Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 February 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humanities desk
< February 7 << Jan | February | Mar >> February 9 >
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.


Contents


[edit] February 8

[edit] Software business

I am in the process of producing a medical educational software program for a newly created software production company. This company does not have the resources to market or distribute the program once it is released. Therefore, we wish to sell rights to publish the program, once it is completed, to another company. Right now we are in the pre production stage.

  • How do I proceed in attempting to sell rights to this program?
  • Who would be interested buying rights?
  • Is a better idea to wait before or after the program is created to begin attempting to sell rights to it?
  • I would be interested in any other advice on this matter anyone wishes to give.

Thank you - Ben-Gurion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.239.144 (talk) 02:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Until an expert appears, you could approach the equivalent of a small business enterprise centre or small business advisory agency of some kind to explore handling this kind of situation unless you can afford legal advice. Perhaps also Google something like "production company startup advice" etc? --Julia Rossi (talk) 10:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Consider patenting your idea before approaching any interested parties, so as to exclude others from "borrowing" it and levaing you empty-handed. Bessel Dekker (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quote from an Aboriginal

Who was the Aboriginal in Canada's Praries who, realizing it was too late to resist white expansion in the 1890's, make an exclamation similar to "The iron tracks [Canadian Pacific Railroad] stretch from sunrise to sundown...the talking poles [telegraph poles] dot the ground...It is too late now." It was in the episode of Canada: A People's History covering the period from confederation to the twentieth century. --Bowlhover (talk) 05:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Big Bear, possibly? Adam Bishop (talk) 08:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I have read similar, possibly apochryphal utterances, attributed to other Native Americans. Edison (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Berlin and the cold war

Please help with information on this question. To what extent is the history of Berlin after 1945 the history of the rise and fall of the Cold War? Please answer soon. Thank you very much. Clare Z (talk) 06:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a homework question. But take a look at Cold War, History of Berlin, West Berlin, East Berlin, Berlin Blockade, Berlin Wall, Ich bin ein Berliner, and other relevant articles. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 07:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rumi

What is the stereotype of Americans who are into Rumi poetry? New agers? --S.dedalus (talk) 07:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Dirty hippies, the lot of them! Does this occur often enough to form a stereotype? Everyone I know who is into Rumi is a student in Middle Eastern studies in some capacity. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that Rumi is well enough known in the United States for a stereotype to have formed. Americans who like Rumi would generally be more highly educated than average. Marco polo (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tale of two Revolutions

I would like to know why the Communists succceeded in taking power in Russia in 1917 but failed to do so in Germany in 1919 when the circumstances were so very similar (defeat in war, collapse of the old order, military personnel in revolt and so on). Was it because the Russians were better organised or were there other factors at work? Was there anything the Provisional Government in Russia could have done to prevent the Communist takeover, or was this inevitable? This may sound like a compare and contrast question but I assure you it is not homework but simple curiosity. Helphand (talk) 08:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

To begin with, you might want to review our articles German Revolution and Russian Revolution (1917). They do not directly answer your question. A short answer would be that Russia was a much poorer country before the war, and the war devastated living standards in Russia to a greater extent than in Germany. Ordinary Russians were in a desperate state and more open to radical solutions than Germans. As a result, the Bolsheviks managed to win widespread support among workers, peasants, and—importantly—soldiers in Russia, and they were committed to monopolizing state power through essentially undemocratic means. By contrast, in Germany, many workers supported the SPD, which aimed for power through democratic means and had more moderate political goals. A smaller minority supported the USPD and its more radical offshoot, the KPD, which aimed for a communist revolution like that in Russia. The German communists did not succeed in attracting widespread support among troops returning from the front. When the communists took to the streets and attempted an revolt, the SPD-dominated government used troops to put it down. So, in effect, the communists failed in Germany because the socialist left was divided as it was not in Russia. Having offered this brief explanation, I await Clio, who is likely to offer a more insightful and thorough response. Marco polo (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I have not really that much to add to what Marco has already written, other than to say that there is one crucial difference between the Russian and the German Revolutions: in Russia the army lost all discipline and cohesion; in Germany it did not. By November 1917 Alexander Kerensky, heading the Provisional Government, could call on the support of only a few loyal units. Most of the soldiers still in arms owed their first loyalty to the Soviets, and these were increasingly dominated by the Bolsheviks, hungry for power and full of ruthless determination. Practically speaking, by the time they launched the attack on the Winter Palace in Petrograd, the Russian state had all but ceased to exist. Lenin and his party effectively took power in a vacuum.
In Germany, despite the shock of the Armistice, the apparatus of the state was still fully functional. Power had merely slipped sideways, from the old Conservative elites to the Socialist moderates, people like Philipp Scheidemann and Friedrich Ebert, Kerenskys rather than Lenins. The closest Germany had to Lenin and Trotsky was Rosa Luxembourg and Karl Liebknecht, but they were far less ruthless politically and far less organised. They were also unconvinced by the putchist nature of the Russian Revolution, and were pushed into half-hearted and uncoordinated risings against their better judgement. The efforts of the Spartacist League-subsequently the KPD-were certainly hampered by divisions on the left, though these same divisions were also present in Russia, where the Social Revolutionaries and even the Mensheviks were stronger than the Bolsheviks. But most crucial of all there was no power vacuum in Germany. The army returned from the front in good order, and, in the shape of the newly formed Freikorps, helped to sustain state authority against the radical left. In Russia the White Guard came into existence after the Communists had taken power; in Germany the White Guard served to prevent the social revolution.
As far as your final question is concerned, Helphand, it is almost certain that the only way that the Provisional Government could have prevented the Bolshevik coup was, paradoxically, to adopt a Bolshevik programme-that of peace, bread and land. It would, of course, have meant withdrawing Russia from the alliance with the western powers at a crucial stage in the war, before the Americans has arrived in any numbers and while the French army was still reeling from a series of mutinies. If the Germans had been able to switch their eastern reserves west by the summer of 1917, as they did in the spring of 1918, the war might very well have been lost. So the actions of Georgy Lvov and Alexander Kerensky in keeping Russia in the war were of crucial importance, even though they and their country were to pay the highest of political prices. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's also not forget that in one crucial way, the circumstances were not the same: The war was over at the time of the Spartacist Uprising, but it was still raging in 1917. The Bolsheviks and their partners, the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries were the only political forces in Russia who were both unabashedly against the war and were assertive enough to demand power. In Germany, there was no ongoing detested war to attract the masses to the far left. It's also worth contrasting the performance of Friedrich Ebert and Alexander Kerensky. The former managed to walk a careful balance between left and right, while the latter managed to completely alienate both. Thus, while Ebert's government had right-wing defenders against the Spartacist Uprising and left-wing defenders against the Kapp Putsch, hardly anyone came to the defense of the provisional government when the Bolsheviks launched the October Revolution. The rightists, too infuriated by the Kornilov affair and the social changes of 1917 to rescue Kerensky, retreated to the Ukraine and Siberia and launched a counterrevolution instead.
Could the provisional government have prevented the Communist takeover? Perhaps -- but keep in mind that it was a provisional government. Unlike the soviets, which at least were elected by soldiers and factory employees, the provisional government had little legitimacy. A truly elected government based on broad suffrage might have had more support in 1917, but the provisional government kept delaying elections. By the time the Russian Constituent Assembly finally met, the Bolsheviks had already taken over. Germany also had a provisional government after its revolution, but it quickly called elections for the Weimar National Assembly -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lowest paying jobs in America

Any idea of a few low paying jobs? Does anyone know how much a house maid earns in America? And how much do those doing these low paying jobs get? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.23.56 (talk) 08:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I think domestic servants are excluded from U.S. minimum-wage laws. AnonMoos (talk) 11:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Farm workers, especially migrant farm workers, also often get less than the minimum wage. I think that typical wages for these kinds of workers are around $3 per hour. Marco polo (talk) 16:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Workers who get tips are often subject to much lower minimum wages - like the $2.63 for service (tipped) employees, $1.60 for agricultural employees in Massachusetts. (see U.S. minimum wage for more) Rmhermen (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Migrant pickers and other farm workers get way more than $3 per hour. An article in the Independent (UK) said Florida migrant pickers were paid piecework, so pay depended on productivity, but very hard work earned about $5 per hour. Their labor is essential to the farmer getting his crop raised and marketed, and they can go elsewhere for more money (except for those who are literally enslaved, as related in the Independent story. At the same time I have heard of them getting well over $10 per hour in construction work and I have heard of areas of the country where they get well above $5 per hour for farm work. Per the Oakland Tribune, [1]] farmers in California at times pay as much as $15 per hour to migrant workers when they absolutely must get the work done, and migrants make about 8 times as much as for comparable work in Mexico. As for the Canada part of "America" migrants there got $7 per hour back in 2001 per a CBC story [2]. Edison (talk) 23:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This (old) article suggests US$80 for a 7 day week isn't uncommon for tomato pickers[3]. This suggests things are getting better for some [4] but not all Nil Einne (talk) 13:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Who is Cletus?

I've seen several US tv shows that include a rather stupid character called Cletus. Are these all copied from each other? And there actually American people today called Cletus?--Shantavira|feed me 10:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

How about a Liberian (Cletus Wotorson), a Swede (Cletus Andersson), a Nigerian (Cletus Ibeto), a Canadian (Cletus Dunn), and...drumroll please...American former child actor Robert Cletus Driscoll? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
It has long been a common US given name. No real implication of stupidity. In the 1930 US Census there were 6,570 individuals with first name Cletus, born from the mid 19th century through the date of the census, and born in most US states as well as many European countries. Some towns had several individuals with that name. This is out of approximately 123,000,000 individuals in the census. (This is the most recent census with individual data released). It was used as a first name for some women as well. This does not include variant spellings such as Clete, Clitus, Clytus, Cleto, Cletious, etc. Edison (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
In popular culture, it has become a stereotypical redneck or hillbilly name. Recury (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I would not call it a "common" given name in the United States. I have lived in the United States almost all my life, and I have never met anyone named Cletus. If you check the Social Security Administration's lists of the most popular names for boys going back to 1950, you will not find Cletus on any of them. Marco polo (talk) 16:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The "slack-jawed yokel" of the Simpsons is named Cletus Spuckler. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 17:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm actually surprised the name has not been more common, particularly among Roman Catholics. St Cletus is one of the select handful of people who were mentioned by name in the pre-1962 Latin Mass [5], which was celebrated for over 1,500 years. (But then, St Chrysogonus was also mentioned, and that name didn't seem to catch on either). -- JackofOz (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The answer to the original question is yes, there are many people in the US named Cletus, and there have been for over a century. From the 1930 census cited above and from the present day www.whowhere.com [6] with 2308 "Cletuses" around the country, it is not that rare a name. Certainly it is not a trendy name or a super-popular one. I would not generalize from the name assigned a yokel on the Simpsons to people in general. It is still more common, per Whowhere, than "Abner" with 829 or "Lum" with 119 entries (as in Lum and Abner), "Mortimer" with 358 as in Mortimer Snerd; or "Gomer" with 126 as inGomer Pyle. Edison (talk) 23:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] King Richard III

I was intrigued to learn from your page on Richard III of England that he continues to have supporters and societies dedicted to his name, quite remarkable for a man who died over five hundred years ago. Is there any reason for this? Was he not as bad as depicted by Shakespeare and was he not responsible for the murder of his nephews? What do you history buffs think? 217.42.103.119 (talk) 11:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

He was portrayed by Shakespeare basically as a hunchbacked leering melodrama villain, so of course authentic history will be more nuanced. He has many fervent supporters (including on the Internet), but the basic facts remain that the princes in the tower died under Richard's custody, and he was the main one who would benefit from their deaths... AnonMoos (talk) 11:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I added a fact tag above. That's speculation. Henry VII had even more to gain from the deaths of the princes, since he couldnt' very well claim that his own wife, their sister, was illegimate, whereas Richard had been named the legitimate heir based on the alleged illegitimacy of the princes and all of their siblings. Corvus cornixtalk 19:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Henry VII was in no position to kill them until he took London after Bosworth in 1485. The princes weren't seen in public after 1483, and rumors were already spreading by 1484 -- rumors which Richard could have easily put an end to by displaying them in public. The simplest explanation for why he didn't is that he couldn't. By the way, there's an article on Ricardian (Richard III)... AnonMoos (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
All the same, it's far, far easier to find sources who say that Richard killed the princes than otherwise. Take Rubin's The Hollow Crown as an example, mainly because it was the first general book on the period I could lay my hands on. Rubin reckons Edward's sons were killed around 24 June and quotes Mancini and Dafydd ap Llewellyn to that end. I haven't read much on the Wars of the Roses, but I seem to recall that Hicks argued that Richard feloniously and with malice aforethought, determined on the death of his nephews before he ever came south. Personally I never saw the big deal. English kings were murdered and deposed with tedious regularity in the High Middle Ages. I'm sure whig history had a positive spin to put on this unpleasant English pastime, but I'm damned if I know what it was. Anyway, if it was well done for Henry Bolingbroke to murder his cousin, why shouldn't Richard kill his nephews? Treason doth never prosper ... Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. Given the ruthless politics of the day no usurper, no matter how wide his base of support, was content to allow a rival source of authority and legitimacy to live, which would have been a dangerous political miscalculation. It cannot be proved with certainty that Mortimer and Isabella ordered the murder of Edward II, just as it cannot be proved that Henry IV ordered the death of Richard II; but murdered they were and for obvious political reasons, as was Henry VI.
Now, as far as Richard and his nephews are concerned we have no direct evidence that he ordered their murder, and we are unlikely ever to have such evidence. But to assume that he allowed them to live would reverse all we know about the dynastic politics of the day. No serious historian of the period has any doubts that, on the balance of probability, he ordered their deaths. To argue, as the Ricardians do, that they survived into the reign of Henry VII, in dark obscurity, is to stretch what is credible to breaking point, and beyond.
What I can say-and those of you familiar with the Close Rolls, Pipe Rolls and Exchequer Rolls will understand this point-is that English records contain an amazing amount of detail on financial grants, wardship, maintenance allowances, even laundry bills and the like, often for some of the most obscure individuals. For important state prisoners, like Edward and Richard of York, the detail is especially fulsome. The little Princes are there in abundance until the summer of 1483, when all mention of them ends. As far as the official records are concerned they had, by this time, ceased to exist. If they ceased to exist in record there is no surer guarantee that they had ceased to exist in fact. They were dead.
As far as the more general point raised by the questioner is concerned, no, I do not think that Richard was as bad a king, and as dark a tyrant, as made out by Sir Thomas More and his Tudor contemporaries. As Duke of Gloucester he had been an able lieutenant to his brother Edward IV; an able soldier, an able administrator and an able judge. He went on to be an able king, ruthless, yes, but no more so than any other monarch of the day. But, save for the circumstances of his coming, and of his going, his short reign is one of the least memorable in all of English history. It is almost certain that if it had not been for the hunchback villain created by Shakespeare that his reign would be little more than a footnote in the general record, of concern only to specialists. But as the dark monster-or the maligned hero-he will live for ever in the popular imagination. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I love Richard III debates, and am a Ricardian at heart, I do admit. I won't go into all those wonderful theories here, but I do want to suggest an answer to the OP's Why? Partly, we all love a good mystery and want to solve it (like the Jack the Ripper enthusiasts), but the main reason this rift/debate remains is, I believe, a result of the Wars of the Roses: for many years people remained firmly allied with their "side" and would argue the case strongly. These traditions have been passed down. Visit Middleham, at one point Richard's home, and you would think he was a national hero: they even have a pub called Richard III. There were many supporters of Richard III in the north, and that allegiance has remained. Brought up to believe that Richard III was "a good man", people get wound up when some poncy southern academic tells them he was "a bad man". Gwinva (talk) 01:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC) Addit: I think the controversy was given fresh food with Shakespeare's politically-motivated play, which was written in part to endorse/vindicate the Tudor line; consequently, the anti-Tudors jumped on the Ricardian bandwagon. The issue became a bit of a shibboleth. Nasty Mr Shakespeare; just think what he did to that poor Scottish king, too. In some ways, the causes of / motivation behind the debate are as interesting as the debate itself. Gwinva (talk) 01:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Which of the 48 States has the cheapest residential real estate?

Which of the 48 USA continental States has the cheapest residential real estate? --Jscheiner (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

"Residential" is a very general term. Alone, the answer would probably be California. The Mojave has land that is extremely cheap. It is so cheap that you are required to put a house on it if you buy some - just to keep people from buying it just to buy it. However, I believe you are asking for "residential property with full access to utilities." -- kainaw™ 14:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
According to this source (click on median sale price), the state with the lowest median sale price for homes is Kansas, with a median price of $59,000. Close behind is Indiana, at $64,000. Often prices will vary widely among different parts of a state. This document shows median sale prices for single-family houses by metropolitan area. Of course, prices are generally lower in non-metropolitan (remote rural) areas. Also, the second document lists median prices of single-family houses, which are generally higher than median prices for "homes", which may include condominiums, so the two sources aren't directly comparable. However, if you want to be in a metropolitan area, the ones with the lowest median sale prices (for houses) are Youngstown, Ohio ($81,600); Saginaw, Michigan ($84,900); Decatur, Illinois ($85,900); Elmira, New York ($93,300); and South Bend, Indiana ($95,200). All other metropolitan areas have median sale prices above $100,000, though some not by much. Marco polo (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know about the other places, but Elmira, New York, is hardly metropolitan. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 00:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
These are small metropolitan areas (metropolitan statistical areas) according to the U.S. Census Bureau. The Elmira MSA is number 414 in this table. Marco polo (talk) 03:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

There are some incredibly cheap residential homes around where we live in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. The reason being that this is an area which is losing population every census. It's a real buyers' market. Here's a real estate agency that offers properties around here, just search for residential properties and put no minimum price and see what you come up with. -- Saukkomies 03:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Summary of Human History

What is the summary of human history in a BRIEF paragraph.

I'm NOT looking for some smart-alec tongue in cheek sentence but a SERIOUS paragraph that ACTUALLY summarizes Human History. Thank you!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.122.27 (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Human History is... the timeline of human evolution, history, technology, and the fate of human societies from the first appearance of Homo sapiens to the present. Think outside the box 17:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
That's cool, but recursive! You include the world 'history' (between evolution and technology). So, with that term expanded, how should the paragraph actually read...? Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.122.27 (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The story of the human species is one of expansion from Africa to the rest of the Old World and the Americas and the mastery of ever more complex technologies that brought ever more complete control over the human environment. Recorded history is but the most recent stage in the story of humanity. It documents the development and expansion of complex societies that made use of new technologies with an increasingly detailed division of labor. The most recent chapter of human history has been one of accelerating scientific discovery, technological advance, use of nonliving sources of energy, economic activity, and population growth. These trends have coincided with the spread of technologies and ideas from western Europe around the world such that the entire world is now more or less part of a single civilization. These trends have also for the first time raised the possibility that humanity could bring about its own demise, through the use of technologically advanced weapons, through the exhaustion of limited natural resources, or through the pollution of the environment with the wastes of human material and energy consumption. Marco polo (talk) 18:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Marco polo: I am awed. Masterful! You do justice to your name and, again...wow. Just, wow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.122.27 (talk) 20:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Human history is the history of class struggle...or so says one of the Marx Brothers...or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Santegeezhe (talk • contribs) 20:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh yes, something to report home in the Galaxy 29X5 of the 59th century. --Kvasir (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question about economic stimulus package

As reported on CNN.com and virtually all other news sources, the House and Senate have approved the $167B economic stimulus package and President Bush is anticipated to sign it. From the CNN article: The package, which passed the Senate 81-16, will send rebate checks to 130 million Americans in amounts of $300 to $600 for people who have an income between $3,000 and $75,000, plus $300 per child. Couples earning up to $150,000 would get $1,200.

Is the income amount gross or adjusted? In other words, if someone made $100K last year but after deductions paid taxes on $70K, are they eligible for this rebate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanthalas39 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This article at MSNBC mentions that "[c]ontributions to IRA and 401(k) retirement accounts and health savings accounts would not count toward the income limit." I haven't yet located anything that mentions any other adjustments. --LarryMac | Talk 19:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The sidebar on that article lists some scenarios. While it doesn't list my specific one (single, income over $75K), it does refer to "Adjusted Gross Incomes" when comparing to the various thresholds, which implies (to me) that deductions such as mortgage interest, taxes, etc. aren't taken into account. Tanthalas39 (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) OK, a little more searching and I found this article at the SF Gate with some questions and answers, which led me to this PDF at the US Dept of Treasury site with some example calculations. A couple things that stood out for me - 1) you have to file a 2007 tax return (i.e. the one due by April 15 of this year) to be eligible; 2) specific reference is made to "adjusted gross income" (aka AGI). If I remember correctly, that figure is computed before taking the standard or itemized deductions (see Form 1040 PDF here). So the AGI is, in general, larger that the amount on which you pay taxes. Also, I should point out that the SF Gate article is from 31 January, so the final bill might have slightly different terms. --LarryMac | Talk 19:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
You don't have to file a tax return if you're on Social Security or are a wounded combat vet and otherwise don't qualify for filing taxes. Those people will be eligible for a $300 rebate check vs. the $600 check that tax filers will be getting. Corvus cornixtalk 21:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
If only I had added a disclaimer about that one article being a week old. Oh wait, I did. --LarryMac | Talk 21:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Your point being? Where did I say, "LarryMac, you're wrong". Corvus cornixtalk 21:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] the presidential election

I would like to know how the election works. I am not clear on the how the delegates from each state impact the election. Are the peoples votes what elects or is the winner based on the delegates votes from each state? Please explain this whole process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.220.70.64 (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

What is going on now is not the Presidential election. It is merely the party primaries. The Democrat and Republican parties are trying to find a candidate to back in hopes that the candidate will go on to win the Presidential Election at the end of the year. -- kainaw™ 18:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Each party in each state has its own rules for selecting delegates to the party's presidential nominating convention. In some states, one or both parties hold caucuses or meetings, typically at the county level, to select delegates to the convention. In other states, presidential primaries are held. Again, the rules in each state are different. In some Republican primaries, the candidate with the most votes gets all of the state's delegates. In Democratic and some Republican primaries, delegates are awarded proportionally to the number of votes received, though formulas are sometimes complex. Delegates may be awarded by congressional district based on that district's number of voters registered in the party, so there is not necessarily a direct correspondence between the percentage of votes a candidate won in a given state and the percentage of that state's delegates that he or she wins. Once each state has selected its delegates to the nominating conventions, each convention selects its party's candidate, based on the delegates' votes. The presidential candidates compete in the United States presidential election. Again, the results are determined state by state. The candidate who wins the largest number of popular votes wins all of that state's delegates to the United States Electoral College, who are known as electors. It is the electoral vote, not the popular vote, that determines who becomes president. This can occasionally produce the result—as in the 2000 presidential election—that one candidate wins the popular vote while another wins the popular vote and becomes president despite losing the popular vote. Marco polo (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The caucuses are actually precinct caucuses to elect delegates to the county caucuses. Sometime later in the year, the county caucuses, consisting of the previously-elected precinct delegates, will convene to choose delegates to the state caucuses or conventions. At the state conventions, delegates to the national party nominating conventions will be chosen. I also believe that there are a couple of states who choose the electoral college representation based on percentage of popular vote, so that it isn't winner-take-all in those states, but I don't have the names of the states. Corvus cornixtalk 19:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Maine and Nebraska are not "winner take all" according to our article on the United States Electoral College. Also don't forget the effect that faithless elector could have. Rmhermen (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The Electoral College isn't involved in primaries, and the states which hold primaries are selecting delegates, not electors. To see which primaries are winner-takes-all, & which are closed, I suggest here for Republican primaries and here for Democratic primaries. The Democrats seem not to have any winner-takes-all contests. And they also have "super-delegates", who can vote any way they want-they're designed to be "faithless" delegates. - Nunh-huh 02:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Gaaaa. Corvus cornixtalk 03:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's a simple graph:

Primaries/caucuses --> Convention --> General election --> Electoral College --> Winner

The primaries and caucuses elect delegates to the conventions, which choose the candidates for the general election. The voters in the general election choose electors to the Electoral College, which chooses the winning candidate. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Does animals have nationality?

For example Knut (polar bear). Is it German? or Ah Meng, Sumatran Orangutan, Is it Indonesian?. Should we categorize them together with nationality? Frankedjsjs (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Governments may opt to enforce a national ownership over animals, but the animals themselves rarely regard this enforced ownership as part of their identity. -- kainaw™ 18:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Saying that Knut is German does not imply that he is a German nacional. So as you can say that Berlin is a German city, Knut is a German bear. Mr.K. (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
A pleasant instance of polysemy. German may mean, among other things, (1) "having the German nationality" and (2) "of, pertaining to, originating from Germany". These shades of meaning obviously differ from one another (or else they would not be shades). It is unlikely that a piece of Swiss cheese would be issued with a Swiss passport on application. Bessel Dekker (talk) 00:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Our article states: "Nationality is a relationship between a person and their state of origin, culture, association, affiliation and/or loyalty. Nationality affords the state jurisdiction over the person, and affords the person the protection of the state. Traditionally under international law and conflict of laws principles, it is the right of each state to determine who its nationals are."
If we accept this, the question boils down to whether a non-human animal is a person or not. A closely related question has been tested in court in Austria, see here and here. The chimpanzee Hiasl was denied the right of having a legal guardian. I have not read the ruling documents, but one reason it was denied, was that acceptance of a chimp having a legal guardian could ‘create the public perception that humans with court-appointed legal guardians are at the same level as animals’. Wild animals cross borders without passports. How would you define the nationality of a migratory bird? So, IMO the answer is no, non-human animals do not have a nationality in any legal sense. --NorwegianBlue talk 12:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Losing Popular Vote in US Primary elections?

Has any US Presidential candidate ever won the majority of popular votes cast in a primary, and yet still lost the nomination of his party. Has anyone ever won the nomination without having the plurality of votes casts? --Gary123 (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Presumably, in your first question you are asking whether any candidate has won a majority of popular votes in a primary season and lost the nomination of his or her party. Of course candidates have won a majority in an individual state primary and lost the nomination. Hillary Clinton won a majority of votes in New York's Democratic primary, and Barack Obama won a majority of votes in Georgia's Democratic primary, but only one of them will be the Democratic nominee. Whether any candidate has ever won a majority of votes over an entire primary season but failed to win the nomination, I'm not sure. As for your second question, yes, occasionally a candidate will win the nomination without winning a plurality of votes over the primary season. Such a candidate is typically known as a dark horse. Marco polo (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I've looked into this some more, and it turns out that the system of presidential primaries has come to dominate the nominating process only since 1968. In the 1968 election, for example, most states did not hold primary elections. As a result, Hubert Humphrey won the Democratic nomination without winning any of the primaries in the few states that held them. This must have happened regularly in elections before 1968, since most states did not hold primaries until the 1970s. I don't think that there has been a case since then when a candidate has won the nomination without winning a plurality of votes in the primaries. Marco polo (talk) 21:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
see Brokered convention Rmhermen (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
According to this page, the closest the original poster's scenario has come to happening since 1976 was in 1984, when Walter Mondale won 37.8 percent of the national primary vote to Gary Hart's 36.1 percent. Since not all states use primaries, the popular-vote figures are not necessarily a foolproof indicator of the candidates' support. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Heraldry: Order of blazoned Fields

Looking at the Blazon of the (St Ouen) de Carteret family arms, I cannot imagine the order of the described fields. The Blazon begins as follows:

Quarterly I and 4.
Gules, for fusils conjoined in fesse, argent, for de Carteret.
Gules, three round buckles, or, a crecent in chief, argent, for difference, for Mallet.
Quaretering:
Argent, a chevron gule, on a chief, azurem three etoiels, or, in base a thistle slipped, ppr. for Le Maistre.
Gules, three escallops, or, a mullet, for difference, for Dumaresq.
Gules, four Fusils conjoined in fesse, argent, for de Carteret.
Gules, a chevron between three towers, triple towered, for St. Ouen.
and so on: There are, all in all, about 25 different fields. No information about there position follows after this.

What is the order of the fields? Linke this?


____________________________________________________________
| de Carteret  | Mallet       | Le Maistre, Dumaresq,      |
|              |              | and all the others         |
|              |              | in smaller fields:         |
|              |              |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|              |              |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|              |              |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|              |              |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|              |              |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|              |              |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|              |              |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|              |              |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|              |              |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|              |              |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|______________|______________|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
\Le Maistre, Dumaresq,        |de Carteret   | Mallet      /
 \ and all the others again   |              |            /
  \ Or other smaller fields   |              |           /
   \ not shown in Quarter II?_|              |          /
    \|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|___|              |         /
     \__|__|__|__|__|__|__|___|              |        /
      \_|__|__|__|__|__|__|___|              |       /
       \|__|__|__|__|__|__|___|              |      /
        \__|__|__|__|__|__|___|              |     /
         \_|__|__|__|__|__|___|              |    /
          \|__|__|__|__|__|___|              |   /
           \__|__|__|__|__|___|              |  /
            \_|__|__|__|__|___|              | /
             \|__|__|__|__|___|              |/
              \__|__|__|__|___|              /
               \_|__|__|__|___|             /
                \|__|__|__|___|____________/

This way?


____________________________________________________________
| de Carteret  | Mallet       |As above._|__|__|__|__|__|__|
|              |              |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|              |              |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|              |              |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|              |              |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|              |              |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|              |              |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|--------------|--------------|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
| Mallet       | de Carteret  |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|              |              |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|              |              |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|              |              |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|              |              |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|______________|______________|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
\_|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|___|de Carteret   | Mallet      /
 \|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|___|              |            /
  \__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|___|              |           /
   \_|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|___|              |          /
    \|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|___|              |         /
     \__|__|__|__|__|__|__|___|--------------|--------/
      \_|__|__|__|__|__|__|___| Mallet       | de C. /
       \|__|__|__|__|__|__|___|              |      /
        \__|__|__|__|__|__|___|              |     /
         \_|__|__|__|__|__|___|              |    /
          \|__|__|__|__|__|___|              |   /
           \__|__|__|__|__|___|              |  /
            \_|__|__|__|__|___|              | /
             \|__|__|__|__|___|              |/
              \__|__|__|__|___|              /
               \_|__|__|__|___|             /
                \|__|__|__|___|____________/

Are the first mentinoned fields shown in an inescutcheon?

____________________________________________________________
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|de      |Mallet  |__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|Carteret|        |__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|        |        |__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|        |        |__|__|__|__|__|__|_|
\_|__|__|__|__|__|___|        |        |__|__|__|__|__|__|_/
 \|__|__|__|__|__|___|        |        |__|__|__|__|__|__|/
  \__|__|__|__|__|___|--------|--------|__|__|__|__|__|__/
   \_|__|__|__|__|___|Mallet  |de      |__|__|__|__|__|_/
    \|__|__|__|__|___\        |Carteret/__|__|__|__|__|/
     \__|__|__|__|__|_\       |       /|__|__|__|__|__/
      \_|__|__|__|__|__\      |      /_|__|__|__|__|_/
       \|__|__|__|__|__|\_____|_____/__|__|__|__|__|/
        \__|__|__|__|__|__|___|__|__|__|__|__|__|__/
         \_|__|__|__|__|__|___|__|__|__|__|__|__|_/
          \|__|__|__|__|__|___|__|__|__|__|__|__|/
           \__|__|__|__|__|___|__|__|__|__|__|__/
            \_|__|__|__|__|___|__|__|__|__|__|_/
             \|__|__|__|__|___|__|__|__|__|__|/
              \__|__|__|__|___|__|__|__|__|__/
               \_|__|__|__|___|__|__|__|__|_/
                \|__|__|__|___|__|__|__|__|/

Or is the order totally different? Please help me.--Hannesde Correct me! 21:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Family name question

A friend of mine wanted to know what his last name means. Its "Kunk" and is apparently German. I put it through the Google translator, and it came up with nothing. And I'm not finding any major G-hits with the phrase. Any help? Thanks!! Zidel333 (talk) 23:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It may be a re-spelling of "Kunc" (pronounced koonts - with a short oo as in book), a Czech variant of "Kunz" , the German word for "art". -- JackofOz (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Except that the German word for "art" is Kunst, not Kunz. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 00:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Oops. It must be Saturday, my brain's day off. Ta, Angr. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
It may also be a misspelling of Küng, which appears to be a Swiss surname. AecisBrievenbus 00:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The surname Kunk seems to come from northern Germany. Before the 20th century, the commonly spoken language in that region was Low German. There is a place in the northern German village of Ankum called "Kunkheide" (according to this source), which suggests that Kunk may be a place name or part of a place name. According to this dictionary of Low German, Kunkel means "swamp" in that language. The ending -el is sometimes diminutive, so Kunk could mean something like wetland or marshy ground. Possibly the name was given to a family who lived in such a place. Marco polo (talk) 03:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The Oxford Dictionary of surnames lacks Kunk, but has Kunkel and Gunkel, occupational name for spinner or maker of spindles, from German Kunkel, spindle or distaff (which, although this may be a red herring, has a genealogic/heraldic meaning for the female side, in English at least). Gwinva (talk) 04:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Music translation: notation for bells

Can someone translate these flute notes into notes for the bells?

e d b c b g e d e g e
d e f g a b c b e d e f g a b c d e
d e f g a b c b e
d c e d f e g f a g b a c b c d a b --76.176.130.141 (talk) 23:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

dong bong tee clang tee ding dong bong dong ding dong
bong dong bing ding tin tee clang tee dong bong dong bing ding tin tee clang bong dong
bong dong bing ding tin tee clang tee dong
bong clang dong bong bing dong ding bing tin ding tee tin clang tee clang bong tin tee --212.51.122.27 ([[User talk:|talk]]) 00:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
A valiant try, 212.51.122.27!
So you want these notes presented in some notation used in campanology? We don't seem have an article that will help: at least not one with obvious links from anywhere else. Also, the sequence you have given is ambiguous, since we can't tell if the notes are going up or down, and sometimes the context doesn't help to resolve this.
The query really belongs at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities. Should we move it there?
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 01:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay I will.--76.176.130.141 (talk) 01:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, I mean the percussion insturment. Not something like a school bell.--76.176.130.141 (talk) 01:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Which percussion instrument exactly? The tubular bell, or something else?
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 01:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The Glockenspiel, it's also known as Orchestra Bells.--76.176.130.141 (talk) 01:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The standard Western flute is not a transposing instrument; and music for the glockenspiel sounds two octaves higher than written. So for example, if your first note, e, is the lowest e that the flute can play, then it would be written for flute on the lowest line of a treble-clef stave. The very same note written for the glockenspiel would appear as an e on the first leger line below a bass-clef stave.
In short, the answer to your question is this:
e d b c b g e d e g e
d e f g a b c b e d e f g a b c d e
d e f g a b c b e
d c e d f e g f a g b a c b c d a b
Written two octaves lower: but you haven't accurately shown us which octaves these flute notes are in! You really should make a better effort to let us know what you want.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 02:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)