Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 January 30

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 30

Standard of review on appeal in Bangladeshi courts

What is the standard of review in Bangladesh courts in criminal appeal cases? Apokrif (talk) 02:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

"The reference desk will not answer (and will usually remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or request medical opinions, or seek guidance on legal matters. Such questions should be directed to an appropriate professional, or brought to an internet site dedicated to medical or legal questions". Sorry, can't really help with this AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Although this question deals with the legal system, I really don't see how this could be construed as a request for legal advice. I think it's a fair question and should be answered if possible. --GreatManTheory (talk) 02:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Clarification on terms - India, 1946

1) What is the difference between state, union, and province in 1945-6 India as specified in the May 16, 1945 Mission to the UK? Or at least where can I figure this answer out myself? I am looking at the briefing itself but there seem to be no definitions on the terms in such a context. I know a union territory in present day India refers to territory governed by the federal government, but for some reason I doubt this to be what the historical document refers to.

2) What is a grouping formula? Is this how the British decided to allocate territory to Pakistan? [Edit: I actually figured this part out]

[Edit: 3) Also any possible solutions to not group the provinces in the first round or to split the Hindu and Muslim areas in the second? For example, where there ever plans to keep all provinces as their own subnational units in a unified India or discussion on developing provinces on ethnic lines?

4) Was there any documentation accessible in the UK explaining the geographical distribution of different ethnic groups in the Raj that the UK representatives at the Mission could have referenced?]128.54.224.231 (talk) 04:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)--128.54.224.231 (talk) 05:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably the significant difference was between directly British-ruled areas and areas under native local rulers. Most current-day union territories in India weren't part of British India at all in 1945. Here's a religion map: File:Brit IndianEmpireReligions3.jpg -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Does Radcliffe Line and info on this page help? Alansplodge (talk) 14:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately it does not because I am analyzing India in the context of 1945 and 1946. So as the event never occurred there is not much I can do to include it. But does anyone know about how the Raj recognized different ethnicities in India? That would help me a great deal! Thanks! --128.54.224.231 (talk) 04:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the British "recognized" ethnicities as such in any very meaningful sense, politically or administratively -- they more often recognized native maharajas and religious and caste groupings. However, detailed information on the languages spoken was available from the Linguistic Survey of India... AnonMoos (talk) 08:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, ethnicity was used in the recruitment of troops to the British Indian Army, using the Martial Race theory. Whether there was any master plan of who lived where, or whether they relied on the local knowledge of administrators on the spot, I don't know. Alansplodge (talk) 17:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

And the "martial race" theory was based fairly heavily on caste groups, and also partly on religion (favoring Sikhs and disfavoring Muslims, etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a list of notable people on the Autistic Spectrum who hold any leadership positions.

I need to make a case for Mike T. It doesn't matter if anyone on that spectrum managed a kitchen or a whole university, I'd just like to see some kind of list of people with any kind of autism (high-functioning and etc.) who holds or has ever held any kind of leadership position and thrives or has thrived well because of it.

Some individuals have pre-conceived notions that those who have autism spectrum disorders should never hold any significant leadership positions. I hope for your responses to disprove it. Thanks kindly, --70.179.181.251 (talk) 06:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

We have an article, Historical figures sometimes considered autistic. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 09:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there a way to punish Fitch Ratings for opposing democracy?

I just read in 2011 Egyptian protests that Fitch Ratings had responded to Egypt's recent popular protests by giving their country a reduced rating - something which they were also proposing with Tunisia recently.[1] I can't tell you how this infuriates me, because I think of the entire profession of "credit rating" as a scam; that their industry is a cartel; that consumer credit rating agencies work like Mob blackmailers shaking people down for money to "monitor" that they aren't being lied about; that they caused the global recession through corrupt high ratings of bad enterprises... and so now I see that Fitch is out there, trying to make the world safe for dictatorship by punishing countries for an upwelling of democratic expression. Something which makes no sense when we consider that free societies, open elections, and honest officials are GOOD FOR BUSINESS! But when these vultures announce to a global capitalist elite that it is time to bandy together to screw over Egypt and Tunisia, I suspect that's just what will happen. It isn't right. So I have to ask - is there anything (other than terrorism) that ordinary consumers can do to effect their displeasure on such a company? Wnt (talk) 08:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The ratings agency is free to rate according to how much risk they assess there is to bonds. If they had a government saying 'you must rate this crowd higher, we like their type of government' then they would not be living in a free state. You are supporting dictatorship rather than freedom, which from the rest of what you say is I guess not your intention. Dmcq (talk) 11:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

In this case, I suppose Fitch is right. Egypt is, and will be, for the time coming less reliable. It could even be at the brink of a civil war. 212.169.190.75 (talk) 11:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

There is ZERO guarantee the 2011 Egyptian protest will result in “free societies, open elections, and honest officials” (suppose it ended in a brutal military intervention/oppression, what then?). The cold hard reality is that civil disorder, riot, etc are bad for business and credit rating agencies are simply predicting and reporting this risk. Royor (talk) 11:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The first part of your statement is true. The second is dubious. Credit rating agencies are very intransparent, and at least for the major ones there is a strong feedback mechanism. They are not just impartial and neutral observers, they massively influence the market. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

True, statement retracted. Royor (talk) 11:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

They have to be intransparent, otherwise, companies would concentrate on those points which make their rating go up. 212.169.190.75 (talk) 12:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

If the ratings are based on good criteria, wouldn't concentrating on these indicators also improve the companies in general? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

No, that wouldn't. That would let them know how far they can go without getting penalized. For example, if you know that your rating won't drop for not paying on time minor sums of money to small companies, then, you know that you can get away with it. Not knowing how you get evaluated means you have to try your best under many factors, and the rating agencies only have to analyze some key factors. 212.169.190.75 (talk) 13:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that the intransparency of the ratings agencies allows them to use cheaper and sub-standard assessment methods that companies may or may not guess and that may or may not represent real risk. I wonder what would happen if I would start publishing credit ratings for my neighbours (or co-editors ;-) based on my own proprietary methods, and how that would work out with libel laws. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing sub-standard here, and it correlates with real risk, but not perfectly. They just optimize the process, checking some indicators. You don't know which, so you cannot fly under the radar, push to the limit, or play games. You have to be responsible in the way you deal with debt. That's equivalent to the police not telling you exactly where and when they are on patrol.

Your own private credit rating agency has some obvious problems. Private persons have, normally, to agree to be put into a credit rating database (had they done that?) and libel implies spreading false information about people -not companies or governments- (is that what you are planning?).

On a last note, I have to say that no one forces you to follow the rating of rating agencies. You can always strike a good deal if you believe something is undervalued. 212.169.179.2 (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

First there's probably little way an individual could punish a ratings agency at least without resorting to something illegal. In any case, note that even if it does lead to “free societies, open elections, and honest officials” whether or not it's good in the long term, in the short term it's unsurprising it's worse from the POV of normal credit rating agencies. They aren't some sort of ethical investing guide, they never claim to be. A free society, open selections and honest officials could decide to cancel all their bonds arguing it's odious debt or something, I don't think it's likely in either of the two cases but it's clearly more likely then the situation before the current uprisings. More likely a free society, open selections and honest officials could do things like nationalise companies, make it more difficult for foreign investors etc which while they may feel is good for their country isn't good for the existing foreign investors or anyone contemplating it in the short term. Note that whether or not it's fair to those investors is a moot point for the ratings agencies. It's perhaps worth noting that in the Tunisian case in particular, but also to some extent in Egypt from what I've read and heard (and simple common sense too) the primary reason for the uprisings haven't been a desire for a “free societies, open elections, and honest officials” (which doesn't mean these aren't a factor) but bread and butter issues like rising food prices and unemployment. How any government is going to deal with these issues only time will tell but this harks back to by early point that it's quite common things will be done which are bad for foreign investors. It's perhaps also worth remembering that tourism is a key part of the Egyptian economy, I guess you may like to go Egypt despite the current situation but many tourists don't. Also it's a mistake to somehow think of these as simply punishing people because of democratic expression. In fact if Hosni Mubarak had stepped down the moment the uprisings began, with a new government sworn in promising a new constitution and elections with the year and while making efforts to reassure investors that their money was safe and everyone went back to business and the country was thriving they would have been far less likely to get a rating downgrade then they were under the current situation. And I'm quite sure things are only going to worsen the longer the current situation continues. And BTW have you been watching the news coverage? I was watching Al Jazeera where they were showing some of the neigbourhood watches that have sprung up. Living in a dictatorship where you can be tortured and murdered by the police is obviously extremely not nice, but nor is living in a place where the rule of law and order has completely broken down. Again it may be worth it but that's a moot point. Or in summary, it's a mistake to think of whole situation as a binary good/bad and or to confuse ratings agencies as being ethical investing guides. Nil Einne (talk) 13:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's put it this way. If credit rating agencies knew something unique and non-obvious about which countries are good or bad investments, then why would they make this information public? Logic demands that if the information were truly valuable, they would tightly limit its distribution and try to make a profit from it. Wnt (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

That requires capital, and not only information. Credit rating agencies do not know if A or B are a good investment. They have a statistical model to know how probable it is that you pay your debt. 80.58.205.34 (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The current riots in Egypt and their coverage in US media

I don't follow the US media, but I do watch The Daily Show, and in a recent segment of the show they juxtaposed the ideas that were supposedly expressed in American media, namely that the riots in Egypt were incited by the longing for democracy brought to the Egyptian people by either Condolleeza Rice in a speech in 2005 or by Obama in a more recent speech. Now, obviously, TDS is a comedy show and I have no intention of taking it seriously on this, but it does strike me as something that might actually have some currency in the American society, what with all the "we invented freedom and democracy and have sole power over their distribution" subtext you often can sense from speeches by US representatives (and even more so from comments by regular people on the Internet). What I'm interested in is this: how much currency (if any) does this kind of view hold? That is, how much of the media is in all honesty reporting on how some speech or other by an American politico made the people in Egypt riot, rather than the simple fact that the Egyptians just had enough of Mubarak's oppressive regime and saw an inspiration in the recent Tunisian riots? Is there even such media, or is this mention of the speeches just added as a footnote which was then taken out of context for comedic purpose? ( As in: "The regime was oppressive and the people had enough, so they rioted. Incidentally, a politician that our news network endorses had a speech there, and this might have had some effect as well.") TomorrowTime (talk) 08:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been taking a great interest in it but have been listening to news of the riots on the radio (NPR and BBC). I haven't heard much at all about Rice/Obama. What I've taken away from it was that the people were fed up with what was going on and were set off by the events in Tunisia. Dismas|^(talk) 09:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

If anyone's interested here is the clip: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-january-27-2011/the-rule-of-the-nile. P. S. Burton (talk) 09:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

To be fair the clip did feature a "Team Local Conditions", which as far as I understood it, was presented as the voice of sanity as compared to the opinions about the US in one way or another being the cause of the uprisings. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The relevant segment of that clip seems to begin about four minutes in, and lasts a few seconds. The segment itself is about seven minutes long, and I'd say that's about proportional to the coverage those two speeches get in the US media coverage overall. Ie., it's not something that's very prominently stressed as far as I've seen.

What's more interesting is that Egypt has long been among the top two or three recipients of US foreign aid. We've been propping Mubarak up for decades, mostly because of his "mild" political stance re. Israel and also the fear that the Muslim Brotherhood coming to power in Egypt would be "regionally destabilizing". Apparently, that aid is now "under review" and it is clear that Obama and Clinton have decided enough is enough and it's time for a change, "destabilization" notwithstanding. You are right to question the impact a couple of policy speeches might have, but those aid dollars are something to be taken seriously and the US really is in a position to have a very big say in the political direction Egypt takes in moving forward out of the present crisis. WikiDao ☯ 11:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course the US has leverage on the further developments on account of the financial aid, but remember the question was concerning the reasons for the uprising, and, even though the Wikileaks cableleaks revealed that the US has also supported the opposition financially, bearing in mind recent (and still ongoing) events in Tunisia, it is still very much an open question what the real reasons for the uprisings are, but one thing seems clear at least: It was not some speech made by Condoleeza or Obama that was the cause. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Nor has anyone except for Jon Stewart implied that it was, as far as I know. And certainly those speeches had zero impact on the average Egyptian (or Tunisian) protester. Nevertheless, "democracy in the Middle East" is a major foreign policy objective for the US these days, and those speeches are among the various indications of it. The opposition leaders, at least, were sure to have been paying close attention to what was being said in them... WikiDao ☯ 12:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

TomorrowTime, this is an interesting question which is sadly not debated at all. How can we know how much the speeches of American officials and Social Media have affected the uprising vs. Local conditions? I will try to give you some elements (I am a long-time follower of Arab media (not English-transmitted Arab media)). During the urprisings, there have not been any minute sign of support towards an American official, be it Bush, Obama, Clinton or Rice. On the contrary, anti-US chants are often heard. This is not because of a natural hate Arab people have for the Western world (as Stewart illustrated, and as Pundits like us to think), but because the people perceive the US as a major sponsor for dictatorship in the region, as a major supplier for tools to enforce oppression (tear gases cans are often highlighted by protesters as "made in the USA"), and as a hypocrite for taking the role of a democracy preacher but locally maintaining dictators in power. It also would be wrong to think that those speeches inspired Arab with democracy, because (also unlike what they like us to think), democracy and politics is no stranger to the Arab public opinion. There is a long tradition of rich debates for which government system would be best suited in the Arab world (parliamentary, presidential, socialism, communism...). However, these attempts have been thwarted because of events such as army coups, and sometimes or often foreign support (The Arab-Israeli conflict played a larger role in consolidating dictatorship). Two last ideas: Social Media's role in these uprisings is a Geek's dream. Government's have not been toppled because of a flood of tweets, and as Internet was cut off in Egypt the protests only intensified. And lastly, you should take The Daily Show seriously. As you may have noticed, the ideas that Jon puts forward (albeit comically) are intelligent teasers and debate-starters that unfortunately all of the US media lack of. 89.83.20.127 (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Contrary to the OP, Glen Beck claimed the Egyptians were rioting to protest against Obama-style policies from the Egyptian government. I believe he mentioned compulsory healthcare and the prohibition of incandescent light bulbs. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Glen Beck is what we, in America, call "batshit insane". My dad is a card-carrying Fox News-watching Neocon, and even he thinks Beck is nuts. --Jayron32 15:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

They're risking their lives demonstrating for the right to use the old kind of light bulb. That's much funnier than the Jon Stewart suggestion. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Even the suggestion that compulsory health care and the prohibition of incandescent light bulbs are "Obama-style policies" is pretty hilarious. Pais (talk) 16:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

What's not so hilarious is that this is looking like a rerun of Iran in 1979. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

If you're talking about toppling a dictator, yes. If you're talking about installing an islamic government, umm..no. 89.83.20.127 (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Wishful thinking on your part. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a view into the future on this, Bugs? I have spoken to some Egyptian people in London whose views on UK politics are 100% mainstream, and they are overjoyed with the developments. I also spoke to an Iranian, who is very worried. Missing from the Iranian parallel is demonstrations by women in hijab, or any real manifestation of Islamist sentiment. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I hope you're right, but I fear otherwise. Beware a power vacuum. Extremists will rush to fill it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Itsemjudith, yes you're right, the uprising in Egypt and Tunisia was primarily started by Leftists (i.e. secular) movements. The Muslim Brotherhood first boycotted the demonstrations and then joined in order to opportunistically try to gain a share in the power (just as Mohammad El Baradei was an opportunist by joining very late in the uprising). But just one question, does the presence of women in hijab correlate with islamic extremism? Why, for a change, don't you see it as a increased participation of women in politics. 89.83.20.127 (talk) 18:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps because they're wearing hijabs?173.11.0.145 (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, could you elaborate more... 89.83.20.127 (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, the Iranian and Afghan (Taliban) revolutionaries were always very clearly at an extreme fringe of Islam. The U.S. opposed one, supported the other... either way, in the end, the result was something we wouldn't like, though to be fair the Iranians have weird glimmers of sanity and culture mixed in with the nuttiness, thanks perhaps to America's lack of assistance. Even now, in the midst of U.S. occupation, Afghan women still aren't exactly free to let their hair down. And to editorialize, I might suggest that the Republicans act as if Franco were their dream candidate for America, and Mubarak at least rates as a poor substitute. Wnt (talk) 06:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Investment as a share of GDP

Where can I find the data for "Investment as a share of GDP" for the US. I'd like to better understand the graph in John B. Taylor's WSJ op-ed.Smallman12q (talk) 12:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

A number of places, but the best is probably the CIA World Factbook. It says 12.8%, though another decent looking source from Google said 15% (these are both for 2009, 2010 statistics will be coming soon as the final 3 months are recorded). Prokhorovka (talk) 13:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Could I get a url...I can't seem to find the data...Smallman12q (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Your best solution for US economic data questions is to go directly to the original source, as other sources will (in most cases) be out-of-date simply because they rely on the original source. For US GDP data, annually back to 1929 and by quarters since 1947, the source ([[2]]) says (after doing the math) that gross private domestic investment in the fourth quarter of 2010 (latest data available) was 12.08% of GDP, and for the whole year was 12.42%.

If you want to include government investment (see Table 3.9.5), the totals are 15.47% for Q-4 and 15.91% for 2010 as a whole. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Oymyakon

What is the occupation of its residents? --DoxDex (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Apparently it mostly revolves around surviving the cold. Our article has some links that might be informative, and there's also An interview about the life in Oymyakon, the coldest village on the Earth. WikiDao ☯ 13:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Did you have a look at the sites in the References and External Links sections? They offer various clues - the valley appears to have guest houses, shops, a sports centre, a bath house, at least one horse-breeding farm; and the opportunity to go horse trekking or dog sledding. There's mention of traditional crafts, and the BBC report says that the area is rich in gold and diamond resources. And the Pole of Cold festival aims to build on the area's tourism potential. I can't find any more detailed description of the local economy, but the implication is that a subsistence lifestyle is supplemented by money from central government, tourism and possibly some heavy industry. Karenjc 13:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

What is correct: Bavaria or Simmern?

Why is Anne Henriette of Bavaria called "of Bavaria"? The article say her father was Count Palatine of Simmern, not of Bavaria.--Aciram (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

On the German Wikipedia she is called "von Pfalz-Simmern", and it's mentioned that in France she was called "of Bavaria", probably because her father was from a branch of the Wittelsbach family. Rimush (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

To amplify on that, Anne Henriette belonged to the Palatinate branch of the Wittelsbach family, while a different branch of the family ruled Bavaria. You have to trace her male-line ancestry back for as much as 13 generations to reach Rudolf I, Duke of Bavaria, the common ancestor of both branches. --Antiquary (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I see. Should the title of the article be changed? If she was incorrectly called Bavaria in France, one could simply add to the article that she was called Bavaria in France for this or that reason. As it is know, the title of the article creates missunderstandings. Whatever name is used, should'nt this be explained and added to the article?--Aciram (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The title should be whatever is the standard way, right or wrong. But the article could certainly discuss the name. 17th/18th century titles (esp. regarding France and the German states) are super duper complicated and were often contested even in their own time. It would be a quixotic enterprise to try and sort them out retroactively. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It does not have to be a detailed explanation; it is sufficient to explain, that while Bavaria was not her correct title, it was the name she was known under in France. Though this should be explained more, that is the main thing. The article should also include her correct name, of course. The current state of the article creates room for misunderstanding. --Aciram (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The current article also claims that she was "a Bavarian Princess by birth". Perhaps that is too a consequence of misunderstanding because of the name? --Aciram (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

If there are no stupid questions

What kind of questions do stupid people ask? Wikiweek (talk) 14:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Often surprisingly clever ones. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

And indeed, clever people often ask surprisingly stupid questions. Prokhorovka (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, then stupid questions exist?Wikiweek (talk) 15:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Quod erat demonstrandum ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Stupid people don't ask questions because they aren't interested in the answers.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

True, stupid people are not interested in the answers... which begs the question... why do stupid people ask questions? Blueboar (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Would a truly stupid person bother to read Wikipedia, much less pose a question here at Humanities (the latter word isn't typically part of a stupid person's lexicon)? Or to read anything at all for that matter?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's just state the obvious: the statement about stupid questions is not an absolute law. It is just a maxim meant to encourage people to feel free to ask questions. It means, at best, that even surprisingly "stupid" questions can elicit complex answers, and that, in fact, knowing a "good" question from a "stupid" one can be quite hard. (Einstein's "stupid" question, "What would a light beam look like if you could travel the speed of light?", turns out to be part of the basis for his theory of special relativity.)

As for why people, stupid or not (however defined), ask questions, it's actually quite interesting that question asking behavior in general is cognitively quite advanced. Temple Grandin reports in Animals in Translation that teaching highly autistic children to ask questions at all is a major feat, and can be an indicator and instigator of development/progress. One of the significant findings about Alex the parrot is that he began to spontaneously ask questions, which researchers previously thought would have been impossible for birds to do. (Sign-language-taught apes can ask questions, but no bird other than Alex has done so, to my knowledge.) I found that quite interesting, on the whole. It's cognitively easy to answer questions (especially if accuracy is not an issue!) — it's actually quite hard to formulate new ones, and one of the things that human beings do exceptionally better than other animals (though it is not at all unique to human beings). --Mr.98 (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, any question that you don't know the answer to is a smart question (regardless of how simple or basic it is). Stupid questions are lazy questions (where the answer would be obvious to the asker if s/he gave it more than two seconds thought), or pointless questions (where the asker doesn't care about the answer, but is just asking to waste someone else's time or annoy them in some other way). Easiest way to tell a good question from a stupid one is to watch the asker's face: If you see that "Gee, ain't I a smartass" smirk, even a little bit, you can be 98% sure that it's intended as a stupid question. unfortunately, that doesn't work on wikipedia. --Ludwigs2 18:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

"there is no stupid question" as Mr.98 pointed above is mostly a pretty good educational attitude to motivate students to participate. Outside the class-room, in general not all questions are equally good. Question which limit the answer are not as good as questions which make you thing or that question some well-established dogma. I personally believe that loaded questions are stupid, equally stupid are questions when you already know the answer. Quest09 (talk) 19:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes people make assumptions they have no right to make, and their questions then become really stupid. Such as the classic "Who was the Royal Albert Hall named after? It obviously wasn't Queen Victoria's consort. But who?". Then there are the "Do fish have ethics?" questions, and I can't decide whether that's extremely brilliant or profoundly dumb. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

"Do fish have ethics?" sounds like a koan.Quest09 (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a fine question. A stupid question would be, "What type of pants would fish wear, if they wore pants?" --Mr.98 (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Or better: if we really evolved from fish, why don't they wear pants? Quest09 (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Eh, that's at least a question that can have an answer. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

What kind of tree would a fish be? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

A wise teacher once told my class, "There are indeed stupid questions. But if you have a stupid question, you should ask it, and get the answer, rather than silently remaining stupid." -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

In the Australian Parliament (and hence, I would guess, the UK parliament) there is a regularly scheduled time called Question Time. Government and Opposition members take turns to ask questions of government ministers. Those asked by government members of their own ministers fall into the stupid category more often than not. HiLo48 (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

At Westminster, the Prime Minister has to answer all the questions at PMQs; and yes, there's always a few stupid questions trying to prompt a self-serving answer. Alansplodge (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but there's method in that particular madness. These Dorothy Dixers provide a (somewhat contrived) opportunity for the Minister to spout on at length about some grand new government initiative, and to paint the opposition's policies on the topic or lack thereof in as negative colours as possible. Government members are always friends of Dorothy, and opposition members are her implacable enemies.  :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 03:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Heh-heh, he said "friends of Dorothy", heh-heh. Pais (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Self-declaring a republic

Lets say I own a piece of land the size of Maryland. If I wanted to, could I separate myself from the United States government and form a self-declared republic if I got about 1,000 people to follow me? Would my republic be like Somaliland, in respect to its countryhood and status? Albacore (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

This has actually been attempted a few times... back in the 1790s (see: Whiskey rebellion and State of Franklin) and again in the 1860s (albeit with a larger area and population... see American Civil War). Neither attempt was successful. You could expect a similar reaction if you tried to secede. As to status... that really depends on whether you could get any other countries to recognize your new republic (unlikely). You can self-proclaim all you want... but if the rest of the world ignores you, you don't have any status. Blueboar (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You would need to maintain de-facto control over the area (so you would need some kind of army, most likely - either your own, or an ally's). You would then need to convince other countries to recognise you and work with you as an independant state. Both of those would be difficult, since the US government controls a very large army (in fact, it controls a large enough police force that it probably wouldn't even call on the army) and has a lot of international influence so other countries are going to relunctant to annoy it by recognising your state. Somaliland has achieved the first phase (de-facto control) but has yet to achieve the second phase to any significant degree. You wouldn't even manage to achieve the first phase. --Tango (talk) 16:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a recently self-declared Republic of Lakotah. Too bad for them that almost no one took any notice (and no government recognized them). In most cases the government is well advised to follow the following policy: let the fools declare their own independence if that truly makes them happy. Don't repress them with violence because that is what some of them really want: to create martyrs for the cause. They have the right of free speech and of making fools of themselves. Watch if they break the law and/or hurt other ppl. Then you arrest them for breaking the law. Flamarande (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

According to our article Militia Acts of 1792, the Act as revised in 1795 contained the passage:

"Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act,.........it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. And if the militia of a state, where such combinations may happen, shall refuse, or be insufficient to suppress the same, it shall be lawful for the President, if the legislature of the United States be not in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient thereto, as may be necessary, and the use of militia, so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the ensuing session."

This, together with the president's power as Commander in Chief, seems to provide the necessary authority for suppressing rebellions. Looie496 (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

See Micronation for more on this. People who do this are generally considered crazier than shithouse rats. But as said, to each their own... --Jayron32 18:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Some micronations are purely personal fantasies, or spectacularly crash and burn when they attempt to meet the real world, but the proprietors of Sealand and the Hutt River Principality have made a profitable career out of them, so might be considered to be "crazy like a fox"... AnonMoos (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, being famouse does not equal being sovereign. This guy was the "Emperor of the United States", and though he was a huge celebrity for his time, didn't actually get to do anything that, like, a real monarch would do. --Jayron32 15:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Sealand is special case. It was unclaimed by any nation when the new owners moved in and declared themselves a new nation. That's very different than taking part of the USA and seceding. APL (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Even if this worked and you were declared sovereign, it would be a pretty miserable existence being part of the geographical U.S. landmass without being protected by U.S. and state law. For example, someone could enter your nation and rob the treasury, then flee to a surrounding state. Technically, they wouldn't have broken U.S. law, since your nation is not governed by U.S. law; and you couldn't legally pursue them without running afoul of U.S. law in whatever state they ended up in. Your existence outside of the structure of recognized law and authority is likely to be "poore, nasty, brutish, and shorte." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.186.80.1 (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

12.186.80.1's comments hit the mark exactly — although it's fiction, the history of Petoria might be of interest to you. Nyttend backup (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Greek and Maltese WW II refugees in India

While writing the article Gass Forest Museum, i discovered WW II refugees from Malta and Greece were housed there during 1942-47. My question is what were the refugees doing in Coimbatore, India. (that far from Europe?). Was there some allied policy to send them to all parts of the British empire?--Sodabottle (talk) 16:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You find lots of sizable non-native communities in many parts of the British empire, which is why, for example, there are lots of South Asians in South Africa and the Carribean, or the sizable Chinese Jamaican community. I'm not at all surprised about their being Greeks and Maltese moved to India, given the high degree of mobility in the former British Empire. --Jayron32 18:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Getting across the Mediterranean from Malta to Gibraltar was very dangerous; see Malta convoys - in one convoy of 14 ships only 3 survived despite a huge escort. In the earlier part of the war, it would have been easier to go east via the Suez canal and then on to India, which wasn't under any threat of attack until the loss of Burma in 1942. Many Greek refugees would have gone straight to Alexandria. Until the Second Battle of El Alamein, there was a strong possibility that Egypt, Palestine and areas beyond would be overrun by the Axis. Persia was under threat if the USSR collapsed and there was a German inspired revolt in Iraq. All this makes India seem like a reasonable choice. Alansplodge (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Latest populated country

Settlement of South Pacific countries

Settlement of Iceland

What is the latest populated country in the world, not counting population replacement as "populating"? What I mean is, what independent country was fully un-inhabitated at the latest point in history (or had never been inhabitated at all?) I can think of two candidates: Iceland and New Zealand. Iceland was settled in the 800s, and though some Irish had been there before, they had probably not been there for long. New Zealand, according to the article, was most likely settled by the Maori in the 1300-1400s. Any other candidates? I'm also interested in non-independent entities, but there you quickly run into problems of definition for small fringe places that have never been settled... Jørgen (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Mauritius and Cape Verde would be two other candidates. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Norfolk Island (1788) and Pitcairn Islands (1790). These are not countries as such, but territories of other countries (Australia and the UK respectively). They had both had earlier inhabitants, but were truly terra nullius when the ancestors of the current inhabitants arrived. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC) PS. Oh, I see you don't want non-independent entries: Norfolk is technically dependent but has its own self-government and is largely autonomous. Roughly similar for Pitcairn too.-- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Seychelles? Fully independent, and seemingly only permanently settled since 1721 according to History of Seychelles. --Antiquary (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Not a nation or country... but Antarctica seems to be the last place on earth to be permanently settled (or perhaps "continuously inhabited" is the better term.) Blueboar (talk) 05:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure each year sees many uninhabited islands being settled, and some artificial islands are created. Devon Island at 55,247 km² is apparently the largest currently uninhabited island but it hasn't always been uninhabited. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks all! It seems the Seychelles win? Jørgen (talk) 14:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at Pitcairn Island. Corvus cornix_talk 21:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Jørgen has, as Jack already mentioned it, but it's not an independent country. I also found list of countries by first human settlement, but it starts early and ends with New Zealand (and is incomplete in between too). ---Sluzzelin talk 21:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The Principality of Sealand, which is seen by some as a legitimate independent sovereign state, was not populated until 1967. --Theurgist (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Seychelles seems the likely winner to me, counting only widely recognized sovereign nations (thus not Sealand or Pitcairn--anyway Pitcairn was colonized in the 11th century and only uninhabited later). Only a few seem to come even close. Mauritius was mentioned, dating to around 1638. Another is São Tomé and Príncipe, first settled about 1493. According to History of Seychelles, it is possible that some of the islands were settled by Austronesians around 200–300 BC, during the time of the Austronesian colonization of Madagascar, by sea from Indonesia. Pfly (talk) 05:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Italian Prisoners in World War Two

How many Italian prisoners were held captive in the UK in WW2, please? (I need info for a book, thanks)92.233.59.209 (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

About 75.000. [3] JustEase (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

This page suggests that the answer is less clear cut. It gives a figure of 130,000 "mainly Italian" prisoners captured at the start of the North Africa campaign, but then goes on to say that many of these later were sent on to Canada. presumably when shipping became available. Alansplodge (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

isbrandsten shipping company.

Where can i find the archives of this shipping company. THe ship i am interested in is the SS FLYING ENTERPRISE, ships number is 215133 code letters KWFZ. Type C1-B ship. Any information from 1947 to 1951,also the names of the captains during those years. many thanks.Andy Bates, Cornwall England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.33.36 (talk) 19:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I take it you're interested in the theories surrounding her cargo when she sank? I can't find a definite location for the company's archives, but this site suggests they may not necessarily give you any clues even if you find them. The author of the page, Leigh Bishop, appears to be contactable by email if you scroll to the bottom of that page, click on the name "Leigh Bishop" highlighted in red, and follow the "contact Leigh click here" link on the page it takes you to. Maybe he can point you in the direction of the company archives? Karenjc 20:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Isabella of Mar's burial site

Does anybody know where Isabella of Mar is buried?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

This says Paisley Abbey. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 07:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

this page agrees and adds; "Her tomb has not survived". Alansplodge (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I've heard of ads placed on cars to earn the owner income. How can that happen to me?

And whenever I've seen videos of that, it would be just one advertisement on one door of the car. I don't know how much money that earned the driver of that minivan, but it sounded like an attractive sum to me.

I hope to vastly one-up that opportunity: Put ads on each of the four doors of my car, on the hood, the trunk, and the roof. The roof-based ads should have four sides in order to place four more ads on.

That is a total of 10 possible ad spaces. How much would each so placed ad earn me every month? Moreover, what companies in the region surrounding Manhattan, KS would be willing to provide these types of opportunities? --70.179.181.251 (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Most of the sources I could find were a bit shady, but it seems that there are a lot more people wanting to participate in these programs than there are advertisers interested in paying them. You're most likely to be accepted as an advertising car if you drive 1000 miles or more per month, park in highly visible areas, live and work in a major metropolitan area, and have a moderately nice car. If sellected, you could expect to make a few hundred dollars a month if selected, for whatever limited number of months the advertiser in question has decided to pay- ultimately less money than a minimum-wage part-time job. I found some companies by googling 'car wrap advertising' and 'get paid to drive advertising,' some of which appeared legit and some of which may not be. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem here is that people with a moderately nice car don't want to place ads on it. Most people who would do it are on the bottom end of the income pyramid. Quest09 (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Can I place ads on the side of our house to earn us money?

One more sibling is heading off to college in just 2 1/2 years. A couple of us already have student loans to pay off. Mom & Dad has a car payment or two to pay down, and our house could use some energy-saving renovations.

This house would be in Lindsborg, KS, so how much would companies in the region pay to advertise on the outer walls of our house and our garage? (I am looking for an average or ranged figure, in $ per square-feet per month.) --70.179.181.251 (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

First, you'll need to find out whether large-scale advertisements are legal where you live- if there are no billboards in your neighborhood, then there are probably laws governing what kinds of advertising you can do. Then, you'll need to learn how to design large advertisements, and how to apply them to the material your house is made of. You'll need to do the work of finding a company interested in this, convincing that company that they should be advertising on your house, and negotiating a price. Then you'll need to do the work of putting the ad on your house- which means hiring laborers, training them, paying them fairly, and paying the appropriate taxes. All of these require learning challenging new skills. And if you mess any of them up, the company who paid you will probably sue you for breach of contract. If you acquire all of these skills, you would be silly to simply use them to sell advertising on your own house, because you'd now have everything you needed to start a real advertising company. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about your local advertising laws, but you'd need to check. Where I live, planning permission is required for display advertising (billboards and the like), and the local planning department can demand the removal of unauthorised adverts and even prosecute offenders. They have a very wide definition of what constitutes an advertisement, with occasionally ludicrous results, so make sure you understand local regulations before firming up any arrangements. Karenjc 22:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting article on the history of the Fastnet lighthouse, Karenjc, but I couldn't find anything about advertising in it. Did I just skip over the relevant paragraph? Bielle (talk) 23:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Bielle, I had a cut-and-paste senior moment while doing two things at once ... I corrected the link shortly before you spotted the error; I think we conflicted. Karenjc 14:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

See also the formerly iconic Mail Pouch tobacco ads. PhGustaf (talk) 23:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, how about inside my apartment?

Now even though it would take more red tape to a landlord to agree to place an ad on the outside walls of the apartment building, my gut tells me that it requires far less to place ads across the walls of my rooms. Therefore, how can I get that to happen, and how much could advertisers pay me per square foot per month?

Sorry if these questions are quite unusual, but I am desperately looking for creative ways to earn some serious passive income. With the down economy, my SPD, and student loans to pay, anything will work! --70.179.181.251 (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Why would anyone pay you to do this? You seem to be looking for a way to acquire large amounts of money without doing any work. If that were possible, everyone would already be doing it. The best way to pay off your student loans is to get a degree and use it to get a job that pays well. No one is handing out free money. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Before you respond, check the user's edit history. 24.38.31.81 (talk) 14:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

"creative ways to earn some serious passive income"? Well, it might be that there are no easy way to earn serious money. You always need to be qualified, invest your time, have luck or do something illegal/amoral. So, set for the little regular amounts that you can earn in a normal job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.34 (talk) 16:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

To sum up

• Car advertising - at least plausible if you have a reasonably new car.
• External House advertising - liable to be impractical due to planning or zoning laws.
• Advertising on your interior walls - absurd idea - who apart from you would see it?

Exxolon (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)