Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 October 23

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.

October 23

New PDF versions of census maps

Hi! I need a PDF of a 2010 census bureau map for Topanga, California. Where may I find such a map? Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 01:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

What kind of census bureau map? There's tons of census data that can be mapped. On the Census's American FactFinder site there's a mapmaking tool. You can zoom into the place you want, select what data to map, and download as a PDF. You can also bookmark your map. So I zoomed into the general Topanga area, turned on census tracts and "places" and whatever was on by default, and made a bookmark. I think this link will take you to my rough map of the Topanga area. The mapmaking tool is GIS-based and might take some time to figure out. There's a help page here. Pfly (talk) 05:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I meant a map of the boundaries of the Topanga CDP.

Something like this: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/MapItDrawServlet?geo_id=16000US0609598&_bucket_id=50&tree_id=420&context=saff&_lang=en&_sse=on

The link you did provide is helpful - I would like to have a PDF version so it can be archived

Thanks

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Are there any countries which have a Parliament but do not have a Prime Minister?

I am not talking about emergency cases, I mean if there are any countries which have a parliament or call their legislative body a parliament, but do not have the position of Prime Minister (as in, the office does not exist). Are there any cases, or do all parliaments have a Prime Minister and vice versa? And do not include countries where the head of state (ex. President, King) is also the Prime Minister. 112.208.107.94 (talk) 02:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

If you mean one that doesn't have a position named Prime Minister, the German Federal Republic has their Chancellor and President but no PM afaik. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 25 Tishrei 5772 02:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I mean countries with parliaments but without the position of Prime Minister (or some other equivalent e.g. Chancellor, Taoiseach). 112.208.107.94 (talk) 03:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, well here is a helpful list for us to look at that might answer the question. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 25 Tishrei 5772 03:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Does South Africa count? They have a Parliament and a President, but no Prime Minister. Or do you mean countries with a legislature called a 'parliament', but where no member of the legislature has any executive authority? --superioridad ^(discusión) 03:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking of a country which has a parliament but the position of Prime Minister (or some other equivalent such as Chancellor, Premier or Taoiseach) does not exist, but that works too. Conversely, what countries have a Prime Minister but do not have a Parliament? Do not include Saudi Arabia, the King is also the Prime Minister. 112.208.107.94 (talk) 04:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Right, but I'm asking what exactly you mean by 'Prime Minister or equivalent' and 'President'. You talk about legislatures that are called parliaments, which suggests that you care about the names of offices, but "Prime Minister" essentially means "a head of government drawn from and selected by the legislature". South Africa, as I said, has a President and does not have a Prime Minister. However, the President of South Africa is a member of the Parliament of South Africa, elected by the National Assembly. --superioridad ^(discusión) 05:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It all depends on what we call a parliament and a prime minister. See for example Parliament#Parliament government and Prime minister. Some might say that regardless of official titles, it isn't a real parliament without a prime minister who answers to it, and it isn't a real prime minister without answering to a parliament. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

When I said "that works too", I was referring to the idea of a countries with a parliament but no member of the legislature can have executive power. I don't consider South Africa's President to be a Prime Minister, he does not count, he's a President, not a Prime Minister. However, since South Africa does have a parliament but does not have a Prime Minister, South Africa can be an example of such a country. 112.208.107.94 (talk) 05:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

List of countries by system of government might be of use. Browsing it took me to consider Switzerland. The Federal Assembly of Switzerland is, according to our page, "Switzerland's federal parliament." As far as I can see there is no Prime Minister. There's a Federal Chancellor of Switzerland, but unlike the Chancellor of Germany, the "Swiss Chancellor is not a member of the government". Pfly (talk) 05:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

More browsing: The Parliament of Ghana used to have a prime minister, the Prime Minister of Ghana, but has not since 1972. Pfly (talk) 05:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Bit more. Our Politics of Morocco says the country has a "parliament" and a "prime minister", but the PM is appointed by the King of Monocco, which is seems quite a stretch of the term "prime minister". Apparently that was also how things worked in Tonga until 2010, with the first election—rather than royal appointment—of the Prime Minister of Tonga. Other possibilities: Sudan; the National Legislature of Sudan is called "parliament" on our page; no PM as far as I can see. The Parliament of Sierra Leone has a "speaker" and majority and minority "leaders", but no PM. The legislature of the Maldives; our page says, "generally resembles the parliament in any liberal democracy". It uses the word "parliament" a couple times. No PM. Our National Assembly of Malawi page calls it a parliament, or at least as having "members of Parliament" (MPs). It has a speaker but no prime minister.

Interesting, browsing through these things, a loose pattern seems to emerge--in the Americas republics and constitutional monarchies appear to tend toward "Congress-like" legislatures, while in Africa and Eurasia they tend to be "Parliament-like". Perhaps it is in part a matter of terminology. Many legislatures are not officially called "parliament" or "congress", rather things like "national assembly". It seems there is a range of possible ways to organize a legislature/government, with the terms parliament, congress, assembly, etc, sometimes used rather loosely. Some pages that might also be of note here: Parliamentary republic (and Westminster system) and Presidential system, the two of which strikes me almost as the poles of a spectrum, with Directorial system and Semi-presidential system somewhere in between. Also Constitutional monarchy, which may involved a "parliament" or a "congress", or something else altogether. In short, terms like "parliament" and "prime minister" are not well-defined across all nations. This topic sucked me into doing some research because I've never quite understand all the differences between the Westminster system (which I mainly encounter via Canadian, British, and Australian politics) and the presidential system as it works in the US (which I'm quite familiar with, being from there). In recent years I've tried to follow and understand Canadian politics more than I used to (ie, not at all), but the way its Westminster parliamentary system works is so different from the US system. Every time I think I have a decent understanding, some new thing comes up I had never heard of, such as prorogation. From the sidelines I watched the 40th Canadian Parliament prorogued, if that is the way to say it, twice recently. For someone from the US like me, parliamentary politics can seem very strange, even alien. This thead goaded me to learn a bit more about this gap in my understanding of world politics. Sorry for going on and on! Pfly (talk) 06:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The specifics on Morocco aren't entirely unclear from the article although it does mention "On June 17, King Mohamed VI announced a series of reforms that would transform Morocco into a constitutional monarchy" but from what it says it sounds like the biggest difference is the King can technically rule by decree and also suspend the constitution. I think you misunderstand the 'appoint the PM' part. In a large number of Westminister style constitutional monarchies, the Prime Minister is nominally appointed by the monarch or their representative. This includes Prime Minister of New Zealand, Prime Minister of Malaysia, Prime Minister of Canada, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Prime Minister of Australia (see the articles). However by convention, the monarch or their representative will only appoint the person able to command a majority support in parliament or it's equivalent because amongst other things, otherwise the PM will lose a vote of confidence in the first session which means, usually again by convention, they need to resign immediately and even if they don't the monarch or their representative needs to dismiss them anyway. If the monarch or their representative does appoint someone who doesn't enjoy a majority support, you end up with a constitutional crisis like the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis (although that went beyond simply appointing someone who did not have majority support like the fact the monarch or their representative can theoretically usually dismiss a government at will). In other words, I don't see anything unique about Morocco vis-a-vis the appointment of the PM by the monarch.

Edit: Prime minister mentions the various ways a PM comes in to office. As noted and per what I said earlier in Westminister style system the monarch or their representative appoints the PM technically without reference to parliament. In an early edit I gave Japan as another example where the monarch appoints the PM but removed it for now. Our article on Pm suggests only parliament is involved but our article Prime Minister of Japan suggests that while the PM is first elected by the Diet (which is different from the Westminister style), they are formally appointed by the emperor which seems to suggest they belong in the same category as Ireland. This appointment is probably entirely ceremonial (i.e. unlike in Westminister style governments, the Emperor can't appoint someone else or refuse to make an appointment) as is apparently the case with the Taoiseach but it may remain technically true the emperor is the one who appoints the PM. Our article on Pm also gives Prime Minister of Spain as an example where the monarch first makes a nomination which is submitted for approval, followed by an official appointment after approval and Prime Minister of Thailand as a different example although from our article on PMoT I'm not convinced the description in Pm is accurate.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Just one comment. The crisis in 1975 in Australia was not the appointment of someone who couldn't command a majority in the lower house, irregular and unprecedented as that was. That was in fact the governor-general's way of resolving a crisis that had been developing for months. The crisis was the stalemate that came about when the prime minister, whose party commanded a clear majority in the lower house, could not get his budget bills through the opposition-controlled Senate. The opposition was demanding he call an election as their condition on passing supply, and he refused on the grounds that it was his prerogative alone to call an election and he was not going to be forced into it. The governor-general's action certainly put the cat among the pigeons, politically speaking, but in constitutional terms the crisis was now over because supply was quickly passed. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks Nil Einne for pointing out my misunderstanding. Obviously I didn't read our PM article. So, do I understand right now--that in most Westminster systems (Canada being the one I'm most familiar with) the PM is technically appointed by the monarch, but in practice, most of the time, the leading party in parliament chooses its leader and the crown appoints that person? Pfly (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Just for clarification, my point about the 1975 were that the GG actions while generally accepted to be within his reserve powers and were his attempts to resolve the crisis (which did largely succeed) was fairly controversial because amongst other reasons, he appointed a PM who could not command a majority. Anyway I primarily wanted to clarify the majority bit to note that in some (or many?) countries a PM (or government) doesn't need a majority of MPs supporting them on issues of confidence and supply, simply a majority of MPs who vote yes or no. I.E. they can rely on MPs abstaining as well. And this only has to be on confidence and supply issues, this is probably clear to anyone who knows about the Canada situation but you can end up with a minority government where sufficient parties agree to support or abstain on confidence and supply to keep a government in power, but where the government needs to convince sufficient parties or MPs to obtain a majority for every piece of legislation. Nil Einne (talk) 02:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

So, I am still confused by the OP's question. AFAIK, a "parliament" is a legislature, and I am not completely clear how a Parliament should be treated differently from a Diet, Duma, Congress, or other similarly named body. Secondly, also AFAIK, a "prime minister" (also "premier", "chancellor", etc.) is the name given to a "head of government" for those countries that have a "split executive" (i.e. different offices for head of government and head of state). So, is the OP looking for countries which have a legislature, but no split executive? There are dozens, the United States springs to mind as a well known one. Most of the Americas (saving Canada and some Carribean islands) seems to fit as well, see Presidential system, look at the map for countries in Blue. --Jayron32 16:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

In general I sympathize with Jayron's point, but I was taught in an American public school that a parliamentary style of government is different from the American, with the latter's three co-equal branches. That establishes a possible difference. And my understanding is that historically the Duma and the Estates General were only called into session by and could be dissolved by the monarch. The British parliament seems to maintain the appearance of serving at the monarch's will, but could the Queen dissolve parliament and fail to recall it solely at her pleasure? μηδείς (talk) 02:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The Queen could decline to take appropriate advice from her prime minister. The circumstances under which she'd do this are extremely remote, and would have to involve a major change in the monarchy (HRH joins the Militant Tendency?), a disloyal government or opposition (ie: a parliamentary revolution), or a situation where one of the major forces in parliament no longer represents or controls its constituency, and where its constituency is exercising the powers of parliament but where the other forces in parliament are unable to take action (dispensation committees in the Winter of Discontent going 1917, coupled with a Tory brainfade of the highest order, and effectively a Royal coup against Parliament). These are not common occurrences—the Queen and her family concentrate on personal activities; Liberals, Labour and Tory are all loyal; and, the State would use massive and concentrated force against incipient popular revolution (1926 United Kingdom general strike). For cases where the monarch did intervene in parliament, and their difficulty in doing so, see 1630–1800 in parliamentary politics :) Fifelfoo (talk) 02:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

But see the Lascelles Principles. The current monarch is too wise and experienced, I'm sure, to do anything just on a mere whim, and my impression from all accounts is that every politician in Britain nowadays takes great care not to allow any circumstances to arise that would involve The Queen in a political decision, which is not something she has any desire to be involved in. But . . . history takes some strange twists and turns, you never can tell what odd situation might arise one day, when the monarch would feel strongly that refusing a dissolution would be more in the nation's interest than any other course of action. That, I think, is what unnerves us Americans looking at the Westminster system, where always deep in the heart of things there lurks one little spot of mystery, the last remnant of royal prerogative - as opposed to our system, where everything (so we think) is all spelled out, wrapped up tight, no ifs, ands, or buts. (The mysterious deliberations of our Supreme Court are in fact a continuation of that same royal prerogative, but nobody who understands that wants to say it out loud.) Textorus (talk) 08:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

... our system, where everything (so we think) is all spelled out, wrapped up tight, no ifs, ands, or buts - not sure I follow that, Textorus. There have been 2,564 U.S. presidential vetos, compared with the fact that the last time any British monarch withheld Royal Assent to an act of parliament was Queen Anne in 1707. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I take your point on that, Jack. Unlike in the Commonwealth, in the States the veto is not a "reserve power" at all, but simply a power of the president's political office, which he is fully entitled to use simply because he thinks a measure is bad policy. For a bill to become law, it must command the political assent of both Houses and the President (or a rare 2/3 supermajority in both Houses in opposition to the President). The president's assent is not at all a formality, but is part of the legislative process. --Trovatore (talk) 09:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess I was making the contrast between how the two systems operate. A Westminster parliament is not just the upper house and the lower house (or the sole house in a unicameral parliament) - it includes the monarch. Yet the monarch has very little power in practice; a bill cannot become law without her assent, but she has no real power to refuse assent. In the USA, the President is part of the system whereby laws came into existence, but he is not a part of the Congress, and he does have a great deal of power. Which is probably as it should be since he's elected to not just be a figurehead but to actually get things done. So in the UK we have an element of the parliament (the monarch) who always goes along with what the other elements jointly decide, and in the US we have someone who is external to the Congress (the president) but can and often does decide that what the Congress wants ain't gonna happen. I'm sure we could never agree which is the better or fairer system, so I'm not going there. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 10:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't saying anything about which was the better or fairer system. The point I was making is that the US presidential veto, unlike the UK royal veto, is a normal part of the system, so it's not an exception to having everything "all spelled out, wrapped up tight". We are told that in the UK, everything is up to a majority in the Commons, and Textorus' point is that, well, there are these obscure exceptions that aren't really supposed to be used, but are formally still there. Since the US presidential veto is not an obscure exception, but rather a normal political tool, it doesn't appear to me to count as a counter-point. --Trovatore (talk) 19:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

When I think about the difference between US-style presidential/congress type systems and parliamentary-style (of which I'm most familiar with Canada), several points stand out as obviously different. Of course there is the existence of a Prime Minister of Canada. There is the role of the monarch, which includes the Governor General and the Queen's Privy Council for Canada. There is nothing remotely equivalent to these things the US, I think. Also the idea that the members of the Cabinet of Canada are appointed by the monarch, via the governor general; that cabinet members must be members of parliament, whereas in the US cabinet members are forbidden to be members of Congress. Then here is a the Senate of Canada appointed rather than elected, population-based rather than state/province based, and apparently not nearly as important as the House. To an American like me, it seems like the position of PM, one of the most important, should be chosen by popular election rather than by appointment. Finally, there is the apparently common dissolution of parliament, prorogation; and the notion of dropping the writ. From what I understand, people in Canada never know when the next election will come until it is upon them. This contrasts with the US fixed-term election cycle. Have I outlined a basic difference between most parliamentary and congressional states? Pfly (talk) 09:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Well said, Pfly. To answer Jack of Oz: the President's veto power is clearly spelled out in our written Constitution (which you don't have, not really - unwritten "conventions" play a large part in the Westminster scheme), and is unquestioned as far as being a valid exercise of executive authority; as you say, it has been used thousands of times - controversy arises only on political grounds, not constitutional ones. Likewise, everything else that makes up the machinery of government is spelled out clearly: if A happens, then B results, and C is the outcome. (Please, no cracks about hanging chad; let dead elephants lie.) By contrast, consider the 2008 attempt by Stephen Harper to avoid a vote of no confidence. I followed the situation with interest at the time, and I well recall the prolonged speculation in the Canadian media about whether the Governor-General would or would not grant a request for prorogation, and whether she would accept the coalition of Grits-NDP-Bloc as a government if she did refuse Harper's request. She regally kept him waiting for nearly 3 hours (no doubt it was very good for his character) one fine, crisp winter morning at Rideau Hall while she consulted constitutional experts. At last Harper emerged with the quiet announcement that the GG had granted his request - but it was clear that she really didn't have to do so. What capped all this for me was that then the networks had no real explanation for her decision - conversations between PM and GG amount to privileged talk and are not recorded for the media, and there was absolutely nothing that required the GG to explain herself to the public - and I don't believe she ever did. (A few days later, some little bird on her staff leaked an anonymous summary of that morning's discussions to the press, but I suppose that was cheating.) My rather long-winded response here is meant to illustrate that it is unimaginable that any such crisis could occur in our system, without a word of explanation being demanded by all concerned. That's the mystery and uncertainty I was referring to in my earlier comment. The only comparable thing here is with our Supreme Court, in certain circumstances. Better? Oh I don't know. Different. Like a favorite brand of beer, it seems to suit us, and we like it. If your brand suits you, well then, drink up mate. Cheers! Textorus (talk) 13:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the US government is totally spelled out. There have been and can still be occassions where something comes up and it isn't clear whether the president, Congress, or whatever, has some particular power. The first example that comes to mind is during the United States debt-ceiling crisis some argued that the president could issue an executive order to pay the debt even if the ceiling was passed. I think the idea was not widely held, but it was not exactly clear. The situation had never come up and was not "spelled out" anywhere. There have been numerous times in the past when unclear situations have come up and they certainly still can. Often the result Not everything can be spelled out in advance. A famous example is Andrew Jackson and his decision to ignore the Supreme Court's ruling in Worcester v. Georgia. Hmm, actually, the most famous example is probably whether states have the right to secede. That brought about a rather heated constitutional crisis. Pfly (talk) 23:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Ack, excuse my garbled sentences. I was being attacked by a gang of 2-6 year old boys while I wrote it, really! Pfly (talk) 06:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

You're right, Pfly, there are some few gray areas that fall under the "debateable" heading, until settled by constitutional amendment, a Supreme Court ruling, or most regrettably, force of arms - which is why I used "(so we think)" in my original comment. But it's fair to say that for all ordinary purposes, the system is much more straightforward and spelled-out than the Westminster system, which depends so much upon unwritten conventions - and when things are written down (e.g., the monarch or her representative can veto laws or choose a PM at will), they don't mean what the words say; a Wink, Wink has to be interpolated by the reader. Textorus (talk) 03:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

etymology of 'sin' and relation to word 'China'

Hello, I am a university student. I'm taking an ancient history course, and my professor mentioned that the religious word 'sin' originates from the word 'China.' He says that this occurred because the Chinese and their customs would appear "different" to the peoples that created the concept of sin.

I can't find any evidence online that agrees with his statement. Does anyone know anything, or can anyone find anything that backs up his statement? 169.231.13.182 (talk) 06:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds dubious to me, but who knows. The Wiktionary entry, wikt:sin, says it's related to the verb to be, which seems even weirder, unless it relates to the Kafkaesque notion of existential guilt, the wrong that one does simply by existing. --Trovatore (talk) 06:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if it has Kafkaesque notions, but it is related to that verb, which is very very old in Indo-European languages. China used to be known in Greek and Latin as "Seres" or "Serica", which is related to the word for silk, because that's where silk came from. Later it was called Cathay. "China" itself is a relatively recent name. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

But what is the rationale? Is it sin merely to be? --Trovatore (talk) 07:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Note that Latin sōns/sontis means "guilty [of a crime]" not "sin" per se. When you consider the root means "to be" (PIE *es-ont- cf. "is" and "ontogeny") can also mean "true", it's fairly obvious why it would be so.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 12:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The OED says, under its entry "Sinaean", which is referenced to from the "Sino-" entry, "Etymology: irreg. < late Latin Sīnæ , < Greek Σίναι (Ptolemy), probably < Arabic Sīn , the empire of China." It's "sin" entry says "Etymology: Old English syngian < *sunigôjan , < *sunjō". It appears "sino-" comes to English via Latin/Greek/Arabic, while "sin" comes via Germanic roots, although the OED does add about "sin", "The stem may be related to that of Latin sons , sont-is guilty." But even if there is Latin influence on "sin", it appears a difference Latin term than the case of "sino-", but maybe I am missing something (or the OED is!). Pfly (talk) 07:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

That seems like a pretty good answer, but, for future reference, questions about etymology are best directed to our language desk. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

EO has different info, and China does not come up:[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The origin of sin from "to be" in Old English (think sie sind in German) is very widely attested and comes from the confessional sense of "them's the facts". See Skeats. Clinton knew exactly what he has doing when he said it depends on wwhat the meaning of is is. μηδείς (talk) 11:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The IP's professor is certainly confused. It's a common mistake for non-academics to confuse word origins in this way - I'm surprised that a history professor would do it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Homophony at some point does not imply common origin. As already pointed out, the origins of the Modern English "Sino-" already existed long before China's existence was known to Europe, from Sanskrit Sīna (चीन) which made its way into Ancient Greek Σίναι (who were long familiar with India by trade through Persians and later invasions) and Late Latin Sinae (6th to 7th centuries AD). "China" itself is a later form of the name introduced by Marco Polo (Italian Chin, c. 1254-1324) probably also from Persian with the same Sanskrit origins. It in turn entered the English language through French, becoming the Modern English "China".

It's more evident when you examine the cognates, the Old English word for "sin" was sunne or synne from Germanic sünde (cf. Modern Finnish synti, German sünde), though the word is related to Latin sōns/sontis, it did not come from Latin and none of them remotely resemble Sinae. The existence of a consonant cluster nt -> nd -> nn also persisted in the Middle English word sinne (pronounced with a lengthened n as in "thinner"). The spelling sin only came around in Modern English, as with similar words in Modern English (Modern English bin, thin, grin were all originally spelled as Old English binne, þynne, grennian respectively). It may not seem like much of a distinction in Modern English, but the single n of Sinae and its cognates and the double nn of sinne and its cognates are quite significant differences in etymology.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 12:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

"You will never be successful."

I have a feeling that when [redacted] told me between 6th & 7th grade, "You'll never be successful," my mind may have been rewired according to his words. But hopefully this is just irrational paranoia.

Can anyone find anything on any hugely successful luminaries, who may have been told something to the effect of what [redacted] told me, in their formative years? Thanks. --70.179.174.63 (talk) 10:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Fred Astaire: "Can't sing. Can't act. Balding. Can dance a little." -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 11:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Albert Einstein was supposedly told "You will never amount to much" at school. The Beatles failed the audition with Decca, who told them that they "...have no future in show business". --TammyMoet (talk) 11:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

[question redacted]

There's a long list of conspicuously successful people who ignored such discouragement here. --Antiquary (talk) 12:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Tim Martin named his (omnipresent in the UK) pub chain after the teacher who said he'd never be a successful businessman. 129.234.53.239 (talk) 15:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Elvis Presley was supposedly told to "go back to driving a truck, because you'll never make it as a singer" at an audition. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You really can't fault people for predicting the opposite of success for those who go on to be especially preeminent people. It is their unusual qualities that make for their oversized success. Such qualities are easily mistaken for flaws because they do not represent the then-prevailing ingredients necessary for success. Of course hoards of imitators and emulators cloud hindsight so we now look back at these negative assessments as particularly wrongheaded. But we are blinded by a changed landscape. Sometimes it is the contributions of overly influential individuals that was influential in changing that landscape. Bus stop (talk) 17:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's proof we're all wasting our time here on Wikipedia. It will never work. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Tis better to have edited and been reverted than never to have edited at all. Out, out, brief WP:Afd'd article. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

"Wikipedia cannot possibly work in theory. It only works in practice." Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But in practice, there is." -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 07:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Wrong Again by Bob Lind Bus stop (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Edison's schoolteacher pronounced that he was "addled." Thereafter he was home schooled by his mother. He had some successes in later life. Edison (talk) 02:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Pygmalion effect. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 15:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Aliens buzzed me and turned off my nukes literature?

I am looking for fiction and non-fiction literature compatible with e.g. http://ufohastings.com assuming that extraterrestrials are friendly and are in the habit of turning off nuclear missiles. Is Paul (film) an example of this? Dualus (talk) 14:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Rendlesham Forest incident. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 17:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Paul (film) is not an example... while the alien is friendly, no nukes are involved. Blueboar (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

What the SCI-FI novels miss out, is that after a few years these 'friendly' aliens will have taken all our well paid jobs, got all our children addicted to their whizo technology, and have persuaded our women to were long skirts. I say blast them out the sky's before they land. --Aspro (talk) 22:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Are there or were there any countries who allow or have allowed naturalized citizens to become prime ministers, presidents, kings & queens, or dictators?

Also, are there or were there any leaders of any countries such as prime ministers, presidents, kings & queens, or dictators who are foreign born? I know that in the U.S under the Constitution, a naturalized citizen can't be president. Willminator (talk) 23:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

This might help give you some ideas. I know that there isn't any particular rule against it in many countries. I don't know if the US is in the majority or minority with that law. Mingmingla (talk) 23:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Since at least the early modern period, most European kings married foreign princesses, and those women thus were foreigners who became queens. Charles I of England, George I of England, and William III of England might also be of interest to you. Nyttend (talk) 23:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Michaelle Jean, the former governor general (de facto ceremonial head of state) of Canada, is a Haitian immigrant. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

In most countries the concept of citizenship is a modern notion, and until the 20th century it was surprisingly common for states to be led (and, indeed, armies commanded) by people from other states. As European kings and ruling princes usually married foreigners, they almost always had many foreign relations, which tended to make those in court circles more open to non-natives being promoted. In the Middle Ages, the Church of Rome (using Latin as its lingua franca) also had much more mobility of the same kind in its appointments than we see now. Moonraker (talk) 00:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The heading Naturalized citizens as rulers is adequately brief and adequately informative.

• Microcontent: Headlines and Subject Lines (Alertbox)

—Wavelength (talk) 01:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Arnold Schwarzenneger and Adolf Hitler were both born in Austria and ruled elsewhere. μηδείς (talk) 01:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

In Australia we don't care where you're from. Both our current Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition were born in the UK. Any citizen can become PM. HiLo48 (talk) 01:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The Italian-born Sonia Gandhi could become PM of India. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 07:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the question should be reversed: are there any countries, except the United States, that discriminate (or used to) against foreign-born citizens? — Kpalion^(talk) 08:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it is the U.S. legislation that breaks the pattern. Argentina has the same rule, perhaps other Latin American countries as well. The usual is to allow all citizens equal rights to run for office. Israel is an extreme case, where most of the office holders for a long time were recent immigrants. --Soman (talk) 09:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been racking my brains (pl.) but can't come up with any other country. I'm surprised there's not a popular movement to amend the US Constitution to remove this worn-out provision. People flocked to the USA in their teeming millions from every other country in the world to feast on its egalitarian offerings, but none of them could ever aspire to the top job in the land. Take a boy born in, say, Switzerland who was brought to the USA by his parents at the age of 3 months, who became an American citizen before he went to school by virtue of his parents' naturalization, and whose native language was AmEng - why should he be forever barred from running for President for having the temerity to be born a Swiss citizen and not an American citizen? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

There's no good reason I can see, but I don't think it's going to happen any time soon. The last time the issue flickered briefly was when Orrin Hatch proposed removing the restriction, presumably in favor of Arnold, and I hope I don't have to say Arnold who. Didn't get much traction even when the gov was popular. The bar to amending the constitution is very high (you need 2/3 in both houses, and then 3/4 of the several states) and I'm pretty sure there are at least 13 states where it's a non-starter for the foreseeable future. --Trovatore (talk) 09:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Our Native-born citizen suggests it's sometimes a requirement but doesn't give any examples other then the US. It mentions Japan in another context but Foreign-born Japanese makes it clear there is no limitation on a naturalised Japanese becoming a member of the Diet and therefore PM. This is of course a significant point, in countries that have a PM who is the head of government as a member of the legislature able to avoid a majority opposition you will need to either have a ban on a citizen who isn't 'natural born' become a member of the legislature or have the situation where certain members of the legislature can't become the PM. But anyway as others have said, it seems to be a rare legal requirement although in quite a few countries it'll likely be a significant political hurdle. P.S. I added this above below despite the indenting as it relates to the issue by Kpalion. Nil Einne (talk) 01:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course, the early Hanoverian kings and queens of Great Britain were foreign born. You could also say that because James I of England was actually born in a foreign country (he united the crowns himself), he was foreign born. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The question was about naturalized citizens, not necessarily foreign-born people. The citizenship of the current British monarch and her forbears is a moot point in any case. Is Elizabeth a British subject and a New Zealand citizen and a Canadian citizen and a Papua New Guinean citizen and a Jamaican citizen and an Australian citizen and .........? Or none of the above? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 10:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I was answering the subsequent question "Also, are there or were there any leaders of any countries such as prime ministers, presidents, kings & queens, or dictators who are foreign born?" No reference to citizenship in that section. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The Queen is certainly not a subject of herself. As to whether she could in some sense be considered a citizen of her 16 realms, mmm . . . I'll leave that one to the lawyers. But as she doesn't even need a passport, the question is moot, IMO. Textorus (talk) 11:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The Queen is certainly not a British subject; if anything, she would be a British citizen! There's a widespread belief that a) British citizens are termed "subjects", and b) that this terminology signifies a conceptual difference from "citizenship", but neither of these are accurate. The term "subject" was mostly abolished with effect from 1st January 1983, and now remains in existence only for some minor transitional cases - to be a member of the residual group of "British subjects", you have to be someone previously covered by the term, but without citizenship of any specific state. Most cases involve people from pre-Partition India or Ireland, I believe, though I'm not sure detailed statistics are available.

At birth, she will have been a British subject under the then-extant 1914 law. Philip naturalised before marriage in 1947, so she will not have lost that status by marriage. In 1948, she will have become both a British subject and a "Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies"; the debate is presumably what happened after 1952, though, as you say, it's a fairly academic point... Shimgray | talk | 12:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Good point about the Queen certainly being a British citizen before 1952. She has never renounced British citizenship and there doesn't seem to be any provision in the law that someone loses citizenship upon accession to the throne, and given that "citizenship" is a concept created by statute, I think that's the end of the matter. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Back to the original question. Some more I can think of off the top of my head: Éamon de Valera was American born, of an Irish mother and a Cuban father; he was at various times Taoiseach and President of Ireland. Hitler was, as hinted at above, born in Austria. The number of royal heads of state (kings, regnant queens, emperors, etc.) who were foreign born is almost too numerous to name them all. Besides the early Hanoverians mentioned above for Britain, there was also William III of England, many of the early Norman kings of England were born in France, such as William the Conquerer, William II of England, Stephen of Blois and Henry II. Maximilian I of Mexico was Austrian, Otto of Greece was Bavarian, George I of Greece was Danish, Ferdinand I of Bulgaria was born in Austria to a German princely house, Eric of Pomerania was from Pomerania (then German-speaking, now Polish town of Darłowo), but was ruler of Denmark, Sweden, and Norway under the Kalmar Union. There's many more. --Jayron32 15:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

And add to that, Poland for quite some time was in the habit of electing mostly foreign born men as their kings. As also was Novgorod, if you count fragmented parts of a former Russian state as foreign to each other. 148.197.80.214 (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Discrimination is definitely not the proper word. There is certainly no such thing as the "right" to be elected President of the United States. The concerns of the writers of the US Constitution are quite clear within context. They had just fought a war of independence against a German monarch. And they were not too keen on having a French puppet set up in his stead. μηδείς (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

That's why I called it a "worn-out provision". It had its purposes back then, but these days it doesn't seem to have much use or relevance. Americans are welcome to migrate to my country, become naturalised, pay their taxes, take part in all aspects of Australian society, get elected to Parliament, and in the fullness of time become Prime Minister. Australians are welcome to migrate to the USA, become naturalised, pay their taxes, take part in all aspects of American society, even get elected to Congress - but may never aspire to the presidency even though our 2 countries are said to be each other's best friend and closest ally. Put it this way: if they were writing the US Constitution today, would this provision be there? I very much doubt it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Probably not, but that's a dangerous line of reasoning — the First Amendment might not be there either.

Anyway, I agree with you, it's a blot on the constitution and ideally should be removed. But it isn't going to be, at least not until something fundamentally changes, and there are more important battles to fight. --Trovatore (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

But an American could never be King...Hot Stop talk-contribs 20:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course they can. See older versions of Line of succession to the British throne, which included many Americans. They're never going to get there, but simply because they're too far down the list, not because there is any legal barrier to an American acceding to the throne. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

If anyone actually wants to know why the provision for natural born citizenship in the U.S. is required for the presidency, the best thing to do is to go to the people who, well, actually wrote the Constitution to see what they say about it in their own words. In this case, The Federalist Papers actually covers the topic in a few places. Federalist No. 19 deals with the issue of eliminating the possibility of foreign influences over the government of the U.S. It holds up the elective monarchy of both the Holy Roman Empire and of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth as a models of what can go wrong; Poland especially was used as an example of "what can go wrong in the U.S.", from the source text:

"If more direct examples were wanting, Poland, as a Government over local sovereigns, might not improperly be taken notice of. Nor could any proof more striking be given of the calamities flowing from such institutions. Equally unfit for self-government and self-defence, it has long been at the mercy of its powerful neighbors; who have lately had the mercy to disburden it of one third of its people and territories."

Poland, and to a lesser extent the HRE and Switzerland, are used repeatedly as examples of federations which don't operate well. In the case of Poland, it was the influence of foreign-born heads of state which were cited as the source of the downfall of Poland. The danger of foreign influence is dealt directly in Federalist #2-5, it was certainly on the mind of the framers of the constitution. Particular precedents for this paranoia, besides their conflict with the "German" British monarch George III was a move by Nathaniel Gorham to invite a Prussian Prince to become King of the United States; there were several other discussions involving other European princes as well, see [2].

Also remember that, in the original intent, the President was not directly elected (he still isn't, but the electoral college is bound more to state popular elections than they were in the Framer's day). The fear was that a powerful and rich foreign prince could first come to America and purchase citizenship from congress, then pay off electors to make him President, and then using his role as President to involve America in affairs that were not in its interest. This, by the way, was pretty much what led to the downfall of Poland-Lithuania which gets mentioned in several of the Federalist papers specifically. By requiring that the President be born in America, it prevented that from happening. Whether such a provision has relevence in the modern world is a matter for a different discussion, but it is there, it is real, and it had a real reason for being there in the minds of the people who wrote the Constitution. --Jayron32 21:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Shame I didn't say that. And how unimaginably horrible it must be for foreigners, being safe from the horror, the horror, of having to serve as president of the worst country ever. Can you imagine the shame of being forced to be President of the United States of America? I mean really. μηδείς (talk) 21:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Say what? --Jayron32 00:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

That anti-Hanoverian sentiment and fear of a foreign pretender for the newly independent state were the historical context for the concerns of the writers of the Constitution? μηδείς (talk) 01:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Quite explicitly, actually. If you read the Federalist papers, they are volumes and volumes of historical context which provide justification for the writing of the Constitution. They spend many of said papers discussing both historical and contemporary forms of government as found throughout history, and looking at the positive and negative aspects of them, and how such forms of government and of federation helped inform and shape how the constitution was written. In these, and in other writings by the writers of the constitution, they explicitly cite problems with other governments, and specifically and repeatedly go back to the problem of the Head of State and his accountability to the people. In the case of the Holy Roman Empire, the Emperor's accountability is to the sovereign princes who elect him (and not the people). In the case of Poland, the King of Poland is accountable to the foreign powers which bought control of the Sejm to elect him king, this is all well covered in Federalist No. 19; the rest of the Federalist papers are an excellent read into the other aspects of historical study of government as it informed the writers of the Constitution. You should, you know, actually read them. I should also note that your second question in no way clarifies your initial sardonic statement, an explanation of which would be nice. --Jayron32 03:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Jayron, that's a terrific explanation of why the US HAD the natural born citizenship requirement for President, but what I don't get is why it still has it. Obviously global circumstances have changed, and the chance of foreign intervention in US governance has been microscopically small for a very long time now. Is it too hard to change? HiLo48 (talk) 06:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I feel sure I speak for the majority of my countrymen when I say the Constitutional provision in question would prevent a massively overrich and overweening oligarch like a Rupert Murdoch from ever becoming president, no matter how many congresspeeps he was able to buy. Which is certainly a comfort in these unsettled times. There is no support here for changing the natural-born requirement, guys, so you might as well find something else to ruminate about. Textorus (talk) 12:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

@HiLo48: The reason the provision still exists is because of inertia. Laws don't get changed because it would merely be a good idea to change them, there needs to be cause to change them. "It doesn't make sense in the modern world" isn't sufficient cause usually. General opinion that the law doesn't have any need to be isn't, in itself, enough reason to generate enough interest in the government to change it. There needs to be real demonstration that the law is causing problems. My opinion that the law "isn't right" doesn't mean shit. Even if millions of people believe that the law "isn't right", that's still not sufficient. For governments to act, the government needs to feel the existing law is somehow causing problems or getting in the way of something that needs to happen. There was a minor movement a few years ago led by some members of Congress (Orrin Hatch I believe was involved) to repeal the provision when it looked like Arnold Schwartzenegger may have been a possible Vice Presidential or Presidential candidate. It never gained any steam. Again, laws don't change the second they become unneccessary, they only change when they become a real problem. This is independent of my feelings towards the laws. I have feelings. My feelings are irrelevent to political realities. That's an important thing to understand when I need to assess why the world exists as it does. The law exists for the reasons I note above. That I have a feeling about why it should or should not exist doesn't mean jack shit. I am still capable of explaining why it still exists, and accepting that as a true set of reasons, without feeling that those reasons are right and just. It is possible to understand a world which does not exist how I want it to. HiLo48, that is something perhaps you should consider as well. --Jayron32 15:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I cannot imagine that there's no support to change the natural born requirement, as Textorus suggests. Surely some would want to eliminate the rubbish generated by the Birthers. But I can certainly understand the goal of wanting to keep "our" Rupert away from the White House. And Jayron, as I've already said, your explanation of why the rule was created was great. What's harder to understand is the inertia you describe. Do Americans of today really think that the founding fathers wanted their ideas cast in concrete forever? HiLo48 (talk) 19:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I think Textorus's glib response is somewhat incorrect. I think depending on how the question was phrased, some sizable percentage of Americans would respond anywhere from "not caring" to "mildly interested in seeing it changed" to "it's OK the way it is". But instant response to popular opinion is probably not the best way to design a public policy system. Instead, there needs to be actual reasons for the policy makers to go through the work of changing the law. And those reasons, in nearly every case I can think of up till this moment, have involved laws which have real consequences for large numbers of the population, and very rarely are about isses which are merely "just not right" in the sense that this issue is. The process for doing so is not trivial, constitutional amendments are governed by Article Five of the United States Constitution and it's only happened 18 times in 235 years of history (once for the first ten, and 17 other times). As I said, there has recently been an effort to overturn the provision, but it never gained momentum; evidence of the political inertia. Americans today don't spend considerable energy thinking about what the founding fathers did, overall. They spend a lot of time trying to work hard (or in some cases find work) to provide food, shelter, and other necessities for themselves and their families, and the rest of the time watching American football, and for most Americans that doesn't leave a lot of time for studying political history or for debating issues of constitutional policy. As far as the people who do spend their time pondering these issues, the notion that the "founding fathers wanted their ideas cast in concrete forever" is actually very close to a real sentiment among a large number of political thinkers, see Originalism and other threads that follow from there. --Jayron32 20:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

As George Washington said in his Farewell Address: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." We in the U.S. have a surfeit of important, pressing issues to deal with just now, and this theoretical topic is miles down at the bottom of the list. If it ever gets to the Top 10, we'll deal with it then. Unlike the happy citizens of all the other countries in the world, who don't work for a living, never worry about paying the bills, and have all the time in the world for both, um, soccer and abstract debates night and day about minor points of constitutional law - we're a little busy at the moment here. Textorus (talk) 03:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

That's not much of an excuse. Hatch's Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment looks perfectly reasonable to me; why not just enact it? Shouldn't take much time if people were only willing. But they aren't, probably because of some silly Manchurian Candidate fantasy almost entirely unrelated to the (now outdated) original reasons for the restriction. --Trovatore (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like Textorus was partially joking although perhaps serious on the more important things to worry about bit. However I agree a legislature can't ignore stuff just because they have more important things to do, and it should be easy but in reality I think would lead to a lot of debate and time spent.

The silly thing about the current law (at least by my reading of President of the United States#Eligibility) is someone who was born to non American parents outside the US who's family migrating a month after their birth and who was soon naturalised staying with one parent and of course grew up in the US, served in the US armed forces and became a war hero, at some stage voluntarily and unnecessarily renouncing their citizenship/s of birth, and later became a highly successful governor of Texas for 16 years eventually leaving despite a popularity of 94% while still taking the time to look after their single parent, to give someone else a chance would not be able to run for president.

Meanwhile their sibling who was born in the US but left with the other parent when they were one month old and then grew up in say, North Korea, eventually going to serve in the armed forces (but made it clear they didn't want to give up their US citizenship) and fought against many US allies (but not the US itself), widely feared due to their active participation in war crimes and then went on to become a well known academic (but not involved in making policy) in North Korea who repeatedly denounced the US, eventually running away leaving their parent behind when the North Korean government was overthrown and making it to the US and then being found and sentenced to 14 years in prison in the US for war crimes (but not treason) would after the completion of their term (presuming they aren't sent elsewhere for trial) be eligible to become president. (I don't believe Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution#Participants in rebellion would apply here and from what I can tell while serving in the armed forces could lead to loss of US citizenship, this only happens if it's done with the intention of giving up US citizenship or if the person is engaged in hostilities against the US [3] [4] and I don't see that anything I outlined counts as treason although the provision for automatic loss in the case may be in doubt anyway [5].)

While I acknowledge in the first case there will likely be a change in the law before it becomes an issue and in the second case the person doesn't have a chance in hell of being elected even presuming the law doesn't get changed, it does lead to the question of the logic of the current law. Even in a less extreme case it seems obvious 'natural born citizen' vs non-natural born is as much of anything an accident of history and not really reflective of a person's suitability to be president which ultimately is probably best left up to the voters.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

At least part of the reason is to exclude even the most infinitesimally small chance of a president having some sort of divided loyalty, and anyone who was born a non-US citizen could have divided loyalties. Lee Harvey Oswald, at the height of the Cold War, went to the USSR and declared his intention to renounce his American citizenship and adopt Soviet citizenship. Now, that didn't eventuate in his case, and he always remained an American citizen - but even if he had changed sides formally, and then later resumed his US citizenship (unlikely, I grant you, but we're discussing hypotheticals here so anything's fair game), he would still have been eligible to be elected president (assuming he wasn't rendered ineligible for other reasons, such as being incarcerated for life for a presidential assassination), because he was a "natural-born" American citizen. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)