Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 March 17

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 17

Falklands War aircraft

I remember reading some text about the Falklands War (might have been on Wikipedia, but could easily have been elsewhere), which said that at one point a man on the deck of one of the British ships succeeded in bringing down (or at least damaging) an Argentinian plane with small arms fire. I'm 80 - 90% sure this is true and not an urban legend, but I can't for the life of me remember the name of the ship involved. Can anyone help me out here, it's really annoying! Thanks. Cynical (talk) 00:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

According to http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/argentine-aircraftlosses.html "H.M.S. Broadsword had another secret weapon. Her upper deck small arms battery, a mixed crew of sailors and Royal Marines, who fired at the passing Argentine aircraft with the ships 40 mm Bofors, machine-guns and rifles. Boardswords small arms party shot down two Argentine aircraft and damaged two others." and from http://www.hmsbroadsword.co.uk/falklands/ourstory/flight_deck.htm "one Mirage was splashed by a combination of 40/60, GPMG, LMG and SLR fire". The Broadsword page also notes that combined small arms fire from Broadsword and HMS Antelope collectively shot down an A-4 Skyhawk. Nanonic (talk) 00:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose the question is whether you consider the 40 mm machine gun to qualify as "small arms". I'd say there's almost no chance that the rifles brought down a plane. StuRat (talk) 03:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I would think the GPMG would be able to bring down a plane at close range, given a little luck. But I would also guess the Bofors is most likely. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

If I remember correctly it was definitely a crewman getting lucky against a low-flying aircraft with a (semi-) handheld weapon like a GPMG, so I guess the part about the A-4 Skyhawk is probably the most likely. Cheers! Cynical (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Highly unlikly. Military aircraft have their vital parts doubled or tripled, so you need a lot of hits from small arms fire to make any real damage. Downing a military jet aircraft with a GPMG due to the short time the jet stays within the engagement range of a machine gun is less likely than winning a lottery. During a war you throw against the enemy "everything but the kitchen sink" but in reality shooting at a jet aircraft with anything less than a 12.7x99mm NATO machine gun is pointless. In the communist Poland era the penal units of Polish Army (which consisted of convicted soldiers) held never ending anti-aircraft drills on how to shoot down aircraft with AK-47 rifles, at that time evrybody knew that those drills were pointless. By today's standards these drills could be considered psychological torture. 87.207.83.232 (talk) 22:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible to have multiple redundant systems for everything and still have it be able to outperform enemy aircraft. For example, how would you implement redundant flight control surfaces and landing gear, without increasing weight dramatically ? StuRat (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

black dude on russian money

whats the name of the man of african ancestry that was or is on russian currency? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.192.120 (talk) 03:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Alexander Pushkin. There's a picture of a rouble in his article. He was of Ethiopian ancestry. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course, Pushkin was only barely so; his maternal great-grandfather, Abram Petrovich Gannibal was from modern Eritrea (then Ethiopia), making him 1/8th African. Pushkin didn't really have black features (see his pics and judge for yourself), and unless you prescribe to the one-drop rule, calling him "black" is a bit of a stretch. The fictionalized account of his great-grandfather's life was Peter the Great's Negro. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

What are the main philosophical schools of thought in contemporary China?

What are the main philosophical schools of thought in contemporary China? Specifically I'm interested in how orthodox Dialectical Materialism is promulgated in the PRC. Based on the way Chinese law and economic academia comes mainly from the Anglo-Saxon tradition, I would guess that Analytical Philosophy is the most influential in universities. Although I suppose Phenomenological philosophy would be more Marxist leaning. Also the CPC has promoted a revival of traditional Chinese philosophy, especially Confucianism.

If you could recommend websites books or journal articles, that be great too. I'm more interested in mainstream "official" philosophy of the universities, as opposed to dissident philosophers. --Gary123 (talk) 04:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Buddhism, Daoism, Confucianism, Christianity, , socialism, capitalism, atheism, monotheism, polytheism . . . big country with lots of diversity. One that hasn't come across my radar in about 30 years, however, is dialectical materialism. There might be some academics still into it, but there is no wide spread following. (I would also dispute your characterization of Chinese law and economic academia coming mainly from the Anglo-Saxon tradition.) DOR (HK) (talk) 04:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Religion of Susquehanna

Hello,

My name is Randy Robertson. I'm a professor of English at Susquehanna University, and I am teaching a course on the history of media. One of my assignments for the class is that we create our own religion. The point of the exercise is to show students how sacred texts can accrue material over time, some of which is inconsistent with what was there before.

It is also, however, a serious attempt to define the values of the class. As students will be students, the initial comments in the entry will be frivolous, but my hope is that over time it will become more serious, and that as a class we will build a page that will stimulate thoughtful discussion. It was originally titled "Religion of Susquehanna," but because Susquehanna's Board of Trustees might get upset about that, I propose to call the entry "A New SU Religion." I hope that you let this page stand. Many academics are hostile to Wikipedia; I like using it as a learning tool in the new media world, where movements can be created online before they exist in the "real world." If you would like to discuss any aspect of this proposal further, please feel free to contact me at <email removed>.

Sincerely, 76.84.185.152 (talk) 08:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you asking to create your own Wikipedia article? We have notability requirements for article topics. I think you need a wiki farm instead. But good luck with the project. And remember that Xenu is already taken. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe this may be vandalism, anyway. See User talk:Randy Robertson, and the brief flurry of nonconstructive edits of which this was a part. --Fullobeans (talk) 09:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't go creating new religions. Its far too easy and dangerous a task and people will believe all sorts of rubbish. Just look at L. Ron Hubbard's example to see the sort of thing that can result. Dmcq (talk) 12:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This isn't really a refdesk question. I strongly recommend you create a userid if you want to think about stuff like this. However please don't create pages about a university project, unless it's a world famous one. It will only be deleted. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Psychology of revenge

Psychologists - and some religious folks - suggest that people don't feel better after revenge and that venting anger does not work, however, I feel great after striking back!!! Am I sick or are the psychologist and co. wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.37 (talk) 12:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that many do feel better immediately after getting revenge. The problem is that those people who you avenged yourself against will likely return the favor, and after they strike, you will feel worse again. So, this endless cycle of revenge ultimately leaves both sides unhappy. StuRat (talk) 13:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Who are these psychologists to whom you refer? Algebraist 13:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I feel that according to the laws of the psychology of revenge there is expected to be an immediate sense of satisfaction followed by a long plateau of regret for revenge inflicted on others but your mileage may vary. Bus stop (talk) 14:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

What laws are these? Do you have a source for them? Algebraist 14:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't. I made it up. : ) Bus stop (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

And although I didn't made up that some psychologist preach that revenge doesn't feel sweet, they are mostly self-help psychologist.--80.58.205.37 (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Some revenges remain quite sweet after many years. Edison (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

$1 salary

Why do some CEOs receive an $1 salary for legal reasons? Why do they need this $1?--80.58.205.37 (talk) 13:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You must be paid to be a paid employee. There are a lot of legal issues with non-employees having access to certain records, systems, and such. How do you think a credit card company would look if it said "We got this guy who doesn't get paid anything, but he is in charge of everything and has access to all credit card accounts." -- kainaw™ 13:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It's also easier for tax reasons. Having a form that says you were paid $1 last year gives you proof, while not having a form because you weren't paid requires that the IRS (or whatever tax enforcement agency your country has) trust you when you say you weren't paid. StuRat (talk) 13:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It is also the "consideration", a legal matter, that makes the rest of the contract, to the extent that the rest is legal, binding on both parties. // BL \\ (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Consideration#Nominal_consideration. Bus stop (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

What if I, after signing a contract for $1 and working as a CEO for several months, I commit terrible mistakes and make the company loose money. Can I argue to my defense that the company just bought $1 of services and this do not entitle it to great expectations?--80.58.205.37 (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You can, but who would buy that argument when you got $10 million in stock options in addition to your $1 salary? As an aside, why would a $1 annual salary not violate minimum wage laws?65.167.146.130 (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you answered your own question. Livewireo (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Because minimum wage laws do not apply to every employee. The Fair Labor Standards Act - that regulates such things - admits several exemptions, not only related to minimal wages, but to other general rights like overtime pay. See here: [[1]].--Mr.K. (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(Undent) Peppercorn (legal) may also help, but that mainly applies to the UK rather than the US (assuming 1$ means you're referring to the USA). Same sort of thing though. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 18:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Great Depression in USA

In layman's terms, what exactly happened that ended the Great Depression in the USA? I don't follow the article in Wiki. Can the same circumstances happen now to get the US (and the rest of the world) out of this economic downturn?--Emyn ned (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, it's possible that there might be another world war. Which country would you like to invade? Keep in mind that it has to be major war that requires full mobilization and a transition to a war economy. Relatively small wars such Vietnam and the Iraq War are drags on the economy. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

After December 7, 1941, every factory and every worker in the U.S. was needed for war production or domestic needs or for support of allied contries. Unemployment in the U.S. became quite low. The Great Depression had been going on for 12 years, with "recovery" ongoing since 1933, interrupted by a severe recession in 1937. No telling how long it would have continued. Edison (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

There were two major fixes:

1) A total change in the mandate of government, moving far more toward government intervention and control (socialism). This was called "The New Deal". This certainly helped, but did not completely end the depression.

2) World War 2. This resulted in full employment (to build war munitions), yet didn't damage the US economy because very little fighting took place in the US (there was some in US territories (at the time), like Hawaii, Alaska, and the Philippines). StuRat (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you need to be very careful about the war you start. World War II did not do very much good for the economies of France, UK, Italy etc. In fact your best bet for ending a depression is to persuade someone else to start a major war, well away from you, and then sell them lots of arms. (No criticism of the US in WWII intended here by the way - thanks you guys!). The trouble of course is that these days it's much harder to keep a major war "well away from you". DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that there is some debate about this: some economists (mainly of the Austrian school) claim that FDR had nothing to do with getting the country out of the Great Depression, the economy recovered by itself. All his New Deal did was to greatly expand the size of the government and add tons to the national debt.

However, one thing is abundantly clear: FDR certainly didn't hurt the economy. If you look at the chart of US GDP during this time, it's very clear that it starts to recover rapidly in 1933 and just keeps on going (besides a small dip) and even accelerates during WWII. Main-stream economic thought states that FDR and the war does indeed deserve a lot of credit for fixing the economy. 195.58.125.47 (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that humanities like Economics are not like "hard sciences" like Physics in the sense that the laws of Physics work forever, and should be expected to. F=m*a will always work in all situations, and can be trusted to be useful to someone studying force and motion forever. The Laffer Curve, as a counter example, only works in certain contexts, and even then it is often not clear if ones current context would apply. If we really want to be truthful about it, there is really a continuum of possibilities that explain the Great Depression and recovery thereof. Either:

1. The New Deal worked perfectly, and brought us out of the Great Depression, with some help from World War II
2. No action of people or governments had any effect at all, and the Depression and the recovery therefrom were random, arbitrary events which are due solely to the Will of The Market and nothing else OR
3. Some indeterminable state in the middle of these

I'll go with 3 here. There are some effects of governments, but there is also no magic wand which can fix a broken economy instantly. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Even the laws of physics change. F=ma is a part of Newtonian physics, which, while still a useful approximation in most situations, isn't technically correct under more advanced physics. StuRat (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the equations of the more advanced branches of physics ARE applicable to the simpler ones, and the newtonian equations are "special cases" of those laws. In the hard sciences, the our understanding of the laws becomes more finely tuned, but we know that the laws always work and work in all times and situations, as long as we can put the laws together. Try applying economic equations developed in a modern economy to a mercantilist society. It's not that we fine tune economic laws as we learn more about how economy works; its that the economy changes in fundemental ways which make the old laws entirely invalid. It would be like waking up at the dawn of a new century and finding that all gravity in the universe became a repulsive, rather than attractive, force, or that positive and negative charges just up and stopped attracting one another. Its not merely that our understanding of the situation gets better over time (which is what happens in physics); its that the actual universe itself changes (from an economic standpoint)... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It sounds similar to me. We have economic laws that only work in certain types of economies, and Newtonian physics which only work in certain special circumstances (speeds much lower than the speed of light, for example). StuRat (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

No one seems to be considering a technological advance leading to worldwide prosperity. Isn't that a possibility? Bus stop (talk) 02:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a virus with a birth control effect could be released in third world nations. Any technical innovation unrelated to birth control will just result in more overpopulation in third world countries, using up all the new resources, and then some. StuRat (talk) 14:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that if tomorrow (figuratively speaking) all the world's people had a virtually limitless source of virtually free energy, all the third world countries would be first world countries. Bus stop (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know - free energy isn't going to stop people being power hungry (it's the wrong type of power!). It is politics that causes most of the problems in the 3rd world, not resources. --Tango (talk) 21:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Free energy wouldn't solve all their problems, since they can't sell it to afford everything else they need. Of course, if everyone had free energy, nobody would be willing to pay for it, would they ? And even if they could sell this energy, as in the case of Saudi Arabia's petroleum, this hardly solves all of their problems. It can actually make some problems worse, by propping up an undemocratic system which otherwise would have collapsed long ago. StuRat (talk) 16:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

That a recovery began in 1933 does not mean that FDR did no harm. Who can say that recovery would not have been stronger (without the recession grudgingly acknowledged) without his dirigiste efforts? —Tamfang (talk) 04:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Capitilisation of race/species/breed

Moved to Talk:Races in Mass Effect. Questions like this should be asked on the article's talk page. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Lions Club International

Are there a Lions Club in Malmesbury and if there is kindly provide there Lions Club name so that we can contact them

Lion Jan Truter Region Chairman District 410A South Africa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.209.145.17 (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you had any luck at the Lions Club website?

http://www.lionsclubs.org/EN/index.shtml#

There is a club locator there. Livewireo (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The UK - the new Japan?

Hello, I've been reading on lots of newspaper comment boards (like the guardian) and there seems to be lots of references to the Uk as the new Japan - i.e. entering into a decade of negligible growth. Obviously people tend towards hysteria at times like these but is there any actual evidence? Thanks 81.140.37.58 (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The more colorful metaphor is "Reykjavik-on-Thames" ... AnonMoos (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The problems in Japan were caused by deflationary attutudes, particularly frugality. The government in the UK seems to be persuing quite different inflationary polices, such as quantitative easing, leading to devastating inflation, if anything. But that's not to say that you can draw some parallels. Lost decade might help. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 21:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Japan tried quantitative easing, as I understand, but rather unsucessfully. Hopefully the Bank of England will have more luck! --Tango (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. I believe Japan has one of the lowest interest rates - at one time it was 0%. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was 0% for quite a while. It then went up to 0.5% and is back down to 0.1% now, I think. --Tango (talk) 14:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

As at any other time, no one really knows what is going to happen in the UK or any other economy over the next decade. It will only be possible to draw conclusions about similarities with the benefit of hindsight. Alex Middleton (talk) 12:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

In honor of St Pats day

Which country consumes more alcohol per captia, Ireland or Russia? Which country consumes the most? 65.167.146.130 (talk) 19:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

According to this Forbes article, Ireland consumes the third most alcohol per capita in the world (behind #1 Luxumborg and #2 France). http://www.forbes.com/2007/11/27/drinking-europe-alcohol-biz-commerce-cx_tvr_1128drinking.html Livewireo (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

We actually have an a list of countries by alcohol consumption. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

A few things seem suspicious on that list. Uganda at the top ? Something seems wrong there, as people need to be able to afford alcohol, it isn't so cheap that everybody can. Next, Luxembourg, being a popular tourist destination with a rather small native population, likely has a lower consumption rate by the natives than the tourists. I can see France having a high rate, what with having drinks with every meal. At the low end, I don't believe those zeros in Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries. It may be that no alcohol is legally consumed there, but that has little relationship with how much is actually consumed, as the US period of Prohibition established. StuRat (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The source material for the list is the WHO Global Status Report on Alcohol 2004 and it makes for some interesting reading. In the case of Uganda, the report states "Several African countries (Burundi, Nigeria, Swaziland and Uganda) appear in the list in the top 30 positions of adult per capita consumption. This is because the calculations were based on FAO data which included fermented beverages and estimates of beer produced locally from sorghum, millet and other agricultural products." (p. 12) A Ugandan home-brewed fermented drink called tonto, based on bananas, is also included as a case example of "Traditional or local alcoholic beverages" (p. 20) Reading the description, it doesn't sound too expensive to produce. - Eron^Talk 17:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Differing tax regimes may have an effect. —Tamfang (talk) 04:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Ephebiphobia

The following quote from the wiki-site on Ephebiphobia. "The government of Prime Minister Tony Blair introduced the Anti-Social Behaviour Order in 1998, which has also been attributed directly to a fear of youth." (the cited link's info. does not extend outside the UK). Questions: 1) Is this statement really fair? 2) Is there any other legislation in other countries recently that may also be considered ephebiphobic? Thanks for info., --AlexSuricata (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You might start with the Juvenile delinquency article and check the links from there. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

UN Sec.-Gen.: oath of office?

Pages such as this make reference to an oath of office for incoming UN Secretaries-General... does anyone know what it is or where I can find it? Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 19:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It is surprisingly difficult to find an official statement of the oath. Here you can watch the current UNSG say:

I, Ban Ki-moon, solemnly swear to exercise in all loyalty, discretion, and conscience the functions entrusted to me as Secretary-General of the United Nations, to discharge these functions and to regulate my conduct with the interests of the United Nations only in view, and not to seek or accept instructions in regard to the performance of my duties from any government or other authority external to the organization.

--Sean 20:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The UNSG website says this:

"I solemnly swear to exercise in all loyalty, discretion and conscience the functions entrusted to me as Secretary-General of the United Nations, to discharge these functions and regulate my conduct with the interests of the United Nations only in view, and not to seek or accept instructions in regard to the performance of my duties from any Government or other authority external to the Organisation."

--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Just the sort of wishy washy wording you'd expect from the UN. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

What is that supposed to mean? Algebraist 23:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. It seems pretty clear to me. "I promise not to listen to any governments". It's a lot more meaningful than most grandiose oaths of office. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

65 words of bureaucratese (what? we don't have an article) to say "I work for the UN, nobody else"? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it "bureaucratese". There are no made-up words in there (!) and an ordinary person is capable of understanding it. A little formal and legalistic, perhaps. Compare the oath taken by the British monarch (according to Wikipedia):

The Archbishop of Canterbury: "Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?"

The Queen: "I solemnly promise so to do."

The Archbishop of Canterbury: "Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgments?"

The Queen: "I will."

The Archbishop of Canterbury: "Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolable the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?"

The Queen: "All this I promise to do. The things which I have here before promised, I will perform, and keep. So help me God."

How's that for "I work for this country, nobody else?" --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Not quite the same thing. There are some specific (if obsolescent) duties in the queen's oath. In the S-G's, first it says he'll exercise his functions, then that he'll discharge them. What's the difference?! After that, he has to promise not to be a scumbag, looking out for his own country's interests. Really grabs you emotionally, doesn't it? (I think I'm going to cry.) One oath has a rolling archaic majesty to it; the other is a flaccid bit of putrid, redundant writing. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No it says the person needs to discharge their functions and conduct with only the interests of the UN and then goes on to clarify that this means you may not take orders etc from anyone outside the UN. Nothing is really redundant, it's just a case of emphasising precisely what is meant. It's not really any different from the Queens or so many oaths as both are require you to specifically swear to some areas which are entailed by the former but considered important for emphasis. In the Queen's case it's a bunch of mostly crap. In the SG's case it only looking out for the interests of the UN including not taking orders etc from outside the UN. (Call these duties of office if you wish.) Personally I find the SG oath much better the the Queen's one which sounds like prehistoric crap (which it is, the Ceylon part amongst others shows that, of course it is over 50 years old). To put the SG one in simpler words it says 1) I'll do what I'm supposed to do as SG of the UN. 2) This means I should only ever consider the interests of the UN 3) This means that I should not accept instruction from anyone outside the UN. (Note this doesn't just mean your country it means all countries, it seems logical the UN is just as concerned a person is going to be unduly influence by people from other countries.) If you call that redundant then most of the religion line in the queens oath is too. Indeed arguably anything after the first line is since by definition "according to their respective laws and customs" implies all the later. Nil Einne (talk) 08:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

To use another example:

• I, QUENTIN ALICE LOUISE BRYCE, do swear that I will well and truly serve Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her heirs and successors according to law, in the office of Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of the Commonwealth of Australia, without fear or favour, affection or ill will. SO HELP ME GOD!

you just as well argue that there's no reason to say anything else then the firstpart since by definition that means 'doing right to all the people of Australia etc' but emphasising that's an important part seems harmless to me Nil Einne (talk) 08:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Or another example

• I, __________, do solemnly and sincerely swear (declare) that I shall be a true and faithful servant to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, as a member of Her Majesty's Privy Council for Canada. I will in all things to be treated, debated and resolved in Privy Council, faithfully, honestly and truly declare my mind and my opinion. I shall keep secret all matters committed and revealed to me in this capacity, or that shall be secretly treated of in Council. Generally, in all things I shall do as a faithful and true servant ought to do for Her Majesty.

This one is even better since it basically starts and finishes with the same thing. In between it emphasises precisely what is meant. You could say all are redundant but it seems a harmless emphasis of what is meant to me. Ultimately of course all any oath of office really needs to say

• "I, _________, do solemnly and sincerely promise and swear (declare) that I will truly and faithfully, and to the best of my skill and knowledge, execute the powers and trusts reposed in me as ..........."

which some do but emphasising what this entails seems fine to me. Indeed if you want to make it simpler

• "I, _________, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the powers reposed in me as ..........."

or perhaps even less Nil Einne (talk) 08:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

"I'll be a good ..., I swear." --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

How about "I'm the Queen, I'm in charge and I'll do whatever I like. What are you going to do about it?" Taking an oath of office several months after assuming that office (as the British monarch does) is extremely pointless. (Of course, there is plenty we could do about it, but not legally.) --Tango (talk) 01:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Have it your way. But when I take over the world (oh wow, there's an article!), my oath will be short and succinct. Bwahahahaha! Clarityfiend (talk) 06:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

And of course the reality is that the Queen is far, far removed from "being in charge" and is a lot closer to the "prisoner" end of the spectrum. She has a lot less personal freedom than you or I do, and she may as well be under house arrest. She has to bloody well do what she's told by the government, including travelling overseas to tout British trade, and give out honorary knighthoods to shining examples of compassion and humanity like Robert Mugabe, the idea of which probably made her sick to the stomach, but she was acting under orders. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, but it is, technically, the Queen's choice to do all those things. If she'd decided not to agree to those things when she was crowned, or changed her mind, there is nothing anyone could do without going outside the law. (Oh, and Mugabe was given his knighthood some time before he turned truly evil - I see no reason to believe the Queen is a better judge of character than the government that decided to give it to him.) --Tango (talk) 23:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, but what about the Queen's speech to parliament after a general election. She has to read the speech written for her by the government, because she cannot enter political debate by being seen to be giving her own personal, private approval/disapproval of any government's actions. Say a party had proposed an extremely controversial measure, one that was greeted by many but others found utterly repugnant, and say the Queen was in the latter camp, privately. Say the party won the election, perhaps forming a minority government. The Queen could not just refuse to read this part of the speech. She has to read out whatever is given to her to read out, word for word. It's given to her in advance, so that any concerns she may have on wording can be sorted out before the opening of parliament. Now, what if she called in the PM and said "My conscience will not permit me to read this part of the speech". The PM would say "I'm sorry, Ma'am, but you must". She says "I cannot and will not read it". There would be a showdown between Whitehall and the Palace, and Whitehall would win, because the survival of the government would absolutely depend on it. It could, ultimately, come down to the Queen being deemed unfit to reign, because she'd shown herself to not remain impartial and apolitical as she must always be, and a regent who'd be prepared to dance to the government's tune would be installed. Obviously this is a highly contrived example, which is never going to happen. But on the other hand, a similar sort of thing happened unexpectedly in Belgium, so you just never know. At the end of the day, the government holds the winning cards and the Queen has to go along with it, or face the consequences. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but all that is convention, not law. If there was such a showdown between the palace and Whitehall, Whitehall would only win by breaking the law. It would be a revolution, which is an illegal (or extralegal, if you prefer) way of changing power. (It would be a rather peaceful revolution in which nothing really happens except a bit of bureaucracy is removed, but a revolution all the same.) --Tango (talk) 00:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

What law would they be breaking? They could change the law, with parliament's approval, to install a regent. But that's a perfectly legal way of going about it. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

New laws require Royal Assent. They aren't valid until they have it. --Tango (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

True. So you're raising the prospect of a monarch who refuses Royal Assent to a bill that would turf them out of office. Interesting scenario. What happens if a monarch becomes physically or mentally incapacitated and simply cannot or will not sign anything at all? There has to be some provision to enable someone else to assume power in these circumstances, and I imagine that would come into play. The UK monarch does not normally personally put pen to paper to give Royal Assent these days; instead, there's a bunch of people called Lords Commissioners who have a standing commission to give Royal Assent on her behalf, although certain bills can be reserved, by the government, for her personal signature, such as those relating to her royal styles and titles. But they don't have to be. The Lords Commissioners could give Royal Assent on the monarch's assumed behalf about her own deposition (even if they actually know she's dead against it). That makes it technically legal (but IANAL and this is not legal advice.) And of course there are those pesky Commonwealth countries, without whose unanimous agreement to such a change in the law, it won't occur, because you can't have, for example, Charles III reigning in the UK and some Commonwealth countries but Elizabeth II in the others. Which is why I said this hypothetical scenario will never happen. On that, we agree. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know whether it's exactly the same in Belgium, but King Baudouin I of Belgium had to go to the extent of "abdicating" for 2 days, rather than sign a bill into law that would make abortion legal, something his conscience would not permit. That was the only way he could not do what he was told to do. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, I hadn't heard of that. I'll have to go and find out about it! Thanks! --Tango (talk) 23:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Attack on Pieter Menten's house in Blaricum

Now, I know it is not the most reputable publication in the world, but in issue 48 / volume 96 of Dutch magazine Panorama, it is said that John de Mol had a house built on the foundations of the Blaricum house of war criminal Pieter Menten, which was destroyed by an attack of some kind. Neither the Dutch version of the article on Menten nor the English one mention this attack. According to [2], Menten lived in Bloemendaal, not Blaricum, during the latter years of the war (and abroad before that), so this was not an attack by the underground resistance. You'd think that a peacetime attack destroying a whole (huge) house would leave its traces (like that on Aad Kosto's house), but I can't seem to find anything on the net at large either. In any case, if it is true, it should be in the articles. Does anyone know more? Thank you in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.81.61.240 (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Putting issues forward for debate

I'm trying to organise debates for my own student association in cooperation with the local student debating association. We need to submit to the debating society, our ideas for debates. We will not use the parliamentary style of debate but something rather more relaxed with more members on either side. The person I spoke to said that in Dutch, they called the format 'Lagerhuis' which translates as 'House of Commons'. I know that in England, the debating societies make motions along the lines "this House would lower the age of consent to 12" or whatever. Is that the design of motion made in the House of Commons in the UK? Can't you say something like "promiscuity is harmful to society" and debate over that, without a motion to do anything about it? Does that happen in debating societies or is it always motions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.212.39.7 (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You could perfectly well choose to debate the motion "That this house thinks that promiscuity is harmful to society" without proposing any remedy. The House of Commons itself used to have a procedure for debating abstract motions set down by individual Members, but got rid of it about 15 years ago. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Why did it get rid of the procedure? Does that mean discussion of such motions is no longer possible in the HoC? --129.125.137.63 (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

They got rid of it because MPs wanted to create what was called the 'constituency Friday', a day when Parliament was not sitting and when they could return to their constituencies to attend to business there. At the moment there is no procedure allowing debate on private members' motions. They can still put down motions formally for debate on "an early day" but this day never comes and so the motions are just a way of expressing opinion. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

According to our article, private member's bills do still exist, they are just very unlikely to get anywhere. Adjournment debates are a standard way of debating something without having an actual motion to do anything involved. --Tango (talk) 18:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The questioner was asking about motions, rather than bills. A bill is by definition proposing to do something by enacting new legislation. In an adjournment debate, the motion under debate is something very definite: "That this House do now adjourn". Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

"Bill" is just another name for "motion" - a bill is a motion to create an act. While technically an adjournment debate is debating whether or not to adjourn, that is purely a technicality. What is actually happening is there is a debate without an associated motion/bill. --Tango (talk) 01:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

A 'bill' may be a motion in the US Congress but it is not in the UK. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is. It's called a "Bill" while going through parliament then when it passes it becomes an "Act". That's the same as voting on a "Motion" which then becomes a "Resolution". --Tango (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I fear we may be talking at cross purposes here. The original poster wished to know whether it was possible, within the British House of Commons procedure, to debate an abstract motion which expressed an opinion but did not propose to do anything definite or set a new policy. This is of course possible. Most motions however do propose to do something definite, including motions to adjourn the house, or support the government's policy, or to give a second reading to a Bill for an Act of Parliament. In Britain a Bill is specifically and only a proposal for new legislation.

In the US Congress, however, the term 'Bill' is given much wider usage. It includes 'sense of Congress' motions, and others which do not suggest any policy change. I found this example while doing a quick search. H.Con.Res.53 is a Bill in the US Congress; the equivalent in the British House of Commons would be an Early Day Motion, and would not be a Bill at all. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, in the UK bills are a type of motion, not all motions are bills. I may have been unclear, sorry. Debates which aren't intended to do anything are held as adjournment debates. The fact that there is a motion to adjourn is completely irrelevant - it's just a technicality. There is no actual vote to decide how the House feels on an issue, but such a vote would serve little if any purpose anyway. --Tango (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

In Australia, adjournment debates are much like what you say. But there have been precedents where there's been opposition to the motion to adjourn, and it sometimes goes to a vote, and it hasn't always gone the government's way because the chamber is relatively empty and the balance may be in the opposition's favour after they've rung the bells and locked the doors, so they have to keep on talking. (How shocking for politicians to have to talk against their will!) We also have what are called Debates on Matters of Public Importance (MPIs for short) where such a matter is debated for an agreed limited time (around 60-90 minutes, typically). These are usually brought on by the opposition, as a way of gaining extra time to catalogue the government's grievous errors, and the first speaker will usually move a motion to censure the government. That censure motion then has to be debated, and they fail in 100% of cases and they know that before they start, but that's not the point. The MPIs themselves are not motions, just debates, although there may have to be a motion to get agreement to having an MPI in the first place. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)