cases, such as guy executed for the Lindbergh kidnapping, who some believe did not commit the crime, while others do. There's a flip side to this, which includes (1) the real murderer, in such cases; and (2) those who did the crime but were acquitted. The system is not perfect. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Read The Airman and the Carpenter by the late Ludovic Kennedy and you will never again believe that Hauptmann was guilty. It was a colossal stitch-up done for purely political purposes. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

He sure sounded guilty in Scott Berg's biography of Charles Lindbergh. On the other hand, Berg either missed out or purposely omitted the fact that Lindbergh had a second family in Germany, so he didn't necessarily get everything right or complete. Regardless, the case and its results were controversial. In contrast to someone like John Gacy, for example, where there was no serious doubt. There have been various times when highly publicized trials resulted in executions when it was argued that the convicted person was either not guilty or that the punishment didn't fit the crime. On the flip side are cases like O.J., where most folks were convinced he did it but the prosecution was unable to convince the jury. But those high-profile cases are relatively few. The many obscure cases would be nearly impossible to research and come up with a percentage. Probably the best that could be done is an estimate based on percentage of exonerations within a given recent population. And even then you're not necessarily going to know for sure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Surely in this modern world we can be sure to kill the right people. But changes are not only necessary in science, but in law, and the attitudes of those who practise it. I watched The Thin Blue Line, and read the related Adams Vs. Texas, and was struck by the incompetence of a system that seemed to bend over backwards to kill a man for nothing, partly on the word of the young teenage toe rag who had actually killed Officer Woods in 1976. As Texas has the death penalty, and we all know how keen they are to use it, which I agree with, they should at least make sure they get it right, instead of being more concerned with looking good than actually dispensing genuine justice. As for Hauptmann, I saw different documentaries about him over the years. The first made me think he might be innocent, the other convinced me he was guilty due to the ladder found at the crime scene being perfectly matched with wood found in his home, from floorboards, and the fact he had some of the money. What it also conviced me of though, was how strange Lindbergh seemed in the whole thing, and whether he had something to do with it too, with Bruno's help, but I am not accusing him as such. Also, I always thought Lizzie Borden got away with it, but the documentary on that case, if not clearing her, at least added a few more viable suspects. In that case though I don't know if the jury cleared her due to the facts, or because no one liked her parents. A lot of cases have this whodunnit quality to them, and since Jon Pertwee is no longer with us, a wee look at some we'd made up our minds about can do no harm. My only concern is that justice is done, meaning we convict the guilty and free the innocent - not the other way round as sometimes seems to be the case. The Russian Christopher Lilly 13:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

In theory, Quebec is part of Latin America

It's a territory speaking a Romance language descended from Latin. Why isn't it considered part of Latin America?--AduioRear (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

See Latin_America#Etymology_and_definitions. Historically, the term used to exclusively mean French America, as coined during the Age of Napoleon. However, the modern term exclusively refers to "Iberian-speaking (Spanish & Portuguese)" parts of the Americas, or alternately Central & South America combined, or alternately all of the Americas except the U.S. and Canada. In modern usage, Francophone areas aren't usually included in the definition of Latin America, though technically French is a latin-derived language as well. So yeah, maybe you could make a case that it should be, but in real terms, it is not. --Jayron32 21:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Why then is Haiti considered part of Latin America?--AduioRear (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, that would mean Belize, Guyana and Suriname are not part of Latin America due to English and Dutch, Germanic languages, being spoken there.--AduioRear (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

See point #2 in the "Etymology" link that Jayron32 provided: many (and I would guess a large majority of) residents of the United States think of "Latin America" as meaning "Everything south of the US in this hemisphere". Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The article says, firstly, that's there's various definitions involved and secondly that "Although French-influenced areas of the Americas would include Quebec, this region is rarely considered to be part of Latin America, since its history, distinctively North American culture and economy, and British-inspired political institutions are generally deemed too closely intertwined with the rest of Canada.[12]". In short, it's not considered Latin America because it's not. Matt Deres (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Does this mean that the majority of Americans think of the Islas Malvinas to be part of Latin America, rather than considering the Falkland Islands to be separate from it? Nyttend (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

There is not going to be a reference out there in which Americans at large have been polled about their geographic knowledge of the Malvinas, but I am going to guess, Yes, a large majority. (Once you do some location education for the number of Americans who cannot point to them on a map, of course.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Québeçois eat poutine. Latin Americans eat, for example, pupusas. PhGustaf (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Brazilians eat pupusas? Nil Einne (talk) 10:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

A large portion of English is Latin filtered through French, so you could make the case that the entire western hemisphere (except for the aboriginals) is "Latin" America, which would make the term kind of redundant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You can transplant the arms and legs of a donkey onto a man, but that doesn't make him a donkey, any more than it can be said English is a Romance Language. --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 13:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

But let's be honest; we all know those special jackasses that require neither fur nor hoof to well and truly qualify as best of breed. But I digress. :D Natty10000 (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The better metaphor might be a mule, i.e. a hybrid. Many Latin Americans are mestizo, but they would still be considered Latin Americans, right? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Back to the OP. The best answer so far has been given by Matt Deres. These definitions aren't meant to be scrupulously internally consistant. Quebec isn't part of Latin America, but Belize or Suriname is, just cuz that's how it's usually defined. Most people casually consider "Latin America" to be everything in the western hemisphere except Canada and the U.S. The term generally comes from the fact that most of the people in Latin America speak some form of Iberian Romance language (Spanish or Portuguese). However, finding other Romance-speaking regions in the U.S. and Canada doesn't make those areas part of Latin America because it's not a strictly linguistic term. It's a Geographic term for "The Western Hemisphere except the U.S. and Canada". --Jayron32 04:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I`m sure St. Pierre and Miquelon will appreciate the distinction. :) Natty10000 (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

"Everything in the Western Hemisphere except Canada and the US" would include Spain and Portugal (if we just restrict it to Spanish/Portuguese speaking countries and not include others, like half of the UK, France, Iceland, Greenland, and a dozen or so African countries), and I doubt anyone considers them even remotely part of Latin America. --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 14:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Try "New World". :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Is Jamaica generally considered part of Latin America? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Apparently not. Note the map for the Latin America article. It specifically omits Jamaica and some other islands, and also some parts of South America. How authoritative that is, I couldn't say. 20:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Hard to imagine why. Maybe somebody just doesn't dig spiders. PhGustaf (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Ooooh, that bites. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

(deindent) The article really needs to make up its mind:

• The lede says: " .. a region of the Americas where Romance languages (i.e., those derived from Latin) – particularly Spanish, Portuguese, and variably French – are primarily spoken" – which would include Quebec and exclude Jamaica.

• in Etymology and Definitions, dot point 1, we have: "Latin America is, therefore, defined as all those parts of the Americas that were once part of the Spanish and Portuguese Empires" – which would exclude both Quebec and Jamaica

• dot point 2 says: "Also, particularly in the United States, the term more broadly refers to all of the Americas south of the United States" – and specifically mentions Jamaica.

• dot point 3: "Latin America designates all of those countries and territories in the Americas where a Romance language … is spoken: Spanish, Portuguese, and French" – but then goes on to explicitly exclude Quebec.

• None of the tables include either Jamaica or Quebec, so it seems that, of the 4 definitions, the one in dot point 1 is being used, not the one in the lede. If that's the primary definition for the purposes of the article, it should say so. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

According to Jamaica#History, it was part of the Spanish empire from 1494 until the British took it over completely in 1655, so it probably wouldn't count. Seems like there should be a way to synthesize those various definitions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

"Once part of the Spanish and Portuguese Empires"? Wouldn't that include some of the southern states of the United States? Correct me if I'm wrong here. --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 21:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Theoretically it would, but since those areas are part of a predominantly English-speaking country, then they're not part of Latin America, although they contain many Latin Americans and their descendants. Maybe the problem is the term "region". If you change "region" to "nation" it ought to work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope, because 'nation' is used to refer to the Apache and other native American nations, too. --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 02:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Do any of them speak Spanish natively? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

No, Bugs. Sorry, for my last few posts I have been referring specifically to the wording of the 'dot point one' section spoken about by Jack above. --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 04:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

And I take issue with the term "region", as it's a vague term and isn't exactly correct anyway. In the "region" of Miami, Florida, Spanish is widespread. That doesn't make Miami part of Latin America, because English is still the predominant language in the "nation" or "country" we call the USA. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, what could compound the problem, in that case, is the fact that the USA doesn't have an official language, so I guess you would have to use political boundaries, but ones which clearly contain a majority of non-Spanish/Portuguese speakers, do define where non-Latin America is. Plus, what would it be called? Germanic America? --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 04:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

lex Junia Licinia

There does not seem to be an article on this. My understanding of this ancient Roman law was that it was a sort of an umbrella law that put enforcement on the Lex Caecilia Didia law. Basically it is just improvements of the features acting as an umbrella on the duties of the original law of Lex Caecilia Didia. Would that be a fair statement? --Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Made new article.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 19:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

That sounds a fair statement to me, but I believe that the requirement to deposit proposed copies of legislation with the Aerarium was a new provision, apparently in part to address issues with the forgery of copies of existing legislation. Warofdreams talk 17:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Socialism and communism

What's the difference between socialism and communism, and which one is North Korea? --70.134.50.246 (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I had added links to your post so you can read all about these topics. As with the USSR, etc., North Korea considers itself socialist, and is usually labeled communist. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

A simple description of the differences between the two is that socialism is "communism-lite", in that it has many of the same ideas as communism, but is weaker. Lenin called socialism the intermediate stage, or stepping stone, from capitalism to communism. Reading both articles on the subject will give a much more detailed impression of the differences and similarites between the two, so I recommend that. North Korea is officially a Socialist republic, which would make it socialist. Many people, however, see it as Stalinist, which is a sort of modified, practical communism. The articles on the subjects will give much more detail. Chaosandwalls (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC) The articles linked to give the answers to those two questions. They are a bit long, though. --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 22:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

According to textbook definition, under communism the workers control the means of production, while under socialism the state does. Both terms are used with much broader and widely overlapping meaning, to a degree that they have lost most meaning beyond their use as political fighting words. North Korea is officially democratic, socialist, and a republic. In reality it's a dictatorship. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

As an example the Nordic welfare states was created by social democratic parties, which labeled themselves socialists, but distanced themselves from communism (and communists distanced themselves from them). --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

There have never been any countries that fit Marx's idea of "communism", in which an industrialised country has no government because there's no need for one. However, North Korea is a fine example of "communism" as that word is commonly used. Nyttend (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

...as that word is commonly used in the United States, you mean. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Nyttend makes an important point which is worth fleshing out. The reason countries such as the Soviet Union described themselves as 'socialist' and not 'communist' was not that they were not committed to Marx's idea of communism, but that they recognised that they had not yet achieved it. They believed that as their state developed it would follow the path that Marx had laid out, and class differences would disappear so that the institutions of the state would fall away and there would be true communism. However, that had not yet happened; they were still administering a state, and so that state could not be communist but must be socialist.

This is not the position of democratic socialist parties such as the SPD in Germany after Bad Godesberg, the Socialist Party in France, or the Labour Party in Britain. They see socialism as the end in itself, and their definition of socialism is not a Marxist one. You might also want to compare Second International (later the Socialist International) with the Third International, better known as the Comintern (Communist International). Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The definition in the socialism article is better than any of the replies here, btw. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It has more examples, but sadly it seems no better at defining the phenomenon than we are. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure about the statement above that North Korea is "officially" a Socialist republic. My understanding was that the current official guiding ideology of the country (as stated in the Constitution / party constitution) is Juche, which in simplified terms stands for "personality cult", rather than either Communism or Socialism. I believe the replacement of Communism and Socialism by Juche was (legally) complete by the late 1990s. As a result, it is technically neither a Communist nor a Socialist state, but a sui generis "Juche" state. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

True. Also, socialism is sometimes defined as all forms of ideologies based more or less on Karl Marx's writings, of which communism is one, social democracy is another and syndicalism may be a third. So communism is a form of socialism. The Great Cucumber (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

About Juche: I'm no expert, but as a theory, it doesn't seem to stand for "personality cult"; its basic tenets amount to some kind of banal nationalism (the three official principles being "independence in politics", "self-sustenance in the economy", and "self-defense in national defense", + "army-first policy"). What connects it to the personality cult is, AFAICS, only its rather amusing claim to the status of a major social theory, indeed of a universal teaching that supersedes Marxism and Leninism and that just happens to have been developed by the country's supreme leaders.

About socialism - it is not normally defined as solely Marx-based; there are many non-Marxist forms of socialism. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 00:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of calling Palaceguard out on that, as the word itself seems to mean something like "subject theory" or "subjectivism", at least according to how it's written in Chinese characters. But I think what Palaceguard meant was that Juche is not really a social theory or Communism/Socialism but basically just a personality cult. TomorrowTime (talk) 08:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

As for socialism and communism, the meanings of the words are extremely loose. 'Communism' comes from the Latin communis common, public, general, shared by all or many" and, in its loosest sense, is applied to any movement or state that subscribes to common property as a basis of society (the Mazdakites, for example); 'socialism' comes from the Latin socialis "united, living with others, social", from socius ("companion") and has usually meant the same as "communism" in the above-mentioned general sense, but in its loosest sense it may be applied to any movement that calls for society to somehow prevail over the multitude of struggling private economic interests in the name of the common good. Since almost nobody denies that at least some minimal degree of society and organization prevailing over private economic interest is necessary in at least some situations, the term "socialist" is arguably gradient/relative and subjective, like "big", "good", or "left" - people use it to apply to someone whom they perceive to preach a relatively large degree of social control over private economic interest - relatively large within the context of what is prevalent within the political spectrum at that particular time and place. Thus, Tony Blair's new Labour and modern social democrats have been permitted to call themselves "socialists" even though twenty years earlier the extent of social control they now preach would be described with the label "liberal". In that sense, even the American Right's claim that Obama is a "socialist" is not as absurd as it seems - after all, "socialist" means pretty much the same as "someone who seems pretty far to the left to me" or "who seems pretty inclined towards social control to me". The absurdity stems from the less loose and historically more common sense mentioned above, the one that equates socialism with common or "social" property.

Now the more specific senses of the words, those that have become common in the 20th century, come from the great split in the Marxist socialist movement in the end of World War I concerning the October revolution. "Communist" refers to any Marxist socialists that largely accept the October revolution and the ideas and practices of Lenin's Bolsheviks as they were at the time of the October revolution, at the time when they established the Third International, and at least during the first few years after that. In fact the Bolsheviks introduced the term as a self-designation specifically to mark their distinction from the other major socialist parties of the time, those that proved less radical, more conciliatory towards the status quo, less favourable towards the October revolution and remained in the Second International. "Socialist" then remains a less specific term that can stand for both pro-Bolsheviks and non-pro-Bolsheviks, but since a pro-Bolshevik will tend to call himself "communist", people who just call themselves "socialists" are likely to be either critical of or ambivalent towards the Bolsheviks, just like someone who merely calls himself "Christian" with no qualifications is unlikely to be a Mormon. A "Communist" in this specific sense will be at least to some extent a Leninist, and may be, among other things, a Trotskyist, a Stalinist, or a Maoist - depending on the precise point after the October revolution at which he feels things went wrong (1927, 1953, or 1953 AND 1977). A separate issue is that what people identify as may be different from what they objectively are: you may identify as a "Christian", as a "Marxist" or as something else, but to what extent your beliefs truly fit the teachings of Christ or of Marx is always open to external questioning. Nearly all of the above-mentioned groups of self-described socialists deny their opponents the status of true socialists or even true Marxists.

Yes, I know I'm writing for myself. I just enjoy writing short essays.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that is broadly true, but don't forget that "communist" is also usually used for revolutionary socialists who do not support the October revolution (like the anarchist communists and impossibilists), and revolutionary supporters of the October revolution who are not Leninists, such as the left communists. Warofdreams talk 17:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Customhouses far from borders?

Last March, I photographed the U.S. Customhouse in downtown Denver, Colorado. What's the point of having a customhouse so far away from a border with a foreign country? The building (built in 1931) is in downtown Denver, nowhere near the current airport, and given the concentration of pre-1931 buildings all around downtown, I can't imagine that an airport has ever been in downtown Denver. Nyttend (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Blame "boosters" - "Overlooking the fact that Denver lay hundreds of miles from any national border, boosters persistently lobbied Washington to designate Denver an official port of entry. Washington succumbed in 1882 and awarded Denver a customs house." (ref) That 1882 building was replaced with the 1931 building you saw because the old one (which was in "another location in the city") was "overcrowded" (ref). -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 23:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

France did the same thing, decreeing that all imports of [whatever] had to come through a particular customs house. Objective to limit imports. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, back in the early 1980s all imports into France of Japanese videorecorders had to pass through the ten-man customhouse in Poitiers (Time article, May 82) -- Arwel Parry (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised no one considered the possibility of . . . wait for it . . . here it come . . . air freight  ! DOR (HK) (talk) 04:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's mentioned right there in OP's question :) TomorrowTime (talk) 08:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think air freight was a great consideration in 1882, though. Marnanel (talk) 13:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Malawi's (two) term rule

Since the last leader of Malawi who precessor Bingu Mutharika was the leader from 1994 to 2004 and have to gave up his power after his age of 61 is two term rule going to apply to Mutharika too. Is this more likely if the two term rule have been affect to last leader it is more likely to be affect to the current leader. Malawi have been trying to make a 7 term election, is it more likely for Malawi to eliminate the two term rule?--69.226.34.161 (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)