Humanities desk
< November 3	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 5 >

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.

November 4

Fewer Homosexual Blacks

Why are there fewer homosexual black africans than the other homosexual racial groups in the world? I don't hear or see any gay parade in Sub-Sahara Africa and the Carribean islands. 72.136.111.205 (talk) 05:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful when you make these assumptions. There are likely as many black homosexuals as there are of any other large, random, group of people. The critically acclaimed documentary film Paris Is Burning would certainly contradict your initial assumption as false to begin with... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't African like he's talking about, they live in New York City! Wrad (talk) 05:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His focus on race, and on the Caribbean, seems to indicate he's not just asking about Africa, but on black people in general. Besides, the basic point that across any large enough population, you are likely to find the same percentages of homosexuals, as any other large population. There may be key differences in how such homosexuality is expressed, for example the concept of a "gay pride parade" may be unheardof in some localities, but that doesn't mean that there are less homosexuals there! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the beginning of the AIDS epidemic in the early '80s, Scientific American noted that epidemiologists were confused for many months by the spread of AIDS among Haitian men, who swore that they never had sex with other men. The "down-low' is a specifically African-American expression for such unacknowledged homosexual adventures. The phenomenon in sub-Saharan Africa of "dry sex" is doubtless an unacknowldged result of inured familiarity with boys' thighs. And you mean fewer homosexual black Africans, not less. --Wetman (talk) 06:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They also seemed confused by their very wrong assumption that AIDS is confined to the homosexual community or can only be acquired through gay sex. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is widespread homophobia in the Caribbean[1] and Africa[2], so people from these areas would be unlikely to be open about their sexuality.--Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 12:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There were no gay pride parades in New York City in the 1950s but there were surely as many homosexuals there then as there were in the 1980s. Think about it. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 13:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are many places in Africa, the Middle East and the Caribbean where action against gay people is swift and violent. In some countries it's policy, and people who are out can be beaten or killed. In places like Jamaica it's not so much public policy as it is social practice. Among African Americans, I don't believe the percentage of gays or lesbians is any more or less than in whites, and they develop subcultures unto themselves such as in Harlem and in the documentary Paris is Burning (film). --Moni3 (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The map at the page homosexuality laws of the world shows that African countries almost all have laws against homosexuality. The strong Christian culture in much of sub-Saharan Africa means that there is a strong bias against it, much like in Muslim Africa. The Caribbean is mixed in terms of laws against homosexual practice, but even where it is legal, there is still a cultural bias against it. The down-low phenomenon mentioned above is somewhat of a result of that. If google is anything to go by, there isn't a shortage of African-Americans willing to show of their prowess with other men. Steewi (talk) 23:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Revolution a coup?

Is it correct to describe the American Revolution as a coup d'etat? The WP article vaguely calls the Revolution a "political upheaval." The Revolution was Americans overthrowing the incumbnent British Government in the 13 colonies with military force and replacing it with a new government. How is that not a coup? How does a coup differ from a revolution as we know it? Thank you.--Wikiphilia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.78.136.78 (talk) 06:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only the Americans ever call it a revolution anyway. Everywhere else in the world, it's known as the American War of Independence. Malcolm XIV (talk) 07:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A successful coup d'etat removes the leader of the country from power. George III was not removed from power over his kingdom, just from the part that didn't care for his leadership. And, yes, it was a revolution. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a perfectly sharp distinction. One difference is that coups are usually aimed at gaining a leader or group of leaders power, whereas revolutions may have leaders, but are at least officially aimed at accomplishing some more ideological change to how society is organized. Another is that coups usually keep up at least a pretense of retaining the existing form of government but merely changing its leaders, whereas a revolution tends to openly promote its intent to overthrow the previous order and replace it with a new one. Which term is used may also depend on what aspect people look at; the 18 Brumaire fairly openly accomplished a change in the system of government, but is usually called a "coup" due to focusing on the fact that it represents Napoleon's seizure of power. The American Revolution meanwhile, like the French Revolution, is hard to characterize as a coup, being open as they both were about the intent to overthrow the existing form of government. The American case is also more specifically a war of independence, as Malcolm XIV and DOR note. --Delirium (talk) 07:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the bit in war of independence "If a new state is successfully established, the conflict is subsequently known as a war of independence". Quite right. If it had been unsuccessful those americans would have just been terrorists. Dmcq (talk) 09:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The line is blurry, but the level of involvement is also a big factor in determining the difference. In a coup d'etat, whether there is a change of government form or not, it general involves a small number of government and/or political officials, and does not represent widespread popular revolt. In a revolution, there is generally some high level of popular involvement, and widespread war. Most revolutions could also be termed "civil wars" (such as the Russian and French) or "wars of independence" (such as the American). Other times, like the Glorious Revolution, it was, despite the name, clearly more of a coup d'etat... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are some good answers above; here are a few more comments. One online definition of "coup d'etat" calls it "a sudden overthrow of a government by a usually small group of persons", but the American Revolution was neither "sudden" (there were repeated pleas for reform and reconciliation) nor was it conducted by a "small group" (it was a popular movement). A "coup d'etat" also usually suggests a change of government by military force or the threat of military force, which is again not really applicable to the American Revolution as a whole (the colonists barely had a functioning military at the outset).

By the way, I'm inclined to agree with John Adams in believing that it's not accurate to equate the American Revolution with the American War of Independence. Adams believed that the Revolution was a popular political movement, and the War of Independence was one consequence of this movement. He overstated the point in his usual manner, but many historians in the 20th century came around to Adams's view, more or less, whether they realized it or not. Which is why someone like Gordon S. Wood can write incisive books about the American Revolution and only mention the battles in passing! —Kevin Myers 15:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Approach to writing a biography

Let's say I have a good idea for a new biography of a living person. I am acquainted with the person and can gain access to them and their associates for the purpose of research. The person is notable and there has been no previous biography of them. However, I am a previously unpublished writer. What should be my approach to getting the biography written and published? Should I approach publishers first with a proposal, in the hope that they will express interest and even maybe make me an offer? Or should I just go ahead and start writing the thing, even though I have no guarantee that it will ever be published? It would be a whole lot of work and I'm not sure that I would want to launch into the project without at least some prospect of it being published. Furthermore, it would be very advantageous in speaking to the person and their associates if I could tell them that the project already has the backing of a publisher rather than just being some personal project of mine. On the other hand, I fully accept that publishers are unlikely to take a chance on a previously unpublished writer. So, what is the best approach? --Richardrj ^talk ^email 07:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gather your resources viz, most of them are with your subject person. Approach this person with your proposal (polish that "pitch"), offer (formally or informally) your cv and praise them shamelessly. Then, since you don't have clout (influence and fame) and they do, they could approach the publisher proposing a timely and vital biography of themselves, nominating you as official biographer. Question why has this notable person escaped being biographed so far? Julia Rossi (talk) 10:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS It might help to have an outline or precis in the works so that when they can't imagine how it could be done, you demonstrate by example, and make sure not to hand it over or surrender your entire idea or they'll give it to someone more impressive who will snatch up the baton and cross the finishing line so that with any luck you may be invited to their launch. In other words, protect yourself, Julia Rossi (talk) 10:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obama LA Interview

A McCain supporter alleged on the radio that there is in interview with Obama which isn’t being released and never will be. What is this referring to? Kittybrewster ☎ 10:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read on a message board that it was supposed to including his praising of the PLO or some PLO peson in particular. That, however, can have a number of contexts, as he might not necessarily be approving of terrorism, but simply of their desire for a homeland. Considering that Yasser Arafat had already gone from being a wanted criminal in many eyes to a man brokering peace with Israel, I doubt it would be any huge thing; this seems more the case where, becasue American society is so used to freedom and to knowing *everything* about a person, not knowing things seems odd.Somebody or his brother (talk) 12:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Rashid Khalidi. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

US Ambassador postings

I'm looking for a list of when and where US Ambassadors have been posted. Specifically, I'm trying to find out who was the US Ambassador to South Africa in 1990-98 or so. Seems like it should be easy enough to google, but no luck so far. The more general reference list of all Ambassadors to all countries would be a useful reference tool to have stored. Thanks if you can help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.101.134.43 (talk) 10:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably you have seen this page, which (annoyingly) doesn't go back any further than 2001. If you don't find an answer elsewhere, I suggest writing to the embassy using the contact details given on that website. What do you know, United States Ambassador to South Africa. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 10:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And for your second question, try this page. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 10:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. You'd think I could have found it. Amazing thing wikipedia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.101.134.43 (talk) 11:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, lest anyone think you are crazy, I set up a redirect from your former redlink to the main article; it seemed a reasonable search term so I thought this wise... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voting machines in the USA

An obvious question, perhaps, but I can't seem to find an easy answer. What kind of voting machines are currently in use in the USA? That article says that lever machines were common until the 1990s, and have been succeeded by the DRE voting machine. However, that second article says that only 29% of US voters used these things in 2004. So what is mostly being used today? --Richardrj ^talk ^email 11:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paper ballots? 194.221.133.226 (talk) 11:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't speak for anywhere but my locality, but in Wake County, North Carolina, we use optical scanner ballots; basically its the type where you "fill in the circle" with a black pen next to the candidate (think standardized test) and put it through a machine that scans and counts it. The federal government has no ballot form standard, and leaves it up to individual states. North Carolina further devolves this decision to the Counties, so even in my state, there is wide variation as to the type of ballot and/or voting machine used. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As stated, it varies from locality to locality. In moving around I've used all manner of machines in the last ten years—ranging from ink-on-paper, to ones where I punched a little pin through, to fully electronic ones. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 12:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's very interesting. Does the fact that there is a variety of machines in use make electoral fraud more or less likely? --Richardrj ^talk ^email 13:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It must certainly be less likely, because to rig the national election you would have to subvert many different kinds of machines rather than just one (ahem). --Sean 14:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that in a close election subversion of even just one major district could be important (example). You wouldn't need 100% success to be effective—even just a few percentage points can be decisive, especially given the winner-take-all nature of the electoral college (if you edge a close state over the line, then it counts as 100% votes for the winning party, in most states). --140.247.243.242 (talk) 14:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All different types! Just this morning I used a fill-in-the-circle type that reminded me of high-school. (I live in CT now.) But in the past ( I used to live in MA) I've used connect-the-line type machines where every line of the ballot has the back end of an arrow, a gap, and the point of an arrow, and you indicate your candidate by connecting the line.

It's my understanding that some small towns still use hand-counted ballots where you just make an 'X' in a box. APL (talk) 15:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I lived in one city in Massachusetts, it was a connect-the-line, and when I moved to another a mile or two away, it was a fill-in-the-bubble. Totally idiosyncratic. --140.247.240.13 (talk) 17:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't even need to move. In the place I'm living now, I've used poke-out-the-chad, fill-in-the-circle, and (today) connect-the-arrow over the last dozen years. Deor (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in New York, and we still use the lever voting machines, which give you a satisfying ca-chung sound when you record your vote. Alas, due to stupid federal requirements, theses reliable workhorses will be replaced by some less trustworthy contraption. --Nricardo (talk) 04:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a good image: http://www.graphpaper.com/2006/11-07_election-2006-the-end-of-the-lever (despite the comment, 2006 was not the last year) --Nricardo (talk) 04:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a good "full-body" shot: http://www.flickr.com/photos/thepodger/291865616/ --Nricardo (talk) 04:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

who is favored to win the election and by how much?

Who is favored to win the election and by how much?

What is the web site where you can watch this stuff in real time, I think it was just a number, like 304.com or something...?

Finally, I heard there is a kind of "stock market" for tracking things like this, so that we can look at how much money is on obama and mccain to see what the market thinks... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.209.97 (talk) 12:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/. They're predicting an Obama win by 155 electoral college votes. There are many online bookies offering odds on the election. Algebraist 13:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for the trader, you probably want Intrade, they're the biggest as far as I know. Currently, asking price for Obama is at 93.2; McCain is at 7.3. Paragon ¹²³²¹ 20:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what is the effect of the economy?

what effect, if anything, does the economy have? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.209.97 (talk) 13:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See economy and let us know if anything doesn't make sense. -- kainaw ™ 13:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean on the election—at the moment it is making things swing away from McCain in particular as the Republicans are more associated with the economic problems at the moment in the polls (wrongly or rightly) and most Americans think that Obama is taking a more proactive approach to it (again, wrongly or rightly). At least that's what I recall the polls as having said. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your magic power to know precisely which economy the questioner was asking about. I read it as a very general question, not relating to any one country or any particular current event. But you may be right. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same questioner just asked about the US election in the question above so it seemed likely it would be related. Especially since the US election is going on as we speak and people have been talking about the relation of the state of the US economy to the US election for weeks on end. Given the US-centric aspects oft his board I wouldn't be surprised if we get quite a few election questions today—it's a big day for us, the culmination of what feels like two years of campaigning! --140.247.243.242 (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

american election

when will results be out and where can i get results live? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.10 (talk) 13:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Results will start being announced as soon as the polls start to close (early evening US time, I don't remember exactly), any American news channel will have live coverage. The BBC is doing a live text coverage on their website (it's probably linked to from news.bbc.co.uk ).--Tango (talk) 14:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They won't call the final election until after the polls in the Westernmost states have closed. So don't expect a final verdict until late evening EST. As for where you can get the results live, any decent news site will do. BBC, CNN, etc. If you're really in the mood for as much raw statistical info as possible try http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/. --140.247.243.242 (talk) 14:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polls close in most districts at 7 pm EST. Local results and eastern states will be released on television as soon as polls close and throughout the night, updating by the hour as they close in other time zones. Unless, of course, the hanging chad debacle occurs again. --Moni3 (talk) 14:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The election is usually called before the polls close in Hawaii - which is a tad west of most states. The television stations normally call a winner as soon as they feel they can. Sometimes this is very quick (Reagan's re-election was called long before polls closed on the west coast). -- kainaw ™ 14:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not anymore though...the 2000 debacle forced the networks to agree to not declare a winner until the Western states have voted. —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 15:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I expect that most networks will ~~start celebrating~~ declare a winner much earlier than in the last two presidential elections. 71.72.148.80 (talk) 15:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They won't "declare" a winner. They'll just announce that one candidate has clinched enough electoral votes to win even though the polls in the west haven't closed. -- kainaw ™ 16:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Announcing that one cadidate has "clinched enough electoral votes to win" is exactly what is meant when we say a network "declares" a winner. Perhaps you were being ironic and I missed the joke? 71.72.148.80 (talk) 16:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the comment above that they agreed to not declare a winner. So, they won't use the word "declare". -- kainaw ™ 22:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As they are saying now... "With California a guaranteed Democrat state, Obama has 275 electoral votes and a sure victory." They are avoiding saying "Obama has won." -- kainaw ™ 04:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... now they are clearly saying "Obama has won" even though Alaska is still voting. I guess they don't consider Alaska to be a state in their agreement not to declare a winner until voting has completed. -- kainaw ™ 04:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But this agreement is worthless if they can get around it by using synonymous expressions. If it's not ok to broadcast "X has won", what makes it ok to broadcast that X now has enough electoral college votes to guarantee them the presidency? Do they not mean the same thing? -- JackofOz (talk) 13:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although it is now past the time when we know the winner (yipee!), my favorite this time around was this: as it was safe to assume that California, Washington, Oregon and Hawai'i would vote for Obama, their 77 (very late) electoral votes are taken as given. So, among the early voters (the East Coast and South), Obama needed only 193 votes. Once he had those confirmed, the answer was obvious. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bengali script

Why Bengali language is the only one not to use the Roman script when it comes to the title of the films of Bangladesh and West Bengal, like Bollywood films? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.74.179 (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Bollywood store near me has all the Tamil films in Tamil script - when I was looking for Kandukondain Kandukondain, they couldn't help me because they couldn't read the Tamil covers. One reason for this is possibly a sense of linguistic self-determination - they want to show that they have their own script and that is isn't subject to being washed out by the more popular roman script. That is, however, original research. Steewi (talk) 23:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

term in office

I know that George Bush was elected two times for President. I notice that he gets to be elected for the second and last time. So, what about the Prime Minister? How many times does he get to be elected to a 4-year office? What about the Premiers of Canadian provinces? What about Indian Prime Minister and its state counterparts(meaning chief Minister)? What about Bangladeshi Prime Minister? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.74.179 (talk) 15:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Term limit and List of political term limits. Many countries use the title Prime minister and many countries don't have a fixed interval between elections but only a highest allowed interval. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear from the original question, but I want to point out to the original poster that the United States does not have a Prime Minister. --Zerozal (talk) 16:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess he/she's referring to other countries. I don't see any Prime Ministers in that list that have a limit on the number of terms they can serve, and I've never heard of one. -- JackofOz (talk) 16:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Benazir Bhutto#Possible deal with the Musharraf Government about Pakistan. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, in countries that have presidents and prime ministers, it is the president (head of state) whose term is limited to a specified number of years (usually between 4 and 7) and the number of terms is also limited (usually to two terms at most). The prime minister (head of government), on the other hand, is not elected, but appointed by the head of state and then approved by the parliament (see: motion of confidence) and his/her term is limited by the parliament's term (and the lenght of the parliamentary term may differ from country to country). If the parliament dissolves before the end of its term, the prime minister loses his/her job. However, if the same party wins again in a new parliamentary election, the same person may become prime minister again and there's no limit on the number of years or terms a prime minister can serve. Margaret Thatcher, for instance, was appointed British prime minister three times and she served a total of 11 years in that office.

See also Premier (Canada), Prime Minister of India and Prime Minister of Bangladesh for more information about the particular offices. — Kpalion^(talk) 18:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting that not all Prime Ministers are "appointed by the head of state and then approved by the parliament". Some are appointed or selected by parliament, with the head of state having no part in the process. See e.g. Prime minister and Prime minister of Sweden./Coffeeshivers (talk) 21:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Lyon Mackenzie King was Prime Minister of Canada for 21 years, off and on. There is no limit here. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Learning about other cultures

<moved to language desk here:[3] where linguists hang out Julia Rossi (talk) 22:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)>[reply]

betting site for elections?

can someone point out a site that is a "market" for real-world events, and includes the current presidential elections? ('futures'). I am interested in the actual, current, going prices for the two candidates! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.209.97 (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there are plenty of sites offering current odds. Paddy Power's bookies here in Ireland (usable worldwide) have a website:[4]. You can get odds for the battleground states, state with the smallest margin and when McCain will concede. Out of luck on outright betting though. They payed out on Obama three weeks ago. Fribbler (talk) 19:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like intrade might be along the lines of what you're looking for - 38.112.225.84 (talk) 04:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U.S 2008

In how many hours we will know who won the elections? I live in Israel, and it's 22:15 PM at the moment... Gridge (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Anywhere from 9-10 EST (early morning for you) till...next month. No one knows. Paragon ¹²³²¹ 20:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Media outlets don't start making projections for any individual states until AFTER that state's polls close, for fear of influencing the outcome in those states. They won't even start talking about exit interviews or general polling outside of the precincts until then, so I would expect that this one will not likely be called until 9-10 PM EST at the earliest... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, guys. Gridge (talk) 23:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Well, Obama it is. Gridge (talk) 02:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Even though I support him, I still cannot believe that he has won, for some reason. Well, I've deviated again. Vltava 68 (talk contribs) 08:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who was the last presidential candidate to get an absolute majority of the popular vote? —Tamfang (talk) 17:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Bush in 2004. George Bush won 51% of the popular vote and John Kerry won 48% of the popular vote. (from CNN.com "Election Tracker, Past Results" page). --Zerozal (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religious Pluralism.

what are the pastoral recomendations towards people who are biased towards Hinduism as a religion? ( four tildes) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.201.151.5 (talk) 21:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Biased towards Hinduism as a religion"? Does this mean a positive bias, in that they are followers of Hinduism, or a negative bias in that they are opposed to Hinduism? ៛ Bielle (talk) 21:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word "pastoral" is associated with christian faiths - good shepherds & all that - and so I have a feeling the OP might be asking what to do when one of your flock wants to join another outfit. But I could be yards out. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And if you are correct about the Christian aspect, I suspect that, whatever the rest of the question may mean, the answer will depend upon the OP's specific brand of Christianity. Some are much more tolerant of "pluralism" than others. ៛ Bielle (talk) 22:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of the original intent is that this evangelical Christian is asking for advice on how best to convert Hindus to his own particular cult. As I find deliberately seeking opportunities to induce others to change their religious beliefs to be deeply offensive, I won’t even try to answer the question. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pliny quotes on the Netherlands

I'm compiling a list of Pliny 'elder or younger' quotes regarding the Netherlands, google search turns up way to many different things, any suggestions? Usjx06203 (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Wikiquote may help? Booglamay (talk) - 23:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Search the text, such as at Gutenberg's The Letters of Pliny the Younger, or the various works at the Internet Archive? --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pliny wouldn't know the name Netherlands, so you'll want to search for ancient names like Batavi and Flevo. —Tamfang (talk) 17:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statute of limitations in Hawaii

Hello Everyone,

Might anyone here know how long it takes for the statute of limitations to come into place in Hawaii? I have sought legal advice but there is no free legal advice in Hawaii.

Cordially--Disgracious23 (talk) 23:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This would be legal information, not legal advice. However, statutes of limitation vary considerably depending upon the crime. What is the crime about which you would like such information? ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3rd degree Assault and possibly theft 3rd —Preceding unsigned comment added by Disgracious23 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can find the statute of limitations in Hawaii for third degree assault and theft third class by accessing Findlaw.com and use the professional version. You need to look for "cases and codes" and click on Hawaii. The information should be there. I purposely did not look. I don't know how frequently FindLaw updates its information and it may be necessary to read the cases interpreting the offenses and statues of limitation in general. You may want to click on the criminal code. 75Janice (talk) 03:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)75Janice[reply]

Most law libraries are federal repositories. I suggest googling law schools and private law libraries near you. You can ask the law librarian if they allow public access. If there is public access, the librarians are usually quite helpful finding the appropriate legal information for pro se plaintiffs and defendants. They can not give legal advice, though. There are also a few online services where one can retain a lawyer for research for a few hours.17:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)75Janice (talk)75Janice75Janice (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Health problems and elections

I heard that some people are having insomnia and various health problems in the US due to the election. I also heard the same for the recent Taiwan election. I haven't heard similar situation in New Zealand despite an election this weekend. What's the situation for elections in around the world? F (talk) 23:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stress can cause all kinds of health problems. Is the New Zealand election less stressful than others? (Already clear who will win, perhaps? The candidates are so alike that no-one cares? etc.) I really don't see the point of getting stressed over an election - you're going to end up with a politician in charge whatever happens... --Tango (talk) 23:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the opposite of insomnia? The recent Canadian election had that effect. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Narcolepsy?--Wetman (talk) 06:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]