Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 March 2

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.

March 2

pollitician

In the Canadian parliament, I noticed that one of the Harper's cabinet minister is wearing a pair of sunglasses, sitting next Rona Ambrose. Who is she and why she is wearing them? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.14.117.166 (talk) 00:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

This was answered recently. Might be higher up. She had some eye problem, and would risk going blind, I remember. 惑乱 分からん 01:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

(after e.c.) Diane Finley has Graves' disease and needs to wear them to protect her eyes. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the question was asked on February 27, so it should still be higher up on this page, but it isn't. Apparently the archiving bot (Werdnabot) has screwed up and deleted it. It's not in the archive either. --Anonymous, March 2, 2007, 00:19 (UTC).

Fredryk Phox

Does anybody know why this article is deleted, why it is protected from being recreated, and somebody I can contact about this? Kris Classic 02:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fredryk Phox --Apoc2400 05:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Registering for US elections

I hear words like "registered voter", "registered democrat", etc. relating to US elections. I understand it is related to primary elections. Who administers this registration? Each party, federal government or state government? Is the registration public information? Is registration necessary to vote? Is a registered democrat the same as a member of the democratic party? I am not American. --Apoc2400 05:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I've not yet claimed my US citizenship, and so have not voted there yet, but I understand that there is an electoral roll of registered voters. The electoral roll is probably public domain. The phrase 'registered Democrat' probably relates to people who have actually joined the Democrat party, possibly paying dues. I imagine Democrats and Republicans have scrutineers at election time that observe electoral process. DDB 06:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

As with much else in the United States, the rules are different in each state. You could start by reading the articles on open primary and closed primary to get some of your answers. To answer your last question, a registered Democrat is someone who has officially registered his party preference as a Democrat. A member of the Democratic party is anyone who calls himself a Democrat. There are Democratic and Republican political organizations, mostly in large cities, that may collect dues, but you do not need to pay dues to simply call yourself a Democrat. The same goes for Republicans. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 07:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I am an American who has lived in several states. In each state, I have had to register to vote, not just in primary elections but also in the general election. If you want to vote in any election, you have to register with the branch of the local government (usually the city, town, or county government) in charge of elections. You need to register each time you move to a new address, because the entire country is divided into (sometimes quite minute) electoral districts. For example, each city councillor in a small city might be elected from a district with fewer than 1,000 residents. Note that, in the United States, you must vote for a person for each office rather than for a party, as in some other countries. Hence, your address is the key piece of information in your registration, because it determines for whom you may vote, and this explains why you must re-register every time that you move. When you register, you must also give your previous address so that the authorities where you previously lived can remove you from their electoral rolls. This is to prevent people from voting twice in different places. Finally, when you register, you have the option of registering as a member of a party. By far the largest parties are the Democratic and Republican parties. You do not need to pay dues to be a member of the party. You just have to list the party's name when you register. If you are registered as a member of the party, you have the right to vote in that party's primary election. In some states, only registered members of a given party can vote in its primary. In other states, independents, or people who do not list any party when they register, may vote in any party's primary. As ObiterDicta says, these rules are legislated by each state. Marco polo 14:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Islam in Nordic Countries

Christianity is very weak in Nordic countries. Many still belongs to church but does not believe its teachings. When will islam be the most powerful religion in Nordic countries? Is it such already? Does islam already affect Nordic countries more than christianity? 193.167.45.242 07:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Will it break Nordic co-operation if some Nordic countries are islamised before the others? Some politicians in Danmark and Finland have already threatened Sweden with tongue in cheek to close borders with it if it becames muslim country. When this will be more than tongue in cheek and becomes reality? 193.167.45.242 07:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You ask so many questions. 220.237.184.253 10:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The elements of Christianity that are disagreed with also exist within Islam! The Nordic nations will probably never become Islamic societies, indeed, reconversion to heathenism is probably more likely... 148.88.0.12 11:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I find it difficult to make sense of these questions, which seem to call for some fanciful speculation. A much loved history professor once told me that one should never say never when it comes to dealing with developments from the past, through the present and into the future. For the first time I am going to break this rule and say that the answer to the questions posed above, insofar as I understand them, is never, yes, never. Clio the Muse 11:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

There was no doubt a time when it would have been impossible to believe that Lutheranism would have become the dominant religion of these countries. But there you go ...  :) JackofOz 11:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know, Jack; never say never. I've put my head in a noose. But Lutheranism was still based on a pre-existing tradition. Clio the Muse

I don't understand the reply. Apparently, there are five questions... 惑乱 分からん 11:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, Wakurun. Let me make my answer a little clearer to each of the questions in turn: never; no; no; I do not accept the premises of this question; never. Is that precise enough? Clio the Muse 12:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright. Went from "yes" to "no", too... 惑乱 分からん 12:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If current trends continue (steady immigration, much higher Muslim birth rates, low rates of assimilation), then it is not at all unreasonable to think that, in a few generations, not just the Nordic countries but all of western Europe could have a Muslim majority. At a certain point, a tipping point could be crossed when assimilation would move in the opposite direction, and the indigenous population starts converting to Islam. Indeed, there are probably already more indigenous European converts to Islam than Muslim-born European converts to Christianity. For Clio's prediction to be right, one has to posit a reversal of current trends. Marco polo 14:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Right, sure, Eurabia, etc. In view of the results of: Muslims in Western Europe I have to strongly disagree with any statements of: "in a few generations"..."all of western Europe could have a Muslim majority". What we are seeing are simply the results of Multiculturalism and Globalization. There are probably more and more agnostics and atheists among Europe's youth (Muslim youth included). Many kids today are babtized, and as they grow older marry in a beautiful Church wedding, but really don't believe in anything beyond good old common sense (the same applies to muslims; simply replace the Christian names with muslim ones). I guess the same development happens inside of Europe's Muslim youth (even in a smaler scale). They won't be truly honest about it, because of the hassle of their parents and their community though. I wonder why noone is interrested in that global development ('the fading away of religion')? Because agnostics, atheist, and 'pretend-believers' don't make anyone afraid? Flamarande 14:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Islam being the most practiced religion doesn't make it the most powerful. It just means that out of all the self-declared religious people most of them belong to the islamic faith. It doesn't count all the atheists, agnostics and non-carers that are dominant in the Nordic countries. These people will often share a good deal of the values of their historic religion (i.e. Christian) which in turns shares a lot of values with all the other monotheistic religions. One positive aspect to the meeting of these different faith is that it forces the locals to re-examine and maybe find new ways to assert their values and it forces migrants to confront their own faith with new ideas helping them to make their beliefs evolve (especially in the second and third generations). As to the fear of having some foreing religion dominate the cultural scene don't forget who holds the power. No immigrant will be able to impose his views on the moral and cultural scene. It is interesting though when at least some expression space is reserved for these new ideas otherwise there is a great risk of generating frustration and anger. Keria 14:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

In response to Flamarande, the real question is how rapidly Europeans of Muslim origin are converting to agnosticism or atheism in the second or third generations. I don't have any data on this, and so I can't comment. However, I have read articles in print media stating that, in Britain at least, young Muslims are if anything more devout than their parents. If this is true generally in Europe, then Islam is growing rapidly indeed. Flamarande's reference to Muslims in Western Europe caught my attention, and I decided to check the data for one Western European country, the Netherlands. According to that chart, Muslims in the Netherlands numbered 945,000, or 5.8% of the country's population in 2004. However, according to the Netherlands Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, in 1990, Muslims numbered just 472,500, or 3.2% of the Netherlands' population in 1990. From 1990 to 2004, the total population of the Netherlands grew at an annual rate of 0.65%, while the Muslim population of the Netherlands grew at 5.08%. Extrapolating this growth forward, you find that in 2010, the population of the Netherlands will be 7.5% Muslim; in 2020, it will be 11.5% Muslim; in 2030, 17.8% Muslim; in 2040, 27.3% Muslim; in 2050, 42% Muslim; and in 2060, 64.5% Muslim. The year 2060 is just 53 years from now, or two generations. So my earlier statement, that if current trends continue, in a few generations western Europe will have a Muslim majority was incorrect. The correct statement is that, if current trends continue, western European countries will have Muslim majorities in two to three generations. Marco polo 17:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

There are several kinds of lies. White lies, Big lies, and statistics (urban saying). I simply find that your predictions are unreasonable. Overall it seems that the popualtion in Europe is decreasing, as Europeans in general have fewer and fewer babies. Emmigrants tend to have more children. This explains why some believe that Muslims, who also tend to folow that trend, are going to outnumber Christians in Europe in the near future. But this development only seems to happen only in the 1st and 2nd generations of emigrants. So if you are working only with data from the first two generations you making a simple obvious error.

In some countries the decline of population indeed seems to have stopped (e.g. France, of course someone might argue that this is due because of the babies of the emmigrants. :).

Of all countries in Europe you had to pick the Netherlands !, which just happens to one of the smaller country with more emmigrants (a USA - counterpart would be the state of NY, one of the 'less American' states of all - everybody uses numbers from all the states of the USA for reasonable predictions).

You seem to ignore the emmigration of ppl from the eastern Christian countries (including Russia) towards Western Europe. AFAIK this trend is quite recent (hey, the wall only came down in 1989, while the muslims came when? The first during the Victorian age, and in greater numbers in the 1960's?) and noone really know if they are in WE to stay or if they will eventually return (without their children born in WE? - by the way, this is another trend in emmigration. The parents may return home, but the kids stay where they grew up.).

Another issue is the cross-cultural/ethnic/religious marriages and the resulting offspring. Again the first two generations are activly disencouraged to inter-marry by their peers and families, after that this trend seems to falter. I grant you that several muslim marriages are arranged ('we have arranged a marriage for you, someone (a distant cousin?) from home').

OF COURSE young muslims are more devout;

1st) of all it gives them a sense of identidy, diffrent from the world outside, and we know how young ppl want desperatly to be "original and diffrent".

2nd) It is encouraged by their community who is afraid to lose their youth to 'those outside of it'. That's why many times they are brought up stricter than the youth back 'home'.

3rd) A certain "land of the free and home of the brave" seems to be intent to support the enemies of their religion and occasionaly bombs the crap* out of the 'homeland' (Hey I don't believe in it, as does noone with half a brain, but this apocaliptic scenario is 'sold' by radical muslim preachers, again imported from the 'homeland'). How is the idealistic youth going to resist? By embracing religion, of course. I also must point out that it seems to some of us that the youth of the USA seems also to be passing an 'all Christian' phase.

If you are making predictions about the next 50 years you also might to consider the following questions: How is the eastern immigrants affect your predictions? Is muslim emmigration into Europe going to severely disencouraged by European politicians elected from the 'father right spectrum' like the more recent results in some countries seem to indicate? Falling that, are expulsions from certain muslims leaders affect the general muslim perception of WE (again disencouraging emigration)?

If you really want to study this fascinating issue ("Is "Christian" Europe going to be overrun by Islam?") may I suggest you add all the population in the European Union and then calculate the muslims share of it. You may also try to include the percentage of "godless unbelievers" (atheists, agnostics, etc) before making any predictions. It may surprise many of us but this trend is AFAIK one of the more understudied recent social developments of modern times and the effects of it are currently unpredictable (there is no data, therefore no reasonable predictions of its effects are possible). Flamarande 19:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, Flamarande! I wasn't actually predicting that Muslims will become the majority in Europe. I do not think that it is remotely possible to predict the future. My point was that, based on current trends, it is not unreasonable to suggest that Europe may be predominantly Muslim at some point in the future. Because we cannot predict the future, we cannot rule it out or dismiss it completely. You make some good arguments why current trends will not continue. I agree with you that it is far from certain that Muslims will dominate Europe in the future. Just not impossible. By the way, I have no particular stake in whether or not Europe remains Christian. I would prefer a liberal Muslim (yes, there is such a thing) Europe to a fundamentalist Christian Europe, for example. Also, as for your "3rd" explanation above for why young Muslims in Europe are more devout: While I am American, I deplore nearly all of the policies and actions of my government in the Middle East (and almost everywhere else for that matter). I am even politically active trying to change those policies. So I am more sympathetic to your position than you may think. Marco polo 19:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothing is impossible, we might even see a Nuclear war in our life-time :) (and this is indeed a somewhat safer prediction - there a so many N-bombs someone is bound to use them eventually). I never believed that the majority americans are as foolish as the current administration. They seemed to be simply angry because of 9/11 and manipulated with the "This is a country at war, and I am a War-president" bullshi* propaganda. But it was somewhat disappointing that they bought it and elected him for a 2nd term. What I personaly hope for is that in the medium to far future the importance of the diffrences betwen Muslims and Christians simply fades away. The reason for my optimism is that in former time Catholics and Protestants absolutly hated each other, only to live together in peace in a later date. Muslims, Catholics, Jews, Protestants aren't all these guys supposed to believe in the same god, and share the same basic values? But who knows? Perhaps we are truly bound to fight against each other in the mighty clash of civilizations. I really think not, but then Albert Einstein said: "Only two things are infinite, the universe and the stupidity of mankind, and I'm not sure about the former". If it turns out to be the case then I sincerly hope that reasonable Atheists and Agnostics, die-hard realists, and cynical bastar*s like Dr House inherit the world (a joke, but perhaps not 'just a joke'). Flamarande 20:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm a cynical bastard, so that sounds good to me ! I think the extrapolations fail to take into account the reaction from Europeans when they start to see their values attacked. The murder of Theo van Gogh, Madrid Train Bombings, London Subway Bombings, and Paris Riots are early warning signs of this. When majority Muslim communities within a European country start trying to implement Sharia law, like requiring that women wear the hijab, I would expect resistance to Muslim immigration to become serious. For example, only those willing to integrate into the new society, such as speaking the native language, may be allowed to stay. There have already been some laws passed, such as in the UK where it's no longer legal for Muslim imams to call for the murder of British civilians (it seems amazing that that was ever legal, doesn't it ?). StuRat 20:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It's really quite unlikely that Islam will replace the dominant Nordic 'religion', which is secularism. Nordic countries are among the least religious in the world. Despite this, the laws in place are unlikely to change due to tradition - the Norwegian constitution, for example, requires the King and 50%+1 of his privy council to be Evangelical Lutheran. Similarly, those who profess that as their faith are bound to bring their children up the same (although some 90% claim membership of the church, whilst some 25% claim belief in God). 52% of Europeans answer yes when asked 'Do you believe in God?', a question that covers Christianity and Islam, a number which is dragged up massively by about a 90% yes in Poland. Oh, and as evidence of the embededness of Nordic progressivism - last time they had a Conservative party government, in 1999, which was led by an ordained Christian priest, the finance minister, Per-Kristian Foss got married to his boyfriend. The Nordic countries seem relatively safe from religious fanaticism, there are other places at much higher risk --Mnemeson 22:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm disappointed no one seems to have mentioned Ahmad ibn Fadlan, who was very influential. DDB 22:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Animal attack chairites (UK)

Are there any UK chairites to help victims of attacks by animals (principally dogs and horses, I would imagine)? I can find any number of charities to help animals attacked by humans, but not the other way round. There must be lots of people whose lives have been materially affected by animal attacks (I've narrowly escaped such a fate myself on a number of occasions), who need financial (and possibly other kinds of) support. - Q4 12:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Alternative for "wiki"

I'm going to launch a wiki for a large company's internal use soon. It will be used mainly by people with very little understanding of computers - all they do is send/receive email. The ones who can use Word or Excel are the experts. I've had a lot of resistance to the word "wiki". I've searched for alternative terms, but I only find definitions of wiki, not synonyms. Any suggestions? --Kainaw ^(talk) 13:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with "wiki"? If people are unaware of what a wiki is, can't you distribute a pamphlet or something? 惑乱 分からん 13:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

As someone who works with teachers, many of whom are resistant to new technologies themselves, I understand the resistance to new vocabulary -- it marks as immediately strange the phenomenon, when one should instead be trying to create a sense of comfort by showing folks that this is actually just a tech solution to a productivity need (i.e. that it's NOT about the technology, but the organization, and its need for collaborative development modes and environments). Also, the underlying meaning of wiki (quick) may scare off folks who are not sure they want their work to be fast, due to the age-old concern about fast being anathema to quality.

So why not use metaphor -- which, by its nature, allows one to focus on what folks already know, and bring them to the table by using, not challenging, their comfort level?

For teachers and students I work with, I often refer to wikis as a kind of Virtual Chalkboard or virtual conference board -- the benefit here is that folks PREunderstand the qualities of the chalkboard-as-medium (group-owned, open for shared content and adaptation assuming everyone has their own chalk, etc.), so they can apply that initial confidence and understanding to their initial use of the wiki, and then adapt in a way that they themselves will own as they come to understand the nuances of wikification. The mode, then, becomes one of community ownership, rather than imposition -- which is, of course, the point of good wiki-ing anyway, so you'll likely get better buy-in, and better wikiwork to boot.

Of course, in schools, chalk boards are immediately understood; such might not be the case for your particular organization, but whatever your folks already use for community-owned, shared creation of ANYTHING -- without regard to the technology involved -- is a good place to start. And, if they don't DO any of that yet, think of whatever is closest, I guess...or borrow from the fact that they were all once school-aged, and understand the chalkboard... Jfarber 15:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

A term that might be better understood in a non-education context is "bulletin board". This has a somewhat specific meaning in computer lingo, but I doubt if anybody would complain if you call a wiki a BB. StuRat 20:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The main reason I avoid the term "bulletin board" is that, for most folks, a REAL bulletin board is something where people can post their own content...but not edit other people's content, only obscure or remove it. In other words, in a bulletin board, people OWN thir own post; in a wiki, the community owns each document. This difference is not trivial, since the collaborative nature of wikifying is at the core of what wikis are usually for. As such, I'd not recommend this term; if the goal of the wiki-use in this context is to allow people to collaboratively build documents, then the term bulletin board will be misleading, and perhaps corrupt, rather than engender, the potential for truly collaborative work. Jfarber 16:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. People can cross off what they believe to be "incorrect info" on another post to a real bulletin board and add their own corrections. They can even use white-out, if they want. StuRat 22:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

While you are of course technically correct, the OP here as I understand it is interested in finding language which would be culturally comfortable, and compatable with what a wiki IS. Generally speaking, is it not true that such treatment of publically posted, paper information as you describe it is considered defacement? In other words, while you CAN do such things, you MAY not by most community standards. As such, while your point is well taken, it's not a disagreement -- instead, it tries to use technical ability to address a post on psychological semantics, and as such it doesn't address the fact that we're struggling here to find language which would help people understand what a wiki is -- and one MAJOR difference is that sense of cultural acceptance of editing and adaptation. I mean, you CAN read a book backwards, but if the point were to help people understand that they could and should read text in a particular environment backwards, calling something which was new to them a "book" would be going about it all wrong, eh?

To put it another way: yes, you CAN change bulletin board posts, but CALLING a wiki a bulletin board would make it feel "wrong" for newbies to adapt other people's work, whether via whiteout or wikifying...and I'd assume that's not the way the OP wants folks to approach the wiki (if I'm wrong, however, then perhaps he doesn't actually want to use a wiki, but a shared communal folder for locked documents, or a more traditional online bulletin board, where people can post, but only an admin can delete or change posts). Jfarber 01:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

How about adding an initial q. Everybody likes a qwiki. meltBanana 20:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... popular initials? I could call it iWiki. But, then they'll ask if it works with the PCs. I think I got around it in the last presentation. I added "What I Know Is..." to the bottom of the logo. I didn't say that is what "wiki" stands for, but they assumed that is what it means and now they like it. You'd think lawyers would be harder to trick than just sticking a word and a phrase in the general area of one another. --Kainaw ^(talk) 00:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Not such a bad idea to consider modifying the word wiki, if folks will accept it (I'm surprised they would, though). Perhaps group, rather than individual, ownership would better be served by a term like "ourwiki"? Or even WEki -- a collapse of "we wiki"? That would also avoid the confusion with Apple products. Also, just to be precise: according to our own article, wiki doesn't stand for "What I Know Is" -- that usage is a backronym, and IMHO not one recognized by that many folks in or out of the regular wiki-userpool. Jfarber 16:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

How about "web site"? It's not particularly weird that readers can edit it. Being able to edit the thing you've got open is the default on a computer, so I don't know why new users would have a problem with it. --TotoBaggins 02:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Most average users of web pages don't see such pages as editable, though. Sure, WE do, but we're not the "Word and Excel" class of users Kainaw describes... Jfarber 16:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I’ll publicly embarrass myself here. A few years ago, when I first heard the term, I confused it with Wicca. Yeah, I know, I was ignorant. Maybe I’m not the only one. So education may indeed be the answerBunthorne 15:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest "cooperative website" or even "co-op site"? Teachers are often big on cooperative efforts even outside the classroom. --Charlene 05:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Marrying an American

I am a Canadian citizen, currently working in the US on a visa. I will be marrying an American next month and would like to know the process of applying for permanent residency and greencard. Any suggestions? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oh210 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

I think the greencard is the permanent residency card. Check out the sites listed here for some help. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 18:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Here would be a good place to start, but like any government site, the information you need is probably buried, Ill do a little digging. Cyraan 18:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Be prepared to practice patience. It's all under the dept. of Homeland Security now and because of the switchover a few years back things are still backed up to one degree or another. -LambaJan 03:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sean O'Casey works

I'm trying to find the quotation from Sean O'Casey that says something to the effect: "the Irish treat serious things with humor, and humorous things seriously" Can you help me find where in his writings this reference appears? Thanks so much J. McConnell <email address removed> 69.255.186.176 16:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Reminds me of a quote from The Book of the Samurai, "Matters of serious concern should be treated lightly, matters of light concern should be treated seriously." or akin. 惑乱 分からん 17:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

That's the Irish people all over—they treat a joke as a serious thing an' a serious thing as a joke. -- The Shadow of the Gunman meltBanana 20:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Similar to G.K. Chesterton (I think):

When God made the Irish, he made them mad,

For their wars are merry and their songs are sad.

Seems to be a common sentiment. Skittle 23:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

What states did we have in 1791

I looked and looked and I cant find the answer anywhere. Please help me! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neoka (talk • contribs) 18:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

See and . - Nunh-huh 18:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I resized your pictures, I hope you don't mind. Anyway, there were 14 states in 1791. On List of U.S. states by date of statehood, you can when each one joined. GhostPirate 19:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, according to the list, 13 until March 4th, and 14 thereafter. Newyorkbrad 19:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Question regarding internal economic structure of the U.S. in the antebellum period

Hello all--I'm sorry I haven't been around in a very long time. I miss the reference desk, and when life slows down and school cuts me a break I'll come back and answer questions as penance, I promise. :-) Anyway, I'm helping students with a project for my A.P. U.S. History class and am looking for resources I can't find.

I'd love hard economic data showing, or else primary sources describing, the interconnectedness of the U.S. economy in the 1840s and 1850s. Anything a student could use as evidence that the North, South, and West relied on each other in specific ways. There are tons of secondary sources detailing this kind of thing, but I'm hoping for some repository of useful primary sources that could evidence this. Any ideas or suggestions are greatly appreciated! Jwrosenzweig 19:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

As you probably know, the classic work in this area is Douglass North's The Economic Growth of the United States, 1790-1860. It is a secondary source, but it is loaded with data and references to primary sources from the era. It could be a good guide for you. Marco polo 22:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

For a contemporary view, see The Impending Crisis of the South... AnonMoos 23:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the suggestion by Marco there are one or two other texts that might be of use to you in compiling a possible list of primary sources:

• American Economic History before 1860 compiled by by George Rogers Taylor, New York 1969.
• The Transportation Revolution, 1815-1860 by George Rogers Taylor, New York 1968.
• The Emergence of the National Economy:the United States from Independence to the Civil War edited by Warren J. Samuels et al, London, Brookfield, 2004.

You might also check the Library of Congress online catalogue for supplementary material [1]. There is also the J&W Library, which provides a number of useful links [2]. Clio the Muse 00:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

beer

Is there really non-alcoholic beer? What is it made of? What makes it "non-alcoholic"?Coffsneeze 20:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The article non-alcoholic beer has some information, most of the time they aren't totally free of alcohol, but have a very low percentage that must be under a certain amount to be legally called non-alcoholic (under .5% in the US, under 1% in Europe according to the article). Cyraan 21:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Religion based on money...?

I’ve noticed that after the death of many persons who have lots of money that other people who are totally unrelated in any endeavor except having money as well show up at their funerals. Could this mean that there is a religion based on possession of money or a belief system in which money plays the role of God? Nocternal 20:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a theory, posited by many, but explored by Dr Christopher MacMahon, that Capital exists and is a law onto itself (cf History of theory of capitalism). In this theory, Capital creates effective ways for people to use it. Once upon a time, people used shells or sheep as tokens of value. Later came money and still later, credit.

This theory of capital places religion separate to capital acquisition. It is not religion that attracts some to funerals. Nor is it religion that gets some to ask for money at phony churches. There is a perfectly reasonable explanation why people want money. Islamic culture used to be wealthy, and some Islamic people are very wealthy, but it is wrong to say that Islam is based on pursuing money. There is plenty of oil in some Islamic countries, but it is wrong to say Islamic people love oil or 'want to rule the world' through oil.

Money is a token of the cost of goods or service. It is irrelivant to theology. However, some modern churches appear to have flowered under the constitutional arrangements of some nations whereby religion is a tax dodge. DDB 21:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not asking about whether established religions give possession of wealth an unreasonably high priority for whatever reason such as entitlement to say 10% of every dollar (don't know about Islam) since governments want everyone to be rich primarily for the same reason. What I'm asking is if there is a religion that even discretely places shells, money or credit in the position which God occupies (or is suppose to occupy) in the established religions. I would accept the labeling of such a "religion" as a cult [and even possibly as a parity] but my primary goal is to learn if there is or may be an organization which worships shells, money or credit. Nocternal 21:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed here recently by one with an anti semmitic agenda, hence my previous answer. Long answer short, no. Money is a modern thing and the cult of reason doesn't demand worship of the useful. Ancient cults would not have had reason to worship capital, or even know what capital was. I'm aware that greed was well understood in terms of having too much power, or too many posessions, but posessions have never been worshipped, as to worship them is not to own them. DDB 22:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You mention anti Semitism so I'm wondering if this discussion referred to the Golden Calf as a representation of what shells, money or credit might provide over a "God" which perhaps in their minds provided no tangible assistance. Although this scenario would come close to representing the "religion" or cult I'm seeking it seems that there is in fact a similar culture among certain rich in today's world and society. To clarify what I'm referring to is a "religion" or cult in which money is believed to have the power to do anything without exception and therefore to be omnipotent whether referring to funding (or affording) processes which might bring back the dead or to creating environments and systems which rival or surpass the Garden of Eden. Nocternal 22:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The answer is no. Let's just leave it at that. Clio the Muse 00:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Nocternal 02:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Obama vs Hillary; & Bill Gates for President of USA?

How do US parties i.e. Democrats & Republicans select the Presidential Candidates? In the news they keep saying Obama is a democrat and so is Hillary. So will they both run in 2008 elections? --Parker007 20:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• We have primaries where members of each party selects their candidate --VectorPotential^Talk 21:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a reasonable overview, but not the whole story. Candidates are selected at party conventions, and the delegates to those conventions (the people who actually vote on which candidate the party will run) are chosen by several processes, the most common of which is, as you've noted, a primary election. But some delegates are selected through caucuses, as well. Non-primary states include Iowa, Hawaii, Alaska and Arizona (I'm sure there's a list on Wikipedia somewhere). Under modern rules, delegates are usually obligated to vote in the convention for the person whose banner they ran under for at least the first ballot, but those restrictions get a little looser if the number of ballots needed is more than one (though it's been a while since someone didn't have it locked up by convention time). And the rules can get fairly arcane, as there are non-committed delegates, delegates at large, etc. - Nunh-huh 21:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

To elaborate, people (sometimes you have to be registered member of one of the parties to vote in the primary, sometimes you don't) vote in the state primaries to decide which candidate will get the official backing of the party, so if Obama were to win enough state primaries, he would be nominated as the Democratic candidate at the national convention, and then be able to run as such. The other candidate(s) could still run, but it would have to be under a 3'rd party, and in the duopoly of American party politics, its pretty much a guarantee of not being elected. I would also wager that whether Hillary or Obama wins, the winner will probably select the other as their VP candidate. Cyraan 21:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

People who have commented so far have explained the formal selection process for a party's presidential candidate. However, there is a powerful, arguably more important informal process involving fundraising and marketing. Often, the candidate who raises the most money (typically from very wealthy contributors and corporate entrepreneurs) wins, because most people make their voting decisions based on what they see on television. What they see on television depends on 1) how much money the candidate has for advertisements and 2) the effectiveness of their marketing strategy, which determines not just the style and content of their ads, but also their presentation to the news media, to talk shows, and so on. Money is crucial because television ads during the election season are extremely expensive, and top political and marketing consultants are also expensive. A winning candidate typically promises to enact policies favorable to his or her wealthy contributors in return for their support. (It has also been argued that the winning candidate also has to please the owners of the corporate media to ensure positive coverage.) Finally, while Clinton and Obama are currently the front-runners in the polls, it is almost a year until the primaries begin. As I recall, Howard Dean was the Democratic frontrunner at this point in the 2004 election campaign, but he ceased to be a serious contender after the first caucuses in Iowa. Therefore, I think that the party nominations, let alone the presidential race, are too far away to predict. Marco polo 22:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

In Canada we have a law that puts a limit on the amount of money a candidate or a party can spend, and it also includes 3rd parties. Isn't there such a rule (spending limits) in USA? --Parker007 06:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

There is if they decide to receive public election assistance, but if they decide to forgo it, there is no limit to the amount of money they can raise, though there are some restrictions on how they can raise it, and from whom contributions can be accepted. Cyraan 18:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Lets assume Bill Gates was running to be the President of the United States. He decides to run as a Third Party. Assuming he gets the required signatures from his own company Microsoft. So there is no law to prevent him from spending money during election times? --Parker007 18:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Correct, but it would have to be his own money (no public election assistance), or money he raised in accordance with campaign finance laws, otherwise there are limits. He couldn't say, have Microsoft bankroll the campaign, as there are limits to corporate involvement, though there are any number of loopholes in these laws that politicians exploit to take heaps of corporate money, such as using PACs, etc. I could go off on a tangent about how "campaign contributions" seemingly constitute legalized bribery in my opinion, but best to do that elsewhere. More info can be found in the Campaign finance in the United States, and Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act articles. Cyraan 18:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, the United States Supreme Court has controversially ruled that limits on total spending are unconstitutional limits on freedom of speech. This is controversial because it is arguable that having only $5 million or $15 million to spend limits freedom of speech, and because at this level, the only thing being curbed is the freedom of the rich to control public discourse. However, I am straying into a potential violation of WP:NPOV, so I will stop here. Marco polo 19:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

In Canada there is this Canada Election's Act which caps the spending limits regardless if it is their own money. And recently after the Accountability Act was passed, it repealed the section of Canada Election's Act (which allowed for corporate donations) thus completely prohibiting corporate donations to any party or candidate. So in politics which country do you consider a more democratic style of elections? --Parker007 20:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not an argument over what country is the most democratic, Parker. Quite simply, the United States has extremely broad protections for political speech, and, in Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court ruled that limits on spending your own money, or money that you legally raise according to campaign-finance laws, to promote your campaign violate the First Amendment. Some people disagree with that decision and want to amend the constitution to allow more restrictions on campaign spending. Regarding Bill Gates, see H. Ross Perot, the billionaire who spent $65 million of his own money to run against Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush in 1992. While this may seem objectionable to some, part of the mystique around him was that because he wasn't dependant on anyone else's money, he supposedly wasn't in debt to any special-interest group. -- Mwalcoff 00:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you everybody for replying to my question :) --Parker007 18:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Percent of Muslims in India

I have two questions.

What percentage of the population of India are muslim:

• Right after the formation of Pakistan
• Today

211.28.130.252 23:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The page most relevant to your inquiry is Muslim population growth in India. According to the 2001 census, Muslims make up 13.1% of the total population of India, a minority but the second largest group in the world after Indonesia. The proportion of Muslims to the general population in 1951, in the first census taken after independence, was 10.36% Clio the Muse 00:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course, this all depends on how you demarcate the disputed regions of Kashmir and Jammu. StuRat 00:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)