Humanities desk
< April 2	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 4 >

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.

April 3

Magnuson Moss Act New Zealand equivalent

G'day from New Zealand. I was wondering if my country had a law equivalent to the US "Magnuson-Moss Act". I'm specifically interested in knowing if there is a law which means that a warranty cannot be voided on a product if the consumer has used another product which enhances the performance of the original product. An example I suppose would be a special kind of ink which makes your printer more efficient than the ink sold by your printer manufacturer (at which point the printer manufacturer freaks out and voids your warranty). I've tried looking at the Consumer Guarantees Act and Fair Trading Act on the NZ Legislation website, but haven't had much luck. Appreciate any help.

Turn of the Century French Ultra Conservatism

Where can I find details of caused the rise of strong right wing conservatism in France under theird republic in the period between the Franco-Prussian War and WW1. Thank you

Our article French Third Republic is probably a good place to start. - Eron^Talk 03:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Georges Ernest Boulanger, a former general and reactionary right-wing politician who almost succeeded in toppling the Third Republic, is relevant to the question. Charles Maurras and Maurice Barrès were leading intellectual figures associated with this position. And of course, the movement found some of its strongest voices during the Dreyfus Affair. All of the linked articles contain relevant information. --Xuxl (talk) 14:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boulanger did indeed capitalise on the rise in right wing conservatism, but where was this shift coming from? The dreysus afffair too made the shift very evident, but fails to explains it's origins. Can the rising doctrine of ethnic nationlism account (compounded the dreysus affair) really account for the shift?

Usually, the rise is blamed on the humiliating defeat which France suffered at the hands of Germany in the 1870 War. The movement was often called "revanchisme", i.e. getting revenge. The common rallying cry was the reconquest of Alsace and Lorraine, the two provinces lost to Germany in that war. The right was also looking for scapegoats for the defeat: foreigners, Jews (Alfred Dreyfus was great for this purpose) and other common bugaboos of the far right (e.g. weakening of the national character, loss of traditional values, etc). --Xuxl (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How to get into the US?

We have a situation that requires urgent travel to the United States. We have the opportunity to travel to Reno, Nevada for an international science fair. One of the boys traveling is Romanian and the Romanian passport has expired, and there is no chance to renew it (150 days).

One of the boys traveling is a Romanian citizen, and he is living in Canada without Canadian citizenship, but with permanent residence. He does not have a passport to fly to Reno, so he has applied for a Certificate of Identity, shown on this page.

http://www.ppt.gc.ca/non-cdn/index.aspx?lang=eng

Do we need a VISA to travel with this document? and if so, will they base a VISA on this document?

Can a VISA and this certificate of identity be used to fly from Ontario to the United States.

Mile92 (talk) 00:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody who isn't a Canadian or Mexican citizen must have a passport to enter the United States. With the situation you've discribed, there is no way you will be permitted to enter. I'm sorry to other editors if this can be construed as legal advice, and if so, feel free to remove it. Grsz¹¹ 00:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would

Call the US embassy in Canada and ask them this (or take your text and paste it into an e-mail). They will know if it's OK. Do this no matter what the people here tell you
Call the Romanian embassy in Canada and ask can they please please get him a regular or emergency passport, and then ask the US embassy if it's OK for him to apply for a visa from Canada (if the answer to #1 is "no")

Jørgen (talk) 00:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about Romania, but UK citizens can get emergency travel documents in less than 24 hours, although it isn't cheap. If you need a visa, that might take longer, though. --Tango (talk) 06:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This may not be an emergency, but with 150 days to go I would see if the process of getting a travel document can be hurried. There's almost always a way to do that. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

150 days is the time it would normally take; the science fair is in May, so they have about 40 days. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if someone gave €100 to the right Romanian official as a gift of thanks (in advance) for accelerating things ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.234.246.206 (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know the guidelines only refer to legal advice, but I'm pretty sure we should avoid giving illegal advice as well. - Eron^Talk 20:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The advice is not necessarily illegal. In the UK, at least, we have an official system along those lines. If you pay a hefty enough surcharge, you can get a new passport on the day you ask for it. Algebraist 20:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already have a Certificate of Identity, which is(as far as the people at the passport place tell me) similar to a passport. But that's the dillema now, i'm only getting the certificate as an Romanian citizen(so.. it acts like a romanian passport), but we don't know if the US will put a VISA on it. Also, yes.. i know about the little gifts that I need to give Romanian office people, but.. that's the reason I left Romania; so I will not do it. Mile92 (talk) 00:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

e-commerce

why are e-commerce goes increase and familiar all over the world, here we seen so many frauds and illegal techniques used to access the interests? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.51.67 (talk) 05:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't understand. There are too many grammatical errors in there for me to make sense of what you are trying to say. If English isn't your first language, I suggest you see if the Wikipedia in your language has its own reference desk and ask there. --Tango (talk) 06:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think what he's asking is why e-commerce is increasingly popular, even though internet fraud is common (presumably that's particularly true where he's from). I guess he wants to know what gives people the courage to make purchases on the internet and trust they're not going to get scammed.

Personally, I've bought a lot of things on the net, both actual physical objects and services and digital products, and I've never had a bad experience, at least not in terms of someone cheating me. I rarely actively think about whether it's safe, unless I'm considering a purchase from a site that's not established enough to be trusted right off the bat. I mean, if I buy a book from Amazon, I really don't expect to get ripped off. I _might_, sure, but then anyone at a local restaurant could just as easily copy my credit card number and make me pay for their horse tranquilizer habit or something -- there has to be _some_ kind of basic trust there for commerce to be viable. And I do run into scams all the time, but most of them are very, very easy to spot. (To put it simply, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the beautiful Nigerian princess who offers you ten million bucks doesn't really exist.) I'm not very worried, and I think most people who make purchases online are operating under the same general principles. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 06:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I live near a major shopping mall, and I've sometimes spent hours traipsing around it unable to find what I want, only to find it within a few minutes online. That is the big attraction. The key thing is only to use reputable websites, and avoid random marketplaces such as eBay.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you want to avoid eBay? If the seller has a good feedback rating, it's pretty low risk. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 09:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of risk on ebay will vary depending on what is being sold. There is more motive to scam you for a high value item then a low one. For example, if you want to buy something that is pretty inexpensive, like a $10 cookbook, you are far less likely to have a problem then if you bought a "genuine" Ming dynasty vase. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 13:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what exactly is the question? Smallman12q (talk) 13:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Troops Attacked By Cavalry

Why is it that when you have a company of infantry, putting them in squares defeats a cavalry attack with close to zero casualties, but when you do it on 'Cossacks' (the game) they all just get massacred?--KageTora (talk) 09:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know if putting infantry in squares really offers them a great advantage over cavalry in real life, but if it does, then it probably has a lot to do with Cossacks not being a particularly realistic game, at least in that respect. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 09:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, apparently, from what I have read in military history textbooks, horses have a natural urge to avoid charging straight at a line of men, 3 deep, with guns and bayonets, so the obvious strategy for the cavalry would be to attack from the side or the rear, hence the square formation, as there are no real sides or rears. Cossacks is a brilliant game, but my men just keep getting massacred unless I make them all run away and form smaller squares or get in a building or something.--KageTora (talk) 10:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've not seen the game, but AFAIK, cavalry would destroy unassisted infantry unless the following were true: there were sufficient numbers of well-trained troops, using sufficiently modern firearms that they could keep up sustained volleys of fire and the footsoldiers had bayonets and were proficient in their use. Do your troops fulfil these criteria? --Dweller (talk) 13:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The use of squares to defeat cavalry is very much taken from real life, as any book on Napoleonic era tactics will tell. The truth is that it is actually very hard for a man on a horse to run down and injure even a single man on foot armed with a pole. If the 'pole' is a rifle with a bayonet on the end then it is pretty much impossible for cavalry to hurt a line of infanty standing facing them with bayonets.

So why, you wonder, are cavalry so devastating against infantry. The first reason is that the situation is completely different if the cavalry are able to come at the infantry from the side or the rear. Then the infantry can't defend themselves and the cavalry just run over them. The second reason is that it's a question of nerve. A mass of fast moving animals coming towards you unnerves even the bravest, and if the line of infantry turns and runs then the cavalry takes them from the back, which results in a massacre.

That's why squares are the tactic of choice for infantry against cavalry. The horsemen can't attack from the side or rear, and having your colleagues at your back makes it easier to stand and fight with confidence. If you read accounts of Napoleonic battles there are plenty of examples where infantry attacked by cavalry successfully resist by forming into square. One author I've read claimed that there was no example of well-trained infantry having a square 'broken' by cavalry unless they hit it while the square was still forming, or the square was broken first by artillery fire.

As for why the Cossack game doesn't simulate this, I don't know. Other games about the era do simulate it. Maybe they wanted to make the cavalry more powerful than they really were, seeing as how the name is 'Cossack'. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our article infantry square gives more information. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was the British in the Battle Of Waterloo scenario, and I keep losing. Mind you, I was the French in the Battle Of Hastings scenario for Medieval Total War II and I kept getting massacred. D-Day in Sudden Strike also resulted in Nazi domination of Europe. Something is seriously wrong. Maybe I should stop putting all my troops into squares and just get them to attack.--KageTora (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're not a military genius (probably). If Napoleon were playing those games maybe the result would be different (I can't get the crusades battles in MTW to turn out historically correct either). Adam Bishop (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding D-Day in Sudden Strike, I don't think forming squares with your infantry will provide a meaningful benefit from armored "vehicle" cavalry. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If cavalry were riding at a spread out line of infantry, in musket days, with the very limited rate of fire,and limited effective range, the infantry would get off one volley and have no time to reload before the cavalry rode through them. The cavalry could get off pistol shots and could then kill with sabres as the passed the infantry line. The cavalry could also ride or leap over breastworks and trenches. Attacking infantry would have to endure repeated volleys from the defenders, with higher losses. If the infantry is in a square, each rank can fire and reload, and bayonet the cavalry trying to ride through them, as well as attacking from the sides and rear as the bog down in the mass of men. The square could also have a rank of pikemen in the front. Granted, the cavalry could then attack the pike-less rear, but would still endure ongoing volleys of musketry. Edison (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All my comments above apply after the invention of the bayonet. Before that it was necessary to have pikemen with the musketeers in order to fend off cavalry. I don't know as much about pre-bayonet warfare, but I think the square was a common tactic against cavalry then too. Note that the square is rarely a good tactic against infantry attack, because there the defenders need to maximize the firepower they can bring to bear against the attackers.

The usual way of dealing with a square was to pound it with artillery; the close ranks would cause high casualties and the breaks caused by the artillery might disrupt it enough to allow cavalry to penetrate it. You can keep an infantry unit in square by having cavalry hang about nearby, and then bring up infantry to defeat it in a firefight - the defenders having only 1/4 of their firepower because of the square formation. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to guess that in the pike-and-musket era a square would be composed of mixed pike and musket on all sides.

Incidentally the limitations on square use are not so much about technology as they are about men. To effectively use the square tactic your infantry must be capable of changing formation quickly and accurately, under enemy fire and in the face of charging cavalry. That's far from easy. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what a different world we would be living in if I was in charge. I won the Agincourt scenario twice (I was the English first, then the French and won both times). Got massacred every time I even went near the middle East for the Crusades, and for some reason the Scots are in Norway now. Oh and the artillery support for one of the Russian Campaigns in the Crimea in WW2 (Sudden Strike) only has artillery that can reach the beach, so I just end up blowing up all of my men who have just got onto the beach, which results in a very short game. I guess it would be pointless getting them to form a square, then?--KageTora (talk) 22:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, what a different world it would be. I have witnessed a Japanese tank attack on Russia in Axis and Allies, following a route which appeared to sweep over the Himalayas. Which just goes to show these games are not always accurate. But on infantry squares: wonderful things, but certainly require well-trained troops, hence all the parade ground manoeuvrings while shouted at by the RSMs. Prior to bayonets, we see the pike square and the schiltron. DJ Clayworth is almost right: correctly formed infantry squares were almost impossible to break without artillery, but the Battle of Garcia Hernandez saw two French squares broken by the Germans. Gwinva (talk) 10:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talking of those who have successfully broken a square, let's not forget the finest of the lot. DuncanHill (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simulation hypothesis and Gnosticism

What branches of Gnosticism, if any, are compatible with the simulation hypothesis? Do any specifically affirm it? Neon Merlin 10:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Obama and First Ladies Generally

Hello Wikipedia,

We Londoners have been blessed in recent days by the arrival of Mr and Mrs Obama, and a few other world leaders. Obviously as "the leader of the free world", President O gets a certain amount of special treatment which is not afforded to the others (closing stanstead airport, that slightly diva-esque motorcade etc) but i'm just curious about the role of Michelle, who, whilst her husband was busy saving the world, gave a talk to a girls school in London and visited a hopstial with Sarah Brown.

Clearly, with the possibe exception of Carla Bruni, had any other First Ladies done anything like this the media attention would have been almost nil so i'm curiuos, does michelle do those things becuase she's amazing and everyone loves her or does she do them becuase she's the first lady? Did other first ladies do similar things when their husbands were 'on business'? P.s. I'm not attacking michelle for doing what she did- as one of the Obamas many fans, she can do no wrong in my eyes81.140.37.58 (talk) 10:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Bush has visited places on her own e.g. in Jerusalem[1], Haiti[2], and a Marie Antoinette exhibition in Paris while George was doing other business (to which I cannot link because WP is run by idiots). She visited London with George in 2003[3] and 2008[4], both of which saw vast amounts of security and disruption. In 2003 she watched children performing scenes from Shakespeare with Cherie Blair [5]. Some spouses will be keener than others on making visits, but there's more media interest on the Obamas than on most leaders. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 11:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Events like the G8 summits commonly include events for spouses, e.g. [6][7][8]. But unless there's someone super-glamorous like Michelle or Carla, nobody really wants to look at middle-aged women. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 11:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a new phenomenon. Jackie Kennedy was a glamorous first lady and drew crowds in the 1960s whenever she went, at home and abroad.. -- Alexf^(talk) 14:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What short memories we have. Didn't Raisa Gorbachev get similar attention? DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the modern First Spouse will typically do photo op, PR things when on an official visit with the spouse. Works on both sides of the pond, of course: when Queen Elizabeth was in the US in 2007, Prince Philip sometimes went off for events on his own, though I imagine there were fewer cameras pointing at him than is the case with Michelle Obama. —Kevin Myers 15:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first First Lady with a genuinely independent career was Eleanor Roosevelt. First Ladies have received media attention since Dolly Madison. --Wetman (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

British unparliamentary language list

I understand that in past (~10 years?) editions of Erskine May, there was a comprehensive list of what was considered unparliamentary language. Does anyone know where I could track down an online copy of such a thing?Thanks! ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 15:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(not an answer to your question, really) No, but I did find the one for New Zealand; it's delicious. 87.115.166.150 (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, yes, that is good! I particularly like, "His brains could revolve inside a peanut shell for a thousand years without touching the sides" - anyone any idea how to trace who said it? ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 17:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try asking the staff at the Parliamentary Bookshop. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I refer the Hon. Gentleman to a previous discussion on the subject. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Economics question on CDs

In the US, most CDs (Certificates of deposit) that are FDIC backed seem to have 2-3% interest. If UK banks have the same kind of governmental guarantees as the FDIC for US banks, would such insurance cover assets belonging to foreigners money? Hypothetically, say the equivalent CD in the UK or Australia gives 6% interest, wouldn't that be the better investment (assuming the currencies are stable relative to each other? 65.121.141.34 (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the numbers you mention are correct and if US investors qualify for deposit insurance from the Australian government when they invest in Australian CDs and if transaction costs are low, then the market believes that Australian deposit insurance is riskier than the FDIC so investors require a higher return on their investment. I've ignored currency risk. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or, to find the simple answer: the market believes there is ~3% worth of currency risk. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite - the differential includes a "spread" for currency risk as well as default risk of the Australian government. Assuming, as above, that US investors can easily invest in Australian NCDs. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are some Structuralist books that elaborate on binary oppositions?

What are some Structuralist books that elaborate on binary oppositions? --Gary123 (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question is rather vague, but you could look at some of the works of Claude Lévi-Strauss in anthropology, or N.S. Troubetzkoy in linguistics... AnonMoos (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Muslims celebrate Christmas

Is this true that Alawite Muslims of Syria and Lebanon celebrate Christmas like the Christians? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.166 (talk) 16:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Christmas worldwide states, "Most Lebanese Muslims celebrate Christmas with Christian friends, a poll showed that around two thirds of the population celebrate Christmas, while only 45% of the population is Christian." It does not mention Muslims in Syria. Tomdobb (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never met a Syrian Muslim, but where I live many Muslims celebrate Christmas along with the Christians, Hindus, atheists and agnostics. Plus everybody gets invited to their Eid celebrations. And there's Diwali of course - a party's a party. pablo_hablo. 22:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So... where do you live? LANTZY ^TALK 22:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Britain - e-mail me if you want to come to the next do. pablo_hablo. 22:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas worldwide should certainly not have said "Most Lebanese Muslims celebrate Christmas with Christian friends, a poll showed that around ...", and I've now fixed it by removing the comma splice. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Congress

An early map is dated as "37th Congress, 3rd Session." What year would this have been?Cenore (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere between December 1, 1862 and March 3, 1863 pablo_hablo. 22:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Old leaders, young leaders

It seems like some countries usually have very elderly leaders while others have younger ones. China, India, and Japan, in particular, have struck me as contries whose political leaders tend to be very old (though lately this tendency hasn't been as marked), while U.S. presidents tend to be fairly young. I calculated (quickly, and may be slightly off) that the average age of an Indian prime minister on ascension to office is 65 (not excluding Rajiv Gandhi, an outlier at age forty), whereas the average age of a U.S. president upon inauguration is around 55. Why the discrepency? Is it cultural or related to the electoral system? For example, does a parliamentary system favor older leaders while a presidential system favors younger ones? (I can think of some reasons why this might be the case.) I don't expect conclusive answers, just thoughts. LANTZY ^TALK 22:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it has anything to do with the political system. The UK, which has a parliamentary system, has been electing guys in their 40s for decades (Tony Blair & John Major). It would be a cultural thing. People think more of elders in some places, China, India and Japan in particular, as you said. Not so much in Europe, where experience and abilities count more. (Not saying that the guys in China, India and Japan are not qualified, so no disrespect intended here).--KageTora (talk) 23:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, correction: Neither John Major nor Tony Blair were actually elected. They just took over from people before them. Nor was Gordon Brown. So this means we haven't actually legally elected anyone since the days of John Smith, the inventor of beer.--KageTora (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell are you talking about? John Major was re-elected in the 1992 general election. Tony Blair won three general elections. John Smith, on the other hand, was never prime minister at all. Malcolm XIV (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Major was re-given a job already had. I don't call that an election. Tony Blair (according to the Wiki article) succeeded John Smith as leader of the Labour Party, and therefore walked into a job that was waiting for this country to happen. I don't call that an election, especially how he didn't show what Labour used to stand for. Then we have Gordon Brown, an ex-chancellor of the exchecker (sorry, can't spell it), and under him we are in the biggest global financial mess since Julius Caesar died.--KageTora (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that you are a troll. Thanks for the clarification. Malcolm XIV (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if KageTora is a troll, but he does seem to be implying that Tony Blair is not a true Scotsman. Seriously - an election is an election, even if (with hindsight) it looked easy for the winner. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me? A troll? I answered the OP's question, as requested. I do see, however, that you have been slated very often on various RDs for being sarcastic. I think you should give it a rest for a while. Being nice would be, well, nice.--KageTora (talk) 23:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am concerned, this discussion is over. In future, please do not mislead the OP by posting deliberate misinformation. Malcolm XIV (talk) 23:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, Kagetora. I don't consider you a troll, and I understand the point you were making. LANTZY ^TALK 21:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, right, message received and understood, lar. No need to discuss anything with me, lar, as far as I am concerned. Just be a bit nicer with people, eh? --KageTora (talk) 23:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, hope the OP got the info requested.--KageTora (talk) 00:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KageTora, one is entitled to have a low opinion of Gordon Brown, but blaming him for the global economic mess is a bit much, I think. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, Jack, I wasn't actually blaming Gordon Brown. I was just trying to say that it's shocking that we have the last PM's top financial advisor as the new PM, and suddenly, now we are in a financial crisis, he acts like he can't punch his way through a wet Echo.--KageTora (talk) 08:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the question. Since 1972, the average age of Australian Prime Ministers at first appointment has been 51, but they tended to be a bit older than that previously. Bob Menzies was only 44 when he first became PM in 1939, but was 71 when he finally left the job in 1966. We've only ever had 2 PMs appointed in their 60s, and one of those (John McEwen) was only an interim appointment for 3 weeks. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there is a perception in the West that a political leader must be physically vigorous, and clearly in good health. In theory, the leader should also have experience and wisdom, though I can't say I have seen a lot of that in my lifetime. We do not associate the desired physical characterstics with old age, but old age is where wisdom and experience reside. So, in the West, we look to optimize and that seems to settle out somewhere between 45 and 55 for men anyway. This is all personal opinion. I have only a rapidly declining memory for evidence. // BL \\ (talk) 03:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is the common term "aging strongman." If a country's leader has no maximum 8 years in power as in the U.S., he might seek to rule with an increasingly harsh and repressive regime until he draws his last breath. His toadies and internal security staff are likely to seek to maintain the regime even if he is semi comatose. Consider Stalin, Mao, Mugabe, Franco,Pinochet, the or the present North Korean leader in the Kim dynasty. If I were a member of a ruling party at such a country charged with selecting a new leader with such potential to abuse the power of an absolute state, I might favor an older leader because he will not be in power as long as a forty year old. J. Edgar Hoover became more suspicious over the course of decades he ran the FBI. In a less drastic environment, I have heard that the Cardinals selecting a new Pope are not thrilled about the prospect of a young man staying in power for many decades. The out-of-power party in the U.S. hates to see the party in power place young men of the ruling party's ideology on the Supreme Court, where they serve until they resign, die or are impeached. Which rulers or other men with extreme power became more kindly, less paranoid, and more gracious as they grew very old? Edison (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. In the absence of direct democracy, China uses a combination of constitutional term limits (10 years) and Presidents of a certain age to control abuses of power a la Mao and Deng. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Li Peng was 49 when he became Premier; Jiang Zemin became CCP General Secretary at the age of 53. Wen Jiabao was 60 and Hu Jintao 59. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK at least there now seems to be a political bias against older leaders with strong criticism of certain politicians (Menzies Campbell, Michael Howard, etc) as being too old to lead a political party or the country. Similarly though we've moved away from giving political authority at a young age (William Pitt the younger & others of that era. This is possibly due to the decline in automatic belief in & support for the hereditery principle in monarchies as in the past we've accepted people in political and social positions of power regardless of age because they've inherited it - this is seen as less justifiable now though. AllanHainey (talk) 07:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]